|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 30, 2006 20:03:40 GMT -5
There was a radio debate held between Gene Cook and Dan Corner. This was a two part debate on Eternal Security where Mr. Cook was continually backed in to the corner with the Truth of God's Word. The debate took place on Tuesday 26th and Friday 29th of December.
It was no contest and Gene Cook lost. But to take matters in his own hands Mr. Cook slandered and slammed brother Corner continually. This is a sign of one who doesn't know Scripture and is holding onto a false gospel trying to make it sound like the Gospel. Mr. Cook was unable to defend the 5th point of Calvinism. Why? Because it cannot be defended, due to the fact that it is not Biblical.
For instance on Friday the 29th of Dec.: When Dan Corner asked how he interprets Romans 6:22 which says: "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.", in light of Mr. Cook's interpretation of Romans 7:14-25. Dan Corner stated to Mr. Cook: "You said on Tuesday's broadcast that the apostle Paul was doing evil and he could not refrain from doing the evil that is sited in that passage (Rom7:14-25). You understand that to be the normal Christian life, as Eternal Security people do. But here we find out that a Christian has been set free from their sin addiction". Mr. Cook then makes this statement in regard to Romans 6:22 and brother Corner's statement:
Quote:Well he's been set free from the stand point of prior to..prior to regeneration, prior to being born again. He could do only evil. You see Paul is building a large, uh, a logical argument in the book of Romans. He's building a logical argument. He's already told us that everybody does evil, according to, uh, well there's none good, in Romans chapter 3 verse 10. And all have turned astray. And so the transition from being enslaved to God, or from being enslaved to sin over to the new life, being enslaved to God is the transition from the capacity to only sin to now be able to perform righteousness that is pleasing to God. But the problem is there is still sin in the life of the believer. That's what Romans 7 is about. Paul talks about the Spirit wars with the flesh and the the flesh wars with the Spirit. That's normative Christian living.
First of all, if it is, as Mr. Cook states, that Paul was "set free from the stand point of prior to..prior to regeneration, prior to being born again...he could do only evil." Wouldn't that mean that he's been set free indeed? To be set free means to be set free. Whether prior to or after regeneration. For Mr. Cook to drag the holy, righteous and blameless Paul (1Thes2:10) through the mud like this is an abomination to God's Word and an outright attack to Paul's character. If Paul is saying in Romans 7 that this is "normative Christian living" then he contradicts himself in Romans 8:12-13 and 1Thes2:10, etc. And if that is "normative Christian living" ("he could only do evil") how do they square this with their sometimes argument that "it's lifestyle sinning that makes a person loose their salvation and not an occasional sin here and there"? Because if Paul could only do evil, according to the Eternal Security teachers like Mr. Cook, then he obviously would not be on the narrow road that leads to life. The wicked and evil sinners do NOT inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor6:9-10). This is a MAJOR problem for Eternal Security teachers. It's called a contradiction and inconsistency.
Secondly, if "there is still sin in the life of the believer" as Mr. Cook states then that person IS NOT A CHRISTIAN, but, is a sinner on the road to HELL and needs to repent for salvation's sake or end up in the fires of hell. I reject, as all Christians should reject, this heretical doctrinal lie of Eternal Security!
There are many many instances like this, that you can listen to yourself, where Mr. Cook twists and skews God's Word to fit his license for immorality gospel.
On the Tuesday airing brother Corner said "obedience is not legalism" when accused of being legalistic and having a work's salvation by Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook edited the BEDIENCE out of OBEDIENCE, but left the O there where you could hear it. This is a clear sign that Mr. Cook had edited and attempted to change brother Corner's message. When confronted with this by brother Corner on Friday, Mr. Cook lied. Brother Corner asked Mr. Cook point blank "did you edit any words out of the Tuesday's MP3?" Mr. Cook's response was he "changed a couple things here and there at the beginning of the show but I did not edit out any words." Brother Corner then played both the unedited version and Mr. Cook's edited version, that is posted on Mr. Cook's website, which was crystal clear showing that Mr. Cook not only in fact did edit out one of brother Corner's words, but then lied about it on the air.
This man is a liar and is not to be trusted. More importantly he stated that King David remained saved in his acts of adultery and murder and so according to Mr. Cook there are two different types of adulterers. Those saved adulterers on their way to heaven and those unsaved adulterers headed for hell! This is a deadly message Mr. Cook is presenting! It is not from the God of the Bible. If anyone cares, the radio broadcast was only 58 0r 59 minutes long on Friday but Mr. Cook has lengthened it out to 1hr. 41mins long. Very clearly he is in error again. The man cannot be trusted. He has been caught in a LIE!
