Search results

The "promise" of God that God is faithful to perform, according to Jesus, is to rescind His forgiveness if you do not forgive others. That's what the text directs me to believe. Which of us is spitting the bitter truth out?

And he was a former Gnostic!

Believing God's explicit Word that He "forgets righteousness" is not philosophical speculation.

So, bottom line, you have no answer for the fact that the man was forgiven all his sins--how that came about (by faith obviously), or how God, afterward, rescinded His forgiveness. You appear to reject that portion of the Word of God bc it doesn't fit in with your "system". Perhaps that doctrine...

Right, I'm saying the early Church recognized OSAS as foreign to the Gospel, and the only people who held to it were Gnostic heretics. There're countless verses teaching the opposite. Nevertheless, this thread is focused on the fact that OSAS was foreign to the early Church, so they fought...

We know, from Church history, that the Word of God which the Churches lived by compelled them to fight OSAS for its first few hundred years, because it was part and parcel of fighting Gnosticism, because OSAS was not believed in by the early Church, but was foreign to the early Church that...

Your rejection of my view is based on improper hermeneutics--no offense.

The presentation says the early church, for hundreds of years, fought OSAS as a heresy of the Gnostics--until Augustine, a former Gnostic, Christianized it. We disagree that Jesus teaches OSAS (eg, Matthew 18 the parable of the unforgiving servant).

Another one (I just engaged with) : 1 John 2:19 Reading 1 John 2:19 ("They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."), one might conclude, "Oh, if God has...

We disagree about what the Bible says (ie, that if someone falls away they were never saved).

The clause many who believe in OSAS cite that leads to the misunderstanding that those who fall away were never saved ("They went out from us to prove they were never of us, for if they were of us they would have continued with us") seemingly can be answered in the fact that God can forget...

We know that God had previously issued concessions for the hardness of peoples' hearts (eg, Mt 19 "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives 'for any reason' because of the hardness of your hearts"), and, so, Christ was coming and overruling that, preserving the underlying principle (ie, with...

Yes, the root issue is humility, it seems. "You cannot make even one hair white or black. Who do you think you are to say you can 'certify' you will make this or that happen--that trust should be vested in you?"

It seems Paul hits upon this when he says both "there is no condemnation for those in Christ" (Ro 8:1), but, also, "the one who eats without faith is condemned, for what ever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Ro 14:23), because that is breaking the rule "each man must be fully convinced in...

They object to the idea that we can fall away, because, they say, it would throw into question God's ability, because God is the Savior, not ourselves, and if we say we can lose salvation, then we would be saying He is not really good at being a Savior. It would tend to make people trust God...

I think they meant that before we were saved we didn't have free will, because the will was bound by the power of sin--I think I agree with that, but, beyond that bondage and inability to do good, we CAN, it seems, admit that we are slaves in need of salvation or deny that we are slaves in need...

In a sense, we don't have free will, as espoused by Apostle Paul in Romans 7 ("I do what I hate, I am a captive to the Law of Sin"), but, it seems, we may have the freedom to recognize that we are slaves to Sin, and clamor for salvation... but even that is questionable, because, to clamor for...

I have already explained in the OP.

I have read or heard that courts acknowledge that some Christians religiously object to "swearing an oath", and they do not force those Christians to do so.

Cite what you agree or disagree with in the OP, and respond to it. What you have done is you have ADDED to what I have said, as if I meant "faith alone", and then argued against that as if you were arguing against something I'd said--I have unremittingly argued against "faith alone". I'm sure...