Search results

Our belief in God... and our will to do His will... is because God has given us new birth by His Spirit, put His Spirit in us. He gives us this new heart, and because that, we come to believe, and to do good works. We are God's workmanship. created for good works (Ephesians 2) Grace and peace...

Well, God doesn't like disobedience from those whom He has adopted, so no in that sense. But if you mean Abraham had the ability to disobey, of course he did. But because God had called Abraham, Abraham's desire... his will... was no longer to disobey God, but to obey Him. You see? His will...

I think what we should do is remember what faith is. Fortunately, God defines that for us... "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Yes, once we have it, it is ours, but the point is that we did not give it to ourselves; we cannot assure...

Marriage is a covenant... between God and husband and wife. In a Christian marriage, it is a calling from God. Husband and wife are called to be "one flesh," as Paul puts it in Ephesians 5, and in that way share an intimacy and a oneness that is likened to the same relationship ~ on a lesser...

Oh my goodness... Grace and peace to you, grafted branch.

Okay, good... Actually, I would say that's a false dichotomy. The proper way to see it is, for we who are saved, who have been born again of the Spirit, we both have been saved and are being saved (so in that sense not yet fully saved) at the same time. Saved ~ having received God's mercy and...

The church and the New Jerusalem are the same thing, ewq1938. Two ways ~ one concrete and the other symbolic ~ of referring to the same thing... the same body (the body of Christ)... see what I did there? ... of folks. Ohhhh, there is... <smile> Just not in the wooden sense that we know it...

Okay, why? And the question there really is twofold... not only "How do you define and back up NOSAS?" but also "How do you define and thus reject OSAS?" Ah, well, I say that if "OSAS" is understood correctly, one's position with regard to the millennium of Revelation 20 has no impact on it...

This gets into the whole ordering... mis-ordering, actually... of the events described in various passages in Revelation 19-21, which I addressed a few posts ago. No one "returns back" to, well, anywhere, much less heaven. The only "leaving" or departing is a) that of Satan, "seen" in...

Jesus answered them, “...I give (My sheep) eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand... I and the Father are one" (John 10). Ah, "why use real world imagery..." David, you are obviously a very intelligent, thoughtful person. I think you can answer...

Collectively, David... all those who are born again of the Spirit and thus believers, so all those in Christ, collectively... are the bride of Christ; we are His and He is ours. Individually, though, we are sons, with Jesus our elder Brother, so children of the living God. Goodness gracious...

Holy shuh-moly. How long, O Lord? <smile> Grace and peace to you.

Right, Hagar corresponds to the Old Covenant in her relationship to Sarah, and vice versa... Sarah corresponds to the New Covenant in her relationship to Hagar. But that is a far cry from, and surely not, saying that Hagar is the Old Covenant and/or Sarah is the New Covenant. The relationship...

Well, right, the eighth day after the first day of the previous week. Sure. Which... is the first day of the present/new week. Not the eighth day of the week. I mean, so the eighth day of the week... You'd have to speak to John, Paul, George, and Ringo about that. Although you'll probably...

Hmmmm... Well, it is much more logical ~ and correct ~ to place Sarah as the mother, as I've said. But Sarah is part of the New Jerusalem... a believer in Christ as we are, and a child of the promise. It shouldn't be confusing or ambiguous... God did indeed use human means to accomplish all...

It's wrong about the New Jerusalem being the Mother. The 'she' in Galatians 4:26 refers to Sarah, as opposed to Hagar. As I said before, the English translation makes that distinction a little bit unclear, but that's what it is. There are other places where the right antecedent is not...

Right, well, yes, it’s a position that has existed for centuries, yes, but it's wrong. <smile> And interesting that ChatGPT even says "it's not the dominant position" and "I’m independently reasoning through Scripture in a way that happens to align with that minority interpretive stream."...

Not sure how that's even possible, but no... <smile> Literally through image... What does that even mean? But okay, good. Even though you denied it, but I guess what's in the rear view mirror now really matters not... <smile> Because... it was worth it. For several reasons. I "avoid"...

Sarah and Hagar. Yes, but they are not the covenants themselves. She absolutely is, in the same sense that Abraham is our father. And we are children of them through Isaac, the child of the promise, rather than Ishmael, the child of the bondwoman. You've read John 8, yes? The Jews Jesus is...

So you think the New Covenant is the Bride of Christ? Or our mother? I mean, yeah, either way, that's certainly an issue (even more so if the latter)... <smile> To the 'mother' thing, going back to our exchange regarding what Paul says in Galatians 4, if... looking at it allegorically as we...