|
Post by biblethumper on May 6, 2006 16:36:59 GMT -5
I shake the dust off of my feet and remove myself from responding to you as I see you cannot admit sinful behavior. This is a sorrowful day, darc. I pray God's best for you. I cannot, however, speak with you on any other issue or even on confession...because you have shown disdain for truth by claiming that which was never your own.Posting dc on one article is STILL sneaky and less than honest...you BLATANTLY lied on THIS post and others giving no credit for anything, but again, using Corner as your own. Sinful. That's enough from me now I'm satisfied that the Lord has opened my eyes for a reason. I don't want your head on a platter, or want you to leave or whatever else; what I would have like dis an answer from YOU, without having to copy and paste Corner, and then claiming you gave him credit when you know you did not. Now I will move on. That said, post as you will, say what you will.... but I part company. Dan, OK brother, you've been saying this same thing for days now, more than once. Are you actually going to abide by it? You say you are done with the debate and topic yet you just get right back into it...either argue this in PM's or actually do what you've said you were going to do. This personal arguing is DETRIMENTAL to the entire board brothers! You both have been lovingly asked by several people now to cut it out. No matter who is right and wrong about the doctirne, postings, lying, etc et c etc BOTH of you should be more respectful to the others on this board and not continue these personal attacks on each other. Enough already. Yes, Jules, I am... I have decided to take any further discussion with Darc to PM alone, if that. Your pointing out my statements is correct; I will have to abide by my initial statements. Thank you for bringing this to my attention once again, yet this time using my own words. I concede to the post I wrote God bless, Dan
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 7, 2006 15:40:47 GMT -5
Is Calvinism Associated With Holiness?
Some people think Calvinism is synonymous with holy living. This is quickly dispelled when one considers that the Calvanistic Westminster Confession sites David as an example of an elect person who fell "into grievous sins; and for a time continued therein."
The implications of that are obvious. If David remained saved when in adultery and murder, then after salvation we too will remain saved, even if we behave in the same unholy way.
Another implication of this teaching is that one can be more vile and wicked after initial salvation than before yet still remain a child of God. In other words, many people who get saved were never guilty of murder like David, but now that they are saved they can turn to such sin and still retain their salvation, according to this teaching. Where is the holiness that is necessary to see the Lord (Heb. 12:14) with such implications from OSAS as these? The truth is, OSAS is one of the greatest threats to holiness and personal revival that exists. We must contend against this license for immorality and counterfeit grace message for the sake of many souls that are hanging in the balance.
The following are John Calvin's comments on Ezek. 18:24 about King David's sins of adultery and murder which clearly shows the heart of true Calvinism is a license for immorality:
...the saints sometimes rush headlong, as though utterly desperate. For the example of David shows that the elect, although regenerated by God's Spirit, not only sin to a small extent, but, as I have said, plunge into the very lowest abyss. David became a perfidious homicide, and a traitor to the army of God; then that wretched king fell into a series of crimes: yet he failed in only one thing, and showed that God's grace was only suffocated within him, and not altogether extinguished.
by Dan Corner
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 7, 2006 16:28:52 GMT -5
Rather than look to false prophets and mis-guided brethren on Calvinism, let's go straight to Calvin and see what he himself taught, rather than what false prophets and mis-guided brethren SAY he taught.
John Calvin says in the Institutes of the Christian Religion concerning the Law and it's use:
"...Let us take a succinct view of the office and use of the Moral Law. Now this office and use seems to me to consist of three parts. First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God, - in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God, - it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him. This is necessary, in order that man, who is blind and intoxicated with self-love, may be brought at once to know and to confess his weakness and impurity." Book 2, Chapter 7, Section 6
"The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice." Book 2, Chapter 7, Section 10
"The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns... For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge... The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish behind. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth." Book 2, Chapter 7, Section 12
John Calvin says in the Institutes of the Christian Religion concerning Holiness:
"I call it not humility, so long as we think there is any good remaining in us. Those who have joined together the two things, to think humbly of ourselves before God and yet hold our own righteousness in some estimation, have hitherto taught a pernicious hypocrisy."Book 3, Chapter 12, Section 6
"Paul uniformly declares that the conscience can have no peace or quiet joy until it is held for certain that we are justified by faith. And he at the same time declares whence this certainty is derived, viz., when 'the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost,' (Rom. 5: 5;) as if he had said that our Souls cannot have peace until we are fully assured that we are pleasing to God." Book 3, Chapter 13, Section 5
"One of the requisites of legitimate prayer is repentance. Hence the common declaration of Scripture, that God does not listen to the wicked; that their prayers, as well as their sacrifices, are an abomination to him. For it is right that those who seal up their hearts should find the ears of God closed against them, that those who, by their hardheartedness, provoke his severity should find him inflexible."Book 3, Chapter 20, Section 7
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 8, 2006 7:40:27 GMT -5
The Lord Jesus said;
14"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:14,15
The word if means 'on the condition that'. When Jesus spoke these words he was abviously speaking to the issue of how important forgiving others is and that there is a condition to the Lord's forgiveness of our sins.
