Search results

I understand you’re asking about civil law. But Christians cannot separate legality from God’s Law or God’s judgment. We can’t answer the civil question without acknowledging the moral and spiritual reality behind it.

When you say you’re “not talking about the sin aspect or the Lord's judgment” but only about the legality of murder, I understand the distinction you’re trying to make. But for Christians, the moral and the legal can’t be separated that sharply. God’s Law existed before any human legal system...

When you say you “couldn't care less” about why someone commits an act of disobedience or sin, I understand the emotional reaction — especially with something as horrific as abortion or murder. But if God judged that way, none of us would go to Heaven. Scripture is clear that God judges not only...

I believe Scripture teaches two truths at the same time: All grave acts — including the taking of innocent life — are objectively evil, and Only God can judge the interior state of any particular soul. Throughout Scripture, God shows that disobedience to His Law is always an offense, but the...

Sure — here’s the refresh, stated as simply as possible. In John’s Gospel, “water and Spirit” is a single reality of supernatural rebirth. “Water” refers to the cleansing and renewal God gives, and “Spirit” refers to the divine life God imparts. It is one rebirth with two inseparable aspects...

In the first sentence of your reply you’ve actually conceded the decisive point: Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about physical birth. That means the dialogue begins with a literal misunderstanding about natural birth, not about repentance, covenant effort, or Old Testament typology. Jesus’s...

I did read your whole post and I addressed your claims point‑by‑point using Scripture. You say you “disagree” and that you used Scripture, but you still haven’t shown where any specific part of my reasoning fails. If you believe I twisted or added something, quote the exact sentence and explain...

If you think the argument is wrong, then show where the reasoning fails. Simply calling it “boring” doesn’t refute anything I wrote. I addressed your claims point‑by‑point using Scripture — Luke’s prologue, Acts, John 21:25, and the nature of ancient biography. If you want to continue the...

Your only quoting “to turn from the holy commandment” is an attempt to escape the force of 2 Peter 2 by redefining the people Peter is talking about, but the text itself refuses that escape route. Peter explicitly describes individuals who truly “escaped the pollutions of the world through the...

I’m using Johannine categories, not the later “spirit vs. soul” distinction. John never divides the human person that way. In John 3, “born of the Spirit” refers to the origin of the new life — it comes from the Holy Spirit — not to a specific component of the human person being regenerated...

You keep calling me a Calvinist, but I haven’t argued a single point of Calvinism. I’ve quoted Jesus, Paul, and Hebrews. Perseverance is not “TULIP”; it’s the teaching of Scripture and the historic Christian Church. Labeling me a Calvinist doesn’t answer the passages I cited, and it doesn’t make...

You did make arguments — several of them. You asserted that salvation is a one‑time irreversible event, that perseverance is man‑made, that real believers cannot fall away, that biblical warnings do not apply to Christians, and that opposing your view is "cult doctrine." Those are theological...

Your entire argument rests on a premise the New Testament never teaches: that salvation is a one‑time transaction guaranteeing automatic entrance into Heaven. Scripture consistently rejects that idea. 1. Jesus Himself teaches future, conditional salvation You call perseverance “carnal baby...

The New Testament never treats salvation as a one‑time transaction guaranteeing automatic entrance into Heaven; it presents a dynamic life of grace that must be faithfully lived to the end. Jesus Himself locates final salvation in future perseverance — “he who perseveres to the end will be...

Appealing to “the entire Bible” doesn’t solve the problem here, because the issue isn’t whether Paul or Luke teach something true — the issue is that you’re letting Paul and Luke override John’s own categories. Appealing to Paul and Luke cannot redefine John’s symbols, because John explains his...

You’re importing categories into John that John himself never uses. John never equates “water” with repentance, and he never equates “flesh” with covenantal law‑keeping. In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently refers to cleansing or life, and “flesh” consistently refers to natural, physical...

I wasn’t saying only the soul is born again. In John 3 the “soul” means the whole interior person. John doesn’t divide the human person into “spirit vs. soul” the way Paul sometimes does. Jesus’s contrast is between natural life (“flesh”) and supernatural life (“Spirit”). You can see this...

Peace and the Holy Spirit be with you.

John never uses “water” as a metonym for repentance. In John’s Gospel, “water” consistently refers to cleansing or life, not to moral reform or law‑keeping. And in John 3, Jesus does not say “born of water is repentance” — He pairs “water and Spirit” together as the single reality of...

John 3:6 does say that. Jesus defines His own terms: “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit.” The contrast He gives is between what human nature can generate (natural birth) and what only God can generate (supernatural birth). Nothing in the passage...