Search results

God created all plant and animal life.Fossils are tangible evidence of his work. I’ve been dealing with the “no origin story = “not real” concept in regard to the devil and the demons recently. Same concept, different application. A field trip would have rid them of that notion.

Being the son of a professional geologist, Paleontology (though not involving dinosaurs) is one of my hobbies. Not much surprises me any more.

Simple (intelligent / intentional design) gives the answer that complicated (evolution) is looking for but hasn’t found.

Then how do you relate it to contending with the devil?

Are you making the point that the proverb is speaking about man interacting with his fellow man, not man interacting with a fallen angel?

We are agreed that Homo erectus is not human. How would you suggest getting from Homo erectus to human in light of what scripture says God actually did, not what he could have done?

Would you propose for my consideration a primate that you would accept as one of your ancestors?

I just posted the same sentiment to @talons. I don’t know what you’re getting at with this comment. There is no recovery, and therefore no reward, for those who will be annihilated. God annihilating the evangelical Christians is beyond my attitude toward them.

In keeping with God’s character, even those who will be destroyed in the lake of fire will be treated mercifully.

“God will treat her fairly” -> the cornerstone of the wideness in God’s mercy. Scripture contains many examples of God’s mercy being showered on unbelievers. I don’t know that he did. What we do know is that he had contact with Christians and that he wasn’t persuaded by their arguments. This...

A common ancestor that isn’t human? What would that be? And where would whatever that common ancestor is have come from?

No wideness in God’s mercy for evangelical Christians?

Porphyry was a pagan critic of Christianity. His “foolishness” is the “foolishness” of an unbeliever in the early days of the way and is as relevant in our days as it was through all the centuries preceding it. It will be just as relevant until the Messiah returns. We may think of Porphyry...

No. That isn’t the idea. * Another thread driven into a ditch. *

“I am trying to change evangelical thinking on this subject” (Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, p. 15) Should he have tried? Should evangelical thinking on this subject change? Will it change?

The OP question is the question asked by a pagan in the 3rd century. The passage in Romans is what I was waiting for someone to mention and then apply to the case of the unevangelized. That’s what Pinnock is getting at in his book. That’s what I’d like my readers to think about and discuss...