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 30, 2006 21:06:00 GMT -5
You have got to be kidding me. The show runs on Vonage VoIP (voice over internet protocol) lines. On Tuesday and Friday there were unusually high numbers of listeners, and Gene's servers have been in need of an upgrade of late. Hence the bandwidth was stretched thin, and what happens then is you get drop-outs. Even an atheist who normally listens to the show could see through this nonsense. It was just a drop out! Why would Gene have edited out Dan's 50th time of saying the word 'obedience'? Gene asked Dan this several times and he did not reply at all. There is no motive for this "malicious editing". The immediate context of the sentence made it totally obvious that that was exactly what he was talking about, so why would he have even done it? The only reason Corner's copy of the broadcast has the word "obedience" where it should be is because he was recording the conversation, and thus the word would not have been cut off from his own local recorder. Wow, have you seen the history of Dan Corner's interaction with James White and how ridiculous that has been? This and this reason alone is why I don't trust Dan Corner anymore. See www.aomin.org/OSAS.html, aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1675, and aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1669. *sigh* If you really want to get into this again, why don't you pull up the old eternal security thread and we'll go all out. The fact of the matter is, Dan Corner refuses to interact with the Calvinistic understanding of the perseverance of the saints. If we appeal to predestination/election to make our case, then Dan Corner gets upset, but he's more than willing to appeal to free will in order to support his own doctrines (and I can prove that, if you want documentation). What are you talking about? I listened to that show live and it was indeed 101 minutes. When Gene hung up on Corner because he had become "irrational and accusatory", in his own words, he kept the show going for quite a while, took some calls, and finished it off with about 10-15 minutes of talking. People, don't believe this nonsense. Look at the links I provided. Listen to the documentation. When you're done listening to the documentation, you should be convinced that it is NOT Cook or White who are in error here. I have asked Dan Corner about his dealings with White at aomin.org/OSAS.html and I never got an answer. (edit: oops - I had not asked him, in fact, about the radio broadcast, although I did ask him once or twice (I can't remember if it was once or twice) about the main OSAS.html page - but that is hogwash as well, as should be obvious to anyone who listens to Corner's version at www.evangelicaloutreach.org/calvinismrefuted.htm and then White's coverage of the happenings in the aforementioned links.) Corner ignored my comments thereof flat out.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 30, 2006 21:34:58 GMT -5
Oh, BTW darc, if you're going to quote parts of Gene's monologue from the show, please cite the time in the file at which it occurred so the rest of us can listen to what he was saying in its full context.
Even Corner at least specified the time at which "bedience" was "edited out".
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 30, 2006 21:48:10 GMT -5
Tyler, You are deceived and I wouldn't expect any different reaction from you than to embrace this wolf. I know that hurts but I know you all to well. In fact I expected you to be one of the very first ones to come to this wolf's aid.
The man states that he preaches holy living YET says that King David was still saved in his adultery and murder. Now you explain to me how that is an example of "holy living"? In fact he "interprets" Luke 15, the story Jesus gave us of the Prodigal, as a Christian that went out and lived in drunkenness and wild living with prostitutes and was still considered to be a Christian steeped in sin! Again sir you tell me how that is a message of holy living? HOW!!!!!
The fact remains that this wolf was stopped in his tracks by the WORD OF GOD!!!! And his ONLY defense is to slander brother Corner because he had no other answer.
BTW, your defense of this wolf, covering up his LIE is again not a surprise. It saddens me and grieves me though that you'd align yourself with this kind of wickedness. I don't care what you say, I heard it with my own two God given ears sir! He was caught red-handed in his deception!
Tyler, listen to me please! You are being deceived by the heresy. You must turn from it and any known sin and begin to trust in the the fact that the Bible teaches we have a responsibility to OBEDIENCE to God's commands, Jesus' commands. That is OURS!!! God DOES NOT DO IT FOR US!! When will that sink in? It's called obedience NOT WORKS!
BTW, I've listened to the full version of Friday's airing and it seems to be in order. So, I retract my statement "Very clearly he is in error again." My error. This in no way negates his original sin of lying that he continues to deny though. He must confess it and repent or he is in danger of hell fire. Yes, I have already emailed him and told him so.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 30, 2006 22:02:29 GMT -5
Oh, BTW darc, if you're going to quote parts of Gene's monologue from the show, please cite the time in the file at which it occurred so the rest of us can listen to what he was saying in its full context. Even Corner at least specified the time at which "bedience" was "edited out". No need. It's best if everyone listens to the entire recordings. That way they will be able to see just how someone's lies and false teachings can and are shut down by the WORD OF GOD. The man is tongue tied several times. And he actually had the nerve to put a volume control in the studio for Friday's airing to turn down the guest without the guest knowing it. This is something he didn't have on Tuesday. Again another sign that he wasn't able to defend point 5 from Scripture, so he went the way of underhanded control tactics! Unbelievable! How underhanded is that? You can try and twist this like I know you will. But if everyone listens to both recordings they'll see where brother Dan had to continually repeat himself, be controlled by underhanded tactics, listen to Mr. Cook drag out a reading of Acts 27 that has NO relevancy to the issue at hand. That's called wasting time. And many other little hindrances to speaking the clear truth from Scripture. You and all the rest can go into listening to this with a bias and so drown out the Truth of God's Word that brother Corner was getting out there and that will be your downfall. I suggest listening to them without closing your mind just because it is Dan Corner and listen to the Word of God spoken. I plead with you!
