It Is satanic Heresy to Deny Eternal Security

[Atwood]

Re: Why Do These Guys Just Go On Dogmatizing w/ No Bible Proof?

Originally Posted by Atwood

How do you know that

1) If there is no threat, that implies God did not bring death on Adam? (the absence of a threat implies what God did not do??? Is this the fallacy of denying an antecedent?

2) When scripture says, "It is appointed to man once to die," someone other than God made that appointment?

3) If God warned Adam, that is inconsistent with God carrying out the judgment of death?

4) John 3:16 says that God gave His son to save us from a death which is not determined by God?

5) If man brought death on himself, that precludes the possibility that death is God's judgment?

6) Merely showing sacrificial love would take away death & reconcile the world?
7) Christ cleansed the human nature from sin???
(How does that jive with Rom 1-3???)

8) Man can grow into His likeness instead of being birthed into His likeness?
9) We are asked instead of commanded to be perfect?
10) The command to perfection has any other purpose than convicting men of sin?

11) In Rev 13:8 "from the foundation of the world" does not connect with "written in the Book of Life" ASV: every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain?

Can you prove your claims?



Where is your proof that the cup to drink is bitterness instead of God's wrath?

Are you aware of all the evidence below?
<Rom 1: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

< John 18:11 "the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"

The word “cup” connects with the prayer in Gethsemane, (Matt 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). The cup was so dreadful that our Savior sweat (as it were) great drops of blood over it in anticipation. Can you not hear in his mind the "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" coming? Sin separates from God, not that the Trinity can be split, but in His human nature He can experience what God cannot (like not knowing something).

[ASV] Matt. 26:39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

"the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"

Surely this is this cup of God's wrath. It was not dreamed up by Anselm, but is in scripture.


[ASV] Psa. 11:6 Upon the wicked he will rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup.


[ASV] Psa. 75:8 For in the hand of Jehovah there is a cup, and the wine foameth; It is full of mixture, and he poureth out of the same: Surely the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall drain them, and drink them.


[ASV] Is. 51:17 Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, that hast drunk at the hand of Jehovah the cup of his wrath; thou hast drunken the bowl of the cup of staggering, and drained it.


[ASV] Is. 51:22 Thus saith thy Lord Jehovah, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thy hand the cup of staggering, even the bowl of the cup of my wrath; thou shalt no more drink it again:


[ASV] Jer. 25:15 ¶ For thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, unto me: Take this cup of the wine of wrath at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it.


[ASV] Jer. 49:12 For thus saith Jehovah: Behold, they to whom it pertained not to drink of the cup shall assuredly drink; and art thou he that shall altogether go unpunished? thou shalt not go unpunished, but thou shalt surely drink.


[ASV] Ezek. 23:31-33 Thou hast walked in the way of thy sister; therefore will I give her cup into thy hand. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Thou shalt drink of thy sister’s cup, which is deep and large; thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had in derision; it containeth much. Thou shalt be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of astonishment and desolation, with the cup of thy sister Samaria.


[ASV] Rev. 14:10 he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:


[ASV] Rev. 16:19 And the great city was divided into into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and Babylon the great was remembered in the sight of God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.


[ASV] Rev. 18:6 Render unto her even as she rendered, and double unto her the double according to her works: in the cup which she mingled, mingle unto her double.18:6

Let's compare the Dead Sea Scrolls:


1QpHab 11:10-15 the cup of the LORD’s right hand will come around for you, and then shame will cover your honor” (Habakkuk 2:16). This refers to the priest whose disgrace became greater than his honor, because he had not circumcised his heart’s foreskin, and he walked in the ways of drunkenness in order to put an end to thirst. But the cup of God’s wrath will destroy him, increas[ing only his dis]honor and pain […]

The Lord Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath on the cross, and He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me."
There is therefore no need to suffer the wrath of God nor separation from Him. The cup has been drunk for you. All you must now do is trust Him as Savior, not as untrust Him as "chance-giver

'

The more you speak the more you deny scripture. You claim you read scripture through many times. Either you were just mouthing words, or you just do not comprehend what scripture says.

