More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

is 1 John 3:9 true or false?

1 John 2:1 proceeds 1 John 3:9 how do they correlate perfectly? Also what is the primary instruction of the apostle in the first verse? Also what does the writer mean by "if any man sin?" Would you agree that if isn't the same as when?

It is true. No saint continues in habitual sinful rebellion. We can know that when a believer sins, it is an act that is against the new nature imparted to the inner man upon regeneration.
Alford notes that "If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against his nature" (Hebrews-Revelation, p.465). Likewise, Brooke writes:

The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character. (The Johannine Epistles, p.89)

Oh you are.

Nope. Corporate election is Arminian, and denies Calvinist election according to predestination.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jealously? Explain to me how I would be jealous of a trait which I question at times? When I read your posts (especially the one about the gangbanger, I doubt it really happened the way you posted? Make it plain? Where you preaching to Malcolm X?

Good. I'm glad that's not the problem.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Do you understand both portions of scripture you posted are all about choice? When Paul is discussing the individual who wanted to keep the Law of Moses, but couldn't through his carnality. Paul wasn't talking about himself personally?

That's not the only take on the passage. Paul speaks first person in the present tense. It says what it means, and means what it says.

[Evang.Benincasa]

[QUOTE=Aquila;1489746]It is true. No saint continues in habitual sinful rebellion. We can know that when a believer sins, it is an act that is against the new nature imparted to the inner man upon regeneration.
Alford notes that "If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against his nature" (Hebrews-Revelation, p.465). Likewise, Brooke writes:

The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character. (The Johannine Epistles, p.89)

A commentary? Bro, the Bible is plain.

If and when? Do you understand what I was asking you?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I
Nope. Corporate election is Arminian, and denies Calvinist election according to predestination.

Arminius and Calvin were two apples on the same tree.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Romans 8:11

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

ESV leaves out a very important portion of the first verse.

That portion of verse one is thought by some to be a scribal notation referencing verses 4.

Either way, the meaning isn't changed when one considers the entire passage.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That's not the only take on the passage. Paul speaks first person in the present tense. It says what it means, and means what it says.

Paul wasn't using himself as an example. Or else he is speaking a contradiction in Philippians 3:6

I was so zealous that I harshly persecuted the church. And as for righteousness, I obeyed the law without fault.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That portion of verse one is thought by some to be a scribal notation referencing verses 4.

Either way, the meaning isn't changed when one considers the entire passage.

It is referring to verse 4, but removing it from verse one make people believe that you have no condemnation as you continue in sin that grace may abound. Which the apostle said God forbid.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Paul wasn't using himself as an example. Or else he is speaking a contradiction in Philippians 3:6

I was so zealous that I harshly persecuted the church. And as for righteousness, I obeyed the law without fault.

Past tense. "Obeyed". One must also consider that he's sharing a legalist perspective, but Romans bears out deeper ontological theology relating to salvation and our struggle with the flesh.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Past tense. "Obeyed".

Bro, are yo saying that Paul was blameless before his conversion?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It is referring to verse 4, but removing it from verse one make people believe that you have no condemnation as you continue in sin that grace may abound. Which the apostle said God forbid.

Only if people lift verse one out of context. But that's why seasoned saints are needed to correct them if they do that.