Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
6 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 LYN Christian Fellowship Thread Ver 15

views
     
thomasthai
post Oct 29 2020, 09:12 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(emaslong @ Oct 29 2020, 06:05 PM)
How do you guys define predestination or sovereignty? If they means God's will of decree, means Adam didn't fall by himself, it's God will for him to fall and He send jesus to die for some who he chose. Then we should just relax coz no matter what we do in the end its God's decision we are saved or be in hell isn't it? Is that what the bible teach?
*
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Oct 29 2020, 06:30 PM)
I think that depends on which Protestant soteriological angle you're coming from. If it's Calvinism- ie double predestination, then yes. God predestined you from before all time began if you're reprobate or elect and there's nothing you can do about it. If you're Arminian, then no, you have a choice in the matter. There's also Molinism which I'm not entirely sure about, but I think there's a choice involved as well.

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both believe that we have a choice of our own free will to make. Ultimately, all traditions draw from the Bible, but it's up to you whose interpretation to listen to.
*
Let me further define the doctrine of double predestination.

- God predestines His elects for salvation
- On the other hand, He predestines the others for reprobation.

People often accuses this doctrine of saying God causes evil and reprobation to those that he did not choose to save.

No, God cannot cause evil. He simply allows His grace to pass over those He did not choose, but actively causes regeneration to the elects. He doesn’t actively cause people to sin. They do that all by themselves.

It says so in Romans 1:

QUOTE
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:20-25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/rom.1.20-25.nkjv


This post has been edited by thomasthai: Oct 29 2020, 09:14 PM
thomasthai
post Oct 29 2020, 09:50 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Oct 29 2020, 09:25 PM)
I'm curious then, what is the point of preaching and the Gospel then? To paraphrase John Wesley, since with or without it, one is already either saved or damned. It is useless to those who are elect because even without it, they are elect, and so their hearing is in vain, and to those who are reprobate, it is useles because even with it, they are still reprobate, and so their hearing is also in vain. Since all of this was already decided before all time began, and so this even brings up the question of the fall, whether this was already predestinated by God to happen.

I don't mean to offend you, just curious to know your opinion on the matter. I come from a Methodist background, and even though I am now Orthodox, I still sympathise heavily with John Wesley's teachings and Methodist doctrine.
*
No worries mate, I know you are a good man smile.gif

First, we preach because it is a command.

Second, we preach because we don’t know who is God’s elect. The secret will belongs to God and we don’t presume on it, we are supposed to look for those whom God has already chosen.

CH Spurgeon puts it like this:
QUOTE
If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn’t I must preach “whosoever will” and when “whatsoever” believes I know that he is one of the elect.


thomasthai
post Oct 30 2020, 06:02 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
If I knew I would be God laugh.gif

I meant the divine plans that is not revealed in scriptures.
thomasthai
post Oct 30 2020, 07:08 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(pehkay @ Oct 29 2020, 06:46 PM)
I posted something .. a long while back .... on Molinism ....

https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?act=ST&f...post&p=84360360
*
Interesting read.

But I think it’s going a bit too much into speculation.

Reformed’s doctrine of predestination does not deny human free will, but states that the will of man is bound by sin, so the natural man cannot come to God on his own.

It is only through the Holy Spirit’s regeneration that men can come to God, and believe the gospel, and in Christ. The will is free from the bondage of sin after regeneration.

I believe this is plainly what is revealed in scriptures.

I don’t see how predestination and free will contradicts here.


thomasthai
post Oct 30 2020, 09:56 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(pehkay @ Oct 30 2020, 08:36 AM)
LOL, like I said, interesting stuff ... brought it up for awareness. Not that I subsribe to it. I mean, there is even recently (well sort of), Anselmian free will has also entered into the discussion.

I don't see either the contradiction between both as revealed in the Scripture. But to be fair, it all depends on the definition of free will employed ... the secular one etc etc.

While I differ (to your man's depravity and free will) in that sin has separated man fom God so that man is incapable of saving himself by good works. In this sense fallen man is totally depraved and in desperate need of a Savior. While sin has negatively affected our thoughts and concepts, we are not so utterly ruined as to have lost all rational capabilities.

After Adam and Eve’s failure, God reasoned with Adam and clothed him with the skin of a redemptive sacrifice. Even though he was not regenerated, Adam demonstrated his faith in God’s promised redemption by calling his wife Eve, meaning “Living,” and by teaching his children to follow the God ordained way of salvation. Further, Abraham believed God (Gal. 3:6) and was called “the father of all those...who believe” (Rom. 4:11), even though he lived two thousand years before the Lord told Nicodemus that he must be born anew (John 3:7).