What is your proof of that?
When did I deny scripture or seek to make religious tradition superior?

Heb 2:14 tells you point blank, unequivocally that Satan imposed death upon man, took man captive.

Which version says "imposed"???
The text does not say that satan imposed death upon man.
That is made up.
It is noted that as usual, you do not quote the scripture, but pontificate.

It was NOT God that imposed death upon man. This is why Original Sin theory is unscriptural, and why Anselm who used both Original Sin theory and the metaphor of wrath against God, as the whole definition of atonement. It makes sin God's problem when it is man's problem. The wrath is man's perception of sin, not God's enforcement of punishment. Anselmian theory also makes God change and then leaves man still in a sinful state with no cure in sight. You might want to study both scripture and Anselmian's theory to see why it is unscriptural.

How do you know that God did not impose death upon man? Proof?
Who appointed unto man once to die but after that the judgment?
Who opened the ground in the days of Moses so that people fell in?
Who rained fire & brimstone?
What leads you think that Anselm used a metaphor of "wrath against God" & made that the whole definition of atonement?
How does it make sin God's problem instead of man's problem?
Does a Savior solve man's problems?

How do you know that

1) wrath is man's perception?
2) Scripture is giving man's perception?
3) Scripture does not over & over refer to God's wrath?
4) God does not enforce punishment?
5) Anselm makes God mutable? -- change in nature?
6) Anselm has no cure in sight?
7) There is a realized cure for all men? -- you are universalist?

You have used both theories repeatedly in your pontifications. They also deny the Incarnation and its salvific content which you have now done several times quite vociforously.

Why do you accuse me of what you do? Namely run on without proving things from the Bible?
What is your proof that
1) I have used both theories repeatedly?
2) I deny the incarnation?
3) the incarnation itself is salvific (as opposed to the cross)?

Why do you never answer my query as to whether or not you are a universalist (thus an extreme ES-er in disguise)?

 

[newbirth]

He saved me from my sins. Jesus is God and is all-knowing. He died for all sins past, present and future for those who acknowledge their sins, asked forgiveness, and invited Him into their hearts. I invited Jesus in my heart many years ago, He is still there today and He will be in my heart until the day He takes me home with Him. Why do so many doubt and walk in fear? I do not fear God. I respect God and trust on the holy name of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

so you have intentions of sinning in the future? I can't be sure Jesus is in your heart if you plan to sin in the future.

 

[Kerry]

Enough already, the only way to eternally secure is to have your faith placed in the cross. That sounds simple doesn't it. But the contrary is true. Paul struggled with it. We all struggle with it. It is in our flesh to be our own God or to earn our salvation. It is a free gift, because of the cross and it is conditional. Conditional by faith in the cross, if we place faith in any thing else we risk our salvation. The only thing God will accept is faith in the cross. If we place faith in what we do, the Holy Spirit backs off and the sin nature revives and prolonged and unrepentant sin leads to death and not ever lasting life.

The cross is not a freedom to sin but is the only way to be free from the power of sin. To say I am eternally secure is a true statement as long as your faith is in the work of the cross and not your own works. How ever if your faith is placed elsewhere God cannot and will not honor it.

OSAS is no differernt than name it and claim it. They take a little truth and twist it and add to it. The OSAS is doctrine that justifies your sin and no wher in the bible is sin justified only forgiven by faith in the cross.

Yes you have accepted Christ but you are not perfect. We sin daily and the closer you get to God the more you find just how sinful you are. That's where grace comes in and it comes because we recognize the sin by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and we pray and ask the Father to help us.

The only difference between a sinner and a saint is that sinner enjoys his sin, rolls in it and laughs about it. The believer hates sin and when convicted of it quickly repents or stops doing it. However, people ( and I mean believers ) that have become bound by it cannot stop as hard as they try. They are bound, chained, addicted, and so forth. Their freinds say just quit, but they can't. The pastor says pray and quit but they can't. The rehab guy say' s I know you can't quit but try. Then they here what I say and others like me and say I have never heard that before, I thought because I am bound that I was never saved. That is a lie.