Let me ask, if you and I don't forgive another their sin against us then will the Father forgive us our own sins against Him according to the Word? If not then this means that a Christian brother or sister that is sinned against and does not forgive will not enter into heaven because of unforgiven sin, for we know that it is sin that keeps us out of paradise. (Rev 22:27 says nothing impure can enter) So if what Jesus is saying is true then we have to acknowledge that we can indeed miss out on heaven if we don't forgive someone when they sin against us.
This is truly a condition to our salvation. Just because we had a past moment of faith does not mean, if we live with unforgiven sin in our lives we will go to heaven. Not forgiving someone their sins will cause you to fall from grace and lose out on the gift of eternal life.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 8, 2006 8:09:53 GMT -5
"One of the requisites of legitimate prayer is repentance. Hence the common declaration of Scripture, that God does not listen to the wicked; that their prayers, as well as their sacrifices, are an abomination to him. For it is right that those who seal up their hearts should find the ears of God closed against them, that those who, by their hardheartedness, provoke his severity should find him inflexible." Book 3, Chapter 20, Section 7 (John Calvin)
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 8, 2006 8:42:14 GMT -5
" For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. " (Rom. 11:21,22)
Paul here talking of the original braches (Isreal) and the grafted in branches (gentiles). Gentiles to canbe 'cut off'.
Paul also speaks of this same point in I Cor. 9:27, "But I keepunder my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
How do Calvinists interpret these verses?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 8, 2006 8:45:13 GMT -5
Calvinists who take the Perseverance of the Saints as Calvin taught it can;t interpret those verses.Moderate Calvinism wouyld say that this IS a possibility, yet again, once fallen, there would be no restoration... there si a HUGE gulf between backsliding and falling away; however, it should be noted that backsliding (neglect of prayer, Bible Meditation, etc etc) leads to falling away.These verses teach a no-future-repentance if such is committed.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 8, 2006 8:47:16 GMT -5
"And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again." (Rom. 11:23)
Repentance is a gift of God, if he gives it again, great, if not....well.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 8, 2006 8:55:12 GMT -5
I agree.... The key is in the repentance being a GIFT.
It's never a promise to restore anyone, as Esau and Saul found out so clearly.
Thus, I would ask Arminains why they rightly claim a warning against falling but most times fail to warn the backslider of the very real possibility of blasphemy?
It appears that too many speak of a one sided gospel, one which calls the backlsider, and rightly so, to come back to Jesus, yet fails to warn that God promises NO restoration to the fallen if consistent rebellion and wilful sin is present.
Hebews 6:4-6
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 8, 2006 14:09:52 GMT -5
Definition of Blasphemy: 1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
DAN QUOTE: "Thus, I would ask Arminains why they rightly claim a warning against falling but most times fail to warn the backslider of the very real possibility of blasphemy?"
Are you referring to the unforgiveable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit here or something different?
DAN QUOTE: "yet fails to warn that God promises NO restoration to the fallen if consistent rebellion and wilful sin is present."
Arminians do warn of this same truth. We also give the examples of King David, the Disciples and the Prodigal Son as examples of those who fell from grace, clearly lost their salvation and returned through repentance. Not continued falling away and then repentance as has been stated on these boards. If a person continually falls into the same sin then they have not truly repented of that sin and are not christian. Nor do I believe that a person can spend a life time doing this, coming to repentance and faith, fall away...come back to faith through repentance, etc.. That's not scriptural teaching.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 8, 2006 14:14:49 GMT -5
yes, I was referring to the unforgiveable sin...the blasphemy of the Spirit...or, as wel also, know it ask, the "sin unto death" which Apostle John told us not to pray for anyone concerning.
