|
Post by josh on Dec 13, 2006 0:27:54 GMT -5
The debate was really just an excuse to get you up here. I'd love to see ya again mate. Good on ya! So next time will be preaching from the back of a pick up again? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Dec 13, 2006 22:50:17 GMT -5
Lol! Amen mate! Now we preach from on top of our giant van...
|
|
|
Post by bullhornbob on Dec 14, 2006 0:06:53 GMT -5
Does anyone know how the debate went?
Did they debate yet?
I see BT has flown the coop, so this is why I ask.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Dec 14, 2006 0:08:26 GMT -5
I have left BT phone and e-mail messages and haven't got a response.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 1, 2007 13:20:14 GMT -5
The way I understand it is that BT backed out due to his new understanding that Etenal Security is a sham, (in more or less words), so therefore there was no need to debate.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 1, 2007 13:43:42 GMT -5
The way I understand it is that BT backed out due to his new understanding that Etenal Security is a sham, (in more or less words), so therefore there was no need to debate. Is Mr. Corner one who shares private emails with others? ?? Yes, I believe that Unconditional Eternal Security is a "sham", based on clear Scriptural admonishes to remain in the Faith. I do not, however, believe Mr. Corner's definition of Conditional Security is Biblical; he teaches a works based righteousness which Paul the Apostle warned the Galatians to stay away from UNconditional Eternal Security is false; Eternal Security is NOT false; I really AM eternally secure IN CHRIST. I am NOT Eternally secure if I walk in the doctrinal misgivings of Dan Cornerism or in the false notion of OSAS.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 1, 2007 21:57:13 GMT -5
The way I understand it is that BT backed out due to his new understanding that Etenal Security is a sham, (in more or less words), so therefore there was no need to debate. Is Mr. Corner one who shares private emails with others? ?? Yes, I believe that Unconditional Eternal Security is a "sham", based on clear Scriptural admonishes to remain in the Faith. I do not, however, believe Mr. Corner's definition of Conditional Security is Biblical; he teaches a works based righteousness which Paul the Apostle warned the Galatians to stay away from UNconditional Eternal Security is false; Eternal Security is NOT false; I really AM eternally secure IN CHRIST. I am NOT Eternally secure if I walk in the doctrinal misgivings of Dan Cornerism or in the false notion of OSAS. Please define the difference between UNconditional Eternal Security and Eternal Security? NOT work's BT, OBEDIENCE. Major difference.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 0:21:43 GMT -5
I don't feel the need to define anything for you, darc I refuse to engage you in any type of discussion; your recent barrage of insults to Tyler is well noted, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 18:55:27 GMT -5
Not insults friend, just truth regarding Tyler. I don't dance around issues, never have never will, God willing.
Your refusal though concerns me Dan, because your actual words back to brother Corner was that you believed "you could lose your salvation".
But here, now, it's like your back stepping.
Why?
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Jan 2, 2007 19:06:44 GMT -5
Hod odd that a person attacking the virtue of others should be making points from private correspondence neither written by nor addressed to him.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 19:32:44 GMT -5
Hod odd that a person attacking the virtue of others should be making points from private correspondence neither written by nor addressed to him. mahatma, There is a war on. the enemy uses everything in the book to destroy the TRUTH of the BIBLE. The Bible says we are to expose the wicked deeds of them. It's not attacking their "virtue" mahatma, it's exposing a lie. OK?
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Jan 2, 2007 19:48:00 GMT -5
Umm...that's the same thing Darc. You are trying to say that someone has a lack of faith/correctness/honesty. You are clearly making an attack, that attack is clearly aimed at someone's virtue.
EDIT: to clarify...as long as your position is not definitively and factually true, that is as long as your position is based on interpretation or opinion, you are making an attack. Since pretty much all the posts I see you make about BT, Tbxi, etc. involve your differing interpretation of scripture from theirs rather than incontrovertible facts, it's accurate to say that you are attacking rather than "exposing a lie." Whether their position or yours is the accurate one is completely irrelevant.
