andyc
New member
W does not know what it means to walk in the Spirit. Any other madist care to respond?
ECT Would MAD be more accepted if Gal 2:7 were not in the text
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
W does not know what it means to walk in the Spirit. Any other madist care to respond?
andyc
New member
Paul already explained that cicumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing. Why are you trying to make it something?
Hi , because you do not understand what the Greek Article MEANS nor understand what it means to what in the Spirit !!
INFANTS can not chew meat , so here are a few verse that explain what it means to walk in the Spirit , because they are ONLY written by Paul and no by Peter !!
Walk in the Newness of life --Rom 6:4
Walk HONESTLY -- Rom 13:13 ; 1 Thess 4:12
Walk by Faith -- 2 Cor 5:7
Walk in Love --Eph 5:2
are just a Few , as there are a lot MORE !!:chuckle::chuckle:
dan p
As usual, straw man misrepresentations. I reject the Penty heresy Paul dealt with in context in Galatians. I have given the same verses you must use for your didactic, unbalanced, faulty views, yet you deny I believe them. This is because you misunderstand basic non-Arminianc soteriological concepts (which is puzzling since you are not a Closed End Deist determinist).Pay attention. Your words do not reflect my view (you have exegesis-itis).
My ideas are mainstream free will Deismtheism/Arminian, Wesleyian-ism. Your views are held by some, but not the historic, orthodox church. You are making our views diametrically opposed, when they are actually close (apart from difficult believism, and geasy law-ism,which is a different issue than salvific paradigms. Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn differed on cessationalism, yet both strongly affirm Holy Ghost bartending. The problem is your inability to think and lack of theological sophistication, not my view itself. You are clearly confused about our position because you are importing your wrong, shallow understanding and superimposing it on our views, which is not what you are claiming it is. Be balanced, and think biblical hermeneutics, in context.
etc.
We both use Scripture but interpret it differently. It is a paradigm vs proof text issue. Stalemate.I do not base my ecclesiology on these proof texts. I have exegeted specific verses for you in the past, re. walking in the Spirit, after having a few shots, from the Holy Ghost bartender, but you wimper away and ignore the evidence. Once burned, twice shy.
Your exegesis is based on a few proof texts without more credible interpretations ,in context. And we cannot dialogue with ad hominem attacks and false accusationsis outside of biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity on the essentials, in light of church history. . I deny your flawed interpretation of the text, to support your cultural bias, as you are stereotyping out of ignorance. False accusations of heresy are not the same thing as proven heresy, which is a logical fallacy, divorced from reality,and superficial understandings, contextually, etc. You lack credibility to make simplistic judgments, as my objection is with ad hominem attacks that are unjust, not wooden liertalisms, isms, that throw the baby out with the bath water. One who clings to preconceived notions, logical, systematic, inconsistencies, presuppositions/assumptions, etc., such as yourself, and sloppy exegets a text, w/o the context, and proof texting, is not the ideal person to arbitrate doctrinal disputes. Your proof texts, using your interpretation, would lead to contradiction, so they must be interpreted somewhat figuratively., in light of metaphors.
etc.
Gal 2:7 proves MAD wrong.
musterion
Well-known member
Did you answer me the other day when I asked where I said Peter cited the O.T. when he said it was unlawful for him to go to Cornelius? Did you ever answer that?
Luke 9:6 KJV proves AD 70-ism wrong.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Romans through Philemon proves preterists wrong
"Paul also taught that believers were sealed until the Day of Redemption. Since that already took place, believers today do not need to be sealed until the Day of Redemption."-Craigie Tet.
Don't you know, heir, that since 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, and Galatians 2:7 KJV already took place way back there yonder, then it does not apply today?
heir
TOL Subscriber
that is one sick man
PTL it took place and still has the power to save today!
If this were my site, the preterist would be perma banned.
musterion
Well-known member
Yep. He's the mentality of Meshak with a larger vocabulary.
People that have truth on their side are never afraid of debate, and/or the opposition.
Only those who perpetuate a lie (i.e. Dispensationalsim, Mormonism, JW's) are afraid, and want the opposition silenced.
You wouldn't know the gospel Paul preached if it bit you on the nose.
You only know the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.
The only thing that you've "proven," wimp, is that you are satanic, and habitual liar.
Dan likes words. Faith - Love - Honesty - Newness of Life. Nobody Preaches that but Paul ?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Paul declared it (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV), I received it, am saved by it, stand by it and preach it.