Search results

It's hard not to notice the irony: the person who prides himself on ""shrinking the battlefield"" responded with a data‑dump of demands instead of answering the ONE question that actually matters. Salvation in the NT is a unified Trinitarian act. Christ initiates it by baptizing the believer...

Say's the guy protecting a systematic theology.

Rom 8:28 describes the people for whom God works all things for good. Rom 8:29-30 describes what God actually does to those people. Paul doesn't place the condition inside the chain - he places it outside the chain. The chain itself is unconditional: Those He foreknew > He predestined. Those...

Romans 8:30 doesn't describe God's plan in the abstract - it describes what God actually does to the people He calls. Paul doesn't say ""those in the plan WILL be glorified."" He says those He justified, He ALSO glorified. There's no conditional clause in the text. No if they remain. No if...

The core of my argument isn't the reference material-it's the NT text. The lexicons, grammars & dictionaries don't CREATE theology, but they do constrain it. They describe how the NT writers actually use the words & tenses we're arguing about. Justification in the NT is forensic & completed...

I understand the history, but I'm asking something very specific & textual. Debate doesn't answer the question - Scripture does. So again: which of the three divine actions does the NT present as reversible & where? Christ's initiating act - His justifying Spirit baptism The Father's legal...

I appreciate the comment, but labels don't address the argument. Which part of the Son's initiating act, the Father’s legal declaration, or the Spirit's forever sealing do you believe can be reversed & on what textual basis?

The NT's Trinitarian Structure Makes Loss of Salvation Impossible It begins with the irreversible saving actions of the Triune God - the Son's justifying Holy Spirit baptism, the Father's legal declaration of righteousness in Christ & the Holy Spirit's FOREVER indwelling, sealing & guaranteeing...

My read is Paul never says the believer’s substance changes. He never uses ontology language & he never says the flesh disappears. The transformation he describes is covenantal & Spirit‑driven - a realm‑transfer into Christ & an indwelling by the Spirit that gives new power, new desires & a new...

When I say ""explanation is not equivalence & content is not identity,"" I'm simply noting that when a writer explains something, he isn't redefining it. An explanatory phrase tells you why or in what sense something is true, but it doesn't collapse the 2 things into one. For example, in Rom...

We're just back in the same circle. You're treating explanation as equivalence & content as identity & I'm distinguishing them. That's the core disagreement. In Romans 10:16, the gar clause gives the reason Israel didn't obey the gospel - they didn't believe the message. That's explanation, not...

LOL - the goading is noted, but no, I haven't ""come around"" to your position at all. We agreed on the grammatical label (epexegetical), not on your theological leap. An epexegetical infinitive explains or gives content, it does not redefine the noun, collapse categories, or create a fused...

Thanks & yes, Romans refutes the idea that faith & obedience are the same thing & we've been through that before. The pattern is always the same: grammars, lexicons & dictionaries are quoted, but then overridden by a theological conclusion none of those sources actually state. The same thing is...

You're stretching EXPLANATORY far beyond what any grammar allows. An epexegetical infinitive clarifies or gives the content of a noun, but it does not redefine the noun, collapse categories, or create a hyphenated theological identity. ""Departing from the living God"" explains the kind of...

You can call it a conclusion instead of a premise, but that doesn]'’t change the issue: your statement ""We've just been instructed in no uncertain terms what biblical faith is: it's faith‑obedience"" is not drawn from the text of Luke 17. The passage never defines faith as obedience, never...

RE: More Faith-Obedience – Obedience emphasized Post #10969 The entire interpretation begins with a false premise - ""We've just been instructed in no uncertain terms what biblical faith is: It's Faith‑Obedience"". Luke 17 never says that. Jesus never says that. The apostles never say that...

Your latest reply continues the personal evaluations while still providing no textual or grammatical support for your claim. I'm not responding to demands for my credentials - personal qualifications don't determine what the text says & neither do yours. I've stayed with Heb 3 & with the very...

You've repeatedly shifted the discussion away from the text & into personal accusations, questioning motives, dismissing opposing views as GARBAGE & positioning yourself as the final arbiter on what counts as valid doctrine. I've stayed with the text & used the sources you yourself cited. My...

More of the same self‑promotion, you've won nothing & proved nothing. The sources you cited: Votaw, Robertson, BDF & Moulton Turner DO NOT support your claim, your conclusion, or your interpretation. All you've demonstrated so far is self congratulation, not exegesis.

Typical, throw out a cluster of Greek terms & then smuggle in a ""grace through obedience"" conclusion that none of the grammars actually support. In Post #10,602 you described your method as shrinking the battlefield, isolating the hidden flaw, tracing upstream corruption & identifying the one...