 |
You're cherry-picking again. You forgot to include the part that says it's "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
To personalize Eph. 2:8,9: "For by grace am I saved through faith. And this is not my own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, lest I boast."
I cannot on my own by my own power accept God's gift of salvation; the only power I have is to refuse it.
When this started, unbelievers meant unbelievers. Not able to get out of that corner you worked yourself into, you came up with "all" meaning everyone who ever lived and/or sinned, before and after Jesus. Naturally, you found some verses that fit. Do you seriously believe that the writer of that verse literally meant everyone who ever lived and all of whom the writer decided were sinners?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's hard to know what to say to you. You have thrown away your reasoning powers to give a slavish interpretation of a verse from the Bible. It was obvious all along that you were a Bible literalist but I truly thought that an exposure to a simple truth would show you that truth.
I'm disappointed that you finagled your way out of the obvious. By changing in midstream, what you did was underhanded and deceitful. I've learned over the years that born-agains tend to be low on ethics but obsessed on belief. Right belief excuses all behavior.
I am truly sorry you cannot see the truth. To be blinded by an inherited unexamined belief is sad, indeed.
Yet you were previously - I guess you forgot.Quote:
I am not aware if the Bible directly addresses the issue of newborns
You've just put a hole in your house of cards. What other exceptions are possible?Quote:
but it would seem reasonable that they are incapable of sin until some later period in life.
My view is that it refers to corrective punishment, not eternal punishment. Near unanimous? How could you possibly know that?Quote:
I still want to know your view of the near unanimous rejection in Bible translations of your view of aionios.
What is it about you guys and answering questions? Why so fearful?Quote:
You're cherry-picking again. You forgot to include the part that says it's "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone."
To personalize Eph. 2:8,9: "For by grace am I saved through faith. And this is not my own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, lest I boast."
I cannot on my own by my own power accept God's gift of salvation; the only power I have is to refuse it.
Your conclusion at the end is not warranted by your two scriptures. One refers to "those who believe." The other does not appear to be a quote at all, but rather you personalizing the Ephesians passage. None the less, it does not necessarily lead to your conclusion that a person does not have the power in and of themselves to accept the gift of salvation. But since you have professed to believe that, then I assume you are a Calvinist?
At any rate, what does any of that have to do with Matthew 25, and why is it that you cannot answer a very simple question without getting all bent out of shape and accusing me of cherry picking?
1. Concerning the Romans and Isaiah passages about all have sinned, are you contending that there are some who have not sinned?Quote:
When this started, unbelievers meant unbelievers. Not able to get out of that corner you worked yourself into, you came up with "all" meaning everyone who ever lived and/or sinned, before and after Jesus. Naturally, you found some verses that fit. Do you seriously believe that the writer of that verse literally meant everyone who ever lived and all of whom the writer decided were sinners?
It's hard to know what to say to you. You have thrown away your reasoning powers to give a slavish interpretation of a verse from the Bible. It was obvious all along that you were a Bible literalist but I truly thought that an exposure to a simple truth would show you that truth.
I'm disappointed that you finagled your way out of the obvious. By changing in midstream, what you did was underhanded and deceitful. I've learned over the years that born-agains tend to be low on ethics but obsessed on belief. Right belief excuses all behavior.
I am truly sorry you cannot see the truth. To be blinded by an inherited unexamined belief is sad, indeed.
2. I have changed nothing in midstream. The problem here is that you seem to get scared and drop out for long periods. By the time you come back you have forgotten most of what has already been written. I am saying now what I have said all along. God judges sinners and anyone outside of faith in Christ will bear their judgement.
3. You come back with a very weak stand on Matthew 25 that has been blown away and you appear too fearful to answer questions about your position. I guess I can understand that. If I had tried to advance that argument, I'd be afraid too.
4. The rest of your statement is a vague discourse on nothing in particular.
Just in case you are ready to put on your big boy britches and step up to the plate, here are the questions again. So far in this "discussion", I have to do all your answering for you.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
What is it about you that you can't answer a simple question? That it took you months to be clear about it. Why so fearful?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Perhaps the exception is when it comes from someone so fearful as you?
Once again.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
I am contending that it is impossible for anyone to know who has or hasn't sinned among all humanity before and after Jesus. If you were honest, you would agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Of course you have. You went from "unbelievers" which had been carefully defined as unbelief in Jesus to "sinners" - a different word. You of course will say the one means the other, but nobody who knows the language will agree with you.Quote:
2. I have changed nothing in midstream.
You did NOT say that in the beginning. The sinner business came later. And you know damn well it did.Quote:
I am saying now what I have said all along. God judges sinners and anyone outside of faith in Christ will bear their judgement.
