Search results

I'm interested in good resources on the doctrine of the Trinity - both the Oneness of God, and the Threeness of the Persons. That is, I'm interested in a Scriptural defense of the Nicene Creed and/or the Athanasian Creed. I'm interested in solid exegesis of the relevant Scriptural texts, and I'm...

I totally agree that the Bible, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit's illumination, is sufficient to produce a saving knowledge of God in someone. I think it's also sufficient for life and godliness. I completely agree that there is no further inspiration, of Scripture type. The Scriptures are...

After reading the website, I can say that the author's main point is the second list, not the first list that you have: Is there any statistical evidence that proves the so-called “lunatic fringe” of the charismatic world is not actually the mainstream of the movement? Compelling statistics...

Yes, very fun videō. I'm not convinced, though. Back in Houston when I was teaching at a classical Christian school, the Latin teacher, who had a master's degree in classics, admitted that we don't really know how they pronounced it. Classical Latin pronunciation is a great guess, but that's the...

Yes, there is considerable diversity of opinion on the sacraments. The Reformed and Presbyterian viewpoint answers your question thus: water baptism actually accomplishes inclusion in the visible church. Spirit baptism actually accomplishes inclusion in the invisible church. That's it.

The sign is not tied in time to the thing signified. In the sense that water baptism can happen without Spirit baptism, I would definitely affirm that. In this sense, I agree that Word and Sacrament should always be together.

The Reformed answer depends on a few careful definitions (as usual): 1. The visible church consists of all people on this earth who have professed faith in Jesus Christ, and are members in good standing of a Bible-believing and Bible-preaching local body of believers. 2. The invisible church...

Alithis, I agree with you that when you sin, you're not loving God. The moral law, the Ten Commandments, Jesus summarized as "Love God, and love your neighbor." That is, by definition, if you are obeying the law, then you are loving God. But Jesus also said that if you love God, you will obey...

If you think I or Josiah or most likely quite a few other people on there think repentance is incidental to salvation, then you've misunderstood our position. Just because we don't view it precisely the same way you do doesn't make repentance unimportant in our views.

Actually, that's most definitely not how sin is defined. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. That is, if you do what God has forbidden in His Word or don't do what He has commanded in His Word, then you're sinning. The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin as He...

I meant David's counselor, who conspired against him. Grandfather is (possibly) correct! Here's the next quiz question: in what book of the Bible does the author write, "To everything there is a time..."? (No googling allowed - in fact, I think this needs to be a general rule for this thread.)

Hmm, moving on to the next question: what, if any, relationship was there between Bathsheba and Ahithophel? (Warning: partially speculative.)

So, I asked you before if you were perfect, if you were sinless, and I can see now that this is not actually the right question to ask. Here's the question to ask: have you sinned today? Yesterday? In the past week? Here I use the normal definition of sin as any want of conformity unto, or...

I think that, from a biblical perspective, the distinction that needs to be made is the guilt of sin, versus the power of sin. The guilt of sin is that which would send me to hell. The power of sin is that sinful nature, which the believer still has (otherwise why would Peter and Paul give any...

The problem is pride. Who wants to be told that you're completely incompetent to save yourself (you're dead, in fact), and that someone else must save you? It's the main hurdle for the unbeliever.

Well, ok. This sentence doesn't mean a whole lot to me, because I don't know how you're defining your terms. I've tried to define my terms, but you didn't use my terms in your reply; that's totally fine, but communication will not have happened unless we both understand how each of us is using...

Very well; apparently, I've been taught incorrectly on this point. When I say "consubstantiation", I mean that the Lord's physical body is in, around, or through the bread and wine, but does not become the bread and wine (which I call transubstantiation). I do not mean "consubstantial", as it is...

But it doesn't. Not always. If you follow this link, you'll see that the same Greek verb (different number: plural instead of singular, but it's the same verb) is used figuratively in the New Testament, in Revelation 17:9, as the author mentions. In other words, the Greek verb estin has about...

Romans 8:11 doesn't actually say the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. The "who raised Jesus from the dead" clause modifies "him", not "Spirit". As for John 2:19, that's better support, but I think the balance of other Scriptures indicate that it's the Father. Just as the Father eternally...

Not necessarily. I've already shown why we can't assume that, and put forth a rather extensive argument as to why I think a metaphorical interpretation fits better. What is your argument? What are your reasons for saying otherwise?