Were not talking about something that is hard to grasp like the trinity.Now your just arguing just for the sake of it.
It's descriptive, like the word trinity. Can you please show a scripture that says Trinity (hopefully you get the point).
Were not talking about something that is hard to grasp like the trinity.Now your just arguing just for the sake of it.
It's descriptive, like the word trinity. Can you please show a scripture that says Trinity (hopefully you get the point).
I would sit with your bible during the sermon and check IF what your hearing is true .That's correct without the Holy Spirit no one can truly understand scripture. The bible is amazing, the more I learn, the more I learn that I have more to learn.
My advice to new believers and Old, is to take the Sunday sermon that your Pastor/Minister has given, takes note and study on it that week. Start there! God has given that word to you and your fellow Christians in that community for you to learn, God has given you that message for that week..think about that first!
For personal study, I would say a good study bible would suffice. Not everyone has the time or inkling to go into hours long studies. In fact most modern study bibles contain almost the same information as the older whole bible commentaries. But even at that just a bible and a pen and note pad... And your right read and pray.
Discipleship is key for us all, we are all disciples, young and old in age and spiritual maturity. All pilgrims on the way home. Anyhow, that was me just writing what I was thinking when I read your post![]()
Were not talking about something that is hard to grasp like the trinity.
No you misunderstood. The term trinity is used BECAUSE its describing something that from our perspective is hard to grasp . Romans 1 .18 onwards is not like this .So you agree descriptive words have their uses?
No you misunderstood. The term trinity is used BECAUSE its describing something that from our perspective is hard to grasp . Romans 1 .18 onwards is not like this .
Why ask PURELY HYPOTHETICAL questions when the whole Bible is freely available to all? Luke 9:6 was for a specific time and place. Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15,16 are for another time and place. And then we have the entire book of Romans, plus the entire Bible.But could a person be saved today with luke 9.6 Gospel ? Without the death ,burial and resurrection for our sins ? Or rev 14. 6 Gospel ?
I believe what it says in Romans 1 .' Book of nature ' is a term used by the likes of Hugh Ross and of course derives from the Belgic confession.Oky doky...you don't agree that God reveals himself through nature and his word. Have a nice day.
Why is it hypothetical? Its the same as saying " can a person be saved today if they reject and do not believe that Jesus died for their sins ,was buried , and rose again the third day . If they do not know or believe in Jesus death and do no believe and do not accept the resurrection can they be saved ( today) ?This should be easy to answer .Why ask PURELY HYPOTHETICAL questions when the whole Bible is freely available to all? Luke 9:6 was for a specific time and place. Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15,16 are for another time and place. And then we have the entire book of Romans, plus the entire Bible.
Not biblical.I believe what it says in Romans 1 .' Book of nature ' is a term used by the likes of Hugh Ross and of course derives from the Belgic confession.
Not biblical.
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.Whats not biblical.. that Paul tells us God reveals himself through nature?
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
The ' book of nature ' concept is not what the actual verse SAYS . Yet another doctrine in search of a proof text .