Recent content by RedFan

“I suppose you are right about that,” Arius sighed. “Yet I have seen alternative versions of Scripture before, and hesitate to explain them all as the innocent errors of overworked scribes who mistook someone else’s marginal note as a part of the original. I have learned not to underestimate...

But I am not looking just at a single sentence. I am looking at three. Two of which confirm that the first is not a necessary, but only a sufficient, condition to salvation -- precisely as its text suggests..

Let me push back a bit, by quoting the contrary arguments put forward by a Unitarian: Is Matthew 28:19 A Forgery? - BiblicalUnitarian.com

There are no other conditions in the verse. (That's what "sufficient" means.) But nothing in the verse gainsays other paths to salvation. Jesus is quoted as saying “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matt. 6:14). Is forgiving others...

I'm just pointing out that Rom. 10:9 says "If X, then salvation." It doesn't say "ONLY if X, then salvation." And other Xs are also of the form "If X, then salvation."

I don't think there is a Trinitarian (or even a Binitarian) counterpoint to that one. But is that the "single" truth that F2F suggests is the exclusive means to salvation? We can't know one way or the other just by reading the verse, because Rom. 10:9 portrays itself as a sufficient...

That "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves" is unhelpful in wrestling with apparent conflicts in Scripture. That's true of the Trinity. It's even true of the contention that "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves." (One can marshal verses on both sides of that one too!)

I appreciate that, APAK. There are lots of posters on this site who are convinced that I am depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

Are you including me in this? I've been saying forever that Scripture does not prove the Trinity -- often to the chagrin of my fellow Trinitarians.

Sorry, I missed your meaning. Yes, inconsistent judicial decisions occur, yet the judicial system manages quite well. In the U.S. federal courts, SCOTUS has the last word, and usually takes cases when the circuits are split on a legal interpretation -- so the inconsistency ends up being an...

I agree. @Johann may not, but I do. I've been saying this for years. (Like our back and forth in Post #2,755 of The Trinity Can Now Be Discussed.) Scripture is equivocal on the subject. One can marshal verses on both sides...

The legal system handles lawsuits involving inconsistent documents all the time.

Gen. 2:2a in the Masoretic Text states that God completed His work on the seventh day, while the Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX has Him completing work on the sixth day. Whether these sources substituted “sixth” in order to resolve the obvious problem of God completing his work...

Why? Can't we live with some Scriptural inconsistency? It doesn't trouble me. Does it trouble you?

My word isn't a "someone" at all. But it IS something "other" than me. It is a verbalization I use to communicate, but it isn't "me." I'd still be "me" if I were mute and unable to communicate. My word emanates from me when I choose to verbalize. If you want to call that "always with" me...