Results 1 - 20 of 40
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: peacebestill Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209350 | ||
John Please see my post to Azure. peacebestill |
||||||
2 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209349 | ||
Azure My name is Lowell Prim, and I am not Tamara. I am offended by this accusation. I am a single man who is a Bible study teacher and I do not understand why you are accusing me of being this woman? What is going on here Azure? All I did was to try to exlain why I ended up doing wrong offer you an apology. peacebestill |
||||||
3 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209335 | ||
Say John? I just had a message from someone else and I do feel that I am in the wrong here no matter what I thought my intentions were in answering your question to me and your comments about this. So, I would like to apologize to you personally and say I am wrong, and I sincerely hope you can accept my apology to you. Proverbs 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. peacebestill |
||||||
4 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209333 | ||
Azure I was not really defending her, but answering John's request to give him an explanation as to what insight I could possibly have about her? And how it is that I see something positive of worth there in her posts? That was in answer to his question to me, and his comments was it not? I somehow mistakenly thought making a positive comments about a member was in keeping with the forum's guidlines to try to have a Christian spirit, respect, grace, speech always be seasoned with salt? But, since I have apparently done wrong here, I do most sincerely apologize to you, to John, to Doc, to the forum itself! I have to realize that others can be offended no matter what my intentions, and intentions can pave a road to hell. Please accept my sincere apologies Azure and everyone. I will hence forth keep my positive opinions about others to myself in keeping with what you have said here, whether they are here still or gone now. I really do not want to offend. Proverbs 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. peacebestill |
||||||
5 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209330 | ||
John Okay John, I will try harder to understand what it was like for you with her... We each have a different persepective about what Bible study should be done like and what the experience together in here should be like. I will try to be understanding of the differences for others than myself and realize that something might have been very uncomfortable for you about studying with her. And I see that there is such a thing as a person who seems enthusiastic and that gets on the nerves of those who are enthusiastic in a different manner. :-) I read a whole lot of her posts and others back to her my friend and it seems as if she got on a whole lot of nerves by continuing to reply with her concerns... Funny how long threads go between participants, sometimes good, sometimes bad... There does not seem to be any consitency as to why it goes good or bad though... So I will try to really understand that the experience of her for others was not mine and realize we all enjoy different things. Keep the faith. peacebestill |
||||||
6 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | peacebestill | 209329 | ||
Kcbam Yes I did see your post to Tim Moran, which is why I did post you. We can't take one piece of what the Bible has to say about the Christian and the ability to sin, or the responsibility not to sin and ability not to sin and only take one of those stances alone because the scripture says two things about sin without contradicting itself. Romans all of chapter 7 does indeed say that Christians are in a war between the flesh which does still sin and the spirit which does not want to sin. 1 John chapter 1 and does say that WHO EVER says they do not sin is a liar, and 1 John chapter 2 does say that the Christian has an advocate and can ask for forgiveness. What Paul is saying in the verse you have there does not contradict what Paul also says in Romans 7 that believers do sin, as he is not talking about unbeleivers in chapter 7, but believers. He uses the word "I" and is talking about his own experience as a believer that he does indeed have problems with sinning as a believer... He goes on to say in verse 1 of chapter 8 that for the believer there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus because the law of of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and of death. What you are purporting there is that one gets sanctified by works, and that is just as bad as saying one gets saved by works. If one is saved by faith along by grace alone, then one is also sanctified by faith alone by grace alone - both of these acts by God alone have as a component that the believer will exhibit outward works because the Holy Spirit is active in the believer. You make a mistake because you cannot say you do not now sin as a believer yourself! Is this not true? Or do you say you as a believer have never sinned since you first believed? If you answer no, I have never sinned since being a believer, according to 1 John, you are a liar. Now, if you are willing to admit you have sinned since you became a believer, then you have to concede