|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 1, 2007 13:13:04 GMT -5
Tyler you are a master at diversion tactics.
It seems you are not able to understand it and therefore are also unable to answer a question that I continually ask you and so you think that it can be just swept under the rug and forgotten, by diverting off course into your interpretation of Calvin's election, predestination doctrines. And that's not unfair Tyler. It's simply the fact that you have unanswered questions, that I've posed to you, and I will continue to refuse to go down this rabbit trail with you as you attempt to blur the issue at hand.
I remind you Tyler of how you responded to a question I asked you. This is before you clouded the issue.
I originally asked: 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!!!!!
This question you have not answered. Which is the core issue.
So then I asked: 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?
Then you replied: 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. (which is to say you believe that King David was not on the road to heaven in his sin. Which also means that if he would have died then he would have gone to hell.)
But then you realized that you were starting to see correctly and the Calvinist influence took over and here we are today talking about your view of Calvin's view of election and predestination.
We were simply walking through truth as it concerns King David and holiness and this is where you've led us. You should be ashamed Tyler. Now, I now you'll spit and sputter and try and bring it back to some view of election and predestination BUT none of that will change the FACT that while in their present state of SIN neither King David nor the Prodigal would have been able to enter heaven if they would have died in that wretched state. This truth also applies to every Christian today. For "without holiness no one will see the Lord."
You started to see there for a moment but then the veil went back over your eyes.
I desire to continue in a way in which we stick with the issue at hand and not wander off on other tracks. If you are unable to do this then please let me know. The issue at hand is King David in his present state of sin and how that relates to holy living or holiness, which is required to see the Lord. Let's come to some end on this and then if you like we can go elsewhere, but right now this is a loose end.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 1, 2007 18:05:43 GMT -5
King David was a righteous man. How do we know that? He wrote parts of the Bible, among others godly, righteous attributes.
The question is was he still a child of God, righteous, on the road to heaven while in his sin, doing the evil that he did, committing adultery and murder? What does the Word of God say?
Did he do evil? This is where Nathan confronts David and says: 2 Sam 12:9 says: "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?" (NIV) "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? (KJV)
So, yes, according to God's Word he did do evil. What does the Word of God say happens to righteous men that do evil?
Ezekiel 33:18 says: "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it." (NIV) "When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die therby. (KJV)
King David, doing the evil that he did, according to the Word of God, became spiritually dead. This is the same effect that doing what is evil in God's eyes, sinning, has on any Believer. Spiritual death occurs.
This is the same truth cited in James 1:14,15 and Romans 8:12,13, etc., etc.. "SIN brings forth death" spoken to Christians.
Someone who is spiritually dead can't enter heaven, because those who are spiritually dead are wicked and evil.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 1, 2007 21:19:46 GMT -5
DARC Said: Someone who is spiritually dead can't enter heaven, because those who are spiritually dead are wicked and evil.
Question: Are you spiritually dead, wicked and evil?
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 1, 2007 21:51:10 GMT -5
DARC Said: Someone who is spiritually dead can't enter heaven, because those who are spiritually dead are wicked and evil. Question: Are you spiritually dead, wicked and evil? No. You? What you say about the above truth from God's Word BT?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jan 2, 2007 12:23:26 GMT -5
There is one verse that never allowed me to believe that David lost his salvation. I don't know if anyone has quoted this verse yet (I haven't really looked through all of this thread yet)
2 Samuel 7:14-15
"I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee."
Now this verse is certainly no nail in the coffin to refute conditional security - In the same breath that it says that mercy won't depart from David, it does say that it did depart from Saul.
Why the difference? Not too sure. I always think of this verse though- "... but to this man will I look, even to him that is of a poor and contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." Isaiah 66:2b
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jan 2, 2007 12:29:27 GMT -5
Now, IF David died in his sin would he have gone to hell? I would have to say yes, IF he died in his sin. How do we reconcile all of scripture with clear verses like the one from 2 Samuel. Not too sure, it must be possible though.