As for arminians warning of the danger of falling eternally and committing the unpardonable sin, I was in the arminian camp for the greater part of my Chrisatian walk, and only on the rare exception did I hear this teaching and it usually came with "don;t worry; your concern is proof you haven;t".
So, again, very few arminians teach this truth.... which is unfortunate, as Scripture warns of it repeatedly
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 8, 2006 18:05:55 GMT -5
yes, I was referring to the unforgiveable sin...the blasphemy of the Spirit...or, as wel also, know it ask, the "sin unto death" which Apostle John told us not to pray for anyone concerning. As for arminians warning of the danger of falling eternally and committing the unpardonable sin, I was in the arminian camp for the greater part of my Chrisatian walk, and only on the rare exception did I hear this teaching and it usually came with "don;t worry; your concern is proof you haven;t". So, again, very few arminians teach this truth.... which is unfortunate, as Scripture warns of it repeatedly Dan, As for your experience with Arminians, I'm sure it is the same, basically, with Calvinists. (This point could be debated to no end and I prefer not to) The point is there are bad apples no matter where you look. I would just as soon not look at the examples that men give us, rather let's look at what the examples given in scripture are. Amen? I don't claim to be Arminian, even though I agree with their observations. I like to say I am Christian and follow only Jesus and His Word. DAN QUOTE: "Thus, I would ask Arminains why they rightly claim a warning against falling but most times fail to warn the backslider of the very real possibility of blasphemy?"Please explain what you mean by that statement in light of this statement: DAN QUOTE: "yes, I was referring to the unforgiveable sin...the blasphemy of the Spirit...or, as wel also, know it ask, the "sin unto death" which Apostle John told us not to pray for anyone concerning."How does a backslider get to the point of blasphemy or the "sin unto death"? Is it a progressive thing?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 8, 2006 18:30:00 GMT -5
I believe it CAN be progressive as well as a "one time deal", depending on how God deals with the individual.
David was brought back to repentance; Saul was not.
So I see both.
I'm not dogmatic on it, however.... what I am saying is I don't know HOW one falls into blasphemy as a statement of fact, yet I am lead to see the truth of it in both David and Saul.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 9, 2006 11:25:15 GMT -5
1 John 5:13-17 13"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 14And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."
John is writing to the church, believers or converts, (V13) all one in the same. He then says that if anyone sees "his brother sin" that he should pray for him or go to him and pray with him. He is saying that there are basically two different types of sin, those that don't lead to death and those that do. (V16)
I like how one commentator says:
"A sin which is not unto death. This is an extremely difficult passage, and has been variously interpreted. What is the sin not unto death, for which we should ask, and life shallbe given to him that commits it? And what is the sin unto death, for which we should not pray? The sin unto death means a case of transgression, particularly of grievous backsliding from the life and power off godliness, which God determines to punish with temporal death, while at the same time He extends mercy to the penitent soul. The disobedient prophet, 1 King 13:1-32, is, on this interpretation, a case in point. Many others occur in in the history of the Church, and of every religious community. The sin not unto death is any sin which God does not choose thus to punish. This view of the subject is that taken by the late Rev. J. Wesley, in a sermon entitled "A Call to Backsliders." I do not think the passage has anything to do with what is termed "the sin against the Holy Ghost." --Adam Clark--
I agree with this, for it is a progressive lifestyle of sin that a brother (Christian) backslides into that John is speaking of here that leads unto death and he is not speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 9, 2006 14:28:22 GMT -5
I believe that the sin unto death, blasphemy againt the Spirit, falling away (heb 60 are interchangeably spoken of...meaning they are like the 4 Gospels; they say are essentially teaching the same truth but from varying vantage points, as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I could be wrong, but all of these point to never being forgiven, which leads me to believe that it is the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 9, 2006 15:25:44 GMT -5
I believe that the sin unto death, blasphemy againt the Spirit, falling away (heb 60 are interchangeably spoken of...meaning they are like the 4 Gospels; they say are essentially teaching the same truth but from varying vantage points, as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I could be wrong, but all of these point to never being forgiven, which leads me to believe that it is the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Matthew 12:30-32 Jesus speaks very clear. So from this I get the understanding that as He says " every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men" and " anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." The speaking against the Holy Spirit is when someone says the miracles, signs and wonders that Jesus did were actually done by devils, for example. But it is very clear that " Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven."
