Search results

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.

Nope: 1. The Gentile believers didn't know the Law but were "doers of the Law", destroying your entire thesis 2. The Law contains concessions which are not reflective of Gods will.

If you're disagreeing with something I've said, please quote it, and show me how it is wrong in context.

OK please don't "share" here. You can make your own thread if you just want to "share". If you're not engaging with material, agreeing or disagreeing, you're not part of the discussion, so please do not "share". You, in particular, are notorious for that--you are an admitted "anarchist", so your...

I would prefer if you would quote something I've stated, and reply to it, so I know exactly what you are objecting to. I never denied we are to bear fruit, so this is not an objection. The thing I'm saying is we abide (1 Jn 2:28, 3:23,24) and continue being supplied with the Spirit which is...

I agree. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Adam didn't earn anything, but lost it--and he lost it through idolatry, the same thing that draws "little children" from abiding in Christ today (1 Jn 2:28, 5:21). This idea that "because something is a gift, you can't lose it" has neither logical nor Scriptural foundations. People lose gifts...

You gotta double check the Greek: it doesn't say "whoever comes to Me", as if it refers to a single instance of it, but whoever IS COMING TO ME, which bespeaks the "abiding" requisite. Those who belong to the Father, whom He sends to Jesus, are those who are "of the truth" (Jn 18). Which...