to Paul's point in chapter 7 of Romans that you still are struggling with sin and that you are doing the things you do not want to do... So if you are still doing the things you do not want to do, then your salvation, and your sanctification rest in the power of God. The first having been completed and the second having been started and to be completed. Or can you say you now look and act just like Jesus and that you are now sinless and glorifed completely? And how can we say the flesh is now saved? In what sense is the flesh now saved if it still dies as a result of sin, for sin brings about death? Is it not true that our souls have been buried in death with Christ and raised from the dead, but that our bodies are not yet raised from the dead? How then, if the body has not been raised from the dead according to the promise can we say the body has been saved? If our bodies according to 1 Corinthians has yet to be raied imperishable in chapter 15, then how can we say it already has been? Seeing as how Jesus and Paul both say that as soon as you believe in Jesus you have eternal life, but the body still dies, then your soul is what now has attained to eternal life and your body is waiting to attain that eternal life. And who says that because you now sin as a believer that you are not saved or sanctified? In Romans chapter 6 Paul is laying down the principle that we CAN CONQUER sin in the flesh, and that it will not be mastered by it, it does not say that we will erradicate sin while in the flesh. If it was saying that, then why is there a Romans 7 saying we have not erradicated it? In Romans chapter 7:1-6 Paul lays down the principle that we are married to Christ forever. In Romans chapter 8:37-39 it says that there is nothing that can separate you from the love of Christ - that includes sin as things present and things to come. Or do you believe that if one sins he is not a Christian? And if you believe that do you believe you can lose your salvation too? The two go hand in hand... peacebestill |
||||||
7 | how can we minister to homosexuals | Bible general Archive 4 | peacebestill | 209293 | ||
Jeff I mean you no disrespect here... I think we actually do believe the exact same thing, but that I got the misimpression at first that we did not. So I apologize if you feel like I do not understand you, I think I do and that we both agree that all the elements have to be presented to the homosexual of the gospel. And I agree with you that one cannot just beat sinners over the head with sin and hell and leave out the rest of the message. I hope you can see I am really not interested in arguing, but in coming to a common ground of understanding. And seeing as how we both actually believe the same thing I too have no more to offer. Have a blessed Lord's day. Ephesians 4:3 Being dilegent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. peacebestill |
||||||
8 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209292 | ||
John Mush? Okay John. No offense to you either. When I see a person who is really interested in "dividing" the word of God and they are willing to use the tools available to do it... Well all I can say is that the results might actualy illuminate the scriptures rather than obscure it... And that being said, what you would consider a pile of mush because it has been chewed on too much to others might be a pile of treasure because in dividing the word by means of exegesis the truth usually falls out plain to see. Want to laugh? (I see you and Doc have jokes...) Well here is one for you. I am laughing; I guess if Tamara was chewing then that means she was on meat and not milk!!! Hebrews 5:12, 6:1, 6:9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and the things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. :-) peacebestill |
||||||
9 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | peacebestill | 209290 | ||
Kcabm How about a consideration of Romans the whole chapter 7 in this discussion about sanctification? What happens during sanctification really any how? Is it not true that what has been redeemed is the immaterial part of man, the spirit of man? And is it not true that the flesh has not yet been redeemed and will not be redeemed until Jesus returns? How then can we say that Christians will not sin before their bodies have been redeemed? That is not to say we condone sin, or wallow in sin, or to say that Christians lives continually in sin. But it does go to Romans 7; that there is a sin nature present in the flesh which is presently waring with the spirit in the true believer. And it goes to the understanding that Christians are still sinners who fall down, but they have an advocate and repent and are forgiven of sins. Does not John say in 1 John that whoever says he does not sin is a liar? And then does he not say we have the advocate and that who ever sins is to ask for forgiveness from Jesus? You raised the issue of consecration to God as having happened only once right? I think that Romans would be really helpfull in this whole discussion because there are concepts as doctrine that happen to the believer only once as absolutes, and then other concepts as doctrine are ongoing works of the Holy Spirit. Take Romans 1:16, 17 for instance, which contains the doctrine of salvation. Now, the faith of the preacher is to