They were saved, but got deceived by placing their faith in what they do and not the cross. Then they repent and place their faith back in the cross and in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks and months they are set free.

 

[Atwood]

Re: Why Do These Guys Just Go On Dogmatizing w/ No Bible Proof?

Heb 2:14 tells you point blank, unequivocally that Satan imposed death upon man, took man captive. It was NOT God that imposed death upon man.

Cassian, for shame. Heb 2:14 does not say point blank or side-shot that satan imposed death upon man.

Moreover, what do you make of the Lord banishing man from the Garden & preventing man from access to the Tree of Life, lest man live forever??? Did satan do that?

"And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever — therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So He drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Is not the means by which God killed Adam, God depriving Adam of the Tree of Life?

 

[Kerry]

ES is people trying to justify their sin. Nothing more nothing less. The same as OSAS.

 

[Atwood]

Atonement

Having established beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth of eternal security from so many scriptures, like Rom 8 & John 10 (I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish),
let us digress a bit on atonement, that is, what Christ did on the cross. Those who want to make the incarnation itself the atonement, have not posted a shred of evidence -- so we can set that on aside. We can also set aside Anselm; I may have read him some years ago when doing research on "flesh," when I checked the "Church fathers" on that topic. But it is the Word of God that counts, not tradition. Isaiah 52-53 has a key passage.

Behold, my servant shall deal wisely, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Like as many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men), so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they understand.

Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

[On the cross, his visage was marred, so on the cross He had no beauty.]

He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.


Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows
[On the cross he bore our sin -- He who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Our griefs & sorrows come from our sin & our estrangement from God.]

yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
[He was punished by the Father for our sins. The punishment for sin is separation from God. He is holy & cannot have fellowship with sinners. On the cross He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me.]

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his bruising we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
[This torment was from God the Father. He chastised or punished His Son when the Son bore our sins. The Lord Himself laid on Him our iniquity & chastised Him for it. "Stripes" is a mistranslation for a word that is singular in Hebrew; this does not refer to Pilate's whipping. Those nails into His body were to pay for our sins. And His suffering brings us spiritual healing --also physical healing eventually, complete health.]


He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?
[His death was substitutionary. We deserved the stroke, but He took it for us.]

And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
[It was YHWH who put Him to grief. YHWH made an offering out of Him, not Molech.]

he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
[There it is, satisfaction. God had been affronted by our sins. He drank the cup of the wrath of God for us. Another way of saying it would be that Christ made propitiation for our sins.]

by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
[There it is, more indication of substitution. It was our sins that He bore. He justifies those who believe in Him. We don't justify ourselves by our works.]

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many,
[substitutionary sacrifice]

and made intercession for the transgressors.

All this supports eternal security. It is Christ Who died for us & for our sins. We have no sin-debt to pay now. Jesus paid it all; all to Him I owe. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God who declares righteous; who is he who condemns?

He is truly our Savior if we trust Him.
He is not a mere chance-giver.

Thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for He shall save His people from their sins.

 

[Atwood]

E S is God Justifying Sinners

ES is people trying to justify their sin. Nothing more nothing less. The same as OSAS.

No dear Kerry,
ES is the result of God justifying sinners.

He Who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

ES is trusting the Lord Jesus as Savior,
instead of relegating Him to "chance-giver."

ES is believing God's promises, like:

Thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for He shall save His people from their sins.

 

[Atwood]

Enough already, the only way to eternally secure is to have your faith placed in the cross.

Would you not better say, Have your faith in the Lord Jesus?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.
(not "believe on the cross . . .)

Of course perhaps you speak metaphorically of having faith in Christ Who died on the cross.

Once you trust Christ as Savior, the only condition is the faithfulness of the Savior.

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.

OSAS is no differernt than name it and claim it.

In point of fact, ES is quite different, for it is based on God's promise.
The idea that you can name & claim appears to go back to one of Job's "friends" who were wrong in their debate with Job. Ol' Eliphaz pontificated:

"Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee;" in Job 22. Eliphaz spoke nonsense, & was rebuked by the Lord at the end of the story. I suspect that some dumb preacher read Job 22 out of context & came up with "name & claim."