I don't think we can ever neglect the truth in Hebrews that God chastens and scourges ever son who he recieves. If you are without chastisement you are not a son at all. Chastisement like God promised David is most definitely for sons. What is the purpose? To perfect us and bring us closer or back to God of course. Is it possible to resist that to the point of being eternally lost? I believe it. Remember the proverb about he that being oft reproved and keeps hardening his neck, it will be without remedy.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 13:44:18 GMT -5
Now, IF David died in his sin would he have gone to hell? I would have to say yes, IF he died in his sin. How do we reconcile all of scripture with clear verses like the one from 2 Samuel. Not too sure, it must be possible though. I don't think we can ever neglect the truth in Hebrews that God chastens and scourges ever son who he recieves. If you are without chastisement you are not a son at all. Chastisement like God promised David is most definitely for sons. What is the purpose? To perfect us and bring us closer or back to God of course. Is it possible to resist that to the point of being eternally lost? I believe it. Remember the proverb about he that being oft reproved and keeps hardening his neck, it will be without remedy. What then do you do with Hewbrews 6:4-6 which states plainly that if you DO fall away you CANNOT be restored? How does Hebrews fit in with David?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 13:46:03 GMT -5
DARC Said: Someone who is spiritually dead can't enter heaven, because those who are spiritually dead are wicked and evil. Question: Are you spiritually dead, wicked and evil? No. You? What you say about the above truth from God's Word BT? No and I say nothing on the Believer's Security with you because you REFUSE to accept that MULTITUDES of Calvinists do NOT teach a license for sin; hence, you're wilfully and deliberately slamming down Spurgeon and all others who taught Holiness. So again, not engaging you in this issue; maybe other issues, but certainly not this one.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jan 2, 2007 15:12:49 GMT -5
Now, IF David died in his sin would he have gone to hell? I would have to say yes, IF he died in his sin. How do we reconcile all of scripture with clear verses like the one from 2 Samuel. Not too sure, it must be possible though. I don't think we can ever neglect the truth in Hebrews that God chastens and scourges ever son who he recieves. If you are without chastisement you are not a son at all. Chastisement like God promised David is most definitely for sons. What is the purpose? To perfect us and bring us closer or back to God of course. Is it possible to resist that to the point of being eternally lost? I believe it. Remember the proverb about he that being oft reproved and keeps hardening his neck, it will be without remedy. What then do you do with Hewbrews 6:4-6 which states plainly that if you DO fall away you CANNOT be restored? How does Hebrews fit in with David? Not too sure yet. I do believe one can come to place where he is beyond hope. I don't know how to determine precisely who and how that happens I just say that it is possible. One view on Hebrews 6 is that the word "seeing" in the Greek is the same as the word "while". So, it could be said that while a person is fallen away he is not saved but I don't know that that is really a hermanuetically sound way of looking at that scripture. I just haven't come to firm conclusion yet on if one falls away that in every case he is hopeless and can never be restored. Galatians 6 talks about restoring someone who has been overtaken in a fault. The prodigal son parable pretty clearly says that he was a son who was dead and now is alive. I know some would say that a person would have to get to a certain place in their walk that is pretty deep and very experiential and THEN if they fell away it would be without hope. But, I try to take a very humble view on conditional security. I don't want to be wrong, I don't want to give people a false hope, I don't want to lead people astray. I tremble at his word and know that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. I can only present to word. Maybe one day I will have a fuller revelation on some of these difficult doctrines. What do you think about Hebrews 6? (And with all humility I do sincerely want to hear your view)
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 18:55:58 GMT -5
I believe backsliders (real backsliders; not false converts) can be restored; those who fall away cannot be.
Backliding LEADS to falling away.
David: Backslider
Saul: Fell Away.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 2, 2007 19:12:22 GMT -5
Can any of you BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 19:20:31 GMT -5
Can any of you deny the truth of how 2 Sam 12:9 and Ezek 33:18 paints the picture concerning David?
If David is as YOU say he was just backslidden in ADULTERY and MURDER then you have a problem.
Because this means that you'd believe there are TWO types of adulterers and TWO types of murderers.
Ones that are saved and on their way to Heaven....and ones that are unsaved and on their way to Hell. This being the case please show me in Scripture where God tells us there are these two different types heading in opposite directions. Because I can only see where the Bible speaks about either of them (adulterers and murderers) and they're going to be damned to hell in that sin. i see nowhere in Scripture where it says either will be able to enter into Heaven.
