Search results

Of course it was God. But it wasn't in response to men, but to elicit a response in and from men. Not everyone gets all the gifts. The Spirit gives severally as He wills.

Both groups respond of their own volition. One responds as a natural man, and the other out of a heart that has been circumcised.

I believe you are missing the point. When the gospel is preached, it either finds fertile or unfertile ground. In Acts 2, the hearts were pricked. The Spirit had prepared the ground. In Acts 7, no such action took place. The hearts are not said to be pricked, but severed. It's important what...

Where in scripture do you see that?

Sure, God was working in Stephen. Are you suggesting God was working in the hearts of those who stoned him?

The 2 are probably related. If I may, just a practical tip: Most people are perplexed when something arises and they don't know how things will work out. But if you look back on your life, things have always worked out. Regardless of the outcome, you got through it. I know this because you are...

What those examples actually show is where God is working there is a different response than when He is not. Everyone rejects the gospel when God is not working in the hearts of individuals. Our actions reflect what is in our hearts.

This is laughable coming from you. You believe man can make any choice he wants. That makes man the captain of his own fate, and the master of his own soul. And God being the same at all times refers to His attributes, and not His actions. Man in His fallen estate does not seek after God. Who...

The same is true of most people; even those who merely lie to themselves.

Maybe you need one more thread: to buffet or not to buffet; that is the question.

Your first 2 statements are categorically false. He was not LAWFULLY convicted. This is why the decision will be overturned on appeal. Also, he was not tried by a jury of his peers, as 95% of the jury pool voted against him. Thirdly, he was not allowed to defend himself. His witnesses were...

Stanley says Trump will do it. He ignores how it was actually just done. It seems you do, too. Further, it doesn't seem you can differentiate between prosecuting political foes and prosecuting those who have actually broken the law. Trump entered into a NDA...nondisclosure agreement...

Can you roll them, though, is the question.

It's simply short for "aargg" for lazy pirates who will probably find themselves swabbing the deck or walking the plank later. And a buccaneer is simply a pirate trying to rehabilitate his (or her) image. Down deep one is still a pirate.

I identify as a pirate since youth so the positive effects of patch wearing has always attended me.

I'm of the opinion that no choice need be made. We have a breakfast dinner every week at my house where not only are bacon and sausage served, but ham as well. We are also known to serve corned beef hash.

While it wouldn't be advisable to make functional judgments based on a small sampling of a poster's contributions, a larger body of posts reveals quite a bit about an individual. Perhaps an eye patch worn consecutively from one eye to the other might provide some relief.

Not exactly sure of your point or even if I'm the one standing accused. But no need to be cryptic. I'm not offended by rebuke, and have no problem apologizing if I have committed an offense. I know of no cure for stressed eye muscles due to over eye rolling other than rest.

I readily admit that God endued creation in such a manner as to lead man to seek after Him. I further posit that God endued man with eternity in his heart so by his conscience he may know of the existence of God. But the natural man is not as man was created. If he were, there would be no need...

Man's propensity to go his own way is independent of God's design that aid man to seek for him. That is, the desire of God to assist man to seek after Him is certainly evident in nature and conscience. But the nature of man is corrupted and none actually will until enabled by God. And your...