They take a little truth and twist it and add to it. The OSAS is doctrine that justifies your sin and no wher in the bible is sin justified only forgiven by faith in the cross.

Kerry, do not bear false witness, even about a doctrine. You need to apologize & retract for saying that. "justifies your sin" is libelous.


Kerry, my advice to you is not to pretend, but trust the Lord Jesus as your Savior -- repent if you have been regarding Him as a mere chance-giver.

 

[Cassian]

Atwood,

How do you know that his atonement POV is not from scripture? How do you know he got it from Anselm?

because it never was the understanding of atonement prior to Anselm. It is his personal interpretation of atonement. Much like your personal interpretation of OSAS. It has never been believed prior to the person developing the view.

How do you know that it is merely a theory?

historical fact. It has his name attached to it as well.

How do you know that eternal life is not eternal?

Never stated it was not eternal. Eternal life is eternal. However, you as a human being does not have eternal life, eternally, unless you remain a believer from first faith to the end. Then you will inherit that eternal life.

How do you know that inheriting it is in doubt?

Never stated that it need be. However, scripture gives no guarantee to man for his faith. Since the NT especially spends an inordinate amount of ink explaining, exhorting, giving examples of believers that have lost faith, thus were condemned with unbelievers.
As long as man, a sinner, with a fallen nature, and Satan seeding to devour, a believer must always be on guard that he not fall.

How do you know that remaining faithful is the requirement?

Because scripture says so. It has been pointed out to you in ever single response to you on this thread. That you deny it does not change scripture, it just makes your view proven to be false.

How do you know that the inheritance is not incorruptible, undefiled & guarded in Heaven?

where does scripture say this when it states that it is incorruptible, undefiled and is guarded in heaven waiting for you to inherit it.

What is your proof that OSAS requires God to force a believer?

YOu are my proof. YOu have restated that man cannot lose salvation/eternal life. YOur doctrine goes directly, diametrically against scripture. Do you even know what you are saying?

What is your verse that says that a man who believes in Christ loses his faith in Christ?

the word is "can" lose, I nor anyone else has ever stated that he will lose faith. Again, for the answer, read this thread, with emphasis on the opponents to OSAS.

If it can be lost, how is it eternal?

it is not eternal if it can be lost. That is the point. Hell is eternal as well, but in scripture, eternal life means to be with Christ in eternity. We possess it in this life if we work with God to fulfill the obligations of the covenant.

Why do suggest that ES means you attain eternal life with no faith?

that is how you describe it. As in one can lose fellowship but cannot lose salvation. And other such nonsense. You redefine salvation, relationship to fit your mold of the errant view of OSAS.

When will you have faith in the Savior, instead of writing him off as a "chance-giver"?

I believe in the Savior of scripture. I'm not sure what you believe in or who, since you deny so much of scripture and specifically what He actually accomplished for us and why.
YOu have created your own personal christ, your own way of salvation to fit your favored desired philosophical view.

Thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for He shall save His people from their sins.

and how does this support ES? YOu keep citing it but it has nothing to do with OSAS or ES.

 

[Cassian]

Re: Why Do These Guys Just Go On Dogmatizing w/ No Bible Proof?

Atwood,

What is your proof of that?
When did I deny scripture or seek to make religious tradition superior?

your posting in this thread. You have denied just about everything that pertains to historical Christianity. The ONLY thing that you hold to are several man made theories as far as I can tell.

This makes you elevating man made theories to the level of infallible Gospel Truth. How is that not the traditions of men?

Which version says "imposed"???
The text does not say that satan imposed death upon man.
That is made up.
It is noted that as usual, you do not quote the scripture, but pontificate.

All Christians over the last 2000 years would have understood what I explained because it was they that have upheld that same teaching over 2000 years by the power of the Holy Spirit. I cannot help that you do not understand scripture when it is cited and explained to you.