Meanwhile, while you make your attacks, you are using information from private correspondence not addressed to you. More than that, you are purposely making this private correspondence public. I would imagine that if you had private correspondence with, say, a non-believer who you were trying to convert that you would be furious if someone were to make that correspondence public and perhaps undermine the non-believer's trust in you. Are we to believe that your Christian brothers are less deserving of your respect and discretion than a non-believer?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 20:05:36 GMT -5
Not insults friend, just truth regarding Tyler. I don't dance around issues, never have never will, God willing. Your refusal though concerns me Dan, because your actual words back to brother Corner was that you believed "you could lose your salvation". But here, now, it's like your back stepping. Why? Do you truly read posts, darc? I said, above you: "UNconditional Eternal Security is false; Eternal Security is NOT false; I really AM eternally secure IN CHRIST. I am NOT Eternally secure if I walk in the doctrinal misgivings of Dan Cornerism or in the false notion of OSAS." I believe that is clear. Also, why would Dan Corner reveal private emails? Brethren beware!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 20:12:14 GMT -5
Well said, Mahatma Revealing private letters is a violation of the LAW, both civil and moral. Many believe that private emails exchanged with the disclaimer "this email now belongs to the receipient" etc etc is a legal means to reveal private discourses; that notion is incorrect and is by far an illegal method used by peepers to expose anything the desire. Of course, I have nothing to hide; I simply stated, in effect, that the debate was off and that my view had dramatically changed; no biggie. Dan Corner, who claims that a man can lose his Salvation (which I agree with) is obviously a man who does not posess Salvation; Law Breakers aren;t Heaven Bound. you know that, right, darc?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 20:14:53 GMT -5
PS: Darc, please don't defend dan Corner; he clearly broke the law. Of course I won;t take legal action against him, but he now has a responsibility to make this issue right with me and all others he did this to before he can seek God in prayer or teach the Brethren. Scripture meakes this very clear; we are to LEAVE our gift at the altar and make things right with our brother and those we have sinned against. Dan Corner is a law breaker until he repents and mainatins integrity in his dealings in priivate correspondance with others. psttt... Shetani; I deliberately will not edit my mis-spellings correctly
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 21:29:20 GMT -5
By the way, darc, you're as sinfully guilty as Dan Corner for exposing my private emails to this forum.
Repent, law breaker!
You don't believe immoral people go to heaven! I know you don't!
How then can you do that which is immoral?!
xdarc I fear for your soul! and I'm serious!
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 21:32:24 GMT -5
Dan, You've been exposed in a lie and for that I will not back down from. If you are a Christian than please speak truth and stop deceiving these people.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 21:38:54 GMT -5
Dan, You've been exposed in a lie and for that I will not back down from. If you are a Christian than please speak truth and stop deceiving these people. a lie? I'm missing something here. Please explain. Once you'r ethrough explaining, I'll post your ACTUAL lie where you stole Corner's words and after being caught aid, "I have no excuse for what I did". remember that? It's on THIS board; wanna dig it up or shall I? Let's be open and transparent here, darc; I DO NOT believe you're a Christian; I believe you're a liar and a con artist who is NOT Born Again by Biblical definition; you know I believe thsi about you as does eveyone else here.Now, I believe this BECAUSE of my catching you in a lie and two days later you RETRACTED that you had lied AFTER Dan Corner "ok'd" your use of his articles. Now, please show me this lie you all of a sudden accuse me of.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 21:44:41 GMT -5
PS: Since I don't lie, and there is no tangible evidence, in emails, videos or converstions, where I have ever once lied at any time fo rany reason, I'll let you go in your delusions.
Jesse, Jeff, Miles, Eli, Mahatma, TBXI and everyone else could believe otherwise (not that all of them do!); nonetheless, I've never once forgotten when you lied and were caught in it and then retracted your "I have no exuse" statement.
That was the very MOMENT I believed you to be a goat.
Now, show the lie or close your mouth.
Devil.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 22:39:38 GMT -5
Not insults friend, just truth regarding Tyler. I don't dance around issues, never have never will, God willing. Your refusal though concerns me Dan, because your actual words back to brother Corner was that you believed "you could lose your salvation". But here, now, it's like your back stepping. Why? Do you truly read posts, darc? I said, above you: "UNconditional Eternal Security is false; Eternal Security is NOT false; I really AM eternally secure IN CHRIST. I am NOT Eternally secure if I walk in the doctrinal misgivings of Dan Cornerism or in the false notion of OSAS." I believe that is clear. Also, why would Dan Corner reveal private emails? Brethren beware! If you are a Christian then you forgive and don't keep reminding others of someone's past sin. It's very apparent that you'll try and pull this up every time anyone, especially me, calls you on conduct unbecoming of a Christian Dan. I called you on this issue because you answered this way (above) when I pressed the issue, letting it be known what your actual supposed reason was for backing out of the debate. It is clear by your answer that you are still riding the fence not wanting to offend anyone. You said "you could lose your salvation" in an email to brother Corner and now in the above response you waffle and never take the stand as you did with brother Corner. So which is it Dan? Did you lie to us here on these boards or to Dan Corner? Can you lose your salvation? But see, your above answer to my question to you about the difference between the two, UNconditional Eternal Security and Eternal Security, is a non-answer. How does your definition explain anything? This is what you said: UNconditional Eternal Security is: false Eternal Security is: NOT false and then you make these two comments: I really AM eternally secure IN CHRIST.and I am NOT Eternally secure if I walk in the doctrinal misgivings of Dan Cornerism or in the false notion of OSASPlease explain these statements in clear English Dan. You say "Eternal Security is NOT false" and then make this comment: that you're "NOT Eternally secure if I walk in the....false notion of OSAS". Please explain this (above). Can a Born-again Christian lose their salvation? And please tell me what UNconditional Eternal Security is? Please be precise with your answer.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 23:35:53 GMT -5
Darc Said: If you are a Christian then you forgive and don't keep reminding others of someone's past sin.
