Search results

These are questions about what God is responsible for...about what God does with others...about things that are utterly out of your control. If they are troublesome for you, don't bother with them. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep...

Hi, I hope I can make a couple of passing comments - I only have a short time to respond but hope to be able to come back to this later. Your post is interesting. I will respond with something with something you no doubt are already well aware of. In the Middle East of 2000 years ago, people...

Where is Protestantism seeking temporal and spiritual supremacy?. It's one thing to protest that one's way is the only way. It's quite another to use both physical and spiritual inducements by power of supposed spiritual position to gain one's end. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world...

So the body and blood of Jesus are destroyed? That's why I confirmed that the bread and wine actually BECOME the body and blood (as opposed to just bearing it). Because if the bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of Jesus, then something happens to it. Either it is...

On general principle, if such a claim is reasoned and clear, then it isn't a conspiracy theory. But that claim is a little distorted anyway. Most people who believe that the Roman Catholic Church is AntiChrist don't believe it is the beast, but see the woman riding the beast (religious system...

This is for Catholics, mostly, but anyone who has solid sources is free to quote. My understanding about Transubstantiation and the Real Presence (the central belief of the Romish Mass) is that the bread and wine become the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus Christ when, reportedly, so changed by...

The difference I see there is that the N-word has very little constructive use. Calling someone that has nothing to do with belief or action, but simply a loaded way of referring to someone's skin. Nothing is added or taken away (except maybe emotion) by calling someone "black". Whereas, if you...

I've read the Wikipedia definition and, I must say, the implication of it being a slur is out of nowhere. If you read the whole article, the term "Papist" is no railing accusation, but instead an apt definition for one who is most definitely a Papal believer. The historical "baggage" is fact...

That's just odd.

Why not? Papist implies one who is a follower of the Pope (and can, in part, be used to distinguish between those Roman Catholic groups that recognize the papacy and those that don't). Romish implies strong allegiance to the doctrines of Rome. Why are these not polite? Since the implications are...

Conscience. All a man's righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Paul was showing that the pagans had a conscience - which bore witness to the Law - so that there was no excuse. They may have been aware of some law (even Law) but that didn't make them good or righteous. Certainly not in the way God...

Yes, we have some freedom, but it is chained to the nature which we must live with. Our wills are limited things. We can will to fly, but we can't actually do it with our arms. We can will to be sinless, but we can't actually do it. We can will to do any number of things, but our will is really...

And why did the elder son experience the love of his father? Because he returned to him in humility and repentance. The wicked, in Proverbs 1, do no such thing. They continually refuse God's outstretched hand. The parable in the gospels is just that - a parable - and as such can't necessarily be...

The only thing I should add is that, while the starkness of God's leaving man to his own destruction in Proverbs 1 is unsettling, it isn't something God enjoys doing. He doesn't gain any pleasure by it. He says, through Ezekiel, that He has NO pleasure in the death of the wicked. But because God...

The Lord doesn't give a timeline in the passage. He does say that He offered His hand out to people. He was there. He did provide wisdom but no one responded. So, too, are the judgments of God not necessarily at a specific time, but after God determines it is right for Him to pull back. It is...

Actually, if you look at the scriptures, Pharaoh hardened his own heart the first few times - then God hardened it. Pharaoh could have let the people go the first time and God wouldn't have hardened his heart. Once he reached a certain point, God said "Fine...have it your way.". That sounds a...

Then I ask you again...where in the Proverbs 1 passage is there anything that would lead to misinterpretation?

I don't have a tradition, per se. When I read the Old Testament, I see it as still true today. Where things like sacrifices and those things belonging exclusively to the Old Covenant (which we are told passed away with the New) are mentioned, I see them only as types and symbols. But where there...

Personally, I think it's because we are so self-centered that we can't imagine God being angry at us. So that when He is (and His purity demands total revulsion, not half-hearted separation), we not only can't bear the thought but can't comprehend how God could be so reviled by sweet old "me"...

So the traditions of men are being allowed to make the word of God of little or no effect?