It is clear that you have been misled by the theories of men where most of them have been developed since Rome left the Church and then Protestants left Rome, even though they took with them many of the false teachings of Rome as well. It might behoove you to actually study these theories to see why they are unscriptural and have not been believed from the beginning.
I an not running on. I have given you historical and theological facts that any Christian could identify with. That you cannot says a lot about what you believe. Any Christian can understand scripture without the citation of texts. The only reason sola scripturist need citations is because they define new doctrines by single verses. It matters not that it might contradict most of the rest of scripture like OSAS.
YOu should study scripture with an open mind, rather than all the innovative ideas of men over the last 1000 years but mostly the last 500.
If you actually took the time to understand what someone else is saying regarding scripture and can show its validity without so severely changing mutalating scripture as you have done trying to shore up the false teaching of OSAS.

 

[Atwood]

How do you know that his atonement POV is not from scripture? How do you know he got it from Anselm?


"because it never was the understanding of atonement prior to Anselm. It is his personal interpretation of atonement. Much like your personal interpretation of OSAS. It has never been believed prior to the person developing the view."

is your proof that it was never the understanding before Anselm? How do u know it was just his personal? How do you know that my doctrine of ES is unique to me?




How do you know that it is merely a theory?


historical fact. It has his name attached to it as well.

How do you know it is a historical fact?
How does his name on it prove it is merely a theory?


How do you know that eternal life is not eternal?


"Never stated it was not eternal. Eternal life is eternal. However, you as a human being does not have eternal life, eternally, unless you remain a believer from first faith to the end. Then you will inherit that eternal life."

If you have eternal life now, but not later, how can it be eternal?
How do you know that eternal life is not eternal, but losable?


How do you know that inheriting it is in doubt?


"Never stated that it need be. However, scripture gives no guarantee to man for his faith. Since the NT especially spends an inordinate amount of ink explaining, exhorting, giving examples of believers that have lost faith, thus were condemned with unbelievers.
As long as man, a sinner, with a fallen nature, and Satan seeding to devour, a believer must always be on guard that he not fall."

How do you know that scripture gives no guarantee to the believer of never losing his faith?
Where does the NT ever speak about even one person who lost his faith? Since lose and faith never occur in one verse, how can you claim this? How do you know that a Christian has only a fallen nature? If a Christian has indwelling sin in a fallen nature, in addition to his new nature & if satan wants to devour, how does that prove that a man can fall from salvation?


How do you know that remaining faithful is the requirement?


Because scripture says so. It has been pointed out to you in ever single response to you on this thread. That you deny it does not change scripture, it just makes your view proven to be false.

Where does scripture say that remaining faithful is the requirement instead of the evidence or inevitable result? How does my view being contradicted by you prove it is false? Are you the pope?


How do you know that the inheritance is not incorruptible, undefiled & guarded in Heaven?



You did not answer the question; instead you asked me one.

How do you know that the inheritance is not incorruptible, undefiled, & guarded in Heaven?


What is your proof that OSAS requires God to force a believer?


YOu are my proof. YOu have restated that man cannot lose salvation/eternal life. YOur doctrine goes directly, diametrically against scripture. Do you even know what you are saying?

How does my existence prove that OSAS requires God to force a believer? What is your proof that my doctrine goes directly vs scripture? What is your proof that i don't know what I am saying?


What is your verse that says that a man who believes in Christ loses his faith in Christ?


the word is "can" lose, I nor anyone else has ever stated that he will lose faith. Again, for the answer, read this thread, with emphasis on the opponents to OSAS.

If it can be lost, how is it eternal?


it is not eternal if it can be lost. That is the point. Hell is eternal as well, but in scripture, eternal life means to be with Christ in eternity. We possess it in this life if we work with God to fulfill the obligations of the covenant.

Why do suggest that ES means you attain eternal life with no faith?


"that is how you describe it. As in one can lose fellowship but cannot lose salvation. And other such nonsense. You redefine salvation, relationship to fit your mold of the errant view of OSAS."

What is your proof that
"that is how I describe it"?
How is it nonsense to say that losing fellowship is not the same as losing salvation? What is your proof that I redefine salvation?


When will you have faith in the Savior, instead of writing him off as a "chance-giver"?


"I believe in the Savior of scripture. I'm not sure what you believe in or who, since you deny so much of scripture and specifically what He actually accomplished for us and why.
YOu have created your own personal christ, your own way of salvation to fit your favored desired philosophical view."

