LOL! Keep it up! Everyone here knows you're just being obstinate!These are not The Spirit.
LOL! Keep it up! Everyone here knows you're just being obstinate!These are not The Spirit.
No. It does not.The Gentiles in Romans 2, it says, were "doers of the Law".
It explicitly teaches that the Spirit wrote God's Law on their hearts.
It explicitly states they were keeping God's statutes (vv26,27).
You just know how to hit someone where it hurts. I have not done the same to you. I admitted a weakness since you were acting as my teacher.LOL! Keep it up! Everyone here knows you're just being obstinate!
Romans 2No. It does not.
I don't know why you crossed this out.Romans 2
13for it is not the hearers [n]of the Law who are [o]righteous before God, but the doers [p]of the Law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have [q]the Law [r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not havingthe Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts...
26So if the [ac]uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who [ad]though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator [ae]of the Law?...
29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.
This thread is to straighten the issue out--and, as I said, at the beginning, those who oppose this view I am espousing are obstinate, and refuse to accept the truth no matter how plainly it is stated to them.You just know how to hit someone where it hurts. I have not done the same to you. I admitted a weakness since you were acting as my teacher.
Typo.I don't know why you crossed this out.
No. I have a weakness of being obstinate. As I said. It has nothing to do with anything that you have said. To be honest, I don't remember you saying that. I am not going to look.This thread is to straighten the issue out--and, as I said, at the beginning, those who oppose this view I am espousing are obstinate, and refuse to accept the truth no matter how plainly it is stated to them.
And here you are.
It has nothing at all to do with your "admissions"--it is plain for everyone to see!
I'm not asking you to go look, but anyone who wants to can.No. I have a weakness of being obstinate. As I said. It has nothing to do with anything that you have said. To be honest, I don't remember you saying that. I am not going to look.
Of course.I'm not asking you to go look, but anyone who wants to can.
So, you're admitting that truth can be spoken to you and you have the moral defect that you reject it.No. I have a weakness of being obstinate. As I said. It has nothing to do with anything that you have said. To be honest, I don't remember you saying that. I am not going to look.
That is not what obstinate means, but okay. I don't think of it as anything moral. Nor do I consider it a defect. Just something I don't want to be.So, you're admitting that truth can be spoken to you and you have the moral defect that you reject it.
Interesting admission.
So... I guess your involving yourself in this conversation is just a part of your obstinacy--seeing that you know you're going to be obstinate against rational arguments, defeating the entire purpose of "conversing"?Of course.
No. I don't know where you get that. The word obstinate can be found in the dictionary. I am not an expert with it. And I don't know what it means apart from that.So... I guess your involving yourself in this conversation is just a part of your obstinacy--seeing that you know you're going to be obstinate against rational arguments, defeating the entire purpose of "conversing"?
I guess obstinacy is not a big deal, as long as you don't think witchcraft, iniquity and idolatry are a big deal.That is not what obstinate means, but okay. I don't think of it as anything moral. Nor do I consider it a defect. Just something I don't want to be.
Obstinate:No. I don't know where you get that. The word obstinate can be found in the dictionary. I am not an expert with it. And I don't know what it means apart from that.
These sins are different from being obstinate. Being obstinate is stubbornly holding to ones opinion or rejecting what someone says.I guess obstinacy is not a big deal, as long as you don't think witchcraft, iniquity and idolatry to be a big deal.
1 Sam 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king.”
Uh... when you are "stubborn" it means "not yielding" or "rebelling", encompassing all of these sins--again, though, this is just what the God of the Bible states, and you have a habit, at least as seen in this discussion, of tossing that behind you (Ps 50:17).These sins are different from being obstinate. Being obstinate is stubbornly holding to ones opinion or rejecting what someone says.
Upon what basis have I done what wrong?Uh... when you are "stubborn" it means "not yielding" or "rebelling", encompassing all of these sins--again, though, this is just what the God of the Bible states, and you have a habit, at least as seen in this discussion, of tossing that behind you (Ps 50:17).
Reread the discussion.Upon what basis have I done what wrong?