Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
Codswallop
Paul claimed that it was obedience to the gospel
nope.
more codswallop
They accidentally got some things right it seems.
contra Peter. On what grounds?
Another accidentally correct; insofar as it goes. Where is training in righteousness, for example?
~6300 years agone? I think God would be astounded by the information.
That page continues with some other "interesting" comments.
Important? possibly.
Nope. Not after the first sentence, that is.
The substance is not a sin. Overindulgence in the substance is.
Accords with scripture - though Old Testament references are not germane.
The use of contraceptives is not a sin.
Worldliness can be classed as a sin, but none of the listed points can be automatically classed as worldliness.
What was it they just said about legalism? Everyone is a sinner doesn't mean that everyone continues to sin.
Strictly as a last resort, yes.
Anyone who does not have access to the authorities conferred by the Holy Spirit pretty much has to say that: otherwise they have to admit they might have something wrong.
So I have always thought - perhaps I should reconsider.
Jesus, Paul, Peter would be astounded.
(the next three aren't clear enough in meaning.)
Trinity doctrine is badly flawed, but rejecting the core precepts would require rejection of scripture.
.
Comment