preach (Romans 12:6 do your gifts according to the faith supplied to you), and the faith of the hearer is to believe the gospel; Romans 1:17. Right there we have elements of how the doctrine of salavation works in part, obviously Jesus is key to it. That being said, salvation happens only once, and as a doctrine need not have any further activity as just salvation. Take the doctrine of justification, that happens only once. You get saved, and God looks at you as covered in the blood of Jesus and declares you justified once and for all time; Romans 3:21-5. But the doctrine of sanctification happens as soon as you are saved and justified, but continues through time as an ongoing process until you are changed forever at the resurrection. You see we are being cleaned up by the Holy Spirit inside, and that results in our outward good deeds and outward righteous behavior. But the work is done by the Holy Spirit and we are merely reflecting that work in our efforts to keep from sinning, and we do this by the power of the Holy Spirit. So it is not really that Christians do not any longer sin, it is that we are saved sinners who are still sinners whom God is cleaning up until one day we will look and be just like Jesus. We will be resurrected from the dead and we will all be changed, and then we will sin no more ever again. It is our responsibility to do every thing in our power not to sin, but we do falter and fail, and for this we have the advocate. Let's turn to consecration. Consecration is only mentioned in the Old Testament and is not a New Testament concept coming from the teachings of Jesus or the apostles. That does not mean there is not consecration for the Christian, but we do not find this concept addressed in the New Testament except to quote the Old Testament. Many substitute the sanctification concept for the consecration concept using all of Hebrews for their idea. But, to consecrate is to set a thing or a person apart for the exlcusive use of God to do some part or portion for His work. This does not refer to the internal process with an outward result of being cleaned up by the Holy Spirit. Consecration is the external practice of cleansing objects or people so that they will be fit to do God's work. I do believe that John's passages that you have there have to be understood in light of the idea that a person who continually lives in sin is suspect and that they may not even be saved. But, that Paul's Romans really is the major Bible book describing all the ins and outs of sanctification. Hope this helps, by the way, you are so very refreshing, and I have enjoyed all your posts. peacebestill |
||||||
10 | Theological Term: Ordo Salutis | Rom 8:31 | peacebestill | 209241 | ||
Doc Okay. peacebestill |
||||||
11 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209226 | ||
pooterputter You are welcome. Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church. Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firsborn from the dead, so that He himself will come to have first place in everything. Let us honor the headship of Christ in all things; our behavior, and our obedience to Him in all that the Bible says to do... peacebestill |
||||||
12 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209224 | ||
John Yes Tamara seems very insteresting. But as I am not her I could not possibly have any innate sense of anything about her. Innate means an internal understanding as separate from an outside understanding, or learning experience. I became interested in Tamara after reading what pooterputter wrote in answer to her and what she wrote that they were answering to. Then I went into her profile to see what she was about and what other posts she had. Post number 203926 is an exegetical question as it addresses whether Paul was making a moral indication of a command and whether or not that should be left in the past to history, or whether it applies to now. Post number 203935 had about 5 different exegetical concerns about whether or not what was a normal practice in the first century is to now be applied today as a universal practice. And the basis for the criteria she presented were purely exegetical concerns based on the nature of questions alone. For instance; 1)Should what was normal to Christians historiacally speaking be normal to Christians now? 2)The Biblical principle of headship in Christ was laid out by Paul and included specfic instructions to the church of what to do and this exegetically is always a consideration in getting the right interpretation and the right application. 3)Transference is a serious theological mistake and is a big exegetical no, no; transference occurs when we think that what Christians were doing, and what the Bible says to do is no longer relevant because the practices of society, believers, and social norms has changed. This is the problem of liberalism which states that we need to recognize that certain things are no longer important from the Bible because people are no longer living that way. And so they spiritualize the texts and allegorize the texts and stray far, far from the heart of Sola Scriptura. 