Response: It's not past when you refuse to repent and confess.
As for the rest:
UNconditional Eternal Security is false.(UN conditional eternal security...note the "UN")
Eternal Security is NOT false, because Salvation IS ETERNAL on condition that I walk before God in Holiness. (hence, you would call thjis Conditonal Security; different terminology but SAME MEANING)
Now, that is what you call me a LIAR FOR?
You call me a LIAR because I didn't "explain" myself to you as you thought I should?
I'm a liar?
You're a goat, darc(ness)
And you HAVE NOT yet responded as to why you revealed my emails to DAN CORNER to this Forum.
You call me a liar and yet stand unashamed in spewing out personal emails?
You're unbelievable!
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 4, 2007 22:02:37 GMT -5
Darc Said: If you are a Christian then you forgive and don't keep reminding others of someone's past sin. Response: It's not past when you refuse to repent and confess. As for the rest: UNconditional Eternal Security is false.(UN conditional eternal security...note the "UN") Eternal Security is NOT false, because Salvation IS ETERNAL on condition that I walk before God in Holiness. (hence, you would call thjis Conditonal Security; different terminology but SAME MEANING) Now, that is what you call me a LIAR FOR? You call me a LIAR because I didn't "explain" myself to you as you thought I should? I'm a liar? You're a goat, darc(ness) And you HAVE NOT yet responded as to why you revealed my emails to DAN CORNER to this Forum. You call me a liar and yet stand unashamed in spewing out personal emails? You're unbelievable! Back off BT. You speak as though you know but yet you know very little. This will be one of my last posts on this thread because you have absolutely failed to answer direct questions and requests of you to be precise in your answers. Your QUOTED response above does NOTHING to define what you mean by what I highlighted in your previous post. The only thing you've done Dan is to continue to cloud the issue. Your "definition" DOES NOT CLEARLY STATE ANYTHING. Me asking you to define your statement: "UNconditional Eternal Security is false." by answering with this statement UNconditional Eternal Security is false.(UN conditional eternal security...note the "UN"), is a NON ANSWER. What does UNconditional Eternal Security mean? ? And this statement Eternal Security is NOT false, because Salvation IS ETERNAL on condition that I walk before God in Holiness. (hence, you would call thjis Conditonal Security; different terminology but SAME MEANING) does nothing but confuse an issue. What you're trying to do is say that Eternal Security=Conditional Security. This is nothing more than pure deception. Plain and simple. You're trying to put a "new" spin to confuse the fact that these two are diametrically opposed to each other. Eternal Security DOES NOT=Conditional Security. You can't have it both ways BT. And to answer this question: You call me a LIAR because I didn't "explain" myself to you as you thought I should?, in light of what I just explained in last paragraph, NO. The lie BT is that you said one thing to Dan Corner, apparently to deceive him, then when I exposed the fact that you thought Eternal Security was a sham (my own words) being the reason you backed out of the debate you then gave the above quoted and mentioned mess as the reason which does not come out and clearly define anything nor does it line up with your email to Dan Corner, which is posted below upon his wishes that I do so, so that everyone could see what you actually said to him. You make accusations that I've in some way violated you with exposing a "private email " conversation you had with Dan Corner, when this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to get the focus off your lie. Sharing parts of your email conversation with Dan Corner is no different than when someone does the same in a face to face conversation when saying something like "Hey, you know what Jimmy said to me last night? He said, Blah, blah, blah." A person does it when they make comments like "I heard a guy say this to another guy" for example. You throwing your arms up in the air claiming foul!, foul!, again, is done to try and get the focus off the fact that you have lied. Brother Dan Corner told me to post your response to him here. Original Message -------- Subject: [SPAM] RE: victory in JESUS From: "Dan Lirette" <danlirette@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, December 25, 2006 7:54 pm To: contender@evangelicaloutreach.org
Hi dan!
I must concede that apostasy is possible; I'm weeding through the ideologies, but I must maintain that ultimate apostasy is correct as is losing your Salvation the MOMENT you wilfully sin.
I renig my debatre offer.
May I speak with you via phone?
