Search results

This is your problem. You do not understand what merit means. merit noun a praiseworthy quality : virtue character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem a person's qualities, actions, etc. regarded as indicating what the person deserves to receive To obey the Lord is humbling not...

My pointing out your lack of understanding on how definitions work does not put me on a high horse. But your absurd response is evidence of a blind allegiance of a theology. This is the ditch that you are in. I am certain that you do not use this reasoning with other issues in your life. No...

A true statement but you are adding your bias into its purpose. The verse does not state who the Father gives to Jesus, just that He does. You and others believe that the Father gives all who at some point in time have a sincere moment of faith. Others myself included believe that the Father...

Did you think this reply out? The definition has to use the word "apostates" in the description itself to apply to apostasy??? How deep is the ditch that you are in?

Make it agree with itself??? The Bible does not contradict and we do not need to "make it agree with itself". Your choice of words is telling.

apostasy 1 : an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith 2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection What part of this definition do you disagree with?

You don't know the difference between quote and surmise, do you? Be honest, people are watching.

That is the logical end to this bogus theology.

Deep in the core of OSAS is the need to ignore the existence of apostasy. Apostasy simply cannot abide in their world. They simply will not accept the notion that a person being able to commit such a sin.

"Solely By Faith"??? Can you quote this doctrine? Remember, quote not surmise. I am sure you can.

I have read many of your posts. Your reasoning is sound. Keep up the noble work.

If "grace was handed to them" then how "could they never had it"?

There is nothing in the verbiage that states the older son was dead. The father calls the older son as "you are always with me". Both sons were always dead??? You do not understand the parable as well as you think. The father describes the younger son as "alive again" The younger son was alive...

You sure about this? Sounds like works.

Salvation? It's not even mentioned in the story. It is plain to see you are attempting to change the subject and muddy up the water. I will not play your game. Esau gave up his promised birthright. He regretted it later but lost it never the less. Your reasoning is bogus. You just don't...

Poppycock! He was never alive until he returned home? Is that true of the older son as well? Can you not see to what absurd lengths you have to go to ln order to defend such nonsense? Simple rubbish. The Godhead? You need help. I mean it, you need help. No thanks. I will stay clear of...

Regardless, God did comply and allow Esau to give away his birthright. In your world God would have refused to comply because once a birthright or promise is given it cannot be taken away even by the promise holder. You are just fighting the obvious.

Or what?

Conflate this: The prodigal son was alive but became dead by his own actions. The prodigal son was dead but became alive by his own actions. Conflate this: The servant's debt was forgiven by the master. The forgiven debt was real. The same master took back the forgiven debt. The revoking of...

He most certainly will. Are you not aware of how in the days of old that Esau gave away his birthright.