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 9, 2006 19:13:24 GMT -5
I agree; every sin IS forgiveable except for the blasphemy of the Spirit.... however, that's my point, taht the sin unto death IS the blasphemy of the Spirit..... it's a sin unto DEATH, not forgiveness. you see what i mean? Hey, I could be wrong; it' sjust my view and I'll correct it if I receive Biblical testimony which shows mine as flawed
|
|
|
Post by Jules on May 9, 2006 19:19:02 GMT -5
"And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again." (Rom. 11:23) Repentance is a gift of God, if he gives it again, great, if not....well. great point. It is all about God, not us, just that we must not remain in sin. I think everyon eowuld agree wiht that, except the OSAS teachers perhaps. They teach if you eremian in sn you simply lose out on rewards in heaven, but don't lose your salvation. This teaching is false. Perserverence of the saints teaches that GOD HIMSELF keeps us, as He grants the gift of faith and of repentance, and WHEN He does that We don't remain in sin, HE KEEPS US> it is evidence of an enduring faith, as James wrote. Works provide the evidence of a saving faith, given by God, and worked out by man.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 9, 2006 19:22:05 GMT -5
We were discussing this in study today, Jules.... exactly as you have stated...exactly.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 10, 2006 6:49:41 GMT -5
The difference between "the sin unto death" as noted in 1 John 5:16 and "blasphemy against the Spirit" as noted in Matt 12:30-32 are two seperate sins. Sin unto death is that sin which someone does not repent of, continues in the sin and leads to death. I agree with Rev. John Wesley and how he states what sin it is that is spoken of here. He gives a very clear response. Sin against the Spirit is the only unforgivable sin which makes it totally seperate from any other sin, including the sin unto death. Please read Matt. 12:30-32 again. Then read John Wesley's sermon entitled "A Call To Backsliders" "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." and 1 John 5:16 "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-086.stm#II
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 13, 2006 10:45:40 GMT -5
There are some here who think you can lose your salvation but when they do they can never regain it. I submit to you this article from brother Dan Corner. Please put aside your opinions about him and read the article as he presents the truth from God's Word on the matter. Praise the name of Jesus! www.evangelicaloutreach.org/twicelost.htm
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 13, 2006 11:13:33 GMT -5
I have read the article, Darc, aside from any opinions on Corner.
To be honest here, it appears that Corner indirectly allows for horrendous sinning.
His article teaches, indirectly, that it' sok to fornicate, adulterate, etc etc...because hey, "You can keep getting saved".
I sincerely believe that his brief article is worse than the OSAS position, or at least the same as it.
Corner says:
If it really is “twice lost always lost,” then did David lose his salvation through such vile wickedness? They would have to say NO, since David is now in heaven. Hence, they are then indirectly saying one can commit such evil (as he did) and remain saved, which is a license for immorality. The truth is: David lost his salvation by those sins (Ezek. 18:24; 33:18; Rom. 8:13; James 5:19,20; etc.) and later got it back.
I see this as JUSTIFYING David's sin, because the impression I have left off with after reading the article is:
It's ok to live in sin because I can get it back whenever I want.
The Bible states clearly in Genesis 6:3 that the Lord's Spirit WILL NOT always strive with man.
Paul teaches Repentance is a GIFT, thus it is completely the Act Of God which grants such Gift.
I do not agree with the article BECAUSE of it's indirect approval of wilful sinning.
OSAS give the excuse that you CANNOT lose it.
Corner give sthe excuse, indirectly, that it's ok to sin because you can just keep on repenting.
I think both are very dangerous.
So, my conclusion is that Corner has condoned backsliding.
I realize this was not his intent.
However, I'm left with that thought after reading his article.
If I were a newbie I'd be pretty comfortable planning a night a drunkeness after reading that, just as I would if I read some OSAS articles which also condne sin.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on May 13, 2006 15:54:39 GMT -5
Exactly Dan. I wish that every Bible teacher in the world could realize this, If you cant teach it to a bran new convert, you cant teach it to the perfect.
Look at the church today, the iniquity, the death, the depravity, why? Becuase we hide behind doctrine and forsake the simplicity that is in Christ.
I am tired of Corner. His website scares me, When I first saw it it literally scared me. I couldnt belive that a Christian could be that judgmental and critical even to pick out three or four words and call someone a false prophet.
Corner would probably call me a false prophet for writing what I just wrote.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 13, 2006 16:38:06 GMT -5
Evan, you just gave me some pretty powerful teaching!