4)Following a moral command given by Paul, as all commands in the Bible about what to be doing as an active outward expression of obedience to Christ automatically becomes a moral command, is not legalism - that is exegetically correct in every respect. It may not be popular in the practice of certain scriptures because we have moved off of how people did things in the first century, but it is absolutely theologically correct. 5)Posts number 203968, 205372, 2041179, 204147, and 203720 - these are all purely exegetical in nature in asking vairous questions that arise in the areas of doing exegesis; context, content, history, grammar, literary concerns, use of the langauge accross scriptures, the author's intent to his audience, the intrepretation, the application, staying true to what the text meant to the readers in the first century without trying to change the meaning to fit how we now do things, the unversality of moral and behavior commands for all time based on a literal interpretation of the Bible alone, and on and on. There are so many questions of exegesis in sub categories of categories that when doing it, it is best to understand that the text it self has to be the outline of the process along with the actual areas of exegesis that have to be covered. Each text is said to have it's own "problems", a technical term not meant to insinuate that the Bible is not applicable to today, but that there are many things that are not on the surface clear as to what the author meant exactly for people to do, what the grammar means in Greek exaclty, how what we do differs from what they were doing back then and whether or not that is correct for us to be doing now the way we do it. For all the reasons I just listed, I have no understanding at all as a Bible study teacher, as a Bible study student, how it is that she was obviously misunderstood... It is simple, exegesis asks hard questions of the text that require work to get the answer, and the idea that the doing of that is pushing an idea, or somehow a foray into an external practice missing an internal walk with God is way, way off. That is truly what I see about this issue, but I do not judge anyone here. I just don't understand the posts that followed hers in a lot of instances because they do not make sense to me as a teacher, as a student, or as a Christian. 2 Timothy 2:12 Be dilgent to present yourself approved of God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. Here is the simplest explanation of exegesis I have ever found, but it leaves a whole lot of things out. It would take a paper of essay proportions to really do the concept of exegesis real justice... http://webmail.mobap.edu/mcclain/HTML percent sign 20files/SBFCY-web.htm peacebestill |
||||||
13 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | peacebestill | 209212 | ||
pooterputter I have not been around all that long myself, but it looks like this lady Tamara is no longer posting, or at least has not posted since a while. I actually found her question quite interesting and went nosing around through this and some other of her posts... Most interesting stuff! I wonder if she is still a member, does anybody know if she is still around? I thought this was pretty darn deep and was also surprised by some of the responses here... The responses to her confused me as it seems she had no interest in thinking that the rather quaint convention of wearing hats was suppossed to be something others should be doing today per say. Rather, it seems that Paul had some theological point? And that that point has something to do with either practices in past history that do not apply today, or with universal practices for all time for all Christians? Very interesting indeed... In answer to you, I think from reading all her posts in this whole long thread that the spiritual idea of headship in Christ between men and women in the church is the spiritual aspect. And how this would work according to her would be that a woman would, because she respects both her husband, and the male leaders in the church, and as a symbol to the angels that she is respecting their authority over her life would wear a hat. And that men would wear thier hair short, or at least shorter than women's. At least that is what I got out of all that she said. But it seems as if nobody quite picked up on that. It seems like that was where she was headed and the whole thread became more about trying to convince her that the concept of wearing a hat was something she was trying to push on others, or that she was mistakenly focusing on as some sort of external practice having no internal value. I see a really exegetical question here and nothing more, but I can't speak for anyone else in here, that is just me. Questions like this one and others she had is the type of thing that make a forum like this one a very valuable resource. At least for me it does. Now my appetite is whet... 2 Timothy 2:15, 2 Timothy 3:16 peacebestill |
||||||
14 | Theological Term: Ordo Salutis | Rom 8:31 | peacebestill | 209210 | ||
