TheGreatEscape said:

---

And your ministry as an hospital chaplain is going to look differently.

---

Not sure I understand.

Are you saying MY ministry is going to look different (or unique), as compared to other hospital chaplains' ministry? Or are you saying ministry as a hospital chaplain is going to look different? If so, different from what other kind of ministry?

Start with the title Incredible and read.

This is the place where I came to

ChaplainMCH said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

And your ministry as an hospital chaplain is going to look differently.

---

Not sure I understand.

Are you saying MY ministry is going to look different (or unique), as compared to other hospital chaplains' ministry? Or are you saying ministry as a hospital chaplain is going to look different? If so, different from what other kind of ministry?

---

That is what legalistic, work based people always say. That pure grace gives license to sin. It is like we have to be threatened and controlled or we will turn in to huge sinners.

In my experience and observation, it is just the opposite. The more grace and no law (because the law is written on your heart) leads one to be so grateful they naturally do not sin for the most part. It is backwards thinking.and non trusting of the Holy Spirit.

I exegeted 2 Peter 3:9. No response.

I exegeted 2 Timothy 2:4. No response.

I exegeted Luke 2:10. No response.

I went over how and in what sense that Scripture teaches that we are no longer under the law. No response to those
passages from the New Testament either.


I showed how the definition of how to love is still beneficial in the moral and judicial law.

I showed you how Christ summarized both the first and second table of the law by love.

I went over how Christ in Matthew 5 is fulfilling the law by the power of the Holy Spirit and how what was somewhat concealed in the Old Testament is now revealed in the New Testament.

I went over how universalism is an assault against the full character of God and how we make God into a man like us who is described as a being with something lacking and needed to create the universe for his own completion.

God has free will to the utmost. No response.

I went over how the atonement is lessened by universalism which tries to use language like purification for sins in the afterlife for only a period of time.

Please stop saying that universalism is the Eastern Orthodox view of hell. It is not.

{Back in 1647, John Owen wrote an exhaustive book called The Death of Death in the Death of Christ to refute the idea of "universal redemption."

And even further back, in 553 at the Second Council of Constantinople, the church denounced as heretical the belief that all beings, even Satan himself, would eventually be saved.}

Matthew 25:41 (ESV) Jesus

{41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.}

Is Jesus lying here if universalism is true. Shouldn't the words of Christ Jesus have weight to those who claim they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?

Parable of Jesus in Luke 16 teaches the Lazarus joined Father Abraham in the Divine. But the rich man did not enter with Father Abraham and Lazarus. And the suffering for the rich man was described as a painful flame. Would the rich man ever be able to leave in an attempt at universalism? Nope. For it is written as Abraham with Lazarus by his side speaking to the rich man:

{ 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'} Luke 16:26

Hell or Hades is a place that people in it will never be excused.




Going further back…I gave you verse after verse on hell that is everlasting. No response to those verses either. And there are others that I could have added.

Dermdoc, you claim to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and won't interact with scripture. You say that you aren't qualified to have these discussions. But you continue to post…

And then my dear Dermdoc, all you need is some reading skills and google basic grammar lessons in order to discuss these things.

Oh and I noticed how you said that I needed to teach at a Reformed seminary and then edited it to Calvinist. I don't really care too much. We Reformed have been around much longer than your little independent autonomous church tradition.

I am not a legalist. The law of God drives us to the cross where assurance is found in God's holy inerrant word.

I quoted the Apostles on this. I went ad hoc.

I went over the Gospel in Ephesians 2:8-9.
How am I the legalist when ultimately you were a little wiser than your fellow man in your (free)will worship to make the sheer choice that separates you from all the rest of the unregenerate?

How am I a legalist when stating that obedience is necessary? What is faith but opening an empty hand to receive God's grace? Isn't that a good work?

Well…because faith isn't a gift of God to you, it is works righteous and legalism. Quit projecting your legalism onto me. For salvation didn't start with me and isn't going to finish with me.