But I digress - still it is NOT a problem. This is the two-foldness of the truth. God is sovereign and man has free will. Amen to that!
===============================================================================

I can go further, to say all models including reformed ... still hasn't addressed His predestination and man's cooperation in the light of the union of God and man where God and man are one (living in and with the TG). Now that is something smile.gif
*


The Scriptures are shallow enough for a babe to come and drink without fear of drowning and deep enough for a theologians to swim in without ever touching the bottom.

-Jerome



Peace icon_rolleyes.gif
thomasthai
post Oct 30 2020, 09:57 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Oct 30 2020, 09:51 AM)
How does God have more than one will? How is this different from Gnosticism?
*
Did I say God has more than one will?
thomasthai
post Nov 9 2020, 12:08 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
In defence of Justification by Faith Alone
It’s been awhile since I wanted to write a defence to properly articulate what i think is the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I’m not trying to pick a fight with anybody here, but I do humbly invite my Catholic friends and synergists to come and examine what I have to say. I might take more than a few days to finish what I want to say, so I might not reply to any questions you have immediately.


Faith Alone
How does God declare a person just?

What do we mean by faith alone? I suspect many people misunderstand the definition of faith alone. This is where we differ in our views.

So monergists who proclaims faith alone are accused of being a form of antinomian (anti-law), that you don’t have to obey the laws of God.

Our definition of justification by faith alone is not a mere profession of faith. We are not saying Faith is a meritorious work where God justifies by.

What we mean is: faith is the only instrumental cause of a sinner’s justification.


Roman Catholicism says that faith is a necessary condition for justification, but not a sufficient condition. You also need baptism, good works, penance etc.

But we are saying that faith is a necessary and a sufficient condition whereby God declares a sinner righteous.

When Paul in Romans makes his case on justification, he uses Abraham as exhibit.

QUOTE
“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.””
‭‭Romans‬ ‭4:2-3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/rom.4.2-3.nkjv


QUOTE
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.””
‭‭Romans‬ ‭4:5-8‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/rom.4.5-8.nkjv


If faith is a meritorious work that comes from us, then we have something to boast about. But faith is not a work, therefore no one can boast.

And this excludes any work that you can contribute to your justification.

I quote a theologian:
QUOTE
You contribute nothing to your justification except for the sin that made it required.


thomasthai
post Nov 9 2020, 06:45 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(yeeck @ Nov 9 2020, 03:04 PM)
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. - Rev 3:20

I believe that's what synergists believe in. God knocks, but he doesn't force you to open the door. It is still up to you to open or not. Furthermore, what if you open, and then still reject to sup with the Lord?  rolleyes.gif
*
Rev 3:14 onwards is the Lord addressing the Lukewarm church of Laodicea. It has nothing to do with justification or salvation.


thomasthai
post Nov 10 2020, 04:30 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(yeeck @ Nov 9 2020, 08:06 PM)
Whether or not it is to addressed to the church of Laodicea or to the Romans or Hebrews or Malaysians, the lesson to them applies to all Christians too.
*
How is Rev 3 relevant to my original post?
thomasthai
post Nov 11 2020, 06:46 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Nov 9 2020, 12:08 PM)
In defence of Justification by Faith Alone
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
On Justification
On what basis does God declare a person just?
On your own righteousness or Christ’s?
QUOTE
“Now it was not written for his (Abraham)sake alone that it (righteousness) was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭4:23-25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/rom.4.23-25.nkjv

The other point of contention 500 years ago during the reformation was the word imputed/reckon/accounted righteousness.

The text plainly says that the righteousness required for God to declare us righteous in not of our own, but a righteousness that comes from Him.

We often think that Jesus came only to die for our sins. He could’ve done that by just coming down on Good Friday, get crucified and go back straight up to heaven, and achieved the same thing.

But scriptures says He came to be born under the Law,

QUOTE
“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭4:4-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/gal.4.4-5.nkjv


To fulfil all righteousness;
QUOTE
“But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭3:15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/mat.3.15.nkjv


So that He can be our righteousness:
QUOTE
“But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption—”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭1:30‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/1co.1.30.nkjv


Thus, He is Jehovah Tsidkenu, the Lord our righteousness:
QUOTE
““Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭23:5-6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/jer.23.5-6.nkjv


A convicted murderer is sentenced to death. The president pardons him. He is free, but is he righteous?

The cross not only transfers the sinners’ sin to Christ, but Christ’s righteousness to the sinner.

So Justification by Faith alone is only a shorthand to say that we are Justified by the Righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

Faith is the means where this is achieved.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Nov 11 2020, 07:03 AM
thomasthai
post Nov 11 2020, 12:34 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
Hi yeeck,

For the first 500 years of Christianity, there were many controversies about the dual natures of Christ and the Trinity.

