Search results

Romans 2:6-16, 26, 27, as I have stated many times already.

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why. Don't start a dozens-of-comments-long "high five comments" chain reaction, which suppresses the discussion, because all people see is "I agree! Oh yes brother amen! I agree!" rather than actual careful treatment of the material I...

The Gentile believers are "doers of the Law", though they don't know the Law, because the Law is written on their hearts by the Spirit, which is the promise of the New Covenant (Jer 31).

Already answered this: the Gentile believers were "doers of the Law" who would be "justified" and "repaid eternal life" even though they "do not have the Law".

You are not here to start a long chain of "oh amen I agree with you" with others you agree with, which is a suppression of MY discussion, because people are not going to see a careful treatment of the material I set forth, you are here to quote something I said, and agree or disagree with it...

This is what you always devolve into: "he doesn't agree with me because he's not born again". This is not what a discussions involves. A discussion would consist in quoting something I said that you disagreed with, then proving why what I said was incorrect from the immediate context, then...

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why. Don't start a dozens-of-comments-long "high five comments" chain reaction, which suppresses the discussion, because all people see is "I agree with you when you disagree with the OP" rather than actual careful treatment of the material.

Here we go with the dozens of comments long "Oh, I agree!" "Oh I agree!" "Oh I agree!" "Oh I agree!" derailment of my thread.

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why. Don't start a dozens-of-comments-long "high five comments" chain reaction, which suppresses the discussion, because all people see is "I agree with you when you disagree with the OP" rather than actual careful treatment of the material.

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why.

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why.

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why, don't start a dozens-of-comments-long "high five" chain reaction preaching to your choir, which functions to suppress the discussion, not move it forward.

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why, don't start a dozens-of-comments-long "high five" chain reaction preaching to your choir.

Quote something I said, then agree or disagree, explaining why, don't start a dozens-of-comments-long "high five" chain reaction preaching to your choir.

You have been trying to raise the issue of regenerate and unregenerate for a long time. Now, you're bouncing a ball back and forth of preaching to your choir, those who already agree with you, which is going to do nothing but result in dozens of more off topic "high five" comments, which do...

Quote something I said, and show why it is wrong. You said "this is not aimed at anyone", so you're raising your own topic, not replying to what I said, by your own admission.

Stop "preaching to be choir", raising topics of your own. Stop derailing the discussion. This is not your discussion. If you want to disagree, the select something I've said and disagree. I don't need you FLOODING my discussion, bouncing your empty rhetorical agreements with one another back...

Stop raising topics of your own.

1. The point that was made was that "heart conditions change" AS A RESPONSE to a point another user made. That was the discussion. The fact that some remained in sin was not relevant. 2. You are conspicuous for causing disorder, so I'm telling you at the outset not to do it. I already have had...

Already did--when I said "I noticed you didn't respond", I was saying that because your reply didn't address the examples of how the Law contains concessions.