Our "good works" will never be enough to save us. We do good works based upon the root which produces the fruit in due season.

And for you who are actually limiting the atonement and misunderstand what limited atonement means. Please respond to this argument by John Owen.

"The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men, or

2. All the sins of some men, or

3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.

2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer,"Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/john-owen-on-limited-atonement

Could you not tarry less than 5 minutes to watch this clip?

I watched it. There is nothing wrong with the Law if you understand what its purpose is. Its purpose is to make non regenerate people understand that they need Jesus and also for restraint.

It is not necessary for born again Christians. There is an irrational fear among Christian leaders that if it truly is grace alone then believers will sin all the time. I believe the opposite is true.

And I am definitely not an antinomianist.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared giving salvation to all human beings.

And from my readings this am
The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; He has compassion on all He has made.

Psalm 145 8-9

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Could you not tarry less than 5 minutes to watch this clip?

---

This video might be straying a bit from the topic of this thread. But I'll give my 2 cents. RC is one of my favorite theologians. I love his logical approach, and indeed his doctorate is in logic and not theology. But even the most logical can make mistakes at times. There is no division in the Bible between moral an ceremonial laws. That is a man-made doctrine that does not exist in scripture and fails immediately with even the most rudimentary inspection.

RC Sproul is my favorite Reformed theologian.

dermdoc said:

---

I watched it. There is nothing wrong with the Law if you understand what its purpose is. Its purpose is to make non regenerate people understand that they need Jesus and also for restraint.

It is not necessary for born again Christians. There is an irrational fear among Christian leaders that if it truly is grace alone then believers will sin all the time. I believe the opposite is true.

And I am definitely not an antinomianist.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared giving salvation to all human beings.

And from my readings this am
The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; He has compassion on all He has made.

Psalm 145 8-9

---

On Titus 2:11 (ESV)


All kinds of men…

Let's look at the immediate context in chapter 2 of Titus.

Young women, husbands, and children are mentioned in verse 4. Young men addressed in verse 6. Slaves or bondservants are mentioned in verse 9 and 10. You had unnecessary class distinctions between all kinds of men or all kinds of humans.

Then you can reach verse 11 as the Apostle Paul has made previous qualifications as to what the term all men means. Stay on the subject, saints. Follow the thought of what Paul has taught in his other letters and what is being addressed with Titus. You also had issues like Peter who Paul corrected earlier for refusing to eat at the same table with Gentiles that were likely still going on. For the Gospel is a rock of offense, a stumbling block, the wall of partition for physical-Jews to want to fellowship in the household of God with Gentiles often referred to as dogs.

Here is more on St. Paul dealing with class unnecessary class warfare in Pauline thought. This doesn't dismiss offices and set apart roles within the family and within the Church. But it does deal with discrimination.

For St. Paul writes earlier to the Galatians that:

"28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave7 nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

All men in the New Testament certainly doesn't mean every individual who has ever existed. Otherwise, all men would be saved of if the grace of God had appeared unto them. This would contradict John 6, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 8:29-31 and several other additional passages.
Moreover, look at how St. Paul qualifies the address of the letter to the original audience for which the letter was written.

Titus 1:1 (ESV)

"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,"

And reaching back to further understand Gospel language that the St. Paul uses…did the Gospel really already reach the whole world?

Not only is "all men" to be understood in the greater context of the NT, it is also shown as meaning all kinds of men in immediate contexts.

King James Bible Colossians 1:16

"Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:"

ESV Colossians 1:16

"Which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and increasingas it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth"

"As in the whole world and is bearing fruit and increasing"

When Saint Paul stated this, had the Gospel really come
unto the whole world?

Do you think it went to England, Ireland, Scotland, Asia, Australia, North America and South America?


Next, Psalm 145:8-9 (ESV)

"The Lord is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
The Lord is good to all,
and his mercy is over all that he has made."

Who shall declare this the Psalmist states in verse 4?

