Search results

1 John 3:23,24 states that we are given the Spirit if we abide in Him, and abiding in Him hinges upon obeying His commands, and it details what His commands are: 1) believe in the Name of God's Son and 2) love one another. We also know that not all abide in Him--eg, the "little children" are...

Since you have placed me on ignore, according to your private message you went out of your way to send to me to let me know you put me on ignore, you are not addressing the topic (which would require you addressing me), so, I would ask that you start your own thread and hold a discussion there...

As you can see, if you read through what has ensued, the users didn't care to listen to what you said; instead, they FLOODED my discussion with dozens of empty or tangential "oh yes, brother" "amen, brother" "yes, i agree, brother", bouncing their pointless congratulations to one another, but...

Yeah, in a previous thread, you, together with many other users, started a very long, and very empty, "high five" and "preaching to the choir" chain of posting images and gifs of beating a dead horse, of beating a dog, which was supposedly an explanation for why I disagreed--"he doesn't have...

@Eternally Grateful and @Ritajanice If you want to preach to one another, and high five one another, go open your own thread, and do it there, but DO NOT BURY my material on my thread.

You've definitely FLOODED my discussion with tangential inanity, but what you have not done is specifically responded to me. There are now PAGES of you two just FLOODING my thread with "high fiving" and preaching to one another, not making specific responses to claims I've made.

What this discussion does NOT need is you FLOODING it, SUPPRESSING it, with endless "preaching to the choir" and "high five" comments.

Yeah, you quoted Romans 8 where it says the carnally minded cannot please God--the same thing you did in another thread, saying that people who do not have the Spirit don't accept things of the Spirit, and that that explained why I disagreed.

It's not relevant. It is tangential. The reason you get off on tangents is because you refuse to quote what I've stated, and show why it is wrong. Instead, you generalize and flood my thread with what ever tangential material you want. Quote what I've stated, then show why I have gotten it wrong.

You need to cite something I've stated, then agree or disagree with it. It isn't a general question about eternal life, it is a very specific claim.

@Rita Here this individual devolves once again into "anyone who disagrees with me doesn't have the Holy Spirit" instead of quoting what I've stated and interacting with that material. Instead, they devolve into "so-and-so is not spiritual, amen, yes brother, amen, yes brother, amen, i agree...

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...

As already stated, because the Promise of the New Covenant is God will write His Law on the heart of the partaker of the New Covenant by His Spirit.

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.