Once Saved Always Saved
Forever Virgin Mary
Absolute Equality Between the Father and the Son
These are some topics that if you accept the doctrine, you can find passages that seem to support it. However, this is not the same as an explicit Biblical teaching, e.g., Roman 3:21-25. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus, who took our sins away. Or John 14:6 Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father but through Jesus.
I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Apologetics forum or the Debate forum but it seems many confuse doctrines they have with actual explicit Biblical teaching. If one starts with the doctrine, one can find verses that APPEAR to support their doctrine but other alternative explanations for the application or interpretation of the verse ought to be considered. The most famous is John 1:1, which does not even mention Jesus.
So, John 1:1 can support a doctrine one already believes but cannot be used as an example of an explicit Biblical teaching, such as God created man on the 6th day and then rested. I think there would be a lot less infighting if we humbly recognized the difference between doctrines which have Biblical Support v Explicit Biblical Teaching. See 109 page debate on Once Saved Always Saved. Thoughts?
Forever Virgin Mary
Absolute Equality Between the Father and the Son
These are some topics that if you accept the doctrine, you can find passages that seem to support it. However, this is not the same as an explicit Biblical teaching, e.g., Roman 3:21-25. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus, who took our sins away. Or John 14:6 Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father but through Jesus.
I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Apologetics forum or the Debate forum but it seems many confuse doctrines they have with actual explicit Biblical teaching. If one starts with the doctrine, one can find verses that APPEAR to support their doctrine but other alternative explanations for the application or interpretation of the verse ought to be considered. The most famous is John 1:1, which does not even mention Jesus.
So, John 1:1 can support a doctrine one already believes but cannot be used as an example of an explicit Biblical teaching, such as God created man on the 6th day and then rested. I think there would be a lot less infighting if we humbly recognized the difference between doctrines which have Biblical Support v Explicit Biblical Teaching. See 109 page debate on Once Saved Always Saved. Thoughts?