The early church fathers formed creeds and formulas to protect the church from errors, and they pretty much are the primary doctrines that we call today.

Did everyone agree on everything among the churches that time? I don’t think so. Did they condemn each other? I don’t think so too.

I see that you keep on harping on the issue of denominations among the Protestant churches as a major objection against them.

Being loyal to a church at the expense of truth on the pretense of peace and unity is a bigger threat to the cause of the gospel.

thomasthai
post Nov 16 2020, 11:35 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
This is for you mr wong laugh.gif

user posted image
thomasthai
post Nov 26 2020, 07:49 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Nov 9 2020, 12:08 PM)
In defence of Justification by Faith Alone
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «



QUOTE(thomasthai @ Nov 11 2020, 06:46 AM)
On Justification
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


One of the most common accusation by the Roman Catholics is that the Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin) invented the gospel of Justification by Faith alone.

I think many people will be surprised that when the reformers were debating the (Roman Catholic) church on Justification, one of the early church fathers they most referred back as an ally was Augustine of Hippo (354-430), one of the 4 great doctors of the western church.

Augustine, a forerunner to the Reformation
In examining the works of Augustine, it is true that sometimes he did not make a distinction between justification and sanctification like the reformers did, and it may lead to the believing that he believed that justification was a transformative process where a believer becomes increasingly righteous.

This is because he relied on the Latin vulgate that translated justification as iustificare, to make righteous, rather than to count righteous, dikaiosune in the original Greek manuscripts.

But in many other places in his writings, he clearly stated that justification is a forensic, declarative act by God on the believer, rather than the idea of transformative righteousness that the Catholics believe in.

For example, his understanding of justification is summarised by a writer:
QUOTE
Once justified by divine action, the sinner does not at once become a perfect example of holiness. Humans need to pray to God continually for their growth in holiness and the spiritual life, thereby acknowledging that God is the author of both. God operates upon humans in the act of justification, and co-operates with them in the process of justification. Once justified, the sinner may begin to acquire merit – but only on account of God’s grace. Merit is seen to be a divine rather than a human work. Thus it is clearly wrong to suggest that Augustine excludes or denies merit; while merit before justification is indeed denied, its reality and necessity after justification are equally strongly affirmed. …

Central to Augustine’s doctrine of justification is his understanding of the ‘righteousness of God’, iustitia Dei. The righteousness of God is not that righteousness by which he is himself righteous, but that by which he justifies sinners. The righteousness of God, veiled in the Old Testament and revealed in the New, and supremely in Jesus Christ, is so called because, by bestowing it upon humans, God makes them righteous. …

‘What does ‘justified’ mean other than ‘made righteous’, just as ‘he justifies the ungodly’ means ‘he makes a righteous person out of an ungodly person’? (Spirit and Letter, xxvi, 45)

“ (p42-47, McGrath, A., Iustitia Dei, A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification)“
There are a dozen other early church fathers from the first 500 years that the reformers quoted to defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone, like John Chrysostom, Jerome, Justin Martyr. Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose etc.

They believed they were fighting for orthodoxy against the Roman Catholic Church, and i think reality rightly shows it.
thomasthai
post Nov 27 2020, 11:13 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Nov 9 2020, 12:08 PM)
In defence of Justification by Faith Alone
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Nov 11 2020, 06:46 AM)
On Justification
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Nov 26 2020, 07:49 AM)
Augustine, a forerunner to the Reformation
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «



Paul vs James?
Throughout history, many Christians have been stumbled by the seemingly contradictory statements by Paul and James. On one hand, Paul preaches that man is justified by faith apart from works, but James is seemingly saying that man is justified by works.

There are many theories and speculations around, some in this forum even denied that James was rightly included in the canon.

To understand scriptures, it is important to not only read the text at hand, but understand the argument 10 verses before and after that verse to really understand the context.

For James, let’s see what issue he was addressing in the text:
QUOTE
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2:14-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/jas.2.14-17.nkjv


Apparently there are Christians during that time that claimed to be believers, but were not displaying any fruits.

QUOTE
“But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?”
‭‭James‬ ‭2:18-20‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/jas.2.18-20.nkjv


So James challenges them to show their faith without works and he can show them his faith by his works.

QUOTE
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2:21-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/jas.2.21-24.nkjv


This is perhaps the most challenging part to interpret. It is important that we do not read Paul’s justification by imputation into this text, because James wasn’t expositing how a man is saved by God. He was addressing an error we call easy-believism/antinomians

In Greek, there is another usage of the word justify. I would like to draw your attention to a portion of Jesus’ proverb in Luke:
QUOTE
“But wisdom is justified by all her children.””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭7:35‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/luk.7.35.nkjv


Here, the exact same word is used in James, but it doesn’t mean that wisdom is declared righteous by her children. That’s non-sensical. Justify is Greek can also be used in lieu of proven right, the results proved the initial argument.


