Search results

Post 51 has nothing to do with post 42, outside of your assertion, and nothing whatsoever to do with my post 45. It’s clear that you didn’t read my post, but only threw c**p at it because I wrote it. Get your head sorted and your attitude fixed.

Substube… is that anything like YouTube?

Your dismissal has no biblical basis so all you can do is throw shade.

Actually, the unsaved commonly demonstrate behaviour and belief consistent with the fruit of the Spirit. That’s why the fruit, by itself, is not an adequate indicator of salvation. Confession and fruit must go together.

Biblical, saving faith is clearly defined in Hebrews 11:1. Surrender to the Lordship of Jesus is not part of the definition. A whole biblically sound theology of the Christian faith (“religion”) incorporates the concept of Lordship. Clarity of terminology is important when addressing the...

"Spirit of these groups"? If you mean attitude, certainly there are those about with attitudes like those of the Pharisees: that others should live up to their particular interpretations of Scripture. The interpretations are typically moralistic if not legalistic, and more concerned with...

Quote even ONE Christian who says that.

And? How does that inform your view of the old and new covenants?

The citizens of the kingdom of God are not subject to the Law of the nation of Israel, any more than the citizens of the kingdom of Sweden are subject to the Law of the United States.

Your explanation is interpretation, not Scripture.

I have tried explaining things to you. You have demonstrated that you are unteachable. Now I am content to point out your errors so that others are not misled.

Yet you insist on ignoring Scripture in Hebrews 8.

You’re welcome to your opinion. I’ll stick with what Scripture says.

Again, you misrepresent. You get scolded for your confusion of the old covenant and the new covenant. Nobody is "complaining and grousing" about the teachings of Christ, and nobody is saying it's wrong to thank the Lord.

I quote Scripture where appropriate to do so, as you can see in other threads. Where I can refute your assertions on the basis of logic or other means, I do so, and Scripture is either not needed or inappropriate to the task at hand.

As usual, I'm not disagreeing with Scripture at all, but with your erroneous misinterpretation thereof. That you can't comprehend the distinction is a "you" problem.

I agree that the Law is moral AND civil AND ceremonial, but I know that there is no Scripture that either delineates divisions between them or defines any of them as such. It is one Law. You break any ordinance thereof, and you have broken the Law. It's really very simple, and people just want...

I have never come across an explanation of “these last days” referring to nearly 2,000 years of history that doesn’t stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. That’s longer than the entire history of Israel from Abraham to Jesus. It makes far more sense to me that “these last days” refers...

If you are in debt, you don’t have an arrangement to pay that debt (such as with a car loan or mortgage), and you give to the poor, you are stealing from your creditors. Even with arranged debt repayments, it is still wise to pay them off asap.

Yes, and the part it plays is as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Once it has done that, its work is complete, and abiding by it instead of walking by the Spirit is actually going backwards, contrary to God's will. As Paul wrote to the Galatians, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now...