Doc Quoting you; In Reformed thinking (based on Romans 8:29-30) the ordo salutis is 1) election 2) predestination 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration 6) conversion (faith and repentance) 7) justification 8) sanctification 9) glorification In Arminian thinking the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election 3) repentance 4) regeneration 5) justification 6) perseverance 7) glorification I see some things missing from both examples of the order of salvation, "ordo salutis"? How about this for a model? 1)election by God in eternity past of the the saved 2)predestination by God in eternity past of the saved 3)gospel call as the outward call to all people 4)inward call as the Holy Spirit drawing by irresitable grace of the saved alone eventually resulting in salvation 5)regeneration 6)conversion by repentance and coming to a saving faith of the elected, predestined ones 7)justification as God declaring one made righteous before Him by the blood of Jesus 8)sanctification as the cleaning proccess by which the Holy Spirit does a work in us making us become like Jesus until the end at the final glorification 9)perseverance as the efforts of the saved to keep fast to the faith by the power of the Spirit 10)glorification as the final stage and act of sanctification whereby the saved become like Jesus I don't know what you think? I don't know why the reformed view leaves out perseverance, or do they lump that together with sanctification? I don't know what you think about the gospel call being offered to all even though few are called? peacebestill |
||||||
15 | need information on galatians Chapter 6 | Heb 3:12 | peacebestill | 209209 | ||
Doc Correction on my last post to you, that was your post number 151193. Sorry:-)! I need to go to that post to ask you something directly about that too. peacebestill |
||||||
16 | how can we minister to homosexuals | Bible general Archive 4 | peacebestill | 209196 | ||
Jeff I was responding to this which you originally said; It's not our place to ever tell someone their going to Hell... we don't know that. If you have the opportunity to talk to any person regarding his/her particular lifestyle, the best way to do that is with the Word of God. Straight and to the point should be the rule. Otherwise we might end up thinking we can some how present it in a way (our own way) that is somehow "more effective". My point to you was that ALL SINNERS INCLUDING homosexuals are indeed going to hell because they are not saved and how can we avoid telling them that they sinners are going to hell, which naturally includes and applies directly to them at the time? My point to you was not that we go up to homosexuals in a conversation and say you are gay you are going to hell. But it was in having a converstation with a homosexual about sin and salvation, telling them that any sinner, they as a sinner need salvation because they are sinners, whatever that sin or sins are, and that the consequence if they do not is eternal hell? I was following the context but missed how your point in saying the WHOLE message needs to be preached because NOT TELLING A SINNER THEY ARE GOING TO HELL is the antithesis of the gospel message BECAUSE SINNERS WHO DO NOT REPENT ARE GOING TO HELL. Obviously saved sinners are not that was moot was it not?! I did not miss 1 Corinthians 6:11, I was making a point that 1 Corinthias 6:10 applies to unsaved homsexuals going to hell for sure! Now, that being said, I do not believe that homosexuality is the ULTRA sin of all sins, there are many lists of sins in the Bible and none is meant to be exhaustive... But to stand there with a homosexual who really is addressing the issue from their end and claiming they can continue on in that sin and not telling them they will go to hell after discussing why salvation, how salvation would be dead wrong. Romans 1:32 And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do those the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. peacebestill |
||||||
17 | need information on galatians Chapter 6 | Heb 3:12 | peacebestill | 209195 | ||
Doc Okay having waded through three pages of stuff in your name on ordu salutis I found one single post by you that hits around my set of questions to you; Number 165860 where you discuss the process of sanctification to around which my questions centered? So having also taken the time to read through two of the pages on antinomianism with out finding your name, although I admit I did not dive below the serface to see if you answered anyone, I find that unprincipled principle that some believe a person is saved if their faith is not accompanied by attendant works. Now, having established that I do understand what you mean by this post to me here I would have to say this to you about what you wrote me and about what I meant in my statements to you and was asking about; Seeing as how we know that one does not get saved by any works of one's own and that it is a work of God, of the Holy Spirit of Jesus and the Gospel and is a work of grace and not the keeping of the law - The work of sanctification is of the work of the Holy Spirit, and our good works showing evidence of our faith is the result of the work by the Holy Spirit and not of our own merit. Is it not so? So then, my questions had nothing what ever to do with a person being saved and walking off into the sunset as a continual sinner at all, and them me or anybody claiming THEY'RE SAVED! My questions pretained to a category of true believers who got saved by grace, of whom Peter and Barnabus were prime examples, in Galatia who fell after receiving that grace by dabbling with being law keepers. As well being that Peter and Barnabus were indeed saved and remained saved despite that fall; I was asking you specifically if you felt that "giving up