Give it up, you've lost all credibility.
You ever meet that person, let me know. I think I'll take Paul's and Isaiah's statement on the matter over your's.Quote:
I am contending that it is impossible for anyone to know who has or hasn't sinned among all humanity before and after Jesus. If you were honest, you would agree.
The difference is very simple for anyone paying even one ounce of attention. It is sin for which people are judged. Unbelievers, not having their sins forgiven, will face God's judgement. Very, very simple.Quote:
Of course you have. You went from "unbelievers" which had been carefully defined as unbelief in Jesus to "sinners" - a different word. You of course will say the one means the other, but nobody who knows the language will agree with you.
I'm saying what I've said all along.Quote:
You did NOT say that in the beginning. The sinner business came later. And you know damn well it did.
You must have completely lost all confidence in your Matthew 25 defense to be so utterly afraid or unable to answer even two or three questions on the matter.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's over Jl. You ended it with your admission of unbelief NOT being cause for damnation. You tried to wiggle out of it, but you got caught. Unfortunately for you, it's there in black and white for all to see as long as these pages exist. THAT you can't wiggle out of.
WG, he's all yours.
Coward. I hate saying that, but it just seems so apparently true. You need to reclaim your manhood and assert yourself. Honestly, you are completely unique. I have never met anyone so fearful in his/her refusal to simply answer questions. It's mystifying to me. Hopefully you will someday prove me wrong.
You must have completely lost all confidence in your Matthew 25 defense to be so utterly afraid or unable to answer even two or three questions on the matter.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
That's why it's a new paragraph. It's my own statement (not part of a Bible verse) that we cannot accept Christ on our own. That work is done by the Holy Spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
See my comment above. And no, I am not a Calvinist.Quote:
None the less, it does not necessarily lead to your conclusion that a person does not have the power in and of themselves to accept the gift of salvation. But since you have professed to believe that, then I assume you are a Calvinist?
If you'd stop insulting and shaming me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I won't accuse you of cherry-picking (unless you do).Quote:
At any rate, what does any of that have to do with Matthew 25, and why is it that you cannot answer a very simple question without getting all bent out of shape and accusing me of cherry picking?
Okay. I'll quit here and let you and Athos continue. Ooops, just read Athos' post. Guess we're both finished with this thread.
OK. Fair enough, but then I don't understand your purpose in quoting your two passages and then reaching a conclusion with no supporting scripture. Very strange.Quote:
That's why it's a new paragraph. It's my own statement that we cannot accept Christ on our own. That work is done by the Holy Spirit.
I'm not shaming you, but you have to admit that you absolutely refuse to answer the most simple questions and that makes you appear evasive or fearful. Pressing for answers is not shaming. Asking someone to support their arguments is not shaming. It's the way grown-ups do things.Quote:
If you'd stop insulting and shaming me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I won't accuse you of cherry-picking (unless you do).
Athos is toast. He's as resolute to not answer questions as you are. It's genuinely a perplexing mystery to me. I'm not accustomed to trying to discuss issues with people who refuse to answer questions. I'm amazed. There can be no genuine discussion with that factor.Quote:
Okay. I'll quit here and let you and Athos continue.
Hey, WG. He won't answer questions. Maybe you'll take a shot at them.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
See! There you go again with the shaming!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What questions haven't I answered?
There is my reply to your post with two questions.Quote:
WG, you say you were taught that. Do you believe it? Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?
1. Do you believe the Romans 1:16 passage?
2. Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?
Your reply centered around the idea that I was cherry picking.
I'll add a third. In what way do you think I'm shaming you? I don't see it.
You said to me, "It's the way grown-ups do things."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's shaming.
My apologies. It was not meant to be.Quote:
You said to me, "It's the way grown-ups do things."
That's shaming.
Now as to some answers???
Thank you. Now please don't do it again -- to ANYone on this board.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm watching the debate. I probably won't add anything more until tomorrow.
Oh well. As I said, amazing. There is no debate. There is just a largely useless exchange, or more accurately blathering, of meaningless words. With only one person (me) prepared to be open and honest enough to answer questions, there can really be no debate.
Frankly, I'm very disappointed with you. I expected more.
I'm talking about the Democratic debate on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What I believe:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.
Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.
***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Why only the clause?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Forget it. I'm really not surprised, but still disappointed.
Jl, to use your style of discussion - you're a pathetic loser. WG is running rings around you and all you do is insult her. You lie and dissemble just like your hero Trump. Yes, imitation is flattery - how well you are proving that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You love to toss out insults, but to be real clear about you, there is still this.Quote:
Jl, to use your style of discussion - you're a pathetic loser. WG is running rings around you and all you do is insult her. You lie and dissemble just like your hero Trump. Yes, imitation is flattery - how well you are proving that.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
I would say that all liberals seem to be afraid to answer questions, but that would include Tal, and Tal has the courage to answer questions. I don't always agree with his answers, but at least he, unlike you, is willing.