How can you believe in the Savior, if you define Him as a mere chance giver? What is your proof that I deny scripture?
What is your proof that I have created a Christ and a salvation ?
How do you know that my POV is based on philosophy instead of Bible?



Thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for He shall save His people from their sins.


" YOu keep citing it but it has nothing to do with OSAS or ES."

What is your proof that it has nothing to do with ES?

 

[konroh]

This whole thread shows why a Catholic and a Calvinist can't get along, better get a papal bull. If you don't get the joke, no worries.

Middle ground here, biblical ground.

ES is true, can't be denied, those who do so misunderstand the nature of an unconditional God.

We can fall away from faith, also true. Those who deny this misunderstand the nature of a finite man.

Can both be true? Can we have the promise of God that gives eternal salvation even when man does not continue in faith? Yes, we can. This is the biblical picture. Hebrews shows this so clearly.

Can we lose eternal life? No. Can we lose salvation, not justification-salvation but certainly we can lose sanctification-salvation. There is a middle ground.

Please read Joseph Dillow's 1000 page treatise covering every passage in the Bible concerning these matters. It's called Final Destiny, the 1st edition was called Reign of the Servant Kings.

I'm not trying to promote a man's philosophy. I'm trying to promote the Bible. May the truth set us free, amen.

 

[Atwood]

Re: Why Do These Guys Just Go On Dogmatizing w/ No Bible Proof?

Atwood,


" You have denied just about everything that pertains to historical Christianity. The ONLY thing that you hold to are several man made theories as far as I can tell."

Proof?

"This makes you elevating man made theories to the level of infallible Gospel Truth. How is that not the traditions of men?
All Christians over the last 2000 years would have understood what I explained because it was they that have upheld that same teaching over 2000 years by the power of the Holy Spirit. I cannot help that you do not understand scripture when it is cited and explained to you."

What is your proof that I elevate man made theories?
How do you know that all Christians have had uniform doctrine?
What is your proof that your doctrine agrees with all Christians instead of mine?"

Why do you go on about scripture, since you fail to quote it most of the time, but just pontificate?

"It is clear that you have been misled by the theories of men where most of them have been developed since Rome left the Church and then Protestants left Rome, even though they took with them many of the false teachings of Rome as well."

Proof?

" It might behoove you to actually study these theories to see why they are unscriptural and have not been believed from the beginning."

How do you know what behooves me?

"I an not running on"

Since you just spout words instead of proving from Bible, how can it be that you are not just running on?

"I have given you historical and theological facts that any Christian could identify with."

What leads you to suppose that any Christian agrees with you?
Why should anyone accept your pontifications as facts?

"That you cannot says a lot about what you believe."

What is your proof that I cannot?

"Any Christian can understand scripture without the citation of texts."

How do you know that?
How can a Christian understand scripture in your pontifications when they lack scripture?

"The only reason sola scripturist need citations is because they define new doctrines by single verses."

Prove that one.
And disprove that the Bible is the only document readily available to men in general, by bringing forth something else & proving it is God's word.

"It matters not that it might contradict most of the rest of scripture like OSAS."

How do you know that it matters not?

"YOu should study scripture with an open mind, rather than all the innovative ideas of men over the last 1000 years but mostly the last 500. "

Do you study scripture with an open mind?
Have you not exhibited a Biblephobia, and relied on pontification?

"If you actually took the time to understand what someone else is saying regarding scripture and can show its validity without so severely changing mutalating scripture as you have done trying to shore up the false teaching of OSAS."

What is there to understand when someone just goes on asserting things with no scripture, except that the person is just saying things?

What is your proof of mutilation?
What is your proof that OSAS is a false teaching?

 

[Atwood]

I'm not trying to promote a man's philosophy. I'm trying to promote the Bible. May the truth set us free, amen.

Konroh, good evening.
I don't mean to be offensive, but your post reads like double-talk to me. For a man who says he is not promoting man's philosophy, it is notable that you quote not one Bible verse & prove nothing. It is just you opining -- not that such is illegal, but for proof it goes nowhere.