grace" was an eternal result of having left of that grace in practice, or if the result was really "a temporary fall from grace"? I was also asking you in what sense does one "throw grace completely out"? I was also asking you if you think that the "throwing away grace completely" is "losing salvation", or "never had it"? I appreciate your post and pointing out opposite poles by my questions were being asked from the stance that Paul was writing to believers who got saved by grace and that once saved you are always saved... With the added unvoiced thought that the Holy Spirit does the work of regeneration on saved sinners, not us, we are dirty and He takes His time and cleans us up, and so we have the picture in Galatians of sinners who are indeed Christians who He will indeed clean up regardless that they stumbled in faith 101. (?) I am more interested in what you think than what I think, I only hope this time I was more rather clear... Would you lean more toward the Augustinian version of sanctification, or the Reformed version as described here? (Scroll down please in the link.) http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t equal sign 1207 I am goint with elements of both... Here is the scripture I am standing on; Titus 3:4-7 But when the kindness of God our savior by His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis fo deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of the regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. So that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Here is the other verse I would stand on in this; 2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveleiled facce, beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory, to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. peacebestill |
||||||
18 | how can we minister to homosexuals | Bible general Archive 4 | peacebestill | 209144 | ||
Jeff I am a litte concerned... When one presents the gospel there are certain vital elements that cannnot really be left out if we are to give the message straight. I am not making an assumption here that you do not do what I am about to say, but it seems as if you would prefer not to tell a sinner that they are on their way to hell... I would think that the first element of a presentation of the gospel would be the need for salvation - people are sinners they should be told they are sinners. The next elememt would be how God feels about sin. God plans to punish all sinners with a terrible judgment and wrath. If they do not get saved they will most certainly go to hell. And we do know for certain that unbelievers as long as they remain so are definitely going to hell. So how in the world do you avoid that part of the message? If you say to someone you are a sinner without telling them the consequences, don't you think that you do them a diservice? The next element would be the message of salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Jesus says in John 3:14-21 that when people hear the word of the gospel and do not believe in Him to eternal life, they have been judged already. Our job is to give people the gospel and let the Holy Spirit do His work to convict them of sin to repentance, or to shut them up under unbelief unto eternal damnation because they reject Jesus. We are just messengers, but if we do not get the message straight and have the fortitude to give it straight how are we doing our jobs for Jesus? Hell is part and parcel of the message and we do know that the Bible says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. How can we truly say we do not know who is going to hell? I think there are some clear Biblical instances where we do. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10. peacebestill |
||||||
19 | need information on galatians Chapter 6 | Heb 3:12 | peacebestill | 209143 | ||
Doc, I agree with you one hundred percent about the law making grace of no effect. Question; but in what sense? Question; if a person "wants to give up grace" for legalism do you see that as "losing salvation", or rather as "never had it"? I do not think that is what you are saying here, but am wondering what you see is to be the result of "giving up grace"? Next question; is grace something that can be "nullified truly on the eternal level" after having been saved, or would you see that as the "effects of grace temporarily nullified" after having been saved? I am thinking of the fact that Paul is addressing Christian believers in Galatians who have left off the concept of faith unto salvation by grace for the law unto salvation by works? Believers such as Barnabus and Peter whom we know were saved and remained so? Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? They seemed to have been running well and fell and turned to the law, meaning they were saved for real and then messed up... Question; how does Galatians 3:23 address that "grace gets completely thrown out" for the already saved who messed up by turning to the law? I thought it was referring to the law serving to shut up all to the faith later to be revealed, not belivers who strayed after the faith was taken by them after it was revealed to them. peacebestill |
||||||
20 | Jesus and the ruling Powers | Bible general Archive 4 | peacebestill | 209125 | ||
... | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |