Search results

No, you subtract from all Scripture.

Revelation 20 and 21 say differently. It is both, not just spiritual, but physical also and can be measured

Prove it. It is in His Revelation. Gotta run.

I have, and you and the RCC are wrong about amillennianism. But you can confirm them if you like.

No, you are! LOL

Can you see why Jesus called the church age of Sardis, the dead church. Luther is instrumental in many of the false teachings that are still in the church today.

Silly, I'm not in favor of the pope, any more than I will be of the false prophet. You actually have more in common with the RCC than I do, as you are both amillennialists. So there! ;)

I'm not Catholic, but do believe in free will and the second coming of Christ, so if Luther is to blame for his belief in no free will and unscriptural representations regarding the second coming, that is even more of an indictment. So we will have to agree to disagree. Whether or not the pope...

Luther is still ignorant of the power of the Holy Spirit to kill the desires of the flesh, so he is still lax on sin, believing we have no choice, just to trust Jesus while we sin. That is absurd. Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave...

Here is a letter he wrote: Martin Luther "Sin boldly"): "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let...

Exactly. But Luther preached no power over sin, but that when we sin (and we will) it will not separate us from God.

The doctrines on sin. To emphasize the false doctrine of grace being unmerited favor instead of the power of God preventing you from willful sinning. IOW the doctrine of even when we willfully sin, we are saved, flies in the face of the truth of holiness, without which no one will see God...

Seeing as you believe the false doctrine of the Reformation, I can see why you want to defend it. Oh well. You can lead a mule to water, but you can't make it drink. Gotta run.

They are in order and accurately describe what happened in church history.

The Book of Revelation is full of PROPHECIES. That includes the letters to the seven churches. But I can see why you wouldn't want to know that and heed its warnings - unless you're smart.

There has since been a reformation of the Reformation. The letter to Sardis in Revelation 3 is about the age of the Reformation - the dead church. Philadelphia, the next church age was the age that started keeping the actual Word of God and led to holiness. We are now in the lukewarm age of...

By the meaning of the words he chooses to write his meaning. Also knowing he was a Hebrew and wrote in Semitic writing styles, such as parallelisms and contrasts. For instance, Contrasts 1 John 1 and 3 are both written in contrasts. Chapter 1 is light vs. darkness; and chapter 3 is Jesus vs...

Don't you think Paul knew what he meant when he used the word, rhema, and not logos? After all, he wrote 1 Corinthians 12.

I'm just talking about that verse you like to use. I know you don't take any value to learning Semitic writing styles and rules, let alone Greek which hinders your understanding. You make me think of the two guys in the pub discussing the meaning of one of Lord Byron's poems. Lord Byron...

You are reading this verse wrong. It is not talking about the Bible (Logos), but the spoken word (Rhema) from God. That takes one of the "hearing" gifts you don't believe in.