Search results

Regardless of how strong or sincere a person's faith may be, it is not by faith alone that mankind is redeemed. Hence your need to present general statements on faith and not an actual verse that states your assertion. The discourse in James 2:14-25 is unequivocal in its meaning and no...

Oh, I get it. I have met many who push faith alone regeneration theology, you are no different. A theology based on broad assumptions and not one biblical proof text. A theology based on a line of reasoning you would never use on any other subject. I feel no need to respond to this question...

You are making my point for me. If these are your "proof texts" for supporting faith alone regeneration theology then you are surmising the alone part. You are shoe horning a definitive (alone) into all these verses. Can you not see this? Would you accept this reasoning on other subjects...

You see this as a oxymoron because you accept faith alone regeneration theology. Faith alone regeneration theology is an assertion based on conjecture, a surmised understanding without even a single proof text.

If you believe that this verse is a all-encompassing panacea in regards to the issue of human salvation then yes you most certainly need to inject alone into its verbiage. I personally do not believe you even believe this. If simple belief is all that is needed for salvation then the Bible...

A great response to a person who rarely gives a straight forward answer.:LOL:

Valid question but not the question at hand. We may debate by what means we are to be made righteous but not the verbiage of the verse.. If we allow ourselves the right to inject a grammatical definitive (alone) into a scripture then nothing in the Bible is safe. It is this line of reasoning...

It is rather logical to realize that we can and should judge actions, we do it daily. Judging motives is both difficult and unwise. (Jeremiah 17:9-10) It is human nature to judge ourselves by our intentions, others by their actions. But this is wrong. If you cannot see the distinction then...

Here is the verse: Romans 14:23 But he who is uncertain [about eating a particular thing] is condemned if he eats, because he is not acting from faith. Whatever is not from faith is sin [whatever is done with doubt is sinful]. Can you not see how off the context is here? This verse has nothing...

Adam, Eve and Cain were condemned because of a lack of faith and not sin? Sinners are condemned before they even express a lack of faith...correct? Attempting to "quit sinning" is not the cause of our condemnation. It is the sin itself! You are rather deep into faith alone regeneration theology.

You asked what are we to do? I gave you a cogent answer. Not understanding your response. Do you disagree with the advice?

Follow the advice of God. Genesis 4:6-7 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” We may...

Classic redirection. Anyone can see this. The Bible states that we stand condemned because of sin. Not as you are implying, a lack of faith. On judgement day we will not be accused of a lack of faith but sin.

Another but: But remember to forgive those who trespass against you or you will not be forgiven of your trespasses.

I doubt very much that you even believe that definition. You are like most faith alone regeneration theology pushers. They say, "Just trust that Jesus will save you and He is bound to save you" Then comes the buts: But you have to trust 100% don't ask what that means or you are not...

I believe the term false believers would be a better label. There is a major difference between a believer, unbeliever and a false believer. An atheist is a unbeliever and would never desire to be baptized. A Pharisee is a false believer who would want something for being baptized. A...

"rightly understood"? What does this mean? What things must I accept in your theology to earn salvation? I assume not accepting your theology would condemn me. I will assume that you mean more than simple mental acceptance of the historical Jesus Christ. Correct? It seems your "rightly...

What is your point? Obviously whoever does not believe will not be baptized. Are you implying that the second clause negates the first clause?

Because tongues of fire are rather hard to fake. You and Dino246 have been pushing that Romans 11:29 means that nothing God has gifted man can be revoked. But the hard things to fake such as healing the lame or giving sight to the blind seem to be of little interest to them. I wonder why. If...

And yet you cannot prove that their claims are supernatural. There is nothing in their claims that suggest a connection between 1st century tongues and the glossolalia of today. When you can prove that they are the same let me know. BTW, I was not comparing bigfoot to glossolalia and you know...