Search results

God doesn't speak audibly to anyone today; he speaks to us thru his written word, so, I don't know what you heard, but it wasn't the Lord.

Just read the OT and you'll see that God is intolerant, steadfast, and not wishy-washy. There were many ungodly groups of people that were totally enialated; men, women, children, and even their livestock. God also was intolerant of Israel in their disobedience as well.

God knew us because of his foreknowledge not because we were alive prior to our birth

Are those so-called Christian churches that embrace such nonsense really Christian to begin with?? Just look at their beliefs and doctrins for that answer. The vast majority don't know how souls are saved.

Paul was a human being, a male, and one can only assume he had the same urges and desires as do all. And what I'm suggesting is being opposed to his thorn being a physical or medical problem which I referred to as a physical ailment. In this regard the Lord's statement makes zero sense. If Paul...

As I recently supplemented my post to negate the view that it was a physical ailment becsuse the Lord's response would therefore make no sense, I'll repeat it again for you. If it was a physical ailment, Paul's question to the Lord would NOT have prompted the response he received. The Lord's...

Where's all the responses? Erased? Oh well. But I thought I'd supplement my OP with the following to help people in their understanding of this topic, due to the obvious confusion from what I recall from the responses posted. Many responses to this seemed to suggest Paul's thorn in the flesh...

Yes: sex=marriage

NO

So, do you really think numbers serve as justification? The MAJORITY is generally wrong on everything all the time. "Few there be that find it" ain't the majority.

It's not for Christians

The bible gives clear warning in both the OT and NT about the danger of adding to or taking away from God's Word. Is the 'did ache' a supplement to God's Word? Yes or no! If yes, it violates God's very clear and stern warning against against adding to his word. You decide. Believe whatever...

All it takes is a clear understanding of scripture to see the fallacy in infant baptism. 1. No record of any infant being baptized in the scriptures 2. Infants can't satisfy the basic, simple requirements and prerequisites of being baptized. Baptism is not the 1st thing done according to...

Your response is a joke and doesn't merit a response.

And the word "baptism", is self explanatory. One simply needs to look up its Greek origin and definition, and upon doing so, it'll be clear that it means to dip, plunge, immerse, and not sprinkle or pour which are different Greek words and are not interchangeable with 'baptizo'.

Blah, blah, blah. Just words with no scriptural support or validation. Once again there is NO scriptural support for infant baptism. Infants have NOT committed sin, cannot believe, nor confess with their mouths their belief if they had such as required by scripture.

Agree. No such thing in the scriptures as infant baptism nor does it make any sense whatsoever. Man contrived nonsense.

As I just said to someone else, prayer is NOT one of the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10

There are no miracle workers through which God channels his power. The gifts in NT biblical times were passed on and made manifest by the laying on of the apostle's hands, and they are all dead. Here's something I've posted previously. REPOST Stephen was already a baptized believer, so...

Words. Blah, blah, blah etc