Search results

All right, I'll let the readers decide which of us they believe. Talk later.

Just reading Romans 2 in context, then magnifying Romans 2:29 for you. I guess that went over your head, too. That was Paul--you were boasting about your knowledge of Pauline Scriptures and your ability to "beat" me at Pauline Scriptures...

The bottom line was the guy was arguing without knowing what he was arguing against. If you "play devil's advocate" that's different.

LOL

Read the OP before responding. You don't know what you're responding to.

1. Really? Which Scripture is "Your boasting is not good."? 2. Paul was affirming the Gentile believers by saying though they don't have the "pedigree", the "written code", or the "physical circumcision", they did have the Law "written on the heart", and that they were "circumcised in the heart...

It's quite odd.

Well, to be clear, I don't think the user in question is OSAS.

Well, I'm glad you agree with me. That means you don't really need to reply in disagreement. However, there are many people who do disagree with me. That is why I posted this debate topic--to help others.

I have found this user to be closed off to every idea he has not uttered. He is in "attack" mode--this thread is "Exhibit A".

You're just disagreeing with Paul. You went from ignoring what I've stated is my point to ignoring what Paul has stated is his point. Actually try READING Romans 2 before responding to it. The whole argument is that they aren't going to be justified just because they have a) a pedigree b) the...

If the word "under" means condemned by then the phrase "under Grace" must mean condemned by Grace.

1a. Yeah, it's pretty hard to get someone's point... when you haven't read what they've said. 1b. Wrangler got my point loud and clear because he read whereas you erred and did not. 2. Yes, it was a question; there are still many people today who affirm both Jewish and Gentile Christians must...

Actually, Wrangler had no issue finding my point. Why? Because he actually read what I said before responding to it. He says he enjoyed the OP.

1. You don't get to define the topic. The topic was defined for you; you are off-topic if you are raising that point. 2. You have been responding as if I believed Christians were under Law... because you tried responding without reading. Just humble yourself and admit you erred. This is perhaps...

I am absolutely flabberghasted. It was accidental. I wasn't trying to be smart and "catch" people.

Really? I argued that when a Jew believes in Jesus he no longer has an obligation to serve by the Law. By not mentioning the Gentile believer I invoked the question, "What about Gentiles"--I planned to answer "Gentiles were never under Law." I argued that this was a normative Pharisaic doctrine...

Hope you enjoy the OP.

Because you all erred in the same way: you haven't read the OP.

I made it clear from the very start. Read the OP instead of responding without reading the OP.