"One generation shall commend your works to another,
and shall declare your mighty acts."

And in verse 6, what will the generation of true Jews declare to the next generation?

"They shall speak of the might of your awesome deeds,
and I will declare your greatness."

And in a qualified sense..our declaring the law and Gospel
of our Lord Jesus benefits the whole world for those who may be entering showing that the Lord is merciful by his work of common grace.

I tell people that God's love is great for them to receive if they repent and believe. And if they repent and believe, then the Holy Spirit has truly assured them and has taken out the heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh.

Ezekiel 36:26

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

Lastly, to reach back to another point on the law;

Why does the Apostle Paul directly quote two of the Ten Commandments if there isn't a third use of the law to provide structure for the followers of the way?

For St. Paul states to both honor your father and mother and do not commit adultery. How do you explain that instance?

Galatians 3:21 (ESV)

{21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.}

And we Reformed see the law in the same way.

I believe when we are born again we have changed hearts. I honor my father and mother naturally and certainly do not want to commit adultery. Or watch porn or whatever.

But I do not need a law to keep me from doing something sinful. There is nothing wrong with the Law as Paul states. But we do not need it if we are truly regenerate.

Of course the Holy Spirit guides us into love in all things. There is that aspect of it on our hearts when we are made new.

Philippians 2:13 (ESV)

"…for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

So we must attribute our first love choice from God and what we do after the fact that is good is from God as well.

But we need to be reminded and renewed by the law because the word is the law. Jesus became the word incarnate in John 1. What was the word before the even the Gospels were recorded? The Old Testament law and prophets…We simply cannot separate the two from Christian thinking or reflection. The law and obeying the Gospel is mandatory and are a result of the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-11).

The fact that God gives us new heart and takes out the heart of stone, doesn't mean that it isn't a process in being confirmed to the image of his son (Romans 8:29-31).

For we have to put off the old man as Paul is commanding believer to do so. Why? Read Romans 7:14-23. Paul switches into the present tense in verse 14 of chapter 7.

"The things I will to do that I do not do. The things I will not to do that I do."

This is the spiritual warfare we are in against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

We are in this sense putting on the mind of Christ. For to be carnally minded is death (Romans 8:1-10).

This is why the Apostle Paul teachers us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind and not to be conformed to the spirit of the age (Romans 12:1-2).

We are sinners and saints at the same time. We are new creations. And the law in both New Testament and Old Testament teachings drive us to cling to Christ alone. That is the place where the humble Holy Spirit works in those who are brought to mourn over their sins in despair and hatred of sin. It is why with Paul (a believer) in Romans chapter 6 can say, "Oh wretched man that I am. Who can deliver me from this body of sin?" His answer is found in Christ alone, he states. And we are not yet glorified in our new creation transformation yet. For we will receive new resurrected bodies without these spiritual battles. This is why we put on the full armor of God. Yes. We already have been given the armor of God in Ephesians chapter 6. But it is good liturgy to physically place your hands on areas of your body along with praying the words of Ephesians 6 and put on the armor every day for battle. We need to be constantly reminded. For God is said to be the God on our lips.

Jeremiah teaches that the heart is deceitful and deceitful above all things and who can know it (Jeremiah 17:9)

So hopefully you are seeing these both/ands as justification relates to sanctification. The two may be appear separate for definition sake. But the two terms are interrelated.

Hope that helps.

"Blessed are the meek. For they shall inherit the earth."

Our Lord Jesus

And furthermore, my dear Dermdoc, all you have been doing is trying to run a Reductio Ad Absurdum like the atheist or secularists that we encounter online.

You so far have refused to in pride (perhaps?) to deal with the texts themselves presented to you that you messaged and told me you believed were authoritative.

Could you not tarry for one minute and fifty-five seconds?

Are Arminians saved? A clip under 4 minutes…

No problem with what RC Sproul said.

Disagree with MacArthur but respect his opinion.

We are ultimately saved by the Spirit who gives us the knowledge as we need and we are to grow in studying to show ourselves well approved (1 Timothy).

