Search results

And the next comment refers to a Witherington article that also discusses this event in Calvin's life. See his “What Calvin Gets Right,” Christianity Today, September 9, 2009, pp. 33-34. I never said you said you were a cessationist. Nor have I denied that modern Reformed or Lutheran schools...

It would be interesting to know their basis for those assertions. "Sign gifts" and "word gifts" hardly span the entire continuum of miracles, wouldn't you say? I'd be very surprised to hear that the bulk of pre-nineteenth century Reformers, Puritans or Calvinists disavowed miraculous healing...

That is an important point of clarification. Thank you for bringing it up. However, I did not say that cessationism is only held by dispensationalists. The center of my observation does not relate to who believes what but a point of the nature of the belief itself, namely, cessationism. To say...

I believe that the Bible, the Old Testament, and the New Testament is each comprised of a heterogeneous set of books, letters, and collections of smaller texts. The English Bibles are marketed in such a way as to give the illusion of homogeneity, because otherwise very few would feel competent...

Find a single characteristic, other than their name, that both Satan in Job 1 and Satan in the New Testament share. (The only one I could find is that they are both earth-bound.) They have a lot of different characteristics. In Job, Satan is specifically allowed by God to do specific things...

My Greek isn't great but I'd suspect the word order more strongly supports the reading that the thief would be with Jesus in paradise that same day. The expression "Today I say" is found nowhere else in the New Testament. Luke 19:5 makes for a good comparison. Zaccheus is not to come down today...

Even if it costs a few bucks, it's far better to use a lexicon specifically derived from Septuagintal use of Greek vocabulary. Strong's is ONLY based on the New Testament. (Also, Strong's is severely outdated and you will generally get a lot more out of consulting a commentary or simply reading...

That's too bad. It's definitely a hard book to read, but so is Romans. I wouldn't go so far as to demonize either of them. Most biblical books are anonymous, and centuries later faithful Jews and Christians ascribed authorship to them, to satisfy the issue of authority, which you bring up here...

That's a bit of legwork to ask for. Why don't you just go to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and look for yourself?

Never been a big fig fan, myself. I'm willing to learn.

It's annoying that you won't even say what, who or where. If this is intended for one person, PM them. If it's attended for everyone reading the thread, don't allude to some assumption someone made. Just say it.

You answered by the generalizing "you." You did not say "In my experience" or any other semantic option implying the same. If your intent was truly to comment solely within the limits of your own personal experience, you misspoke. Why do you think it bothers me? Is that the only reason I might...

There it is again. The assumption that by nature human beings are, at the most basic level, selfish creatures. How's that, exactly? Just saying it doesn't make it true. You are making a philosophical statement and I am challenging it. Provide support. Reasoning. Anything. Or leave the forum. As...

Indigo wasn't saying you said that. He was supporting you against your opponents.

I wish you could just respond to my other comment. I don't mean to cause a stir by mentioning non-literal interpretation. (Frankly, it's out there, where I worship it's normal, and it has nothing to do with the "authority of scripture," since nowhere does scripture say, "Please interpret me...

Without preconceptions the Bible would be absolutely meaningless. Some preconceptions are so strong as to determine the way you read the Bible. If you free yourself from them, you can interpret the Bible in a new way, and this often results in spiritual growth. Ideas are powerful things.

Agreed. Codger is also correct, but less historically sensitive in his semantics. He also provides no support for his claims -- but the support is here, already given earlier, so I don't think it's a problem. "The sea" should not be taken literally, just like pretty much everything in the final...

Sometimes I wonder if it would be better off without the Bible. After all, the word being written on our hearts, we wouldn't be totally lost, maybe work together better, not be so nit-picky. I dunno... It's at a huge cost...

It's strange how everyone is trying to explain Acts 5, presenting it as if it were perfectly normal and even expected. However I'd suggest the very reason the story is included is TO KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF. It should rattle you, Brak, and if it doesn't you're not reading it correctly. Of course...

The question itself assumes incorrigible self-interest. Those who find a cause worthy of dedicating their life are no longer interested in what it does for them. Haven't you ever loved to do something regardless of what you "get" out of it? The reward is just getting to do it.