OK So my take so far is that being able to say "Lo shanta la maka see tay" might not mean what we used to think it meant.
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he certainly practiced what he preached.
Sorry, that's NOT an underlying issue, it's a potential ramification.
But can't anything be twisted to ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults? I don't think there's a way to prevent that from happening.
There's a vast gulf between "anything can be twisted to result in oppressive cults" and a social structure which cannot result in anything but.
Your brazen lack of curiousity in exploring the underlying issues inherent in the subject you brought to GSC claiming to not be convinced about the veracity therein disappoint me greatly.
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he certainly practiced what he preached.
Yes. In PFAL, Wierwille said "speaking in tongues is proof you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you.".
This was a major selling point, used to convince you that taking the class was a wise choice.
There's a vast gulf between "anything can be twisted to result in oppressive cults" and a social structure
Well, I just don't see the existence of that social structure. I've been discussing a paper that compares the two views on salvation, and you've been talking about social injustice. We just aren't on the same page, we aren't even on two sides of the same coin.
I don't dispute what you have been proposing, but I just don't see the point of discussing it. Social structure, injustice, manipulation, all have NOTHING to do with salvation.
So, be disappointed all you want - that, too, has nothing to do with salvation.
Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly
summarize the conclusions of our study.
1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith.
2. Salvation is solely by God’s grace through faith. It cannot be earned by good works nor can it be lost by bad works (sin). Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a “heart of unbelief,” the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God. Those who have received the spirit and then subsequently reject Christ and God with a wicked heart of unbelief will themselves be rejected.
Based on these summarizations, evidently there was no thought or concern given to explaining or defining what "salvation" either is, can be, or might be. Given a (false) premise (i.e., presumption) that salvation is and means the same thing to everyone regardless of how it is perceived or understood immediately impairs or nullifies any conclusion, regardless of how "logical" the tenets of the proposition might be.
How do you suppose Israel (who were given the promises of God) viewed salvation, and what did it mean to them? Rather than simply guess at it, I'd suggest looking at the words spoken by Zacharias in Luke 1:67ff. Think he was mistaken? Then so must have been all his apostles in Acts 1:6.
Furthermore, just what is a "wicked heart of unbelief"? Or how is it that anyone thinks that once joined to Christ they can do anything of their own volition to divorce themselves from the one that it's plainly written (1 Cor. 3:23) that they belong to?
This thread was spawned from another based on a discussion of Dan's paper, which brings up his point that salvation isn't an absolute guarantee. So, that's really what this topic is about.
No one has called Dan's paper a standard of anything.
Actually, I find this "exegetical commentary" very interesting, and obviously you have high regard for it. But for me it didn't clarify anything.
And I'm guessing by the highlighted words from you that you have not actually read Dan's paper.
You don't have to yell.
To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure. And I have no idea why God would choose that analogy. Do you?
And I don't appreciate your sarcasm.
You are correcting me posting on the topic of the thread because it doesn't line up with another spawned discussion? And saying that is "really what this topic is about"?
No, this thread topic is about whether or not you can lose salvation. I can point you to the title of it. The fact that Dan is getting into a disagreement with his fellow long time splinter group associates, disagreeing on a doctrinal issue, and leaving over it is secondary. With your response in my highlighted words I see another passive aggressive attack. No Dan did not conclude in his paper that you should send him money. He did that after the paper. The paper is what is supposed to attract people to send him money. I read enough of it to know he did not address I Peter 1:23. After that it was enough to assess that his supposed thoroughness glossed over a main category of the discussion.
My sarcasm is a direct result of you passive aggressively attacking my post saying it is off topic when it is precisely on topic but off the secondary topic you want to address. In other words, if you want to talk directly about whether or not you can lose salvation with me I will accommodate you. If you want to play passive aggressive games then p1ss off. I can tolerate your internal struggles to the point you attack others. Not beyond that.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
I personally believe that God as my Father is just enough to cover scenarios like unbelievers living a better life morally than professing Christians along with the ability to sort things out. This section of Corinthians is a major part of that.
