Search results

Since you gave no quote as to the context you were referring, it seemed as though you were forcing the kingdom concept into Jesus' statement about faith as of the size of a mustard seed. BTW

Faith alone teaches that following the commandments does not save anyone, and never will. Faith alone teaches the study of the commandments as a good thing, yes, and obedience to those things that pertain to universal and absolute morality is also good and right, the violation of which is...

The mustard seed had nothing to do with any kingdom. That was about individual faith. Context is king. BTW

Umm, no. The hardness of heart had only to do with divorce, not a plurality of wives. BTW

Nope. I said nothing to elicit what you started out talking about. BTW

Really? Well, you can go ahead and try to live the commandments, but given that you too sin on a daily basis, none of that commandment-keeping will add to nor retain yours salvation from being lost. The absurdity is in those out there who think that they must retain their salvation through works...

Even the commandments are not what we are called to try and live. Keeping of the sabbath, for example, that has gone by the wayside because of its having been replaced by that which is superior. I don't need ordinances to keep me from abstaining from what Holy Spirit guides from within and what...

I can't say that I have any idea what you're talking about. The start of your reply seems to have been a comment on some other post. BTW

As a bloodline Israeli, I agree with the Lord who inspired John to write that there are those who call themselves Jews but are not: Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, but thou art rich and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the...

You're right that the commandments are what shows to us what is good and what to avoid. You're also right that that we are saved by what was accomplished only by Christ Jesus. The problem is when people throw in "but" into that phraseology. They will say, "We're saved by the shed blood of Christ...

Many who have conversed on this topic through the years have blindly assumed blanket intent behind God having given Adam only one wife. They do so with blind indifference to other considerations not in keeping with their assumptions nowhere stated in scripture. MM

Feminism started in the Garden. First, Eve took upon herself the authority to state a falsehood to the serpent when claiming the Lord allegedly instructed them to not even touch the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then she instructed Adam to eat of it after her disobedience...

He winked at sin? Seriously? This sentiment makes God out to be a perpetrator of sin, then, because He gave David two of his already plural wives. Folks, please don't allow the pervasive, cultural tendencies of feministic bull crap tarnish ones understanding of scripture. MM

It was never classified as adultery. If it were, we could expect to see Abraham and all the other Patriarchs burning in the pits of Hell. MM

Actually, God gave to David two more wives in addition to what he already had. Nathan the prophet revealed that directly from God Himself. God commanded in the Mosaic Law the taking of a dead brother's wife if his brother died with no heir, and that command was not based on the living brothers...

The title of this thread is interesting. Given that we all are still sinning on a daily basis, aren't we all heretics when applying that test being applied to other Premillennials of the past, and done so with such foolish indifference to the actual origins of that path of eschatology dating...

Whatever... BTW

Who are you and what are you talking about? BTW

Ok, so it looks like I'll have to use the cliche' of "I asked you first!" BTW

Yes, I already answered that with an affirmation for Systematic Thelogy as a practice. Amils are like anyone else when it comes to replacement ideologies concerning Israel. So, I have once again answered these two questions. BTW