BTW, I have not insulted WG. I have challenged her, like you, to answer some questions, and you are both completely unwilling, but insults? Nope.
Well, you've got the "T" in TULIP down pat.Quote:
What I believe:
It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.
Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.
***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Let me be perfectly clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You lost all credibility by substituting "sinners" for "unbelievers" (and conflating the two words). You are blinded by your inability to interpret your own Bible even quoting the Catholic Church catechism to bolster your position - a quotation that was irrelevant to the discussion and which you later backtracked by claiming you didn't care anything about the Catholic Church (or words to that effect).
You then denied your original position - which has morphed into a position equally nonsensical. According to you, you claim that, say, an aborigine living in Australia 20,000 years ago was a sinner condemned to eternal punishment in hell simply because he didn't accept a Jesus he never heard of and who didn't even exist then. Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously with that bizarre claim?
Then, making matters worse for you, you attempt to justify/prove the claim by offering Bible verses. All you have done is prove, like the marginal Christian sect to which you belong, that an accurate reading of the Bible is way beyond your skill set (amateur).
You should have quit when this ended yesterday, but you came back for more - like a drowning man gasping for breath. Continue to post all your diversions, questions, and foolishness from your self-appointed pulpit, but the pews are empty.
I answered two of your questions to me and asked for clarification on the third question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As for your insults, here's another one from you: "Well, you've got the 'T' in TULIP down pat." You're dubbing me a Calvinist....
So do you disagree with I Cor. 12:3, "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit"? Or that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29)?
How did you get faith?
I subbed nothing. I can't help it if you are unable to read and comprehend,Quote:
You lost all credibility by substituting "sinners" for "unbelievers" (and conflating the two words).
When have I quoted the Catholic catechism?Quote:
You are blinded by your inability to interpret your own Bible even quoting the Catholic Church catechism to bolster your position - a quotation that was irrelevant to the discussion and which you later backtracked by claiming you didn't care anything about the Catholic Church (or words to that effect).
That made me laugh. Coming from the guy who told me to defend my position without using scripture, that's really rich.Quote:
Then, making matters worse for you, you attempt to justify/prove the claim by offering Bible verses. All you have done is prove, like the marginal Christian sect to which you belong, that an accurate reading of the Bible is way beyond your skill set (amateur).
I belong to no sect.
And one more time.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
Which two questions have you answered?Quote:
I answered two of your questions to me and asked for clarification on the third question.
I don't regard referring to someone as a Calvanist an insult. At any rate, when you say, "How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ," then you have the "T" down pat.Quote:
As for your insults, here's another one from you: "Well, you've got the 'T' in TULIP down pat." You're dubbing me a Calvinist....
No. I agree with it completely. However, you have, I think, misrepresented John 6:28,29 as saying that faith is what God does. The Amplified renders it, "28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?] 29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger]." So the meaning is that belief in Jesus is what God desires us to do.Quote:
So do you disagree with I Cor. 12:3, "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit"? Or that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29)?
We certainly have faith in a great many things, so I would think it likely that we all have faith sufficient for salvation. BTW, consider that to be an example of how to answer a question.
But I still want to know where you answered the question of the clause, "to everyone who believes". Or for that matter a direct answer to whether you believe the 1:16 passage you quoted. You gave a rather long, winding discourse, but never answered if you believe the Romans passage, which a simple yes or no would suffice for.
I suspect you are being evasive because you are plenty smart enough to see that if you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes", then you are acknowledging that the rich promises of the Gospel are only for those who believe, and that means, of course, that there would also be those who do not believe, and hence "unbelievers". That would put you, in your view, on the wrong side of this ongoing debate (I use the word loosely since I can't debate someone like Athos who is afraid to answer questions) and you do not want to allow that to happen. Am I on the right track?
I still think we should use the "answer a question, and then ask a question" format. I would be happy to start with a question from you, but only with the assurance that questions will be honestly and directly answered. Deal?
See #60 and #61.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
TULIP is used to explain Calvinist beliefs. Why did you throw that into this discussion?Quote:
I don't regard referring to someone as a Calvanist an insult. At any rate, when you say, "How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ," then you have the "T" down pat.
You don't agree with the "T" apparently.
So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?Quote:
However, you have, I think, misrepresented John 6:28,29 as saying that faith is what God does. The Amplified renders it, "28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?] 29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger]." So the meaning is that belief in Jesus is what God desires us to do.