For better or for worse, what actually is supposed to occur in the end times is not something that is clearly revealed in scripture. It is something where like so many other "word studies" we did, you find a verse in jeremiah, piece it together with Ephesians, lace in a concept in Revelation, and presto you have a faith that explains the future. Thus we come up with certain verses in Revelation that are supposed to be an Abrams tank, a helicopter, and several other known things in our day and age according to some.
I think mostly in the Way we have a "Strong's concordance faith" or a "Bible software faith" - one that is built upon stringing endless series of unrelated verses together to come up with a Sunday teaching, philosophy, or moral outlook in life.
Based on these summarizations, evidently there was no thought or concern given to explaining or defining what "salvation" either is, can be, or might be. Given a (false) premise (i.e., presumption) that salvation is and means the same thing to everyone regardless of how it is perceived or understood immediately impairs or nullifies any conclusion, regardless of how "logical" the tenets of the proposition might be.
Excellent point. Now I have something else to delve into. I like how you think, TLC!
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Okay, I see your point. So if we aren't doing the right things, our works, then we will lose rewards, possibly now, possibly later, possibly both. That's a sobering thought, even though it isn't losing salvation.
Based on these summarizations, evidently there was no thought or concern given to explaining or defining what "salvation" either is, can be, or might be. Given a (false) premise (i.e., presumption) that salvation is and means the same thing to everyone regardless of how it is perceived or understood immediately impairs or nullifies any conclusion, regardless of how "logical" the tenets of the proposition might be.
How do you suppose Israel (who were given the promises of God) viewed salvation, and what did it mean to them? Rather than simply guess at it, I'd suggest looking at the words spoken by Zacharias in Luke 1:67ff. Think he was mistaken? Then so must have been all his apostles in Acts 1:6.
Furthermore, just what is a "wicked heart of unbelief"? Or how is it that anyone thinks that once joined to Christ they can do anything of their own volition to divorce themselves from the one that it's plainly written (1 Cor. 3:23) that they belong to?
This is one of the problems with "Waybrained research". With extreme dispensationalism, definitions of rather common terms and concepts can become twisted. Usually it is a comparison between "how I live now" and "how people did live in another dispensation".
Yes. In PFAL, Wierwille said "speaking in tongues is proof you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you.".
This was a major selling point, used to convince you that taking the class was a wise choice.
I think here at GSC we have successfully debunked that idea.
If you really want the headache that involved, feel free to perouse the SIT threads in doctrinal. To summarize, SIT is conclusive proof of nothing. Many examples of known fakes are out there. And I personally practice this in my prayer life, so it's not a "sour grapes" assessment.
My sarcasm is a direct result of you passive aggressively attacking my post saying it is off topic
No, that's what you are responding to now. My saying it is off topic is what you just quoted me as saying.
I was under the impression that your sarcasm was because I said that article was "interesting", obviously not taken well by you. So I looked at that verse in my bible and, along with the "exegetical commentary", I don't see anything conclusive that would indicate salvation absolutely cannot be lost. If I'm missing it, please point it out.
51 minutes ago, chockfull said:
If you want to play passive aggressive games then p1ss off.
I am not trying to play games with anyone here - I have too much respect for people to do that. But I was following my own line of thought which you, apparently, were unaware of and/or didn't care about.
Which brings me to the question I have regarding salvation: is it absolutely permanent, or is there something I can do to lose it? The paper from Dan proposes it is not permanent, but as it is a very long winded paper, I haven't read all of it yet.
In this thread, "Picking up threads", Raf poses an interesting point: ""Jesus" said one thing about salvation, Paul implied quite another and the writer of Hebrews a third."
For me, the confusion arose when I took a careful look at this: Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
To me, "cut off" means a lot more than losing rewards.
I think mostly in the Way we have a "Strong's concordance faith" or a "Bible software faith" - one that is built upon stringing endless series of unrelated verses together to come up with a Sunday teaching, philosophy, or moral outlook in life.
To me, "cut off" means a lot more than losing rewards.
This is representative of one clear problem we have in doctrinal. Defining terms doesn't seem objective. It seems to involve a lot more of what you are doing here. Some kind of internal measurement. "What it means to me".
