Sure. Just more excuses and dodging. I thought you had to get to your devotions. Or was that just another dodge too?There are things from scripture that support what I believe in, but this thread is long and drawn out enough as it is!
I'm having much more fun reading Scripture every day.You would have to read my doctrinal statement to see how it all works out in my mind. Again it is Freedom from Sin: Overcominv the Wet Paint Principle (the complete version): in the hamartiology section of general theology on these boards.
Give me a dissertation of what you believe in in the next day, even though you may have other things to do. If you don't, you're just making excuses!I asked this:
"Gee, how unclear. So please explain the verse and show how there is ANY contradiction with my view. If you're able."
Yeah, sure. The go to answer when one doesn't have an answer. Not now; maybe later.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Sure. Excuses.
52.I'm having much more fun reading Scripture every day.
How many times in a year do you read through all the epistles?
I still want to finish up here. But I also have a church meeting to go to tonight.Sure. Just more excuses and dodging. I thought you had to get to your devotions. Or was that just another dodge too?
Go ahead and don't read it. It's obvious you don't want to understand where I'm coming from.I'm having much more fun reading Scripture every day.
How many times in a year do you read through all the epistles?
OK, went there. The OP comes from one Victor Jedidiah, and is a mess, to be frank.You would have to read my doctrinal statement to see how it all works out in my mind. Again it is Freedom from Sin: Overcominv the Wet Paint Principle (the complete version): in the hamartiology section of general theology on these boards.
I see. More excuses.Give me a dissertation of what you believe in in the next day, even though you may have other things to do. If you don't, you're just making excuses!
Are you claiming you read through Romans - Revelation every week? Remember, I said READ THROUGH. That means every verse in every epistle.
You got that wrong. I do understand where you're coming from and I strongly reject it.Go ahead and don't read it. It's obvious you don't want to understand where I'm coming from.
As I said, every time one comes to "save" in the Bible, the question that must be asked is: saved...from what?
btw, who is Victor Jedidiah and how come an internet search comes up with nothing?Go ahead and don't read it. It's obvious you don't want to understand where I'm coming from.
This shows an incredible naivety. More than half of the uses of the word refers to temporal dangers as what's being saved from.The term saved by itself without any other reference to refer to is referring to salvation. Anyone who knows the scriptures knows this. Including you.
This shows an incredible naivety. More than half of the uses of the word refers to temporal dangers as what's being saved from.
It's this kind of carelessness (failure to rightly divide) that gets people in trouble when reading the Bible.
Your qustions are stupid. They do not earn a reply.
This is what I said that your "reply" is in response to:
"Why would anyone think either of our natures is physical? Your questions do reveal a serious lack understanding either the sinful nature or the new nature.
What is your view regarding each nature?"
I already noted that neither of our 2 natures were physical, so you come back with the ridiculous cardboard thing.
But what I did learn from your "response" is that you have no clue about either nature, or the conflict between them.
Each nature resides in an immaterial part of our being. The sin nature is in our soul, and the new nature is in our human spirit, which is what Jesus was referring to when He told the woman at the well that in order to worship God one must worship in "spirit and in truth". iow, one must be born again AND worship according to God's requirements.
I also doubt that you even understand what the Lord meant when He told Adam and the woman about the forbidden fruit; that in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.
What we know is that Adam lived over 900 years after that. So, something did die that day, or the Lord was simply wrong. And I won't ever accept that nonsense.
I believe what died was Adam's human spirit, which resulted in his inability to properly worship God, which is why he hid.
So, what specifically is born again, or regenerated? The human spirit, of course.
So, the new nature resides in the immaterial human spirit.
There. Now you know more than you did. But I suspect all this deeper doctrine may be giving you a headache, so I'll stop there. Don't want to overload your circuits.
This is just another huge assumption that being "cut off" means removing salvation. But this opinion cannot be supported from Scripture, so it remains just an assumption. Maybe even just a presumption.
Do you not know that being cut from God, is being cut off from the source of life?
It seems the clear words of Scripture don't mean much to some. The word "everlasting" says it all. But one is free to deny reality if they want to.
This shows an incredible naivety. More than half of the uses of the word refers to temporal dangers as what's being saved from.
It's this kind of carelessness (failure to rightly divide) that gets people in trouble when reading the Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?