You said: I wish that every Bible teacher in the world could realize this, If you cant teach it to a bran new convert, you cant teach it to the perfect.
Sure, Conditional Security may be a doctrine which I am not totally with, as I'm also not totally with Calvinism!
However, when either a Calvinist or an Arminian teaches you can sin and keep "coming back", like Corner states, such doctrine is not only false, but demonic.
My prayer to the Lord would be that those in contact with such teaching as Corner's would be delivered from it's deceptive lies of "you can sin and just repent".
May God be with those who go to that hellish site.
I say that with godly concern.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 13, 2006 20:33:51 GMT -5
Evan, you just gave me some pretty powerful teaching! You said: I wish that every Bible teacher in the world could realize this, If you cant teach it to a bran new convert, you cant teach it to the perfect. Sure, Conditional Security may be a doctrine which I am not totally with, as I'm also not totally with Calvinism! However, when either a Calvinist or an Arminian teaches you can sin and keep "coming back", like Corner states, such doctrine is not only false, but demonic. My prayer to the Lord would be that those in contact with such teaching as Corner's would be delivered from it's deceptive lies of "you can sin and just repent". May God be with those who go to that hellish site. I say that with godly concern. King David DID lose his salvation according to scripture. (Ezek. 18:24; 33:18; Rom. 8:13; James 5:19,20; etc.) It is not true either that Conditional Security believers teach it's ok to go out and sin! To say that is to not understand church history or Arminians, Wesleyians etc. Wesley basically started the holiness movement as an extention of Arminius' teaching. Holiness is part of the foundation taught in scripture regarding salvation and is also part of the foudation of us who believe there is condition to one's covenant of salvation. The fact of matter is that scripture bears that it happens (that people fall away from grace after coming into faith in Jesus) . Luke 15:11-32, Romans 11:19-23, Matt. 13:11-15, Luke 8:13, etc.. Dan is not JUSTIFYING David's sin, or anyone else that falls away. To put that spin on it is false and you guys to say that is what he is teaching is to say that is what Jesus and Paul also taught. If a person falls away and becomes lost again, Luke 15:11-32, according to the Lord Jesus they can come back to Him by repenting and placing their faith back in Him. Peter wrote regarding Paul's teaching. "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." 2 Peter 3:16-18 You are reading things into what brother Dan is saying because of biased opinions it appears, because when I read the scriptures it is very clear. I say this because it is something I have to continually set aside when I read anything anyone writes on these boards. I and we all have to let the Word speak to us and that is not possible if we come with preconceived ideas or opinions regarding the writer or more importantly what the Word says. "Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live," Rom. 8:12-13
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 13, 2006 21:12:35 GMT -5
Darc, the Lord Himself knows that I did not read Dan Corner's article with bias; I sought the Lord to open my eyes to the truth of the article as well as the error.
I did not go into the article with the pre-conceived notion that it was wrog; I did as you asked and I submitted myself to the Widom of God.
I came out seeing Dan Corner's article *not Corner himself* as giving more of a license to sin than a hyper Calvinist.
I fully trust that the Lord allowed me to walk away with that concept today, and I stand on what I said above as well as here now, Darc.
To go even further, I had others read the article, and though they didn't come out with the conclusion that brother Evan and I came out with, they came out saying, in essence, "That's simply not Scriptural".
May God open the eyes of others also when they read that article.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 13, 2006 21:58:28 GMT -5
I appreciate you speaking to my responses to you in regard to brother Dan, however can you speak to the scriptural truthes of Ezek. 18:24; 33:18; Rom. 8:13; James 5:19,20 in regard to their clear refutation of Preseverance of the Saints/OSAS/Eternal Security doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 13, 2006 23:14:11 GMT -5
yeah sorry Bible thumper, I should keep quiet until I've read the whole disucssion.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on May 14, 2006 14:25:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 14, 2006 14:32:38 GMT -5
Darc, do you have any idea how many refutations have been refuted? Mine have, your's have, and everyone else's have.
I'm not interested in "refutes".
I'm interested in Truth, brother.
Nothing more and nothing less.
As a side note, I have decided to permanently remove myself from clicking on any of Dan Corner's links.
Visiting his site would be like visiting a poisoned well.
I cannot, in good conscience, uphold Corner as any sort of Biblical authority; in my estmation, the man is a blasphemer, calling such men as Ray Comfort and Spurgeon false.
And with that, I no longer post on this thread.
|
|