Search results

Not all will accept that fact that faith itself is a work. Not all will accept the fact that faith alone does not justify a man. Romans 10:17 faith comes by hearing and not a gift God arbitrarily gives to some and not others. So not only would there by a big disagreement over what faith is...

There is no qualified man to decide for everyone else that parts of God's word are not important, non-essential. No man can make that decision for me. God has already spoken to the fact all His word is important ...man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the...

But you will not find any consensus on what faith means. Faith is an obedient work, therefore one works out his salvation "through faith".

Since the bible is God's word and is "truth" therefore it does not contradict itself. Those differences you speak of only go to prove that all do not have the truth. It is not in man to direct his own steps (Jer 10:23) by determining parts of the bible are "non-essential" for the sole purpose...

The NLT is NOT an accurate translation, it's not a word for word but a "dynamic" translation where the authors added their theological bias. The verb "work" being in the present tense in Phil 2:12 shows the Christians work is never finished, it is life long and failure to do that work will...

There will never be any consensus among people as to what is or is not essential. There would be no consensus as to what faith means, what does having faith mean. Those that think faith only saves cannot determine for everyone else what is or is not essential.

I agree that God determines what is important and He has declared all His word is important so there is no room for error, untruth. My point is not limited to salvation but everything else including worship, marriage and divorce and many other doctrinal issues. Worship for example is also a...

1) those that back original sin have a problem on their hands with Psa 51:5 versus Psa 58:3 as to what point one becomes a sinner. 2) I have yet to see anyone prove a person is a sinner when that person has committed no transgression.

What man (or men) get to decide for everyone else as to what is essential and what is not essential? No man can decide this for me, nor certainly no man can decide this for God for as far as God is concerned every word of His is important (Matthew 4:4),all His counsel is important (Acts 20:27)...

This does not answer the question as to what transgression did the newly formed fetus commit in order for it to be a sinner? Just being conceived is not a sin. Sin is not an idea that is passed from one to another. A transgression must have been committed for the fetus to be a sinner. Romans...

It is a case where one error (original sin) leads to another (infant baptism).

"Have sinned" shows personal choice and culpability in committing sin. What transgression occurred at conception to make him/her a sinner? No transgression occurs so one cannot be a sinner at conception.

Original sin/sinful nature pure products of man and not of God as the bible shows.

1) Sin is transgression of the law (1 Jn 3:4) not an idea or substance that is passed from one person to another. 2) Psa 51:5 would be talking about the sin of the mother; in sin did my mother conveive me in a drunken rage a husband beat his wife. It is the husband in the drunken rage as it is...

Christ had an earthly mother and Psa 51:5 only speaks of the mother, therefore if original sin were true then David must have gotten it thru his mother. But my point still remains, that Hebrews 2:16-17 and Philippians 2:7 cannot be true if Christ did not have original sin....if orignal sin...

The church of Christ existed in America before Campbell ever came here. Campbell was involved in that era commonly known as a "Restoration Movement" in trying to restore bible truths of the one church to men in getting men away from denominationlism. Tons of false information out there about...

Simple question: do you believe Christianity is headquartered in Rome and has a Pope as it's head?

So your argument against me is that since I do not go along with a lot of illogical contradicting interpretations then I am wrong. I see from your posts you do not know how to deal with all the contradicting interpretations so you go after me for not going along with them as you do. For the...

The thief argument is not logical or biblical base on the facts: 1) it ASSUMED the thief was NEVER baptized, yet for all we know he could have been of those in Mark 1:5 that was baptized becoming a disciple but later fell into a life of crime. So the thief argument is not logical factual...

That is exactly what I believe and the valid biblical, logical reason I believe this:----there is ONE faith, so the difference in what Calvinism says how one is saved is not what I believe or see that the bible teaches therefore one of us must be wrong on the issue of salvation, both cannot be...