Search results

Oh, sorry, it just happened to coincide with your ignorance being debunked. My mistake.

Yes, you are free to walk in your convictions "as unto the Lord", and to "give thanks" as you glorify the Lord.

@CadyandZoe Dr. Douglas Moo, Reformed (Calvinist) New Testament Scholar, on Romans 14: Paul here asserts a general theological principle. But it is necessary to describe accurately just what that principle is. Most important is to realize that “faith” here almost certainly has the same meaning...

It seems like we should focus on Romans 14:23. Romans 14 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. 1. Does Paul describe a sin? 2a. If so, is the reasoning given for it being a sin "what ever does...

Here's just one that happened recently: you said... I said... ...you retorted... ...but... You stopped engaging because you had no way of defending your indefensible incoherence--but, it seems, you didn't want admit you were in error. If you can't be trusted to admit error in such a small...

@CadyandZoe The rule is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind": this is a rule for individuals to walk by. Logically, if God has a rule for individuals, what is it called if an individual breaks it? "Sin"! "Incidentally", Ro 14:23 says exactly that--"what ever does not proceed from...

Yeah, he is: διεκρίθη is contrasted against πίστεως. Romans 4:20 V-AIP-3S GRK: θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ NAS: of God, he did not waver in unbelief KJV: He staggered not at INT: of God not he doubted through unbelief Romans 14:23 V-PPM-NMS GRK: ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ NAS: But he who...

How is your personal opinion about the matter (ie, that eating foods is a "religious" question) relevant to the text, which says the one who "wavers" is condemned if he eats "because", it explains, "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"? The eating is sin because it is not done in faith...

1. No, I would find it hard to believe if you were not knowingly contorting the text, trying to make it pronounce the most unlikely of things, to protect your view--it really is that clear what the text is saying, and it really would take that much effort to try to cover it up and deny it. 2...

No, Calvin hit the nail on the head: it describes a person who doesn't believe he should eat meat offered to idols eats meat offered to idols, or a person who believes he may only eat vegetables going against his conviction and eating meat, or a person who really believes there is a special day...

Incorrect. Each person is to do what they are fully persuaded is correct. This means the issue is not about correct and incorrect belief (and, again, you introduce your concession that men DO eat with faith), but about whether each is fully convinced about the correctness of what the are doing...

But they "will speak negatively"? Why did Paul give the rule? What were they doing that made him give the rule before he gave the rule? Nope, the rule Paul lays down is not "make sure you get your beliefs correct", it's "you are bound to the freedom of living out your convictions, even if your...

Think of it: when God demotes Israel (Hos 1), He first calls them "No Mercy", then calls them "Not My People": God's people are those upon whom God has mercy. Becoming part of that people also means partaking in God's mercy. No, the sins were not forgiven 2000 years ago--the atonement was...

If you want to deny people eat with doubt, why would you affirm people eat with faith? LOL If "doubt" and "faith" are not categories that apply to eating, how have you been affirming that this whole time (when referring to the one free to eat meat, and the one not free to eat meat)?

Oh, really? Why is eating such a special activity that you are seemingly saying God doesn't care about it? Didn't God give laws about eating (not that we're held to them today)? So, why wouldn't God care today? Of course God cares--He cares about everything! God spelled out which foods were...

Nope, I responded at length, and you waved it all away with a non-related comment that did not at all answer all of those answers I spent my time bringing to you, so engaging at length is no longer warranted (you'll just do the same again).

They weren't forgiven 2,000 years prior, or else they wouldn't have been born "children of wrath". They are forgiven when they are included in that people to whom the sacrifice applies: Christ being the High Priest who entered the Holy of Holies indicates that the sacrifice applies to the...

LOL Right, the hypocrite emptily accuses the one he accuses. I'm not pouring my resources into interacting with you until you've gone back and answered all of those answers I gave you.

Irrelevant. I answered this empty objection already: 1. "Mere" eating plunged the entire history of humanity into damnation. Sorry, precedent is against your empty speculation. 2. To be clear, I'm not saying a single sin and a Christian is damned forever (they can get back on track by faith)...

I thought you folded a long time ago. Were you wanting to go back and answer all those answers I supplied you with, or were you still bowing out?