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 30, 2006 23:12:19 GMT -5
You and all the rest can go into listening to this with a bias and so drown out the Truth of God's Word that brother Corner was getting out there and that will be your downfall. [/quote]
No opinion on this one way or the other as I haven't listened to it, but you are accusing OTHERS of listening with a bias?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 30, 2006 23:18:47 GMT -5
You can save the "repent, all you Calvinists" spiel, Darc, with all due respect. Everyone on this board has heard pretty much everything Dan Corner has to say, indirectly, through you. Especially the tired King David example. And FYI, David fits just fine into the Calvinistic understanding of the Perseverance of the Saints because he persevered to the end. God sent Nathan to rebuke him and he repented. Now, present tense, it would have been totally valid to doubt his salvation, because anybody who is willfully persisting in sin should be concerned about it, but the bottom line is, David was elect, hence Calvinism is just fine on this issue... As for the muter... the reason Gene got that is because Corner would go on, and on, and on, without answering the questions he was asked. If you want to discuss eternal security, bring back the eternal security thread and we'll go at it. If you want to buy every single thing Dan Corner says, hook line and sinker, then go ahead, but everyone should listen to the 90 minute audio file posted here (http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1669) which covers extensively, without chopping someone off mid-sentence (hint hint), Dan Corner's dishonest tactics in dealing with James White. As well as the other information I posted. If you want to keep going with these rabid, irrational accusations, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, head over to tnma.blogspot.com, and post under the comments section for Friday's show.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 30, 2006 23:30:04 GMT -5
Hmm. 1 Peter 1:3-5 seems to say otherwise. I agree that we have this responsibility, but God is the one who keeps His elect where they should be. 3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through (not by) faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. Also, the same reading of Acts 27 is indeed relevant. It is the same reading of Acts 27 that I showed to you. It shows that God works through warnings. God told Paul through an angel that everybody on the boat would live. Unless you believe God changes his mind, which he doesn't (Numbers 23:19), then there is no way around the fact that no matter what, due to that revelation, everyone on the ship would survive. Now, Paul goes on to warn the people who were trying to get off the ship that they would die if they did. So who's wrong here? God? God forbid. Paul? No, why would Paul lie about something he knew to be true, as he was told it by an angel? THEREFORE: we must draw the conclusion that God used Paul to warn the men to stay on the ship, so that His will would be accomplished. He chose to do it this way and not any other, and that was the means by which everyone on the ship made it. And thus, we can conclude that God uses hypothetical warnings to accomplish his will in at least some cases - hence the conclusions that the warning passages which may seem to contradict the perseverence of the saints may be said to be these kinds of warnings, as if they weren't, sections of Scripture indicating the foreknowledge/unconditional election of believers in Christ (John 6, 10, Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1, 2 Thess. 2:13, etc) would then be at tension with these warnings. And: you say Gene "slandered" Dan. Slander is saying something false/harmful about someone intentionally, i.e. telling harmful lies about them. Could you please let us know where Gene "slandered" Dan?
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 14:07:33 GMT -5
Darc
I don't desire to discuss the issue of Eternal Security with you Tyler.
I would like you to answer this above quote for everyone from my last posts that you missed.
Holiness: a charateristic of God, shared by His people, requiring a lifestyle acceptable to God.
Heb 12:4 says "without holiness no one will see the Lord." I understand our holiness comes from God, but how can you say that King David, the Prodigal son or any other Christian that is not living this way, being holy rather is sinning or has sinned w/o repenting is the picture of holy living such that that would get that person to heaven? It's a command. So I don't want to hear anything about works because that is not what I'm talking about because it is clearly what God tells Christians, His children, we must do.
If you'd rather take this discussion over into the "doctrine" area then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 14:09:41 GMT -5
And: you say Gene "slandered" Dan. Slander is saying something false/harmful about someone intentionally, i.e. telling harmful lies about them. Could you please let us know where Gene "slandered" Dan? Let us know? You got a frog in your pocket? ;D He called brother Dan a pharisee several times, which is false and harmful.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 14:12:27 GMT -5
Also, the same reading of Acts 27 is indeed relevant. It is the same reading of Acts 27 that I showed to you. It's not relevant because it's not speaking about eternal salvation, it's merely an example of physical salvation and so therefore cannot be used in the discussion about God's warnings related to salvation (eternal).
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 31, 2006 14:47:40 GMT -5
Okay, we can take it over to the doctrine forum if you wish. Start a new thread or something, I'll let you do it
P.S. Calling Dan a pharisee, from his point of view, was correct. It is a matter of foundational differences of doctrine. Those of us on the eternal security / perseverance of the saints side of the issue aren't making a big deal out of the fact that you don't even consider us saved, so to be fair, you shouldn't be calling what Gene sees as an accurate description of Dan "slander" if you aren't willing to allow us to call what we see as an inaccurate and shallow assessment of our position (P in TULIP) "slander".
