No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[guest1]

There is no contradiction, you and I aren’t discussing it and your tantrum isn’t going to change that.

You are the one being sarcastic and evasive not me. I was just pointing out your contradictions since you did not claim any exceptions to your statements such as homosexuals. That is on you, not me.

conclusion: mean what you say and say what you mean. Otherwise you will be called on it big fella who refuses to share his witnessing techniques when asked.

hope this helps !!!

 

[guest1]

I wish you were that stern with homosexuals instead of compromising your witness to them because of what you think they might say.

Failure: accusing others what you refuse to do yourself. You claim it but refuse to share it with us. Its such a secret witnessing technique that is so private between you and the homosexual.

Are you a homophobe ?

Do you have any homosexual acquaintances ?

Any conversions ?

or just condemnation ?

Do you share the gospel with someone who is overweight and tell them they are sinning ?

What about someone underweight ? Do you expose them too ?

And what about someone that has a drink in public ? Do you witness to them that they could be a stumbling block to the weak ?

Do you point out everyone's particular sins when sharing the gospel ? If not why not ?

Or do you jut point out the sins of lesbians and homosexuals ?

Good luck with sharing the gospel............................

hope this helps !!!

 

[cadwell]

You are the one being sarcastic and evasive not me. I was just pointing out your contradictions since you did not claim any exceptions to your statements such as homosexuals. That is on you, not me.

You are the exception. The first time you asked me, I told you directly that I would not discuss it with you. In turn you generalized my statement in a way I never did, and falsely accused me of a contradiction.

conclusion: mean what you say and say what you mean. Otherwise you will be called on it big fella who refuses to share his witnessing techniques when asked.


hope this helps !!!

I said exactly what I mean, and I mean exactly what I say. I don’t have to discuss that with you, I owe you no explanation why, and you need to move on.

 

[guest1]

You are the exception. The first time you asked me, I told you directly that I would not discuss it with you. In turn you generalized my statement in a way I never did, and falsely accused me of a contradiction.

I said exactly what I mean, and I mean exactly what I say. I don’t have to discuss that with you, I owe you no explanation why, and you need to move on.

You need to be accurate in what you claim and quit making absolute statements when there are " exceptions" to the rule and your get out of jail free card.

next............................

 

[cadwell]

You need to be accurate in what you claim and quit making absolute statements when there are " exceptions" to the rule and your get out of jail free card.

next............................

There is nothing more accurate than what I told you the FIRST time:

"No, I don’t feel particularly inclined to discuss that with you." link

Notice I never said that I dont discuss it in general, just that I wont discuss with you. The SECOND time you asked me, I told you that:

"I refuse to elaborate on those particular conversations" link

I am talking directly to you, and telling you, for a second time, that I wont talk about it. Not to be deterred, you generalized my statement, ignored my request to not talk about it with you, and asked about it a THIRD time, to which I had to again reiterate my stance:

"Its you. I would rather not discuss that with you. You are the exception. You cannot make me, you need to move on." link

And now here is the false claim of contradiction. You ignored my first response, generalized my second response, and falsely claimed my second response contradicted my third response. All of this could have been avoided if you had just accepted my refusal the first time.

 

[guest1]

There is nothing more accurate than what I told you the FIRST time:

"No, I don’t feel particularly inclined to discuss that with you." link

Notice I never said that I dont discuss it in general, just that I wont discuss with you. The SECOND time you asked me, I told you that:

"I refuse to elaborate on those particular conversations" link

I am talking directly to you, and telling you, for a second time, that I wont talk about it. Not to be deterred, you generalized my statement, ignored my request to not talk about it with you, and asked about it a THIRD time, to which I had to again reiterate my stance:

"Its you. I would rather not discuss that with you. You are the exception. You cannot make me, you need to move on." link

And now here is the false claim of contradiction. You ignored my first response, generalized my second response, and falsely claimed my second response contradicted my third response. All of this could have been avoided if you had just accepted my refusal the first time.

Not really you just like to argue for arguments sake and you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar so man up and admit it big fella. If you can't stand the heat by all means get out of the kitchen.

hope this helps !!!

 

[cadwell]

Failure: accusing others what you refuse to do yourself. You claim it but refuse to share it with us. Its such a secret witnessing technique that is so private between you and the homosexual.

Are you a homophobe ?

Do you have any homosexual acquaintances ?

Any conversions ?

or just condemnation ?