Going back to to our text in James, he was saying that the faith of Abraham was proven right when he offered Isaac on the altar. Abraham was counted righteous in Genesis 15, he offered up Isaac in Genesis 22. His act in Gen 22 proved his faith in Gen 15 right. The display of obedience confirmed that his faith is a living faith, a perfect faith.

The whole text is calling out people who claimed to a believer, but are really false believers/anti-nomians.

James wasn’t contradicting Paul in saying that man is justified by faith and works.

A call to obedience in scriptures does not automatically say that you are justified by your works.

We are saved not by a profession of faith, but a possession of faith.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Nov 27 2020, 11:24 PM
thomasthai
post Nov 27 2020, 11:16 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(yeeck @ Nov 26 2020, 11:52 AM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
My answers to your post are in my previous post.

They are basically repeating what James says. A call to obedience does not automatically mean that you are saved by your own works.
thomasthai
post Dec 17 2020, 07:55 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Dec 16 2020, 10:17 PM)
It can very hard to actually pin down what exactly most Protestants believe because most will pick and choose certain bits of doctrine from here and there and end up with a kind of grey area mishmash.

Protestant side I'm not too sure, because the ones I've found are mostly strawmen arguments and a lot of "my interpretation"

*
Hi sylar, so how is Eastern Orthodox’s interpretation of scriptures superior to the rest?

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Dec 17 2020, 08:32 AM
thomasthai
post Dec 17 2020, 09:13 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Dec 17 2020, 08:54 AM)
Who is sylar? I would argue that since the scriptures were preserved within, written by, compiled by, and interpreted within the context of Orthodox Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail (Matt 16:18), the Orthodox interpretation is necessarily true. It is like interpreting clinical practice guidelines by KKM in a KKM setting.
*
Oh sorry, must have mistaken you for an old friend wink.gif

According to RC, the line of succession came from Apostle Peter who was the first bishop of the church. They used the same verse to claim orthodoxy too.

So who is the true Orthodox Church and has the right and infallible interpretation of scriptures?

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Dec 17 2020, 09:14 AM
thomasthai
post Dec 17 2020, 10:00 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Dec 17 2020, 09:19 AM)
Before St Peter was martyred at Rome, he was the Bishop of Antioch. The Antiochian Patriarchate with apostolic succession from St Peter is Eastern Orthodox.

I am not too well versed with EO anti-RC polemics yet, but Jay Dyer and Ubi Petrus have excellent material on the matter. In fact, Ubi Petrus just recently had a long discussion refuting Eric Ybarra and Matt Fradd.
*
Only if you think the interpretation of Matt 16:18 is true, then only the orthodoxy of church is built on Peter alone.

Only if the church is built on Peter alone, then the successive church can interpret the verse correctly.

Circular reasoning, isn’t it?

I see this jay guy has rustled some Catholic feathers online...
thomasthai
post Dec 17 2020, 10:52 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Dec 17 2020, 10:38 AM)
The argument also supposes that there never was a "great apostasy" which needed a Reformation because the gates of hell will not prevail.
*
The reformers never interpreted the verse that way, because Peter himself later, used the same metaphor, called all Christians living stones:

QUOTE
“Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:4-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://www.bible.com/114/1pe.2.4-5.nkjv


So the verse is really not about Peter's role in Jesus’ church (since all Christians are living stones), but Satan will never completely destroy God’s people. (Doctrine of the remnant)

The reformed principle of scriptura sui es interpres, scripture alone is the interpreter of itself.

I trust the scripture to teach me what it says, I don’t even trust my own self.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Dec 17 2020, 10:53 AM
thomasthai
post Dec 17 2020, 11:18 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(Bibliophile @ Dec 17 2020, 10:57 AM)
Sure, and is that how the early church interpreted it? Is scripture alone the interpreter of itself found in the writings of the church fathers and ecumenical councils? If it is not, and if it is not what has been taught everywhere, always and by all, then it is an innovation. The scripture itself is the arsenal by which all heretics draw their doctrines from, to paraphrase Johann Eck, papal legate vs Martin Luther.
*
They might not have taught it, but every early church father practised it, if they reasoned from scriptures.

If they believed that the church interpretation is infallible, why the need to convene all those councils and synods to talk about issues that were plaguing the church, like trinity, Monophysite, filioque controversies, etc?

They were basically putting their heads together to study the bible together.

Not even the early church interpreted everything correctly, but most things essential to gospel truth, they got them correct.

The only way to know they got them correct is to use the scripture.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Dec 17 2020, 11:30 AM

6 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 >Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.2194sec    0.45    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 13th December 2025 - 12:03 AM