(PHONE # BLOCKED)
Dan Lirette
|
|
|
Post by sean on Jan 4, 2007 22:21:42 GMT -5
'I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr. Tozer and said, "Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?" And I'll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, "My son, when you get to college you're going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I'll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you'll be way down the line and they'll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God."' -Cliff Westergren
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jan 4, 2007 22:27:21 GMT -5
'I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr. Tozer and said, "Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?" And I'll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, "My son, when you get to college you're going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I'll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you'll be way down the line and they'll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God."' -Cliff Westergren This is a wise council.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 4, 2007 22:50:34 GMT -5
To both of you. This was wise council, to spend time in God's Word before God. BUT it doesn't change the fact that one, Eternal Security, is a false gospel sending millions to hell and there can ONLY be ONE truth from God's Word. That is why it is important to contend for the right faith, to try and save souls from the flames and gates of hell. I don't do this because this is a favorite past-time of mine. It's a matter of SOULS!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jan 4, 2007 23:44:04 GMT -5
To both of you. This was wise council, to spend time in God's Word before God. BUT it doesn't change the fact that one, Eternal Security, is a false gospel sending millions to hell and there can ONLY be ONE truth from God's Word. That is why it is important to contend for the right faith, to try and save souls from the flames and gates of hell. I don't do this because this is a favorite past-time of mine. It's a matter of SOULS!!!! My comment was not to minimize the fact that we should stand strong of the Truth of God. But my comment was to reinforce that we should depend totally upon the Power and Anointing of God to convince others of His Truth. We do this through our communion with Him in prayer and meditation. What I have seen in many occasions is young men and old alike trying to convince the Truth of God by human reasoning and not by revelation from God. If you go in the Spirit of Christ, then He is there to contend with you that which is Truth. As far as my understanding of eternal security. This may be simple but to me it makes perfect sense. The Word of God tells us: Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" It is a free gift from God by His Loving Grace which we cannot lose. But, yes I said but, what about the faith. I believe man can lose his faith and fall from Grace. Matthew 13:3, "And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;" Matthew 13:5-8, "Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold." What came to mind was the King who had a fruit tree in his orchard. Luke 13:6-9, "He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." This was a tree which did belong to the King. This tree seemed to be growing up in His Kingdom. It was actually in His Kingdom for 3 going to be 4 years. If no fruit were to be found bearing on it after the 4 year, it was to be cut down. I surly believe this to be a believer that loses their salvation. Over the years I have known people whom I know served Jesus Christ with much fruit whole heartily. Without a doubt. And after years of trials and this world pulling at them, they no longer serve Christ but only their flesh. Some would say they must have never been saved. It is written ye shall know them by their fruits. These people had the fruit of the Spirit undoubtedly. But I do not want to debate this myself. This is my understanding of scripture. If my God Whom I serve can use this comment to convince another, then I praise Him. For without Him I can do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 4, 2007 23:59:26 GMT -5
My email to Dan Corner is in no way contradictory to my statements here.. and my statements here are an answer, contrary to your reply that I gave what you term a "non" answer.
You see, darc, posting the email here doesn;t bother me...I mean, you can print it and send it to the Pope, my mom or back to Dan Corner; it would'nt cause harm to me nor to anyone else.
The issue is that you're a goat who sins and enjoys sinning; even if your sin is seen as "small" by others.
Please send Dan Corner my kind regards; after all, you're his only convert.
God bless.
PS: Darc.... you need to repent and come to the Cross, friend....can you not see yourself? Can you not see that Dan Corner's doctrine is literally destroying you? Can you not see that Dan Corner is your lord, as you speak more of his name and post more of his material, than Jesus'?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 5, 2007 0:07:17 GMT -5
The issue is that you're a goat who sins and enjoys sinning; even if your sin is seen as "small" by others. Yeah - those "sins that are not unto death" like worry, unthankfulness, lack of humility - go right ahead and commit 'em like Dan Corner's admitted he does, because they don't send you to hell! That means you can keep doing them!
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Jan 5, 2007 12:49:15 GMT -5
Here is a question to darc, or txbi or BT or anyone who wants to answer.
Can a person be saved (born again) and not have a theology of OSAS or Conditional Security?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 5, 2007 14:01:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I think so.
Like a friend of mine has said (and I agree with this), it's not necessary to have all the mechanics of theology worked out to be saved (and I don't by any means). We're saved by grace and through faith, not by knowing exactly how that grace and faith works.
It is a blurry line sometimes, though. I think there is a slippery slope once you start moving into Arminianism. I see nothing that keeps you from moving into full blown Pelagianism from there, which is heresy. At that point it really becomes questionable whether someone is truly saved by grace through faith or trusting in their own sufficiency and obedience for salvation.
|
|