Evan, Jesse, Miles, Jack, and others who believe in conditional security are not making it a salvation issue like Dan Corner is, i.e. telling me that I'm unsaved because I'm reformed... So by the same logic that you're using, I could say that you Corner and company are "slandering" me by making the "harmful" accusation that I'm a wolf, I'm deceived, unsaved, a cult follower (Corner actually calls Calvinism a cult right up there with Catholicism, Mormonism, the JW's...), and so on. Bottom line: it's a category error. For what Gene said to be slander he'd have to be saying something about Corner that he knew was not true, and he believes Corner is indeed a pharisee, hence, it's not slander.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 31, 2006 15:44:13 GMT -5
Also, the same reading of Acts 27 is indeed relevant. It is the same reading of Acts 27 that I showed to you. It's not relevant because it's not speaking about eternal salvation, it's merely an example of physical salvation and so therefore cannot be used in the discussion about God's warnings related to salvation (eternal). It is true that the immediate context was speaking of physical death. However, in order to maintain what you just said, you'd then have to find a reason why God couldn't use the same methodology to warn us about salvation issues like holiness and perseverance. It would make sense, since Paul's the one who wrote all about unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints in his letters, yet also gave the hypothetical warnings about "losing salvation" and was the same guy who gave the hypothetical warning about death on the boat in Acts 27. That's got to count for something. I have already made a strong case that it is indeed something that is valid to say. Simply saying "well, it's the wrong kind of death, so it doesn't count" doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 31, 2006 15:51:24 GMT -5
Where'd you get the definition of holiness, just curious? and, I am saying that anybody who is willfully persisting in unrepented sin is someone who we should doubt (the sincerity/reality or their profession, that is). No, going on in sin like that is not what "gets a person to heaven", which is why I said it would have been reasonable to doubt David's genuineness at the present time, as he was in sin for the period of Bathsheba's gestation. But the whole point is, God brought him back via Nathan, and David is obviously among the elect, hence there is no problem with Calvinism and King David's issue as he indeed endured to the end with finality.
Gene said on his program after Dan got flushed, when talking to a caller, (or maybe the caller said it) that no Reformed believer in his right mind would look at a brother and just tell him to go on living in sin. Anyone who would do that is either under the influence of morphine in the hospital, or something crazy and exceptional like that, VERY confused, or not saved. It is NOT a fair thing to say that we Calvinists have a license to sin inherently within our doctrine. It is a misrepresentation of what we actually believe about sin, yet Dan Corner doesn't want to give it up.
Just because someone abuses a doctrine doesn't make that doctrine false. If Billy Bob thinks he can take advantage of "eternal security" to go out, get drunk, have premarital sex, etc. and that through all of that, he's still "secure" and "saved" and thinks "it's all under the blood", then that doesn't make eternal security false. It makes Billy Bob out to be, in all likelihood, an unsaved person and definitely an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 20:02:44 GMT -5
P.S. Calling Dan a pharisee, from his point of view, was correct. It is a matter of foundational differences of doctrine. Do you even know the definition of pharisee Tyler? First of all they were Jews that observed all kinds of rituals and ceremonies of the written law. They were insistent on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law. Dan Corner is not a Jew. He doesn't observe all kinds of rituals or ceremonies of the written law nor does he insist on his own oral traditions concerning said law. Need I go any further? Yes, it is slander and that is the last I will say about the matter if you want the last word, it's yours. The only difference Tyler is that brother Corner is making the statement from Scripture, if you recall that was the way in which he answered Mr. Cook. He said and I say it's not my opinion, it's what the Word of God says. I'm not going to debate you on the issue, you can re-listen to his response on Mr. Cook's website. If you want to continue in your ways of philosophy, ignoring Scriptural Truth when it's presented to you, then that is your choice and I can't do any good because you've chosen your path. But just remember that's a conscious choice you have to make every time a Scripture comes up that contradicts your philosophy. You have to make that choice to continue following the man Calvin and not God's Word.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 20:06:50 GMT -5
It's not relevant because it's not speaking about eternal salvation, it's merely an example of physical salvation and so therefore cannot be used in the discussion about God's warnings related to salvation (eternal). It is true that the immediate context was speaking of physical death. However, in order to maintain what you just said, you'd then have to find a reason why God couldn't use the same methodology to warn us about salvation issues like holiness and perseverance. It would make sense, since Paul's the one who wrote all about unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints in his letters, yet also gave the hypothetical warnings about "losing salvation" and was the same guy who gave the hypothetical warning about death on the boat in Acts 27. That's got to count for something. I have already made a strong case that it is indeed something that is valid to say. Simply saying "well, it's the wrong kind of death, so it doesn't count" doesn't cut it. There's nothing immediate about it Tyler. That IS the context. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Like I said, the context is talking about salvation in the physical sense which has absolutely nothing to do with eternal salvation. Not my opinion Tyler, that's called reality.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 31, 2006 20:23:54 GMT -5
You have such a double standard Darc. You call Gene Cook a wolf and then say it is wrong and mean to call Dan Corner a Pharisee. You say that all eternal security people are giving others a license to sin by their message. Then you don't like it when someone says that Dan Corner or you are legalists. Stop with all the name calling! Prove your point from Scripture and Scripture alone! As for the King David thing, we have gone through that before. Shall we return to Psalm 51? Let's look at what David himself said. Do you consider Psalm 51 to be the Word of God? If so, then David is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and according to what he said about himself and his condition in Psalm 51, he didn't think that he had "lost" his salvation...