TheGreatEscape said:

---

We are ultimately saved by the Spirit who gives us the knowledge as we need and we are to grow in studying to show ourselves well approved (1 Timothy).

---

Disagree. We are saved by the finished work of Christ on the cross. When we are saved, the Holy Spirit enters us.

Well that is what the God-breathed Spirit inspired word does and is the window of the Gospel for people to look through to see Christ's finished work.

The Spirit is not separate from the Word of God.

Jesus in John 3.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh.
That which is born of the spirit is spirit."

dermdoc said:

---

Start with the title Incredible and read.

This is the place where I came to

---

Thank you very much for sharing with me!

ChaplainMCH said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Start with the title Incredible and read.

This is the place where I came to

---

Thank you very much for sharing with me!

---

Yes sir. Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

Could you not tarry 15 minutes?

No problem with anything they said. No questions about double pre destination which is the big point for me.

Read John 6 again and soak in verses 37,44, and 65.

You don't like eternal hell because you just don't like that about God.

You don't like predestination because you just don't like that about God.

We fell with Adam. No westerner likes that idea either.

You are only focusing on the negative.

God makes it clear that he does as he pleases with fallen man. God has freewill. God is free to leave people in their inability to save themselves by their assumed freewill and corruption.

God only saves those who cannot save themselves.

Saint Faustina's Vision of Hell

https://www.divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

John Gill on Malachi 1:2:

Malachi 1:2
"I have loved you, saith the Lord"
Which appeared of old, by choosing them, above all people upon the face of the earth, to be his special and peculiar people; by bestowing peculiar favours and blessings upon them, both temporal and spiritual; by continuing them a people, through a variety of changes and revolutions; and by lately bringing them out of the Babylonish captivity, restoring their land unto them, and the pure worship of God among them: Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us?
the Targum renders it, "and if ye should say"; and so Kimchi and Ben Melech; which intimates, that though they might not have expressed themselves in so many words, yet they seemed disposed to say so; they thought it, if they said it not; and therefore, to prevent such an objection, as well as to show their ingratitude, it is put in this form; and an instance of his love is demanded, which is very surprising, when they had so many; and shows great stupidity and unthankfulness. Abarbinel renders the words, "wherefore hast thou loved us?" that is, is there not a reason to be given for loving us? which he supposes was the love of Abraham to God; and therefore his love to them was not free, but by way of reward to Abraham's love; and consequently they were not so much obliged to him for it: to which is replied, [was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord;
Jacob and Esau were brethren; they had one and the same father and mother, Isaac and Rebekah, and equally descended from Abraham; so that if one was loved for the sake of Abraham, as suggested, according to Abarbinel's sense, the other had an equal claim to it; they lay in the same womb together; they were twins; and if any could be thought to have the advantage by birth, Esau had it, being born first: but before they were born, and before they had done good or evil, what is afterwards said of them was in the heart of God towards them; which shows that the love of God to his people is free, sovereign, and distinguishing, ( Genesis 25:23 ) ( Romans 9:11-13 ) : yet I loved Jacob;
personally considered; not only by giving him the temporal birthright and blessing, and the advantages arising from thence; but by choosing him to everlasting life, bestowing his grace upon him, revealing Christ unto him, and making him a partaker of eternal happiness; and also his posterity, as appears by the above instances mentioned; and likewise mystically considered, for all the elect, redeemed, and called, go by the name of Jacob and Israel in Scripture frequently; for what is here said of Jacob is true of all the individuals of God's people; for which purpose the apostle refers to this passage in ( Romans 9:13 ) , to prove the sovereignty and distinction of the love of God in their election and salvation: and this is indeed a clear proof that the love of God to his people is entirely free from all motives and conditions in them, being before they had done either good or evil; and therefore did not arise from any goodness in them, nor from their love to him nor from any good works done by them: the choice of persons to everlasting life, the fruit of this love, is denied to be of works, and is ascribed to grace; it passed before any were wrought; and what are done by the best of men are the effects of it; and the persons chosen or passed by were in an equal state when both were done; which appears by this instance: and by which also it is manifest that the love of God to men is distinguishing; it is not alike to all men; there is a peculiar favour he bears to own people; which is evident by the choice of some, and not others; by the redemption of them out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation; by the effectual calling of them out of the world; by the application of the blessings of grace unto them; and by bestowing eternal life on them: and it may be further observed, that the objects of God's love have not always the knowledge of it; indeed they have no knowledge of it before conversion, which is the open time of love; and after conversion they have not always distinct and appropriating views of it; only when God is pleased to come and manifest it unto them.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/malachi-1-2.html