We certainly have faith in a great many things, so I would think it likely that we all have faith sufficient for salvation. BTW, consider that to be an example of how to answer a question.
And your last sentence is another shaming moment.
I don't "answer" clauses, half-finished sentences.Quote:
But I still want to know where you answered the question of the clause, "to everyone who believes". Or for that matter a direct answer to whether you believe the 1:16 passage you quoted. You gave a rather long, winding discourse, but never answered if you believe the Romans passage, which a simple yes or no would suffice for.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.Quote:
I suspect you are being evasive because you are plenty smart enough to see that if you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes", then you are acknowledging that the rich promises of the Gospel are only for those who believe, and that means, of course, that there would also be those who do not believe, and hence "unbelievers". That would put you, in your view, on the wrong side of this ongoing debate (I use the word loosely since I can't debate someone like Athos who is afraid to answer questions) and you do not want to allow that to happen. Am I on the right track?
Here is 60. I asked if you believed the 1:16 passage. You gave a rambling discourse about "What I believe", but no direct answer.
Here is 61. "Why only the clause?" That's an answer? I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.Quote:
What I believe:
It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.
Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.
***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
Without the Holy Spirit's ability to open our eyes to our sinful condition and the coming judgement of sinners, and His ability to reveal Jesus as the only source of a great, overwhelming salvation, then we cannot be saved. John 16:8. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:Quote:
So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?
Oh get over yourself. I really don't mean that to be ugly, but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female, then ask for it and I'll just abandon conversations with you. If you want to be treated like a mature adult with a robust intelligence, which I certainly think is true, then get with the program and DIRECTLY answer some questions. Which do you want?Quote:
And your last sentence is another shaming moment.
You have no idea what that is supposed to mean? Honestly, I think you do. Perhaps not, but with you unable to explain why you will not answer the question about "everyone who believes", I am left to fish for reasons.
Rambling?????????Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, it's not rambling. It's my counter question to you.Quote:
Here is 61. "Why only the clause?" That's an answer? I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.
Talking about a rambling response. A simple yes or no would have sufficed!Quote:
Without the Holy Spirit's ability to open our eyes to our sinful condition and the coming judgement of sinners, and His ability to reveal Jesus as the only source of a great, overwhelming salvation, then we cannot be saved. John 16:8. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Directly -- like you do?Quote:
Oh get over yourself. I really don't mean that to be ugly, but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female, then ask for it and I'll just abandon conversations with you. If you want to be treated like a mature adult with a robust intelligence, which I certainly think is true, then get with the program and DIRECTLY answer some questions. Which do you want?
You're on quite a roll today!Quote:
You have no idea what that is supposed to mean? Honestly, I think you do. Perhaps not, but with you unable to explain why you will not answer the question about "everyone who believes", I am left to fish for reasons.
Well, you still haven't simply said whether or not you believe the 1:16 passage and I suspect you never will. You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause. I zeroed in on that clause since it has a lot to do with question of the fate of unbelievers. I doubt you will answer, however. "Evasive" is your middle name. And yes, I'm shaming you again. You should be. But perhaps you will surprise me and use that robust intelligence to actually directly answer simple questions, but I really have no hope of that happening.
You want direct? OK. Here's how it's done. Yes, it's up to us to accept the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit has an essential lot to do with it as I outlined above. Is that direct enough? See how it works?Quote:
So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?
Please ask a complete question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I totally disagree with you. That's not how it works.Quote:
You want direct? OK. Here's how it's done. Yes, it's up to us to accept the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit has a lot to do with it as I outlined above. Is that direct enough? See how it works?
Amazing. Just completely refuses to answer questions. You and Athos must be brother and sister. I guess Chicago is just a different kind of place.
I answered. Can't you read? (Yes, insulting, isn't it!) So you refuse to answer my questions! Athos is nowhere near Chicago.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You tell me the question of yours I have not answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Here is #61. "Why only the clause?" I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.
And here is the answer from 74. " You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause. I zeroed in on that clause since it has a lot to do with question of the fate of unbelievers. I doubt you will answer, however." It was not, however, "only the clause". I also asked if you believed the entire passage as a separate question.
And I was right about getting no answer. Still no answer from you. Crickets. Zero. Nada. Shameful. nuttin. fear. trembling. angst. confusion. listlessness. terror. Typical Chicago zip? No courage. alarm, trepidation, dread, apprehension, fright, horror, dismay, consternation, panic. Robust intelligence? I don't know now. I really thought so, but now I'm not sure.
Call it shaming if you want. In Mississippi we call it "calling someone out". We usually respond to that by showing an utter lack of fear and answering questions fully. I guess we can't expect such things out of Chicago??? Maybe so???
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 AM. |