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 31, 2006 20:38:19 GMT -5
Do you even know the definition of pharisee Tyler? First of all they were Jews that observed all kinds of rituals and ceremonies of the written law. They were insistent on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law. Dan Corner is not a Jew. He doesn't observe all kinds of rituals or ceremonies of the written law nor does he insist on his own oral traditions concerning said law. Need I go any further? Yes, it is slander and that is the last I will say about the matter if you want the last word, it's yours. I'm not going to defend this particular invective used by Gene anymore. If you insist on accusing him of sin in calling Corner a Pharisee, whatever. Bring it to his blog. That shouldn't be a problem if what you're saying is true. Of course Dan isn't a Jew. That is not the point. The point is that his beliefs are pharisaic in that he believes he can do some kinds of sins over and over (worry and the other unspecified-in-scripture "sins that do not lead to death) while he goes all out on the other sins. Not only that, but he actually thinks he's responsible for his own salvation (i.e. the onus is on him to remain in obedience, not on God to hold on to him as the already mentioned Scripture teaches) and doesn't believe the intercessory work of Christ is relevant to the believer's security. So yes, I agree that Corner doesn't meet all the conditions of "pharisee". But to go through all the aspects of the term in such a nitpicky way is silly, and hypocritical, especially when you call me a "follower of Calvin" when I have never even read the Institutes and I don't believe in infant baptism. Haha. Wow. Remember all those times when I told you why I held the beliefs I hold about predestination, election, the nature of the will, and perseverance? You know, those verses you totally ignored in our whole debate? Acts 13:48, John 6 (you didn't ignore this one, but were unable to interpret it to fit with your theology - it covers all five points of TULIP), 10, Romans 8, 9, Ephesians 1, 2 Thess. 2:13 (ditto)... and I have more now... verses indicating that God does indeed ordain evil acts and that hence, the committers of those acts cannot be considered free from a libertarian point of view - Proverbs 16:4, 9. So, if you want to demean my beliefs by calling me a follower of Calvin (again, I've never read anything by the man, Calvinism is just a nickname for the theology which came from the Protestant Reformation - from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc) and referring to my beliefs as antithetical to Scripture, deal with those passages of Scripture first. Let me know how they fit into your Pelagian scheme of things. BTW - if you don't want to debate me on eternal security, yet you want to keep posting that I'm unsaved due to my Calvinism and attacking the doctrines of grace - you can expect me to respond anyway and refute your arguments, since I am one of the only 5-pointers here. There's nothing immediate about it Tyler. That IS the context. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Like I said, the context is talking about salvation in the physical sense which has absolutely nothing to do with eternal salvation. Not my opinion Tyler, that's called reality. Okay, then you have a problem because your Bible has tension/contradiction inside. Let me know how the concept of losing your salvation, which depends entirely on the libertarian freedom of the will (nonexistent due to Scriptures which I posted), works out with the messages conveyed by the Scriptures I posted. It is not fair that you and Dan Corner don't let us Calvinists appeal to the other parts of our theology to make our points, yet you don't mind backing up your own arguments by saying "well, we have free will!!!!111" and that kind of thing. It is a double standard. And again - I challenge you to go repeat that stuff about Gene "editing the show" and being a liar on his blog, which I posted the web address of. If you are so right, it shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 31, 2006 20:47:03 GMT -5
Well according to Matthew 18, Darc you HAVE to go and tell the man that he is a liar to himself first anyway. Stop gossiping about the man on this thread and go tell him yourself. Repent of your gossip or you will go to Hell! Or is gossip one of those sins that you can do as a Christian and still go to Heaven?
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 20:48:39 GMT -5
Where'd you get the definition of holiness, just curious? and, I am saying that anybody who is willfully persisting in unrepented sin is someone who we should doubt (the sincerity/reality or their profession, that is). No, going on in sin like that is not what "gets a person to heaven", which is why I said it would have been reasonable to doubt David's genuineness at the present time, as he was in sin for the period of Bathsheba's gestation. But the whole point is, God brought him back via Nathan, and David is obviously among the elect, hence there is no problem with Calvinism and King David's issue as he indeed endured to the end with finality. Could you be any less clear in your answer? Let me interpret what you said. You believe that while in the sin of adultery and murder that King David was; "I am saying that anybody who is willfully persisting in unrepented sin is someone who we should doubt (the sincerity/reality or their profession, that is). No, going on in sin like that is not what "gets a person to heaven", which is why I said it would have been reasonable to doubt David's genuineness at the present time, as he was in sin for the period of Bathsheba's gestation.", spiritually dead in his sin, ( at the present time). Then I would agree, because that is what happens to a person according to James 1:14,15 for example. And in no way does this take away from the fact that David later repented, as we know he did, BUT, Tyler, that DOES NOT take away from the fact that if he were to have been killed or died before he repented he would have gone where the Bible tells us adulterers end up, in hell. King David some nine months later repenting does not erase the reality of him being spiritually dead during that time. It wouldn't have mattered if he repented the next day or the next week he was still, according to God's Word a Bible defined adulterer and murderer and presently spiritually dead. What took place 1 day later, 11 days later or 101 days later does not change his present condition. Tyler, don't you understand that that is exactly what a Calvinist does in light of how they view David? A Calvinist will say that David was still saved throughout the entire time. In saying that about David you are saying that there are "Christian" adulterers on the road to heaven. This is a clear message to the listeners that "if David was saved in his sexual immorality then that must mean I will be too." By having that view of David you are telling people indirectly that it's OK and they don't need to worry because they're still on the road to heaven, after all if it's good for David why not everyone else? This is exactly giving someone a license for immorality. What? Let's not go inconsistent on the issue now. This is a hold over from the Calvinist's view and they hold this same view in light of saying David was saved while in the sins of adultery and murder. This is one of their major inconsistencies in their doctrine. What I would say about "Billy Bob," in his way of thinking, is that he is believing in "another gospel" (Gal 1:8,9). That gospel Jude spoke of in Jude 3,4. The one where they've changed the grace of God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Strong's is where I got the definition of holiness.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 20:54:23 GMT -5
Well according to Matthew 18, Darc you HAVE to go and tell the man that he is a liar to himself first anyway. Stop gossiping about the man on this thread and go tell him yourself. Repent of your gossip or you will go to Hell! Or is gossip one of those sins that you can do as a Christian and still go to Heaven? Tyler and Rev, I have confronted Mr. Cook on the day of the last airing, Friday about his sin. He simply shrugged it off as if my warning him from Scripture didn't even faze him. I did this through email, directly to him.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 31, 2006 21:00:25 GMT -5
Well according to Matthew 18, Darc you HAVE to go and tell the man that he is a liar to himself first anyway. Stop gossiping about the man on this thread and go tell him yourself. Repent of your gossip or you will go to Hell! Or is gossip one of those sins that you can do as a Christian and still go to Heaven? Tyler and Rev, I have confronted Mr. Cook on the day of the last airing, Friday about his sin. He simply shrugged it off as if my warning him from Scripture didn't even faze him. I did this through email, directly to him. Oh, so you will email him directly, and you'll blab about it here, but you won't post the same comments on his blog?