Please don't give me an answer that he repented. i know he LATER repented. That's not the issue.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 19:27:21 GMT -5
Can any of you BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Please. Think about how your actions young man are being seen by all kinds of people. Both saved and unsaved. It's very apparent that you haven't changed anything about who are BT. Still making quip little remarks to see if you can get a rise out people, which is the same as trying to get other people to trip up and sin in what they might say in response to your remarks. I believe you should either hold your tongue if you have nothing to contribute OR if you can't then leave the boards.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Jan 2, 2007 20:10:11 GMT -5
Ah Darc,
You are trying to tell people not to be petty and unwise, but you talk down to him calling him "young man." You claim that you want people to see the truth, but over and over again I see you ignore or twist the words of others in your argument. You say those with nothing to contribute should hold their tongues, but you are eager to lambast anyone who disagrees with you.
I call shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 21:14:34 GMT -5
Ah Darc, You are trying to tell people not to be petty and unwise, but you talk down to him calling him "young man." You claim that you want people to see the truth, but over and over again I see you ignore or twist the words of others in your argument. You say those with nothing to contribute should hold their tongues, but you are eager to lambast anyone who disagrees with you. I call shenanigans. This issue may be out of the doctrinal thread area my friend but that doesn't mean that it gets attacked by people like you. This is an on-going discussion on BIBLE doctrinal truths. I don't know you as a Christian, so, if you'd like to do what you have just been doing then I'll backout and let you have the sand box. I didn't come into this area to get slapped around by non-Christians. This is a doctrinal issue, so please let me know if you'd like to join in on the doctrinal discussion because if not then I will avoid you and take this over in to the "Doctrine" thread. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 2, 2007 21:27:24 GMT -5
Ah Darc, You are trying to tell people not to be petty and unwise, but you talk down to him calling him "young man." You claim that you want people to see the truth, but over and over again I see you ignore or twist the words of others in your argument. You say those with nothing to contribute should hold their tongues, but you are eager to lambast anyone who disagrees with you. I call shenanigans. He is a young man compared to me. That's the mere truth of the matter my friend. It has nothing to do with speaking down at him. Simply stating a FACT. Thank you. I did not say this. I said: I believe you should either hold your tongue if you have nothing to contribute OR if you can't then leave the boards. AND, I said it DIRECTLY to Biblethumper NOT everyone, in response to his remark: Can any of you BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH where he was smearing me. OK? Please, if you're going to take sides at least get the facts straight. If you'll go back and read the thread you'll see I'm not the instigator here rather that's BT. My response to him was a rebuke, which is far different than lamblasting someone, as was due him.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Jan 2, 2007 23:30:04 GMT -5
Wow you don't want to have the discussion with me but you respond twice? It doesn't much matter whether he is a young man compared to you. You know perfectly well that calling someone "young man" is patronizing. Don't get so huffy about it, I would think an older, wiser man would be a little more centered.
As far as your lambasting people, I was speaking in a more general sense. I often read many of the threads you are in even if they aren't threads in which I can post. I stand by everything I said previously, and I think many of the people on the board would agree with me that you seem to willfully ignore or misinterpret people's posts and then attack them. I'm not a christian, and I don't know much scripture, and even I can see it happening when you get involved in conversations.
If you can't handle comments from non-Christians, then go back to the Doctrinal section. It's not your perogative to tell me where I can and cannot post, and if you want to be involved in discussions on the public part of the board then show a little spine. I'm the kindest and fairest of the non-Christians you're likely to meet here, and if you can't handle me I'm afraid Val or Cervy might make you cry.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 3, 2007 0:18:24 GMT -5
Poisoning the well. Also, see previous posts about how all points of TULIP need to be considered as a whole. The fact that you won't interact with our arguments as Calvinists is not my problem, it is yours, and it is a big one because you're ignoring parts of the Bible in the process. Again, I derive my doctrine from the Bible. I haven't read Calvin's Institutes. On the other hand, I've never seen you say one thing that Dan Corner doesn't propagate on the internet. And you continue to ignore the scriptural evidence I've given for my beliefs. 1. We know from the future and the testimony of Scripture that David was elect and that therefore he was indeed saved while in those sins. We may only say this because we know he ended up in heaven. Any person who is living in sin needs to repent and no Calvinist is going to tell you otherwise. We are told to make our calling and election sure in the Bible (ooh, there I go straying from the topic again). 