Search results

hmm OK i will just repeat this unanswered post: if Christ commanded us to eat His flesh and i presented a syllogism between the nutritional value of eating a sandwich vs. the mere fact a sandwich exists.... not seeing the blasphemy dude. perhaps you can give your definition of blasphemy, and...

... and i encourage you to read the rest of the post you quoted. :)

if Christ commanded us to eat His flesh and i presented a syllogism between the nutritional value of eating a sandwich vs. the mere fact a sandwich exists.... not seeing the blasphemy dude. perhaps you can give tour definition of blasphemy, and we can compare that with scripture to see if it...

John 6:53 sounded blasphemous to a lot of people, if you read the next couple of verses. the point here is that Christ having died for the sins of "not only us (the elect) but also the whole world" does not mean universal salvation. one must pick up the floating axe head, believe, and...

you haven't understood what i wrote. John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

this verse isn't saying what you are saying it says.

you're making the assumption that the mere fact of His dying for someone saves them. if i make lunch for you, does that fill your belly? no; you also have to eat it.

Israel (Jacob) was just one in the line of heritage chosen from the beginning out of which The Seed of the Woman was to spring. They are His inheritance, and we Gentiles are become children of Abraham, not Jacob, through faith in Him.

genau! the gospel is not "Jesus died" it is that He came, was born, died, rose, ascended and will return.

that not all will be resurrected to life does not contradict that He died for all.

nope. that one believes

is He ineffective when He says "all day long I have held out My hands to an obstinate people"? He died for all, but not all received Him. to those who do not believe, His proptiation is effective evidence for judgment - for He says, "this is the condemnation" that light came into the world...

because it is not just humankind who will be redeemed, but all of creation - see Romans 8:21

Matthew 5:23-24 if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

please note that the pliant is "why have you made me like this" not "why are you trying to make me like this" and that the vessel is described as "formed" and "having been made" not "attempting to be formed" or "in the process of trying to be made" Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to...

it is understood that the audience is familiar with the OT, so he draws attention to particulars of it to make his case. you are purposefully ignoring the particular points he is making - that is incredibly poor reasoning on your part, leading to clear error. the apostle does too, using him...

yes the entire Potter and clay discussion is nonsense and completely out of place, if Paul is really making an argument about people resisting God's will, as Mr. Thompson suggests. but it is there because the argument in Romans 9 is about God's sovereignty

nope. Look at the evidence: what he said of Edom was this: Romans 9:10-12 And not only [this,] but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, [even] by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might...

the only sense in which this is true is that Paul in Romans 9 is dealing with your resistance to God's will to harden whom He pleases and have mercy on whom He pleases.

Paul gave examples of God hardening hearts and choosing by divine election one tqijnover the other before either had been born, specific before they had done anything right or wrong, and said Israel had likewise been partially hardened in order that Gentiles could be brought in. Then he...