I mean that's cool and all. That is kind of the major premise behind how all our church small groups work. Or most all church small groups. Topical study - people read ahead of time. Then when together go down the line of "what it means to me". I'm not saying there's anything significantly different about you - I do this too.
But one of VP's major selling points of the Way is that scriptural interpretation is NOT SUBJECTIVE. He sold us some keys. Keys to the Word's interpretation. Those keys included false major ideas:
1. Remote context - the idea that "where it is used before" carries a lot of weight. Different prophet, different time, different legal, social, military environment. Potentially different "administration" or "dispensation". God does not operate according to a foolish consistency, that is according to Emerson, the hobgoblin or little human minds.
2. Harmony of the Gospels - the day jesus died, how many times paul denied him, how many crucified - all of these are examples of Wierwille's sleight-of-hand manipulation of scriptures getting the brainwashed to focus on the insignificant details of the event so that they can gain their allegiance.
Wierwille trained us in Biblical research to be Pharisees. To strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
I think here at GSC we have successfully debunked that idea.
If you really want the headache that involved, feel free to perouse the SIT threads in doctrinal. To summarize, SIT is conclusive proof of nothing. Many examples of known fakes are out there. And I personally practice this in my prayer life, so it's not a "sour grapes" assessment.
I mentioned much the same myself, and I thought everybody else thought it didn't make sense. (I don't "SIT" for the reasons vpw gave because it isn't what vpw said it is. It has legitimate uses, so I use it other ways.) I thought that was just me.
"Born again of incorruptible seed." What does it mean?"
"To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure."
There's not answering something, and there's pretending you answered something. If you don't want to address the question, it's ok to leave it alone. But "ducking a question" like this is a politician's strategy for deceiving people and getting them to like him. It's neither needed here nor preferred, and it isn't a good fit for "a discussion forum."
There's not answering something, and there's pretending you answered something.
Seriously? How is that pretending? "To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure." That's a pretty straight forward response - what I understand, and what I don't.
This is one of the problems with "Waybrained research". With extreme dispensationalism, definitions of rather common terms and concepts can become twisted. Usually it is a comparison between "how I live now" and "how people did live in another dispensation".
Given how little you know or understand about me, my background, or what I know, think and believe about dispensationalism (and why) , that comment is obviously a product of gross ignorance. Not the first time I've said it here, but my (collegiate) study of the scriptures began well in front of ever hearing about vpw or pfal.
"To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure." That's a pretty straight forward response - what I understand, and what I don't.
I'm mostly inclined to agree with that, as it may not be perfectly clear just exactly what "seed" refers to here. I'm actually less inclined to think it refers to the seed which is Christ (Gal.3:16), as what appears to fit best is simply "the Word of God" (as so plainly stated in the very verse this is taken from.)
Well, I just don't see the existence of that social structure. I've been discussing a paper that compares the two views on salvation, and you've been talking about social injustice. We just aren't on the same page, we aren't even on two sides of the same coin.
I don't dispute what you have been proposing, but I just don't see the point of discussing it. Social structure, injustice, manipulation, all have NOTHING to do with salvation.
So, be disappointed all you want - that, too, has nothing to do with salvation.
And you clearly are not at all curious about why I believe that's underlying the issue you want to talk about.
Your declaration of certainty reflects a markedly intellectual disingenuous approach to biblical research.
All you've been doing is resisting consideration of the reasoning why YOUR viewpoint could possibly be wrong.
Actually, I'm not looking for a problem. I am only looking to understand more fully about the possibility that salvation, as a permanent thing, isn't actually guaranteed. This isn't because I live, or want to live, like some lost soul, rejecting God and Christ. I just want to understand it, completely.
I don't believe that's what you are actually doing. IF you genuinely wanted to more fully understand, you would have to legitimately consider the points presented to you with genuine curiosity.
I'm mostly inclined to agree with that, as it may not be perfectly clear just exactly what "seed" refers to here. I'm actually less inclined to think it refers to the seed which is Christ (Gal.3:16), as what appears to fit best is simply "the Word of God" (as so plainly stated in the very verse this is taken from.)
