Search results

Your turn, JR. What happens if a person sincerely believes a gospel that preaches faith in the DBR and having to do even one work (say water baptism) in order to be saved? That's exactly what the Church of Christ will tell you to do to be saved. Are they correct?

Paul is clear that the good news can be negated by adding things God did not include. 1. Paul reminded the Corinthians of what he preached to them when they were saved. It was on the basis of grace through faith alone in the DBR. There are no works of any kind mentioned here, only faith in the...

I'll get to this tonight on my laptop.

Adding something to the saving gospel, even something that God previously required of people (in that case, circumcision) now results in another gospel which is not, in fact, good news. It was works coupled with salvation by grace through faith, which we know makes the cross of no effect. So...

I understood that point years ago, the last time he and I tried having this same discussion. I disagreed with him then just as I do now, because adding anything to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ results in another gospel, which Paul said cannot save.

Clete is too obtuse to be reasonable but I suspect it's deliberate. For the others: No Catholic can agree with Clete's list without violation of Rome's canon law, making them anathema which, to Catholics, is {or should be} a damned serious matter. There are other groups who would agree with...

If he does, he's anathema. Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema. Canon 24. If anyone says that justice received is not...

The olive tree could again represent God's blessing, with the cut branches being apostate Israel BUT the wild branches grafted in being Gentile nations. All nations could now be blessed by the gospel but could fail in faithlessness and likewise be cut off. I think I lean towards this...

One way to view this passage is as if Paul refers to the olive tree as representing the righteous position God intended for the whole nation of Israel. The living root remained after the unbelieving, faithless 'tree' was cut down, as Luke said with regard to the 3 years given the fruitless tree...

Also, Peter tells them... Hebrews says the same thing as this, right? Peter could have written the content of Hebrews as it aligns with the content of his own named epistle. But members of the Body are already spotless and blameless in Christ, and already have peace with God.

Ah! Peter references Paul's writings as a whole, in which the topic of Christ's longsuffering is addressed. And do we know people who twist to their own destruction these very scriptures about God's delay in restoring Israel? I think we do.

Just spitballing here... but maybe it was more hard to accept than to understand? In Romans 9-11, Paul explains why Israel was set aside after Jewish believers had every right to expect the culmination of all things. Maybe it was as tough to accept as to understand? Anyway, the mystery man...

Could be it was that section of Romans {esp. ch. 11}, or an unknown letter which God saw fit to let be lost to us, but I don't see it being Hebrews.

Don't know. Maybe. Question: wouldn't Romans ch. 9-11 cover exactly that topic, of greatest interest to Kingdom believers?

By the way, Them means the 12 but also includes Paul, who heard the Lord many times. Paul very well could have said, "Confirmed unto me by Him," because it was. Meaning someone other than the 12 or Paul had to write Hebrews, yes?

Peter, James, and John were fully capable of communicating this information to those to whom they were confined in ministry {per Galatians 2}, as the information is inspired. And it still doesn't explain why Christ wouldn't have Paul sign his name. Perhaps... it's anonymous because the full...

That's creepy, bro.

👀 There's some fresh eyes fer ya!

👍👍👍

😈