Search results

Sure. I didn't assert "sleeping" as such, although I can see how you might get that idea. All I said (chuckles... as if it is some mere thing...) was that it was a dream ~ in this case a vision; in John's case actually a series of visions ~ which God has given several times in many ways in...

Choice has nothing to do ~ initially speaking ~ with our salvation, either. That's another issue. Absolutely untrue. :) See above. They are acting in faith, bringing and dedicating their child ~ publically ~ to the Lord, and promising to bring the child up in the Lord's nurture and...

The "argument from silence" ~ that there is nothing in Scripture stating (or implying) that infants are not to be baptized ~ is a good one... one of the best, actually. But, couple with the fact that in Scripture (Acts 2) we are told to be baptized, we and all our households, for the promise is...

Of course not. This. like pretty much everything you see any disagreement or even angst over on this board, is neither damning nor salvific. Grace and peace to you.

I understand; you’re certainly not the first and certainly will not be the last. I certainly believe the things in John’s visions do and will have very real manifestations, for sure. But the visions given to John are dreams, much like Joseph’s, Jacob’s, Pharoah’s, and Nebuchadnezzar’s, and...

Well, I do agree that Scripture ~ Peter, there ~ is very clear. :) But even we speak of "elements" in the context of those things being in their basic, natural, unrefined state, about things "passing away" (Paul, in 2 Corinthians 5, says of we who have been born again of the Spirit, that we...

Insofar as you go, here, Truth7t7, you and I are in agreement on all of this... except for the "dissolving of this existing earth by fire" (I'll return to that in a moment). But yes, there is a millennium, for sure, and there is a millennial reign by Christ. It has been and is now a present...

LOL! I wouldn't put it that way, because that's very inaccurate, Scott, but you can put it however you like, certainly. :) I would put it very differently ~ and I would be speaking for myself about myself, so there's a much better chance of me being accurate about myself than... someone else...

Okay. :) Absolutely not. It is enough, Scott. I would think so, yes. :) Nope. I think the misunderstanding is yours, there, Scott. By, "wounds of the flesh," it seems ~ seems; I don't want to put words in your mouth ~ that you mean the nail prints in His hands and the wound from the...

This is exactly what I said, although not verbatim; you sort of changed how I said it. Not to say that is a bad thing or "changed what I said, but, yeah. "Spirit" can have different meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. The context in which I used it was that the Son has a...

Yes, "one more"…. LOL! Well, it’s great that you agree on the importance of that ‘in’ there, but in the same sentence you turn right around and, well, throw it away... Which, of course, is not surprising to me, but wow. We're talking about Ephesians 2:4-6 specifically, Fullness Of The...

Sure. With regard to what you say specifically here, no, there's nothing metaphorical there. But in what Jesus says in Luke 11:33-36, He's indisputably speaking metaphorically. God the Father and God the Son are one in each other, certainly, but they are distinct Persons. As are we, and as...

You're right about that, I agree. But the concepts themselves are not so big. Hmmm... well, in a way, I agree, but your use of 'flesh' is of a different context that what Paul refers to as the flesh. In what Jesus says there in Luke 11, He's speaking metaphorically. Yes, one day, there will...

I'm well aware of that, Scott. Yes, John 4:24. Thank you, though. A sinful body, yes. However... We shall all be changed... :) And we will not... disappear. :) Some are looking forward to still being in their sin, the passions of their flesh, yes. But... that's not us. :) Well, I...

You mean, as if I haven't? :) Yes, you have, but... :) Well, is it not true that, for now, God works all things ~ all things, Keraz ~ together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose? :) Ah, well, He will indeed return, and... we will/shall all be...

One more time... <chuckles> I never said you totally agreed with any one thing I said, FullnessOfTheGentiles. But you did agree that, regarding Ephesians 2:4-6, there is a resurrection in view there, a resurrection that Paul is talking about. You say it yet again in this very post: Again...

Not an admission; I've always acknowledged the simultaneous now-and-not-yet of the Kingdom. :) Talked about it many times... He's... not waiting to rule. I agree ~ in a certain sense ~ that He is "King in waiting now." :) But He's not waiting to rule. Yeah, so now we're getting into...

If you are saying Jesus was always, from His birth, a King, then I agree. He said so. :) Who is your King, Keraz? Who, right now, is your King? Now, regarding your "reality of today's situation," it may seem that Jesus is not reigning, but let me assure you, this is not the case. Well, no...

I hope no one ever believed that there was any glorification of the physical body of sin. But when the physical body is resurrected upon Jesus's return, for believers, that physical body will no longer be of sin or sinful, and our spirits will be reunited with our physical body. That's when...

If, in your if clause, you mean that in the context of David in Psalm 90:4 and Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 (as you should), then if you then mean to ask how long the millennial reign of Christ is, then the answer is... we don't know exactly how long, but only in the fullness of God's time, which may...