Best wishes anyway.

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish."

Rom 8:
foreknew >foreordained > called > justified > glorified.
(an unbreakable chain.)
Nothing can separate.

Thou shalt call His name Jesus,
for He shall save His people from their sins.

 

[konroh]

Don't accuse me of not quoting Scripture, enough Scripture has been thrown around here. I understand you're a Calvinist, and I agree with your OSS, it's biblical. But the verses you fail to interpret are the ones Cassian has quoted about losing faith, not persevering, being shipwrecked in one's faith. These verses I believe you interpret as not having salvation to begin with, case in point, the 4 soils, the passage is clear, the rocky soil "believed" and was saved, but falls away. You can say this is a false faith, but then you're doing the text a disservice and claiming what it really doesn't say. It doesn't say that we believe and endure to be saved, it just says believe and be saved. What does endurance grant us? It grants fruit that remains. That is what the text says. Salvation comes through belief, fruit comes by enduring.

 

[Atwood]

Don't accuse me of not quoting Scripture, enough Scripture has been thrown around here.

Well, what is there to interact with if you don't make a point & back it with scripture? Those who oppose ES do not throw enough scripture around on subject, that is, passages where there is a Savior doing some saving of men.

I understand you're a Calvinist, and I agree with your OSS, it's biblical.

What does Calvin have to do with anything? I haven't argued from Calvin here. In fact, I went out of my way to show that ES or OSS is believed by persons who deny the rest of the TULIP, all but the P.
I base my conviction on what God's word says. This demonstrates how effective "poisoning the well" can be in getting persons to judge falsely. I haven't said how much of the TULIP I believe here, because ES doesn't depend on that.

But the verses you fail to interpret are the ones Cassian has quoted about losing faith, not persevering, being shipwrecked in one's faith.

Cassian usually quotes no scripture. There are no verses on losing faith. In fact lose & faith never occur in the same verse together. The closest I know of is a negation where the Lord Jesus prays that Peter's fail fail not. I know of no verse in the Bible where someone believes in the Lord Jesus as Savior and then stops believing in the Lord Jesus as His Savior. And I have explained everything quoted so far as I know. Moreover, I don't know any verses about not persevering -- there are verse that speak of enduring, quite a different matter from not-enduring.

These verses I believe you interpret as not having salvation to begin with, case in point, the 4 soils, the passage is clear, the rocky soil "believed" and was saved [sic! text does not say that !], but falls away. You can say this is a false faith, but then you're doing the text a disservice and claiming what it really doesn't say. It doesn't say that we believe and endure to be saved, it just says believe and be saved. What does endurance grant us? It grants fruit that remains. That is what the text says. Salvation comes through belief, fruit comes by enduring.

Really Konroh, if you want to make an assertion, please quote your scripture & prove from it. And kindly don't put words in my mouth; backquote me. The rocky soil did not believe in the Lord Jesus, nor get saved. The passage says neither one. The person illustrated believed the word; it doesn't say he trusted the Savior. I already explained this one, but since apparently you didn't see it & you falsely accuse me of not explaining it, I will do so again, even though you don't quote the passage.

Luke 8:13

And those on the rock are they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

There is nothing here about believing in the Lord Jesus. It is the word that is received and believed. There is no root; nothing about being saved. I do so wish persons would stop imagining things.

This reminds me of King Agrippa in Acts 26:

King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.

So even if Agrippa believed the word, he never believed in the Lord Jesus as Savior. I cite this to demo how believing the word is not the same as trusting the Savior. The text says "these have no root." So why you would think they were saved is beyond me.

As a matter of fact, the parable of the soils says nothing about any Savior saving anyone. And that is typical of passages persons quote to try to oppose eternal security.

Konroh, would you mind doing your own work of hunting up scripture? If you want an explanation, please quote your own passage. I don't think there are any you will quote that I have not already explained in this very long thread. You may also want to check out the passage yourself with Greek dictionaries/lexicons and the like on crucial words before you post. Go to Biblehub and look at alternative translations first, why don't you? I am happy to help, but why not check things out yourself first a little?

