Search results

Step mom, possibly?

Got it, so salvation may be lost by volition, but you will not fail to be safely delivered to the day of redemption (which is judgement day, correct?)

Did the Christian [Moderator edit: profanity removed; please read the rules.] retain his salvation if he stayed a [Moderator edit: profanity removed; please read the rules.]?

Can you reconcile your doctrine with the literal [Moderator edit: profanity removed; please read the rules.] (and his fellow Christians who admired his confidence in not being under any law) from 1 Cor 5, without resorting to a no true scotsman fallacy?

If they don't happen, will you be mad? You want me to provide evidence for an upcoming surprise plot twist? I can't do it, because that would ruin the surprise. ;)

Maybe. I am not sure what you mean here. Can you give me a hypothetical example scenario to make this more clear?

A plot-twist cessationist is 100% sure there won't be anymore plot twists coming up.

Would you call yourself a plot-twist cessationist? :)

Let's back alllllll the way up. When you say "we KNOW what He's going to do," what does that mean to you? How sure are you? 100%? (As in Darby's and Schofield's Calvinist 100% settled future?)

Very cool! I would love to meet him. He really cracks me up. I think he's hilarious. I would love just to go through a day with him just to listen to his perspective on even mundane daily happenings. Regarding open theism, my thinking is very aligned with his. One thing Chris says often about...

This is illogical. Think about it this way: Could these Christians that are reading Paul's letter say, "Oh, don't worry. We can totally be haughty and without fear. Paul is only warning the group and not us individually. Individually, we can have no negative repercussions regarding our...

No!!! Of course it is toward individual believers! Look who Paul is addressing: Romans 11:19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. He is not talking...

Oh no!!!!!! My big head syndrome is back. On page 360 of the PDF version Bob says: "Men must endure to the end under the Covenant of Circumcision whereas under the Covenant of Grace God seals them with the Holy Spirit who guarantees their inheritance from the moment of conversion until the day...

Okay, well, Bob's eschatology came across as not too flexible to me. That's why I was saying "dogmatic." Maybe there could be some language added to the 3rd edition that reflects what you just said.

I think Bob's unwittingly suggested that future plot twists are not to be expected by incorporating eschatology in the book. If I was allowed to edit a potential 3rd edition of the book, I would delete that section. I would say instead: Next Stop This section has been redacted in anticipation...

?

Have there been plot twists in God's relationship with man in the past? [Yes.] Will there be plot twists in God's relationship with man in the future? [... (Please fill in the blank)]

@Clete The irony is that Bob correctly identifies the past plot twists, but by delving into eschatology he closes his eyes to the potential plot twists to come!

@Clete This is absolutely where I am coming from. It is also why eschatology seems like a fools errand. (God can do what he wants, including giving Abraham's inheritance to rocks). I am getting the sense that Bob is regurgitating the zionist eschatology of Darby and Schofield. Men who were both...

Lol, I was trying to believe in what you just said.