Malachi 1:3

"And I hated Esau"

Or, "rejected" him, as the Targum; did not love him as Jacob: this was a negative, not positive hatred; it is true of him, personally considered; not only by taking away the birthright and blessing from him, which he despised; but by denying him his special grace, leaving him in his sins, and to his lusts, so that he became a profane person; shared not in the grace of God here, and had no part in the eternal inheritance with the saints in light; and likewise it is true of his posterity, as the following instances show: and laid his mountains and his heritage waste;
which, according to Grotius, was done by Nebuchadnezzar, five years after the captivity of the Jews, in fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, ( Jeremiah 49:7-22 ) but this was done by the Nabatheans F14: Mount Seir was the famous mountain that Esau dwelt in, ( Genesis 36:8 ) there might be more in his country; or this might have many tops, and therefore called "mountains"; and to this account of the waste and desolate state of this country agrees what is at present related of it, by a late traveller F15 in those parts:

``if (says he) we leave Palestine and Egypt behind us, and pursue our physical observations into the land of Edom, we shall be presented with a variety of prospects, quite different from those we have lately met with in the land of Canaan, or in the field of Zoan; for we cannot here be entertained with pastures clothed with flocks, or with valleys standing thick with corn, or with brooks of water, or fountains, or depths that spring out of valleys and hills, ( Deuteronomy 8:7 ) here is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or pomegranates, ( Numbers 20:5 ) but the whole is an "evil place", a lonesome desolate wilderness; no otherwise diversified than by plains covered with sand, and by mountains made up of naked rocks and precipices, ( Malachi 1:3 ) neither is this country ever (unless sometimes at the equinoxes) refreshed with rain; but the few hardy vegetables it produces are stunted by a perpetual drought; and the nourishment which the dews contribute to them in the night, is sufficiently impaired by the powerful heat of the sun in the day:''
Though this country seems to have been originally more fruitful, and better cultivated, as may be concluded from ( Genesis 27:39 ) ( Numbers 20:17 ) but is become so through the judgments of God upon it: for the dragons of the wilderness;
so called to distinguish them from sea dragons, or the dragon fish; such as whales and crocodiles, which are sometimes expressed by the same word here used, ( Genesis 1:21 ) ( Ezekiel 29:3 ) and these land dragons are no other than serpents of an enormous size. In the Indies they used to be distinguished into three sorts; such as were found in the mountains; such as were bred in caves, or in the flat country; and such as were found in fens and marshes. The first is the largest of all, and are covered with scales as resplendent as polished gold; these have a kind of beard hanging from their lower jaw; their eyebrows large, and very exactly arched; their aspect the most frightful that can be imagined; and their cry loud and shrill; their crest of a bright yellow; and a protuberance on their heads of the colour of a burning coal. Those of the flat country differ from the former in nothing but having their scales of a silver colour, and in their frequenting rivers, to which the former never come. Those that live in marshes and fens are of a dark colour, approaching to a black, move slowly, have no crest, or any rising on their heads F16; these creatures commonly inhabit desert places. So Diodorus Siculus F17, speaking of Ethiopia, says, it is reported that various kinds of serpents, and of an incredible size, are seen near the desert, had in places inhabited by wild beasts; and Aelianus F18 describes the dragon as dwelling in woods, and living on poisonous herbs; and preferring a desolate place to cities, and the habitations of men; and when in Scripture it is predicted of countries and cities that they shall become desolate, it is usually observed, that they shall be the dwelling places of dragons, as in ( Isaiah 13:22 ) ( 34:13 ) ( Jeremiah 10:22 ) ( 49:33 ) ( 51:37 ) so here it is foretold that it should be the case of Edom, as it has been, and still continues to be, as appears from the above traveller F19; who, passing through some part of this country, says of it,
``vipers, especially in the wilderness of Sin, which might be very properly called "the inheritance of dragons", were very dangerous and troublesome; not only our camels, but the Arabs who attended them, running every moment the risk of being bitten;''
so that, according to the prediction, it is now a place for such creatures. A learned Jew F20 is of opinion, that not serpents, but jackals, are here meant, which are a sort of wild howling beasts, that live abroad in desolate places; (See Gill on Micah 1:8) but whether they be the one, or the other, it makes for the same purpose, to denote what a desert place Edom would become; since it should be inhabited by such creatures to dwell in, which denotes the utter desolation made. So the Targum renders it, "into the wasteness of the desert"; or into a waste desert, where none but such sort of animals inhabit. The Septuagint and Syriac versions render it, "into the houses", or "cottages, of the desert": and now, though this was the case of Judea, that it was left desolate, yet it was but for a while; at the end of seventy years the Jews returned to their own land, and dwelt in it; but so did not the Edomites, as appears by the following words; which shows the regard God had to the posterity of Jacob, and not to the posterity of Esau.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/malachi-1-3.html