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 21:08:09 GMT -5
You have such a double standard Darc. You call Gene Cook a wolf and then say it is wrong and mean to call Dan Corner a Pharisee. You say that all eternal security people are giving others a license to sin by their message. Then you don't like it when someone says that Dan Corner or you are legalists. Stop with all the name calling! Prove your point from Scripture and Scripture alone! As for the King David thing, we have gone through that before. Shall we return to Psalm 51? Let's look at what David himself said. Do you consider Psalm 51 to be the Word of God? If so, then David is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and according to what he said about himself and his condition in Psalm 51, he didn't think that he had "lost" his salvation... I have no double standard Rev., the double standard is in the 5th point of Calvinism, in part, regarding their view of King David. Gene cook is a wolf in sheep's clothing because of his wicked doctrine.Tell me how I am a legalist? Name calling is actually Biblical in light of Truth giving. Don't yammer on about what I do RevK. I have been using Scripture. Not necessarily in regard to the pharisee bit, but then again, I don't need to use Scripture to prove the point there do I? No. Don't even start with the side step approach, using Psalm 51, because that is after the fact of his sin and DOES NOT deal with his PRESENT CONDITION in SIN. You go back and answer the same questions I've asked Tyler regarding King David and be honest with yourself.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 31, 2006 21:09:16 GMT -5
Could you be any less clear in your answer? Let me interpret what you said. You believe that while in the sin of adultery and murder that King David was; "I am saying that anybody who is willfully persisting in unrepented sin is someone who we should doubt (the sincerity/reality or their profession, that is). No, going on in sin like that is not what "gets a person to heaven", which is why I said it would have been reasonable to doubt David's genuineness at the present time, as he was in sin for the period of Bathsheba's gestation.", spiritually dead in his sin, ( at the present time). Then I would agree, because that is what happens to a person according to James 1:14,15 for example. And in no way does this take away from the fact that David later repented, as we know he did, BUT, Tyler, that DOES NOT take away from the fact that if he were to have been killed or died before he repented he would have gone where the Bible tells us adulterers end up, in hell. King David some nine months later repenting does not erase the reality of him being spiritually dead during that time. It wouldn't have mattered if he repented the next day or the next week he was still, according to God's Word a Bible defined adulterer and murderer and presently spiritually dead. What took place 1 day later, 11 days later or 101 days later does not change his present condition. So your entire argument here is based on a hypothetical idea that you've eisegeted from James 1:14-15, despite the other scriptures I've given concerning what happens to the elect when they are predestined and then eventually glorified by God (Romans 8:29-30), then? And when are you going to address the scriptures I asked you about? Darc, that is only part of the whole truth, and when you aren't representing me correctly on all of it, you aren't representing me honestly. I said that a man who is willfully persisting in sin may not be saved at all. We don't know, and there is no Calvinist who in his right mind is going to tell that guy to keep on sinning wantonly. The perseverence of the saints says that those God elects, He keeps, and therefore since David was elect, he was still saved while in that adultery. HOWEVER: Before you rip that out of the context of this paragraph and parade it around as if you've defeated me, remember what I said otherwise - that AT THE PRESENT TIME, it would have been right to consider him to be unsaved if he was indeed living in that kind of sin willfully. HENCE: there is no excuse for you to take that out of its context and say that Calvinists teach a license for sin, because we do not. It is intellectually dishonest and part of the reason I find Corner's theology and demeanor to be so repulsive. Um, I agreed that if Billy Bob is living that way, he is believing a different gospel. That's my point. Either he's just coming out of anesthesia or is on some other kind of drug (i.e. radical and strange exceptions to the rule), or he is unsaved. I find it kind of sad that you call Christ your Sovereign in that post, yet your God isn't sovereign at all, Darc. He's totally tied down to the "free will choices" of the creatures He made. In Corner's theology, Christ's intercessory work on the part of believers is irrelevant to their salvation and eternal destiny. In Corner's theology, man is sovereign and man cooperates with God and holds the responsibility for his own salvation - the Pelagian god just pushes man off the curb, gives him "natural ability" or "prevenient grace" or whatever you want to call it, and says "well, I'm not going to hold on to you, it's your job to keep yourself saved!"[/b]
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 21:09:39 GMT -5
Tyler and Rev, I have confronted Mr. Cook on the day of the last airing, Friday about his sin. He simply shrugged it off as if my warning him from Scripture didn't even faze him. I did this through email, directly to him. Oh, so you will email him directly, and you'll blab about it here, but you won't post the same comments on his blog? Tyler back off. His blog has nothing to do with him. My issue is with him. NOT his followers.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 31, 2006 21:16:09 GMT -5