Furthermore, aside from a brief (and probably misunderstood) reference to being as of one born out of due time, I have yet to find any mention of anyone being "born again" (of anything) anywhere in Paul's writings.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
Taxidev
Huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he certainly practiced what he preached.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
There's a vast gulf between "anything can be twisted to result in oppressive cults" and a social structure which cannot result in anything but.
Your brazen lack of curiousity in exploring the underlying issues inherent in the subject you brought to GSC claiming to not be convinced about the veracity therein disappoint me greatly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes. In PFAL, Wierwille said "speaking in tongues is proof you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you.".
This was a major selling point, used to convince you that taking the class was a wise choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Well, I just don't see the existence of that social structure. I've been discussing a paper that compares the two views on salvation, and you've been talking about social injustice. We just aren't on the same page, we aren't even on two sides of the same coin.
I don't dispute what you have been proposing, but I just don't see the point of discussing it. Social structure, injustice, manipulation, all have NOTHING to do with salvation.
So, be disappointed all you want - that, too, has nothing to do with salvation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Based on these summarizations, evidently there was no thought or concern given to explaining or defining what "salvation" either is, can be, or might be. Given a (false) premise (i.e., presumption) that salvation is and means the same thing to everyone regardless of how it is perceived or understood immediately impairs or nullifies any conclusion, regardless of how "logical" the tenets of the proposition might be.
How do you suppose Israel (who were given the promises of God) viewed salvation, and what did it mean to them? Rather than simply guess at it, I'd suggest looking at the words spoken by Zacharias in Luke 1:67ff. Think he was mistaken? Then so must have been all his apostles in Acts 1:6.
Furthermore, just what is a "wicked heart of unbelief"? Or how is it that anyone thinks that once joined to Christ they can do anything of their own volition to divorce themselves from the one that it's plainly written (1 Cor. 3:23) that they belong to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You are correcting me posting on the topic of the thread because it doesn't line up with another spawned discussion? And saying that is "really what this topic is about"?
No, this thread topic is about whether or not you can lose salvation. I can point you to the title of it. The fact that Dan is getting into a disagreement with his fellow long time splinter group associates, disagreeing on a doctrinal issue, and leaving over it is secondary. With your response in my highlighted words I see another passive aggressive attack. No Dan did not conclude in his paper that you should send him money. He did that after the paper. The paper is what is supposed to attract people to send him money. I read enough of it to know he did not address I Peter 1:23. After that it was enough to assess that his supposed thoroughness glossed over a main category of the discussion.
My sarcasm is a direct result of you passive aggressively attacking my post saying it is off topic when it is precisely on topic but off the secondary topic you want to address. In other words, if you want to talk directly about whether or not you can lose salvation with me I will accommodate you. If you want to play passive aggressive games then p1ss off. I can tolerate your internal struggles to the point you attack others. Not beyond that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I personally believe that God as my Father is just enough to cover scenarios like unbelievers living a better life morally than professing Christians along with the ability to sort things out. This section of Corinthians is a major part of that.
For better or for worse, what actually is supposed to occur in the end times is not something that is clearly revealed in scripture. It is something where like so many other "word studies" we did, you find a verse in jeremiah, piece it together with Ephesians, lace in a concept in Revelation, and presto you have a faith that explains the future. Thus we come up with certain verses in Revelation that are supposed to be an Abrams tank, a helicopter, and several other known things in our day and age according to some.
I think mostly in the Way we have a "Strong's concordance faith" or a "Bible software faith" - one that is built upon stringing endless series of unrelated verses together to come up with a Sunday teaching, philosophy, or moral outlook in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Excellent point. Now I have something else to delve into. I like how you think, TLC!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Okay, I see your point. So if we aren't doing the right things, our works, then we will lose rewards, possibly now, possibly later, possibly both. That's a sobering thought, even though it isn't losing salvation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This is one of the problems with "Waybrained research". With extreme dispensationalism, definitions of rather common terms and concepts can become twisted. Usually it is a comparison between "how I live now" and "how people did live in another dispensation".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think here at GSC we have successfully debunked that idea.
