Search results

How is it, if your perception of John's teaching is correct, that Jesus tells the parable of the unforgiving steward in Matthew 18? The one who is forgiven his debt is a believer, born again, but he sins by not forgiving his fellow servant, and the King "unforgives" him, and sends him to hell...

Irrelevant hysteria. Go to the proofs I shared and address them.

I've already provided the reasons why I believe that people CAN be "unborn again"--you are free to answer when you please, not just give empty hysterical incoherent ravings.

Matthew 18 was cited. The one who is forgiven his debt is a believer, born again, but he sins by not forgiving his fellow servant, and the King "unforgives" him, and sends him to hell. He's no longer forgiven because he's not in Christ and only those in Christ are children of God (Galatians 3...

Again, you're assuming someone "born again" cannot become "unborn again", but I've debunked that, and you're welcome to address my proofs when you please.

"Cop out"? No, actually, it is yourself who has copped out from the get-go, raising irrelevant ignorance, and not addressing the passages cited.

Your argument is "the one who is a child of God can never not be a child of God"--I've debunked that as a service to you and the readers.

You have succeeded at making the thread about what it was not meant to be about. You did not decide to argue that Romans 14:23 didn't refer to a believer, you went another route--the long route to being debunked instead of the short route.

Your entire argument relies on the invalid assumption that 'if you're born of God you can never be unborn of God"--the assumption has been debunked both in the theoretical realm, and in the practical (eg, Jesus "doesn't know" Christians can't sin (Mt 18), nor that they can sin and be "unborn of...

Yeah, you have: when you say those born of God don't sin, you're contradicting Romans 14:23, 1 Corinthians, where he is continuously rebuking the Church for sinning, Revelation 2 and 3, where Christ rebukes sin in the Church. No, it says because the Seed remains in him--to abide in Christ is by...

1. When you contradict Scripture using Scripture, that is proof you're misunderstanding Scripture. The reason I didn't pursue it is because now you're going to have to go back and prove, from the context of Romans 14:23, that the person spoken of as having sinned is not a believer--ie, the same...

Everyone who makes assertions here claims it is what "God's Word" says. You say "this is what God's Word says", and I say "this is what God's Word says". The difference comes down to whether people are going to believe that what ever we claim has made more sense of the Scripture.

Everyone who makes an argument here is claiming it is what "God's Word" says. We'll see if anyone finds what you claim "God's Word" says convincing.

OK Everyone can read your reply. The question posed has been as to how to reconcile Romans 8:1, which states there is no condemnation for those in Christ, with Romans 14:23, which states that the believer who sins is "condemned"; your answer is that believers never sin. OK We'll see if anyone...

All right. You've provided your "answer". We'll see if anyone believes it. Thanks for interacting.

Quote Romans 14:23 and explain where I've gone wrong.

You have nowhere addressed Romans 14:23. Please quote Romans 14:23 and explain why the believer who sins is condemned when there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

No, you didn't address Romans 14:23.

Yeah, so, again, we're back to square one: why is the believer who sins "condemned" (Romans 14:23) when there's no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1)?

Everything I've said is in Scripture. Romans 8:1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 14:23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.