Search results

Well based on some of his earlier comments, I believe this Jon777 guy would say he doesn't endorse all of the LGBQ+ stuff you mentioned. But as you pointed out, there is a slippery slope with all of this and even small compromises eventually lead to bigger ones. It's like boiling the frog in a...

Pointing out false teaching is not demonizing. Paul as well as Jesus himself called out false teachers frequently. There are "recognized" scholars out there who would deny every point of traditional Christian doctrine including Christ's divinity, Virgin Birth, and Resurrection. Scholars are...

Yes, he cuts and pastes quotes from "scholars", then when I disagree with them he says I'm not "scholarly" enough to be worthy of his replies. As if posting what some self professed "scholar" says makes one a scholar themself. Of course, the irony is that for every 1 scholar he can find to...

Now you are completely gaslighting. The idea that homosexual acts of ALL kinds is some "modernist" invention is nonsense. Show us a single commentary written before the sexual revolution that argues the case that only "abusive" sex is being condemned but "intimate same sex relationships" are...

That is simply FALSE. The word "homosexuality" may not be found in the Bible but the CONCEPT certainly is. The Bible condemns the sexual ACTS that take place between people of the same gender. You know that. Which is why you keep trying to reinterpret them to say they are only talking about...

First of all, Dr. Smedes is not Scripture. It's interesting that all of your quotes to defend your position are quotes from men not the Bible. And it's also interesting that every sentence in your quote of Smedes starts out as "I think...". Yes, that's the problem, these are just the...

Well while I don't know this guy's heart, I do know that most of the time when people twist and/or explain away Scripture it's because they have already decided what they want to believe based on their feelings, then they go to the Bible looking for loopholes to help them get to where they have...

So some people are saved by faith and others are saved by faith plus something? Is that how it works? I don't think so. Paul is very clear in Romans 4 that faith has always been what saves ALL people. He reaches all the way back to Abraham to argue that the Christians in his audience were...

But you still have not explained why he is complaining that they were rejecting women as sexual partners. If the only problem was "abuse", why mention women? He is clearly stating men were doing things with men that are only natural with women. And yes I agree with you that "natural" is...

It talks about women committing unnatural sex acts and then says "in the same way" men burned with lust for other men. Paul is paralleling what the women were doing with what the men were doing. Even if your argument were correct that these women were engaging in the "unnatural" act of anal...

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men" (Romans...

"And he said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace.'" (Luke 7:50) Yes ultimately it's all by grace but that didn't stop Jesus from saying that faith saves people. Because even faith is a gift, it's all grace. But faith is still the vehicle God uses so it's still accurate to...

I never said the thief on the Cross was a "promise" to anyone. My point is that faith is all that is required for salvation. Yes, we are commanded to do many things including to repent and be baptized but those are acts that flow out from faith, they don't add to it to achieve salvation. If...

If works are required before one can be saved, how could the the thief on the cross be saved? He embraced Jesus by faith and then died within a few hours, he had no chance to do any good works or to obey any command of God.

"But for one man’s constitution that is exclusively desire for another man, it is not a temptation to be denied and it cannot be denied or changed" So sinful desires that are "exclusive" should not be denied? A pedophile could use that argument to claim his desires should never be denied...