Do you share the gospel with someone who is overweight and tell them they are sinning ?

What about someone underweight ? Do you expose them too ?

And what about someone that has a drink in public ? Do you witness to them that they could be a stumbling block to the weak ?

Do you point out everyone's particular sins when sharing the gospel ? If not why not ?

Or do you jut point out the sins of lesbians and homosexuals ?

Good luck with sharing the gospel............................

hope this helps !!!

I extend you the courtesy of telling you upfront that I wont talk about this with you, partially in hopes that you wont waste your time asking me things I already refused to share. It seems here that you are determined to waste your time, and thats ok with me. Asking me wont change my stance, but you are free to pointlessly make posts like this.

 

[cadwell]

Not really you just like to argue for arguments sake and you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar so man up and admit it big fella. If you can't stand the heat by all means get out of the kitchen.

hope this helps !!!

I am man enough to admit any mistakes on my part, but you have to produce a legitimate one for me to do so. Just saying it doesnt make it so. I think you need to man up and accept the fact that you cannot make me talk about something I have already refused.

This all started with someone saying not to use Lev to witness to homosexuals. I take offense to that because I base how I witness of what Jesus to His disciples concerning future events:

Luke 21
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Jesus told them to not think about what they are going to say, that HE would give them a mouth and wisdom, to which their adversaries would not resist. To me, a person on an internet forum saying "dont use leviticus with homosexuals because they might point out how we dont follow the bible" flies in the face of our Lord. You are defending her line of thinking, and therefore we dont have anything to talk about.

 

[guest1]

I am man enough to admit any mistakes on my part, but you have to produce a legitimate one for me to do so. Just saying it doesnt make it so. I think you need to man up and accept the fact that you cannot make me talk about something I have already refused.

This all started with someone saying not to use Lev to witness to homosexuals. I take offense to that because I base how I witness of what Jesus to His disciples concerning future events:

Luke 21
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Jesus told them to not think about what they are going to say, that HE would give them a mouth and wisdom, to which their adversaries would not resist. To me, a person on an internet forum saying "dont use leviticus with homosexuals because they might point out how we dont follow the bible" flies in the face of our Lord. You are defending her line of thinking, and therefore we dont have anything to talk about.

Are you using Leviticus for Jews or Gentiles in this case as it makes a difference . If so then you should kill anyone of the people God commanded under the OT law. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You better stone everyone God commanded to stone. Otherwise you are misusing the Law in this case .

hope this helps !!!

 

[cadwell]

Are you using Leviticus for Jews or Gentiles in this case as it makes a difference . If so then you should kill anyone of the people God commanded under the OT law. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You better stone everyone God commanded to stone. Otherwise you are misusing the Law in this case .

hope this helps !!!

Good bye.

 

[guest1]

Good bye.

You say goodbye and I say hello , hello hello I don’t know why you say goodbye I say hello

 

[preacher4truth]

Are you using Leviticus for Jews or Gentiles in this case as it makes a difference . If so then you should kill anyone of the people God commanded under the OT law. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You better stone everyone God commanded to stone. Otherwise you are misusing the Law in this case .

hope this helps !!!

He also misused Exodus 30:11-16 in which ransom and atonement have nothing to do with salvation eternally but with a census taken, and those of age are expected to contribute to the offering for the tabernacle. That and it also generally refers to taking a census to number those who can go to war.

He makes hyperbole out of what isn't, for example Psalm 51, and tries to make hyperbole out of the aforementioned texts, showing his inconsistent hermeneutic.

He also misused Deuteronomy 1:39 as I detailed out, while conflating it with his misusage of Genesis 3.

He's to be avoided as he has misused these texts against plain biblical doctrine as in Romans 3, 5 &c and doesn't hold to sound teaching and in turn puts out obstacles in front of others, causing division &c Romans 16:17.

 

[cadwell]

You say goodbye and I say hello , hello hello I don’t know why you say goodbye I say hello

I have a two part question about King David. Yes, I am going somewhere with this, but first I would like yours (and everyone elses) opinion on it.

This is just for opinion, but do you think that David went to heaven or hell? And where do you think HE expected to go when he died?

 

[guest1]

I have a two part question about King David. Yes, I am going somewhere with this, but first I would like yours (and everyone elses) opinion on it.

This is just for opinion, but do you think that David went to heaven or hell? And where do you think HE expected to go when he died?

100% heaven do you doubt that and why ?