 

[RickyZ]

Ahem, excuse me, don't mean to barge in, but when was the last time you guys spent this kind of energy answering prayer requests?

 

[newbirth]

Don't accuse me of not quoting Scripture, enough Scripture has been thrown around here.

Well, what is there to interact with if you don't make a point & back it with scripture? Those who oppose ES do not throw enough scripture around on subject, that is, passages where there is a Savior doing some saving of men.



What does Calvin have to do with anything? I haven't argued from Calvin here. In fact, I went out of my way to show that ES or OSS is believed by persons who deny the rest of the TULIP, all but the P.
I base my conviction on what God's word says. This demonstrates how effective "poisoning the well" can be in getting persons to judge falsely. I haven't said how much of the TULIP I believe here, because ES doesn't depend on that.



Cassian usually quotes no scripture. There are no verses on losing faith. In fact lose & faith never occur in the same verse together. The closest I know of is a negation where the Lord Jesus prays that Peter's fail fail not. I know of no verse in the Bible where someone believes in the Lord Jesus as Savior and then stops believing in the Lord Jesus as His Savior. And I have explained everything quoted so far as I know. Moreover, I don't know any verses about not persevering -- there are verse that speak of enduring, quite a different matter from not-enduring.



Really Konroh, if you want to make an assertion, please quote your scripture & prove from it. And kindly don't put words in my mouth; backquote me. The rocky soil did not believe in the Lord Jesus, nor get saved. The passage says neither one. The person illustrated believed the word; it doesn't say he trusted the Savior. I already explained this one, but since apparently you didn't see it & you falsely accuse me of not explaining it, I will do so again, even though you don't quote the passage.

Luke 8:13

And those on the rock are they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

(they received the word ,Jesus is the word and they believed ....what other word could he be talking about?
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: this line does not say Jesus so according to you it is not referring to Jesus.) What would be the point of the parable if he was not ministering about the kingdom...he was not teaching gardening 101

There is nothing here about believing in the Lord Jesus. It is the word that is received and believed. There is no root; nothing about being saved. I do so wish persons would stop imagining things.

This reminds me of King Agrippa in Acts 26:

King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.

So even if Agrippa believed the word, he never believed in the Lord Jesus as Savior. I cite this to demo how believing the word is not the same as trusting the Savior. The text says "these have no root." So why you would think they were saved is beyond me.

As a matter of fact, the parable of the soils says nothing about any Savior saving anyone. And that is typical of passages persons quote to try to oppose eternal security.

Konroh, would you mind doing your own work of hunting up scripture? If you want an explanation, please quote your own passage. I don't think there are any you will quote that I have not already explained in this very long thread. You may also want to check out the passage yourself with Greek dictionaries/lexicons and the like on crucial words before you post. Go to Biblehub and look at alternative translations first, why don't you? I am happy to help, but why not check things out yourself first a little?
Paul never said King Agrippa believed the word or Christ.. he said he believed the prophets.... two different things...

[SUP]15 [/SUP]But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

[SUP]16 [/SUP]No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

 

[newbirth]

Ahem, excuse me, don't mean to barge in, but when was the last time you guys spent this kind of energy answering prayer requests?

Good point...

 

[Atwood]

Salvation Is What It's All About

"Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins."

There it is, a Savior & persons saved.
So many objections are made from verses off that topic.

Here is a typical salvation passage:

Therefore he brought down their heart with labor;
They fell down, and there was none to help.
Then they cried unto Jehovah in their trouble,
And he saved them out of their distresses.
He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death,
And brake their bonds in sunder.
Oh that men would praise Jehovah for his lovingkindness,
And for his wonderful works to the children of men!
For he hath broken the gates of brass,
And cut the bars of iron in sunder. - Ps 107

Eternal Security is that strange belief that the Lord Jesus will save His people from their sins.
The salvation includes eternal life.

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish."

All praise be to the author & perfecter of our faith, the Lord Jesus,
who saves to the uttermost.
He Who began a good work in you will complete it.

[But has he begun in you?
Are you dismissing the Savior as a mere "chance-giver"?