Search results

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.

If you have a weak stomach, don't read Maccabees. The torture depictions are gruesome. Personally, I believe the Epistle of Barnabas is missing from our New Testament. It was read in all the early churches and was believed to be the work of the apostle Barnabas who traveled with Paul. Of...

So make one. Or tell me what you believe tongues had to do with writing scripture?

God does lead by the gifts, so it is not off topic to discuss them.

Dave used to be a Charismatic for years, but he lost his faith. It is not your fault if it is impossible to renew him to repentance. 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the...

What do you see was different then?

I was responding to this, silly: "But some of the gifts found their replacement by scripture which is far more trustworthy."

You can't prove that by scripture, unless you twist the author's meaning (like you are doing).

You'll never know.

I'm not saying that the pope isn't the Antichrist, and not the false prophet, but I'm not going to go into tunnel vision mode like the SDA's are against the RCC. We also need peripheral vision, if you get my drift.