Search results

You do not understand the definitions (plural) of the word World. Get this right and you'll have a chance at knowing the truth.

Are you saying unbelievers are saved? Paul is talking to believers whom Christ purchased with His blood. If he purchased your bunch, they would believe too.

You are forcing an interpretation that ignores the rest of the Bible. Remember, Jesus did not die for the Pharisees in Jn. 10.

The audience = believers for whom Christ shed his blood. Think about this verse if you will. “of how much sorer punishment shall he be counted worthy who the Son of God did trample on, and the blood of the covenant did count a common thing, in which he was sanctified, and to the Spirit of the...

It's "we we we we" and not God are our savior. You cannot smoke screen your way around it.

An act of the will = a work of the flesh. Ask Luther.

What you miss is that Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, not a work of the flesh. God must save you through the New Birth before you can have faith.

Us limits the atonement to Us. Surely you can see this.

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Romans 5:8–9 (KJV 1900)

And again.... this is salvation by works. You, not Christ, are your supposed savior. Have you ever thought we are arguing about two different Christs? Two different Christianities? Two different sets of Christians? Why did you dump Luther and side with Melanchthon?

If he paid for everyone's sins, why arent they saved? Isn't unbelief a sin?

It's all your interpretation unsupported by scripture. What about Jesus in heaven with a glorified human body, where flesh and blood cannot enter? Until he returns at the end of the world?

You have no scripture to support your interpretation. Zero. Not any more than the hyper-literalists Appalacian Pentecostal snake handlers.

He died for His beliefs. Have you ever suffered for the faith?

Thomas Cranmer, the Anglican said Christ is in heaven and must remain there until he returns at the end of the world. So he cannot be involved in the eucharist elements. But more importantly, He is no longer flesh and blood (it cannot inherit the Kingdom where He dwells). He is of a glorified...

Your problem is that you present an interpretation that scripture does not mention. If you think it does, quote it.

But scripture says so about the miracles. And because of this our faith verifies it. But your interpretation of Christ's words will not produce faith because He didn't say what you make him out to say. Paul, on the other hand, explains it correctly producing faith in the heart. Faith comes from...

Enough to know better than this.

Yes and it remains a mystery that as smart as they are, they would accept anything scripture does not explicitly teach. You cannot find this in scripture. Only their interpretation of scripture that doesn't square with Paul's teaching on the matter.

How do you think this teaching would hold up in a court of Law? With today's technology waiting to prove it wrong?