Okay, then why are you discussing it with us? We agree that he did not lie. Even the atheist who listens to the show and has no bone to pick with the issue of eternal security knows that that "omission" was just a drop out. The reason Gene shrugged off the accusation of lying and dishonesty is because first of all, he's well aware of Corner's past actions with James White, and secondly, the fact that Corner actually sat there and compared the entire two mp3s, and then accused Gene of editing his words despite the fact that dropouts are expected on a strained Vonage VoIP system is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 21:19:47 GMT -5
Could you be any less clear in your answer? Let me interpret what you said. You believe that while in the sin of adultery and murder that King David was; "I am saying that anybody who is willfully persisting in unrepented sin is someone who we should doubt (the sincerity/reality or their profession, that is). No, going on in sin like that is not what "gets a person to heaven", which is why I said it would have been reasonable to doubt David's genuineness at the present time, as he was in sin for the period of Bathsheba's gestation.", spiritually dead in his sin, ( at the present time). Then I would agree, because that is what happens to a person according to James 1:14,15 for example. And in no way does this take away from the fact that David later repented, as we know he did, BUT, Tyler, that DOES NOT take away from the fact that if he were to have been killed or died before he repented he would have gone where the Bible tells us adulterers end up, in hell. King David some nine months later repenting does not erase the reality of him being spiritually dead during that time. It wouldn't have mattered if he repented the next day or the next week he was still, according to God's Word a Bible defined adulterer and murderer and presently spiritually dead. What took place 1 day later, 11 days later or 101 days later does not change his present condition. So your entire argument here is based on a hypothetical idea that you've eisegeted from James 1:14-15, despite the other scriptures I've given concerning what happens to the elect when they are predestined and then eventually glorified by God (Romans 8:29-30), then? And when are you going to address the scriptures I asked you about? What is a hypothetical idea that you've eisegeted from James 1:14-15? That was and is TRUTH, plain and simple, that it IS based ON, Tyler. Stop trying to blur the issues Tyler. Just answer the questions please. You can say all you want about it only being part of the whole truth. But that still does not take away from the fact that King David's present tense condition of adultery and murder was the cause of his spiritual death and him present tense being on the road to hell BEFORE he repented, which you agree with.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Dec 31, 2006 21:31:24 GMT -5
Okay, then why are you discussing it with us? We agree that he did not lie. Even the atheist who listens to the show and has no bone to pick with the issue of eternal security knows that that "omission" was just a drop out. The reason Gene shrugged off the accusation of lying and dishonesty is because first of all, he's well aware of Corner's past actions with James White, and secondly, the fact that Corner actually sat there and compared the entire two mp3s, and then accused Gene of editing his words despite the fact that dropouts are expected on a strained Vonage VoIP system is absurd. I simply stated what took place with the two airings. It's been you that has been the one defending him so please again do not blur the issue. The reason why I'm discussing it with you (singular) is because you seem to want to continue with it. It makes no difference to me if you brought in the President of the U.S., as someone who denied it was intentional, Tyler, that in no way influences the the evidence and truth. Let me ask you if it was, as you and Mr. Cook's camp say, then why was it on such a crucial issue and only once? Do you think that that is really possible? Really? You just simply can't handle the fact that this man that you admire is actually a liar. Admit it. Tyler, it's not me that's making accusations, all you have to do is listen to it. This reminds me of how politicians put the spin on a subject. You guys are good. If you don't make it doing whatever it is that you do you might think about running for office.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 1, 2007 0:38:46 GMT -5
I find it kind of sad that you call Christ your Sovereign in that post, yet your God isn't sovereign at all, Darc. He's totally tied down to the "free will choices" of the creatures He made. In Corner's theology, Christ's intercessory work on the part of believers is irrelevant to their salvation and eternal destiny. In Corner's theology, man is sovereign and man cooperates with God and holds the responsibility for his own salvation - the Pelagian god just pushes man off the curb, gives him "natural ability" or "prevenient grace" or whatever you want to call it, and says "well, I'm not going to hold on to you, it's your job to keep yourself saved!"[/b][/quote] Listen to me my friend. My salvation was accomplished upon the cross, where Jesus Christ my Savior and Lord made the sacrifice for ME so that I wouldn't have to pay the price of my sins. My salvation is complete in Christ Jesus and it is in Him that I am trusting in, relying upon and clinging to for my salvation now and for my salvation to come in the future. I can neither give anything in support of my salvation nor can I do anything to gain salvation. Nothing I have or nothing I am even remotely compares to what it takes to accomplish my salvation or gives to my salvation. I am nothing, nothing. God Almighty has been merciful to me, giving me grace when there is nothing in me that could be found worthy of receiving it. He granted me repentance unto salvation. If I thought my salvation had anything to do with me I would be the first one to beat me down, to kick me, to try and get me to see clearly that that would be taking away from Jesus' completed and absolutely glorious work where He obtained salvation for all that will come to Him. Now, this is where you think I am