Search results

Nope, those who get blotted out, bc they don't remain in Him, bc they don't obey Him, aren't remembered (Ez 3:20). Nope, or else there wouldn't be branches that get thrown in the fire (Jn 15)--and the grafted in Gentiles wouldn't have been told they can be cut off for unbelief (Ro 11).

Nope, only those who remain in Him, by, continually obeying Him, receive the eternal life / Spirit that is only located in Him (1 Jn 2:28, 3:23,24, 5;11, 21).

I don't know how you think you're being helpful when you throw your fecal matter at me. I can only conclude you're not actually trying to help me, contrary to what your words--that you're mature, and spiritually enlightened, etc, etc--would have everyone believe.

Prove it. This is the place for it. It's called a discussion. It's not helpful to anyone that you make empty claims, like a zoo animal throwing your feces around. Just make your point from Scripture. I'm waiting. Being born of God is irrelevant, since we are required to abide, and many don't...

So, according to you, contrary to Scripture, a branch doesn't need to abide in the Vine, and it is all right if it gets thrown in the fire. Interesting. I wouldn't direct anyone to NOT abide, and be destined for the fire, but "to each his own". So glad women aren't permitted to teach men...

You seem interested in this topic--again, you may want to make a thread for it, bc, as you already know, it's not the topic.

You should make your own thread about it--you've raised this topic several times already.

You need to stick to the topic. Just make your argument from Scripture. Personal attacks don't help anyone. If you have answers, share them. The fact is you don't have answers, so you're frustrated and you lash out. If you really were humble you would understand this, and not do what you're doing.

I've already addressed this argument: the eternal life is only in His Son (1 Jn 5:11), thus it makes sense that only those who remain in Him (by obeying His twofold law of faith) receive the eternal life/spirit (1 Jn 3:23, 24).

I'm not going to bother, since this isn't Peterlag's thread. You can address the OP if you please. If not, not interested.

I've fasted from food, but drank water. I've fasted from food and water, also.

Because you're ridiculous to me. You keep thinking you're going to make a point against what is clearly taught in Scripture in so many ways. The Bible doesn't say we don't have to keep the Law, it says we're not under the Law--we actually ARE required to keep the righteous requirement of the...

You really don't know anything--every reader can see your lies being debunked in every interaction.

I don't take heed to anything you say. I know what the truth is--you know nothing.

Lol what other Law was Christ supposed to have been born under?

Lol 1. You have no answer for my reasoning I already provided you with. 2. Paul says he's not under the Law, but that he becomes as those under Law when he preaches to them for their sake (1 Co 9:19+).

@mailmandan I don't agree with the arguments you use to arrive at the trust, but the trust itself is not wrong.

The two (bearing fruit and keeping salvation) aren't mutually exclusive. It is technically true that if people don't eat they will die, but, under normal circumstances, people don't sit down to eat thinking they're saving themselves from death--and Jesus says His food is to do God's will. In...

Amen.

I was going to entertain this, but I'm not really interested in unraveling and disproving all of your misconceptions and incorrect definitions--not to say that you don't know God, since He says we know Him because He is merciful, not because we have perfect doctrine (Jer 31:34)--so, carry on.