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Read John 6 again and soak in verses 37,44, and 65.

You don't like eternal hell because you just don't like that about God.

You don't like predestination because you just don't like that about God.

We fell with Adam. No westerner likes that idea either.

You are only focusing on the negative.

God makes it clear that he does as he pleases with fallen man. God has freewill. God is free to leave people in their inability to save themselves by their assumed freewill and corruption.

God only saves those who cannot save themselves.

---

I read John 6 and the Scriptures you mentioned. There are other Scriptures which emphasize our choice. This has been argued for thousands of years and from my reading, the majority of theologians, outside of Reformed theology, fall on the side of free will and man's choice. As do I.

I will concede there are Scriptures that support your theology. I also think there are those Scriptures that support free will. Whenever I bring those up, it seems as if plain Scripture is changed to fit Reformed theology. Words are added, etc.

The idea of eternal hell (not age long corrective punishment) comes down to how one interprets aion and the adjective aionios. And how one interprets kolasin and kolasis. Because the lynchpin verse for eternal hell is Matthew 25:46.

The interpretation of these two words have been debated for centuries. I am sure you know aion can be interpreted as eternity or a defined length of time or age.

And kolasin is interpreted in Greek as pruning or corrective punishment. Timoria is the Greek term for vindictive punishment.

And corrective punishment seems to me to be much more aligned with the character of God as revealed by Jesus Christ.

I believe in predestination. Do not believe in double pre destination along with the vast majority of theologians. In fact, some call it a heresy.

I believe we fell with Adam and inherited a sin nature.

Merry Christmas!

Quote:

---

Quoting dermdoc;

...there are Scriptures that support [various] theolog[ies].....it seems as if plain Scripture is changed to fit [various theologies]...

---

That's pretty impactful. Thank you.

This is what it is like when we were hiding in our sins and God pursued us and humiliated us with his strength in a sovereign election plan that can never be thwarted.

The woman represent us. John Wayne represent God with a spine.

And I believe Satan enjoys it when we focus on non salvific theological differences and do not focus on Jesus and our mutual relationship with him.

Not throwing bombs and running away. Just choosing to focus on Jesus and the joy that brings me.

And fwiw, I prefer the still, small voice when God spoke to Elijah rather than John Wayne forcing himself on a woman. But that is me.

Merry Christmas!