Search results

This is true on all subjects, not just religion. Many times I notice in a conversation, someone does not have all their facts. This could be me. The important thing is the big picture, which includes the relationship. There is no benefit to quibble over trivial matters. Is the verse in 1...

While simultaneously ignoring completely 2 categories of Scripture far more reliable than vague and ambiguous passages: Explicit verses going against the doctrine, e.g., For us, there is one God the Father. Implied verses that go against their doctrine, e.g., all those that juxtapose Jesus...

Great observation. I don’t walk on egg shells. Touchy is a short hand for touched in the head, which is a nice way of saying someone is crazy. Crazy is a term that lacks technical specificity but we all know what it generally means. In our feminized society, touchy is more acceptable since...

Poisoning The Well.

We all are who we are. Using capitalization does not change the fact that ‘I am’ or ‘I AM’ only refers to a general state of being (exist) and not to a particular being as you want to read into the text. That’s Eisegesis and perhaps the ultimate form of it. I already used multiple examples...

Moving the goal posts. 1st it was a name. Now it is a claim of who he is - that is not explicitly stated. "I am" is not a specific statement of who one is but a general statement of existence. Who is ready for more wine? I am. Who can Identify the body? I am going to identify the body. Who's has...

My pastor referenced this in Sunday’s sermon

It's not about understanding but not agreeing with the false doctrine of OSAS.

More meatless posts. Is universalism correct doctrine?

The same with Paul. In another thread, it was discussed that Paul said I am the chief sinner. He was not claiming to be a deity.

Putting that aside, @Peterlag pointed out that God never claimed his name was I AM. He states his name in v15,

Hmmm. More like disagreement. 1 Tim 2:5-6 and Mark 1:1 make it perfectly clear who Jesus is; the long awaited Anointed by God who is our only mediator to God. He is the Christ, which is Greek for Messiah, which means anointed by God. He is the suffering servant of Isaiah whose suffering would...

No. We simply disagree on who the finished work of Christ applies to. If your doctrine were correct, universalism would be correct doctrine.

Agreed. Could is a word of potential, not actual. The words are present tense.

Your IDOLATRY is so complete that you deny the literal words of God. Paul indeed said I am the chieft sinner (present tense). Your whole doctrine depends on pretending he meant past tense. I would agree with you IF it weren't for the many verses that say otherwise, including if this verse read...

Not an answer to my question. For some reason, you deny that a man once rescued from a life threatening situation can never be in a life threatening situation again. At base, you are a mystic. The words "born again" carry mystical properties for you, which cause you to deny the many Scripture...

Do you think this applies to those who reject Christ?

You preach milk and think it meat - DELIBERATELY leaving out that once saved does not mean sanctification is complete.

Evidence your position is flawed is that you keep changing the subject. No one said to confess to a congregation but to one another. Two examples: my friend and my wife. Both devout. Both admitting sinning. My friend has an online addiction. Admitting it to people he trusts helps him repent...

No. I’m saying the writer used sin as the word in question and you are invoking a False Alternative to support your never ending OSAS doctrine.