a Pelagist at this point, because of my belief that according to Scripture I must obey Jesus' commands and maintain obedience to God after salvation and that if I don't and wander off into sin and unbelief or deny Jesus that I become spiritually dead, all according to Scripture. Because it is after salvation where it becomes a believer's responsibility to cooperate with God, to uphold my end of the covenant. The Bible is very clear about a believer's responsibility after initial salvation of what we must do to endure to the end to be saved, but, yet you scream WORK's!, WORK's!, when these are direct commands and exhortations given to believers. Jesus said: "but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." The Bible is absolutely filled with conditions to the believer regarding salvation of which I recognize and choose to obey to remain in God's grace. God enables me to do this by the Holy Spirit's regenerative work He has accomplished in me upon faith in Jesus, yet God will not do these things for me, He has given them to us as ours to do and that requires a daily choice to continue to follow Him and His commands. It has nothing to do with the fact that God has accomplished eternal life for me through His Son Jesus. My salvation in that regard will always be completely finished and there's nothing I can do to take away from Jesus' finished work on the cross. But does that mean that I can't walk away from it? NO (Rom 8:12,13). Does that take away from God's sovereignty? NO. This is all based on Scriptural truths my friend. Which ones do you want to disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 1, 2007 3:29:54 GMT -5
I remind you again of 1 Peter 1:3-5: 3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. Notice it doesn't say you're the one keeping yourself. It doesn't say that God gives you a choice and you have to choose to follow him out of your own effort and sovereign will. It says that if somebody is saved, then God will shield them. He will keep them. It is God's power that saves us, not our own. It may look like our own, from our own feeble perspective, but it's not. Romans 8:29-30: 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. There is no missing link here. Those God foreknows, he predestines; those He predestines, he calls; those He calls; he justifies; and those He justifies, He glorifies. That means they go to heaven. Hence, if one is foreknown and predestined, he will be saved. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it. No missing links, and we're told in verse 39 that nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from that love, that electing love of God in Christ. That includes oneself, since oneself is a part of creation. God is the one who sovereignly foreknows and predestines us, calls us, justifies us, KEEPS us by His power, and ultimately glorifies us in the end. There's nothing in all this that you're doing out of your own power, if indeed you are saved. It may seem like you have some independent say in all of this, but frankly, you don't. Salvation does not depend on man's desire or effort but God's mercy. The bottom line is that if James 1:14-15 means what you think it means - that one of God's chosen ones can ultimately fall to the point of damnation, then you've got a lot of scriptures to reconcile with that. I've cited them and explained them. You know of them. I have asked you about them over, and over, and over, and you don't even think they're important to the issue. That is pretty unfair, Darc, because when you bring up a Scripture, i.e. one of the "I think this means I can lose my salvation" passages, you demand that EVERYONE explain it from their point of view and you tear them apart if it doesn't agree with your seemingly willfully ignorant analysis of the King David issue - ignoring what I say about how it's really not a problem for Calvinists at all, but hey, why do you need to worry about representing your opponents' arguments correctly when you can just pull a Dan Corner and start ranting about how their doctrine is a "license for sin" and "allows for two kinds of adulterers" and the same old cliches? When it comes to Gene's show and his "edits" - Corner's accusations are purely speculatory. You say they're based on "evidence" but the only evidence that there actually is is the fact that Gene's copy of the mp3 has some intermittent silent spots here and there. Corner, trying to make his opponent look bad, dreams up some horrible conspiracy that the Calvinists are trying to silence him even though he already expressed his sentiments about obedience many, many times. On the other hand, I have explained why these silent spots may have happened at least twice (strained bandwidth + Vonage VoIP = interference). The bottom line is, you can believe what you want to believe, and I can't get through to you myself. But other people can look at the evidence if they wish and decide for themselves. And when they see the evidence and the utter lack of any motive for Gene to do such a thing, as well as Corner's past dealings with others (articles and audios for which I have posted), I have a feeling they won't be siding with him and his wild-eyed accusations. I have presented my theological views clearly in debates with you, and the scriptural reasons why I hold to them. Darc, you have never even really tackled these views head on or interacted with them in a meaningful way. When I bring up topics that necessarily precede the eternal security issue, you say I'm trying to blur or obfuscate the issue, and then change the subject back to King David or Romans 8:13 or something like that - yet when I've debated you on this, I've taken the time and energy to look at your side of it and try to piece everything together. It is simply unfair. If you ever expect to get anywhere with me in debate, you're going to have to do a pretty good job of explaining to me why the previously cited parts of Scripture don't mean when they say when it comes to the five points. I have said about all I need to say here, so that is all. Tyler
|
|