It's not my job to change your mind. That's the HS's job.I don't care.
ALL I care about is the truth, and what the Bible says.
If you cannot make a valid argument against my position, you will not change my beliefs.
Yawn.
It's not my job to change your mind. That's the HS's job.I don't care.
ALL I care about is the truth, and what the Bible says.
If you cannot make a valid argument against my position, you will not change my beliefs.
Yawn.
It's not my job to change your mind.
That's the HS's job.
I can't think of any compelling argument that you could make as you've been so rude I don't listen to you. Anything you say goes in one ear and out the other without pausing. so to speak. I've warned you time and timer again what the results of your rudeness are so why would you even ask?It's your job to present a compelling argument, whether someone changes their mind or not.
Why are you even here on TOL, again?
The Holy Spirit won't override someone's will.
Weren't you just going on about how Calvinism is unjust?
I'm not going to abandon my position unless and until you can show it to be a falsehood.
You seemingly won't abandon your position no matter what anyone says to you, be it compelling or not.
Gary, if you were presented a compelling argument that your position was wrong, would you reconsider it?
You don't need the law to be evil, Gary, nor do you need it to be righteous.I still don't understand your reasoning for God killed the antedeluvians because of their sins. So there were clearly divine laws in effect. I see no way around it. And God held the antedeluvians responsible for their thoughts as well as their actions just like Jesus laid out in the sermon on the mount. God is just as there can be no mercy without justice so unless the law of God was in effect He could not have held them accountable.
Genesis 6: 5 ¶And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.*n1*n2
Who cares what you don't support?I don't support the ideas of dispensationalism. You can claim support all you like but I don't agree.
Nobody cares how you view scripture, Gary. Aren't you the one who debases your own idiotic views by coming here and publicly stating that you do not commit sin?!Some of the basis of how I view scripture is found in my thread on ga'al and the rest of it is based on the war between God and the devil since Satan was kicked out of heaven.
Nope. Not me.You don't need the law to be evil, Gary, nor do you need it to be righteous.
This is super basic Christianity 101!
Who cares what you don't support?
It is incredible to me the things you treat as though they are matters of personal opinion. Dispensationalism is either true or false. If it is false, then simply saying so wouldn't cut it but it never occurs to you to even go so far as saying that! Perhaps that's the case because you understand intuitively that you aren't capable of defending such a statement and so you instinctively avoid making such a claim so as not to embarrass yourself so blatantly. It is also possible, however, that its worse even than that. Perhaps you do more than just speak of things in terms of personal opinion. Maybe you actually do believe that dispensationalism is just one of a hundred personal opinions, one no more or less valid than another, at least not demonstrably so.
Does it ever even occur to you to think in terms of true and false?
If so, then why don't you ever make an argument?
If not, what are you doing here?
Nobody cares how you view scripture, Gary. Aren't you the one who debases your own idiotic views by coming here and publicly stating that you do not commit sin?!
I mean, you're literally, demonstrably, intentionally, publicly, proudly stupid. Why would anyone who has any familiarity with the bible whatsoever do anything but avoid your threads?
Clete
Have you ever even read the bible at all?It's not my job to change your mind. That's the HS's job.
Aren't you the one who debases your own idiotic views by coming here and publicly stating that you do not commit sin?!
Really? You're not the one who claims to no longer sin? Who was it then?Nope. Not me.
HOPING! Of course! What a clown he was.No, that was Hoping. He's gone now.
I can't think of any compelling argument that you could make
as you've been so rude I don't listen to you.
Anything you say goes in one ear and out the other without pausing. so to speak.
I've warned you time and timer again what the results of your rudeness are
so why would you even ask?
Have you every even read the bible at all?
Maybe start with Romans 10:14. Try to understand the point being made there. If you can't get it then just close the book and forget it. It's too hard for you.
YOU need to follow the conversation.I was referring to your comment regarding how we should treat criminals today.
Please do try to follow the conversation.
Obviously a brilliant scripture reference.I'm reminded of Paul in Acts 17:
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 17:1, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:3, Acts 17:4 - New King James Version
Preaching Christ at Thessalonica - Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.www.biblegateway.com
Imitate Paul, indeed!
We aren't as stupid as you seem to think we are.YOU need to follow the conversation.
I said nothing about how modern governments should treat criminals today.
You continue to jump to conclusions of the intent of my posts.
The only point I have made is that God did not insist that the law of killing an adulterer be inflicted upon David, thus David did not get what he deserved per the law for his adultery.
He was spared from death, shown mercy instead of getting what he deserved per the law.
If Christians are to live under and adhere to the letter of the law then we all should get what we deserve per the law because we are all lawbreakers.
But due to grace and mercy we don't, even though some still like to think that everyone should get what they deserve per the law.
David was shown mercy because he was faithful in worshiping the one true Most High God despite being a lawbreaker.
And we should do the same despite us being lawbreakers.
YOU need to follow the conversation.
I said nothing about how modern governments should treat criminals today.
You continue to jump to conclusions of the intent of my posts.
The only point I have made is that God did not insist that the law of killing an adulterer be inflicted upon David,
thus David did not get what he deserved per the law for his adultery.
He was spared from death,
shown mercy instead of getting what he deserved per the law.
If Christians are to live under and adhere to the letter of the law
then we all should get what we deserve per the law
because we are all lawbreakers.
But due to grace and mercy we don't, even though some still like to think that everyone should get what they deserve per the law.
David was shown mercy because he was faithful in worshiping the one true Most High God despite being a lawbreaker.
And we should do the same despite us being lawbreakers.
Tambora, to make things clear here, please answer the following question: Do you believe that we (that is, modern human governments; I'm not talking about the Body of Christ, but rather of governmental responsibilities) should put to death those guilty of murder, adultery, kidnapping, rape, pedophilia, and/or other capital crimes? |
Question, Tam: Do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) should be, according to God? |
I hope y'all aren't.We aren't as stupid as you seem to think we are.
Wrong.You are conflating (ON PURPOSE) God's direct response to a sin vs. what should be the law.
My initial post on the topic was in response to Cabinet Maker wondering if killing adulterers in the old covenant law would still apply in God's new covenant.
That some of you want to take that in the direction of whether we should obey the civil laws we have today doesn't mean I have to go in that direction.
My response was to CM and what he asked about.Still trying to conflate two different things.
The New Covenant was for Israel for the end times. Not the Body of Christ today.
We were talking about criminal justice LONG before you jumped in and made an OFF TOPIC post about God's response to sin.
His question about the law of killing adulterers definitely had biblical roots to it.
And I responded that per the law David the adulterer should have been killed but wasn't.
Tambora, to make things clear here, please answer the following question: Do you believe that we (that is, modern human governments; I'm not talking about the Body of Christ, but rather of governmental responsibilities) should put to death those guilty of murder, adultery, kidnapping, rape, pedophilia, and/or other capital crimes? |
Question, Tam: Do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) should be? |
It isn't wrong. Even if your initial response was to someone's specific question, you've insisted on the point even after having been repeatedly told that the point doesn't apply to what we're ACTUALLY talking about. You just go right along as though that doesn't matter and remake the same point no matter what anyone says. It's very clearly on purpose, not to mention childish and boring!Wrong.
My initial post on the topic was in response to Cabinet Maker wondering if killing adulterers in the old covenant law would still apply in God's new covenant.
Has anyone on this thread asked whether we should obey today's civil laws? I haven't seen anyone ask that question!That some of you want to take that in the direction of whether we should obey the civil laws we have today doesn't mean I have to go in that direction.
You're such a ridiculous clown.So stop playing the amateur mind-reader and get your facts straight.