Search results

That's not what it says. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. It says the natural man cannot receive or know them. It says nothing of believe. The context also...

Given that faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, I have a question for you: In whom does the Holy Spirit produce faith? If in Jesus, then your position is valid. If in the believer then my position is valid, and you have been arguing against the truth.

To the bolded part: no such Scripture exists. Even the oft-quoted "spare the rod and spoil the child" may be reinterpreted in the light of another verse that says, "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."

I'm not concerned about whether Jesus drank alcoholic wine. I am concerned that anyone is taking Steven Anderson seriously.

Did I claim credit for anything? No. Maybe you should stop reading what isn’t written.

Again, you attempt to put words in my mouth. I see no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who refuses to be respectful. I will only tell you repeatedly that you are wrong.

Did I say anything about the unregenerate? No. Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't need to present evidence to bolster your assertion. You failed completely to answer my challenge. I didn't say anything about raquia; I addressed the word firmament. You sidestepped it. Either you did so deliberately, or you really don't know the issues. Yawn.

True; I agree with you here. Agreed. You have missed the context of this passage and thereby misapplied it. God said this in response to people who refuse to listen to His truth, not to those who sought to learn it. While reading from verse 1 helps, verse 13 illustrates this clearly: 13 But...

With respect, your premise is flawed in several ways. Firstly, there is one nation with which God made a covenant; God did not make "covenants" (plural) with "nations" (plural). Secondly, God's nature does not change, but His methods do change. We can see this in the consequences resulting...

Actually, it doesn't, because neither the sentence structure nor the context permit that conclusion. Nowhere in the preceding 30 verses does "the faith of Christ" appear. Let's see what chapter 1 does say: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In...

Did I say anything about "opposed"? No; that's your word, again. Hogwash and codswollop. I see no point in pitting one verse against another. We must take the totality of Scripture on the matter.

Did I say that? No. Don't put words in my mouth. Fallacy: Red herring. Did I say that? No. Don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I know. Those are your words, not the words of Scripture. I already have the answer: we are saved through our faith in the person and finished work...

I responded to the OP with an abundance of Scripture. I respond to respectful discussion. I resist disrespectful dismissal.

Hogwash and codswollop.

You seem to want to argue instead of discussing. I’m not interested.

A lot of people "experience" signs because they are connected to the Spirit... no counterfeits needed.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but you seem to be conflating our faith in Jesus with works of the law. Paul stated clearly that we are not justified by works of the law... full stop. He does not say that we are not justified by our faith in Jesus. It appears that you read your conclusion in...

Thanks; I appreciate the textual background.

Those words were spoken while Jesus was on the cross, but before He died... Luke 23 (NIV): Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other...