 

[Carbon]

You say goodbye and I say hello , hello hello I don’t know why you say goodbye I say hello

You say high, you say low.
You say why and I say I don't know, oh no

 

[cadwell]

He also misused Exodus 30:11-16 in which ransom and atonement has nothing to do with salvation eternally but with a census taken, and those of age are expected to contribute to the offering for the tabernacle.

Sorry but the Lord already explained the purpose of the offering, calling it a ransom for the soul. He demanded no ransom for the soul of anyone under 20. If you dont understand the connection between atonement and eternal salvation I dont know what to tell you.

That and it generally refers to taking a census to number also those who can go to war.

Thats false. The census in ex 30 and those taken in matters of war are two different things. The former only excluded children under 20, and the latter excludes children under 20, women, and those unfit for war (generally the elderly).

Numbers 1
2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

Thats not the same as exodus 30.

He makes hyperbole out of what isn't, for example Psalm 51, and tries to make hyperbole out of the aforementioned texts, showing his inconsistent hermeneutic.

The bible is a much better read if you read with understanding.

He also misused Deuteronomy 1:39 as I detailed out, while conflating it with his misusage of Genesis 3.

Deut 1:39 is the first time anyone is spoken of concerning the knowledge of good and evil after genesis 3. Thats kinda a big deal.

He's to be avoided as he has misused these texts against plain biblical doctrine as in Romans 3, 5 &c and doesn't hold to sound teaching and in turn puts out obstacles in front of others, causing division &c Romans 16:17.

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Whats the difference between ALL and MANY?

 

[cadwell]

100% heaven do you doubt that and why ?

I dont doubt it, I agree fully, I am sure everyone agrees. Both that he is in heaven, and that he believed he would one day be in heaven. We share the same opinion. That leads to what I am actually getting at:

2 Samuel 12:13-23, the story of David and Beersheba's baby. We all know what happened, refresh yourself if need be. Verse 23 is my focus:

2 Sam 12
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David says that he shall one day (in death) go to his child. We both agree that David went to heaven and expected to go to heaven, but why does David think the child will be there too? Its clear, like ps 51 says, that child was conceived in sin also right? It never had a chance to cry out for forgiveness or repent, so then why does David expect to see the child again? What made the child fit for heaven. This is where I dont want opinion, I only want biblical answers if you have them.

 

[Theo1689]

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom. 3 is about ALL mankind, both Jews and Gentiles.

Romans 5
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Whats the difference between ALL and MANY?

Rom. 5 is solely about the "elect", those who were "justified by faith" (v.1), and been given the Holy Spirit (v.5).

This is a good example of why you need to read Scripture IN CONTEXT (in this case, starting from v.1), rather than immediately jumping to v.19, and pretending the verse stands on its own.

As MANY others here have pointed out, you have no clue how to properly interpret Scripture.

 

[cadwell]

Rom. 3 is about ALL mankind, both Jews and Gentiles.



Rom. 5 is solely about the "elect", those who were "justified by faith" (v.1), and been given the Holy Spirit (v.5).

This is a good example of why you need to read Scripture IN CONTEXT (in this case, starting from v.1), rather than immediately jumping to v.19, and pretending the verse stands on its own.

As MANY others here have pointed out, you have no clue how to properly interpret Scripture

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Paul is still talking about all. Furthermore, if Romans 5:19 is about the elect and they are the many that were made sinners, you believe Paul just contradicted himself in the previous verse. If all have sinned (Romans 3), doesnt that mean they all were made sinners by Adam. Are you saying that something other than Adam makes the non elect sinners? This is a mess.

 

[guest1]

I dont doubt it, I agree fully, I am sure everyone agrees. Both that he is in heaven, and that he believed he would one day be in heaven. We share the same opinion. That leads to what I am actually getting at:

2 Samuel 12:13-23, the story of David and Beersheba's baby. We all know what happened, refresh yourself if need be. Verse 23 is my focus:

2 Sam 12
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David says that he shall one day (in death) go to his child. We both agree that David went to heaven and expected to go to heaven, but why does David think the child will be there too? Its clear, like ps 51 says, that child was conceived in sin also right? It never had a chance to cry out for forgiveness or repent, so then why does David expect to see the child again? What made the child fit for heaven. This is where I dont want opinion, I only want biblical answers if you have them.

David doesn’t give a reason why it was his hope. Are you going to give us David’s reasons for his comments ?