If you really want the headache that involved, feel free to perouse the SIT threads in doctrinal. To summarize, SIT is conclusive proof of nothing. Many examples of known fakes are out there. And I personally practice this in my prayer life, so it's not a "sour grapes" assessment.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
No, that's what you are responding to now. My saying it is off topic is what you just quoted me as saying.
I was under the impression that your sarcasm was because I said that article was "interesting", obviously not taken well by you. So I looked at that verse in my bible and, along with the "exegetical commentary", I don't see anything conclusive that would indicate salvation absolutely cannot be lost. If I'm missing it, please point it out.
I am not trying to play games with anyone here - I have too much respect for people to do that. But I was following my own line of thought which you, apparently, were unaware of and/or didn't care about.
Which brings me to the question I have regarding salvation: is it absolutely permanent, or is there something I can do to lose it? The paper from Dan proposes it is not permanent, but as it is a very long winded paper, I haven't read all of it yet.
In this thread, "Picking up threads", Raf poses an interesting point: ""Jesus" said one thing about salvation, Paul implied quite another and the writer of Hebrews a third."
For me, the confusion arose when I took a careful look at this: Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
To me, "cut off" means a lot more than losing rewards.
Edited by Taxidevclarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Agreed. And it led to some mighty manipulation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This is representative of one clear problem we have in doctrinal. Defining terms doesn't seem objective. It seems to involve a lot more of what you are doing here. Some kind of internal measurement. "What it means to me".
I mean that's cool and all. That is kind of the major premise behind how all our church small groups work. Or most all church small groups. Topical study - people read ahead of time. Then when together go down the line of "what it means to me". I'm not saying there's anything significantly different about you - I do this too.
But one of VP's major selling points of the Way is that scriptural interpretation is NOT SUBJECTIVE. He sold us some keys. Keys to the Word's interpretation. Those keys included false major ideas:
1. Remote context - the idea that "where it is used before" carries a lot of weight. Different prophet, different time, different legal, social, military environment. Potentially different "administration" or "dispensation". God does not operate according to a foolish consistency, that is according to Emerson, the hobgoblin or little human minds.
2. Harmony of the Gospels - the day jesus died, how many times paul denied him, how many crucified - all of these are examples of Wierwille's sleight-of-hand manipulation of scriptures getting the brainwashed to focus on the insignificant details of the event so that they can gain their allegiance.
Wierwille trained us in Biblical research to be Pharisees. To strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I mentioned much the same myself, and I thought everybody else thought it didn't make sense. (I don't "SIT" for the reasons vpw gave because it isn't what vpw said it is. It has legitimate uses, so I use it other ways.) I thought that was just me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
.
Edited by WordWolfFormatting issues, started over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Born again of incorruptible seed." What does it mean?"
"To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure."
There's not answering something, and there's pretending you answered something. If you don't want to address the question, it's ok to leave it alone. But "ducking a question" like this is a politician's strategy for deceiving people and getting them to like him. It's neither needed here nor preferred, and it isn't a good fit for "a discussion forum."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Seriously? How is that pretending? "To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure." That's a pretty straight forward response - what I understand, and what I don't.
How would you have phrased it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given how little you know or understand about me, my background, or what I know, think and believe about dispensationalism (and why) , that comment is obviously a product of gross ignorance. Not the first time I've said it here, but my (collegiate) study of the scriptures began well in front of ever hearing about vpw or pfal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm mostly inclined to agree with that, as it may not be perfectly clear just exactly what "seed" refers to here. I'm actually less inclined to think it refers to the seed which is Christ (Gal.3:16), as what appears to fit best is simply "the Word of God" (as so plainly stated in the very verse this is taken from.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And you clearly are not at all curious about why I believe that's underlying the issue you want to talk about.
Your declaration of certainty reflects a markedly intellectual disingenuous approach to biblical research.
All you've been doing is resisting consideration of the reasoning why YOUR viewpoint could possibly be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I don't believe that's what you are actually doing. IF you genuinely wanted to more fully understand, you would have to legitimately consider the points presented to you with genuine curiosity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Furthermore, aside from a brief (and probably misunderstood) reference to being as of one born out of due time, I have yet to find any mention of anyone being "born again" (of anything) anywhere in Paul's writings.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.