2. Gene expounds on the Prodigal in the last ten to fifteen minutes of Friday's program. The context of the parable is not one of losing and regaining salvation. Saying that Gene was teaching the Prodigal was a "Christian that went out and lived in drunkenness and wild living with prostitues and was still considered to be a Christian steeped in sin" is, first of all, a straw man, and secondly, incorrect. He did not say that explicitly, you must have read it into his words. What he taught was that the parable's purpose was to compare the repentant and humble attitude of the prodigal to the arrogant and presumptuous attitude of the older brother, the former as a model for the right kind of faith and the latter as a standard model for self-righteous pharisaic types. If you want to discuss the prodigal further, begin a thread in the doctrine forum. If you look past Corner's articles on this matter, it turns out that seeing the parable of the prodigal son as a "I lost it, found it, and then lost it again" thing when it comes to salvation it not very tenable. That's right, he was, and again, we only know this because we live after the fact. Again. Calvinists teach one to make their calling and election sure. Calvinists do not pat people on the head and tell them to go on in their sin. Calvinists realize that Scripture teaches the elect were given by the Father to Christ and that Christ will never lose a one of them, and that therefore all people who have been truly saved will be raised up at the last day, as Jesus teaches in John 6. The standard "if I think a bad thought and get hit by a bus then I'll go to hell" argument doesn't cut it here, Darc. It is merely speculation, and on top of that, speculation apart from any kind of actual interaction with what I believe. Let me know when you've received the gift of telepathy. Then you can tell me when I am just cowering in fear from the pressure of your arguments (you know, the ones that don't even address my views and just keep setting up straw man after straw man and knocking them down). I agree, Darc. Let me know when you're going to address my actual arguments. I've explained several times that from the calvinist point of view there is no theological problem with King David's situation. I've elaborated on why I believe that and you don't respond to my arguments. It's like I'm wasting my time typing them out in an at least somewhat coherent way. Yeah, that's what happened. If only I had used the prevenient grace given me in order to make the best choice, thus redeeming myself. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints goes a lot deeper and connects with a lot more topics than you seem to think, despite the fact that I've explained why many times. Your conditional security arguments are loaded with presuppositions about the nature of the will, conditional election, general atonement, and so on and so forth. The "loose end", if there ever was one, has now been clarified in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 4, 2007 22:42:20 GMT -5
Tyler, You no longer have to "waste your time." I'm done with you. I will say this one last time. The fact that you want to divert onto some other "Calvinist point" is diverting off subject and DOES NOT change what God's Word says about King David, that he became spiritually dead in his sin and needed to repent for salvation's sake. If you deny this truth from God's Word then I pity you.
2 Samuel 12:9 (Nathan speaking to David) "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?"
Ezek. 3:18,19 "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it. And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so."
David was not a saved man in the sin of adultery! When the Bible speaks of adulterers there is ONE TYPE, NOT TWO! They are those NOT inheriting the Kingdom of God, rather, ending up in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. I don't care how much twisting or diverting you do, it will not change this eternal truth in God's Word.
The fact that David did LATER repent does not mean that he was saved and on the road to heaven in his present immoral behavior. You cannot find anywhere in Scripture where God says that people doing these immoral acts are on the road that leads to life. NOWHERE!
You must repent of this wicked Calvinistic interpretation and doctrine and submit to God and His Word. If you are in the sin of lusting through porn right now you are on the road to hell and must turn from that wickedness for life.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 4, 2007 22:49:27 GMT -5
TBXI, I agree... it comes down to one thing in the end:
David went to Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 4, 2007 22:50:42 GMT -5
2 Samuel 12:9 (Nathan speaking to David) "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?" Nobody's debating that. I can interpret this through Acts 27 and make sense out of it. You can't interpret this when you look at the myriad of verses proving unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints (Romans 8, 9, Ephesians 1, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, John 6:35-40 and so on), and make sense out of it. Therefore your interpretation is flawed. Begging the question: Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionRight, and I can't disprove the Riemann hypothesis. That doesn't mean it's true. This is another logical fallacy. In case anybody's curious, the Riemann hypothesis is a famous unsolved math problem described here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesisAha, Darc, but I can turn your reasoning directly on its head. "You must repent of your wicked Pelagian interpretation of Romans 8, 9, Ephesians 1, and John 6 and submit to God and His Word. If you are in the sin of trusting your own works and obedience for salvation then you are on the road to hell and must turn from that wickedness for life." Therefore your reasoning is invalid and unsupported - circular.
|
|