|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 12, 2007 21:42:34 GMT -5
Wow... Dan Corner felt it needful to twist my words... and he EDITS my posts on THIS Forum to "prove" I'm a OSAS proponent! I HAVE STATED, darc and dan, that I AM ETERNALLY SECURE IN CHRIST! My question is this: Are you NOT secure IN Christ? Guys, the game is old and Dan Corner has used one statement, without the entire post, to show I'm a OSAS advocate, which I am not; I believe you can ultimately fall. Anyhow, here's how Corner twists the post I made using ONE of my statements: DAN CORNER'S ARTICLE:
The Almost Eternal Security Text Debate With Dan Lirette
Dan Lirette, the director of ICM Open Air Outreach agreed on 12-05-06 to text debate me (Dan Corner) on the subject of eternal security—with him affirming and me denying this wicked teaching. After drawing up the debate rules and him agreeing with them, we started to proceed until he abruptly seemed to change his doctrine to the truth of Scripture—salvation can be lost. The following was his email to me on December 25, 2006 as he backed out of our debate over that reason:
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 [sic] offer” (capital emphasis his).
The shocking truth about all of this is Dan Lirette presented a totally different view of his doctrine on the believer’s security at a board where he visits just after the above email to me! In contrast to what he wrote me, this is what he said about his own beliefs on eternal security there:
“Unconditional Eternal Security is false; Eternal Security is NOT false; I really AM eternally secure IN CHRIST” (capital emphasis his).
Is Lirette (from the above contradiction) trying to confuse the issue as many eternal security proponents do? Why would he disguise his own doctrinal beliefs to me to back out of our debate? Is he irrational, confused or just lying?
May God help Lirette realize the truth that a righteous person can die spiritually, as shown all throughout Scripture (Gen. 2:16,17; Ezek. 33:18; Rom. 8:13; James 1:14-16; James 5:19,20; etc.).
Dan Lirette, I’m still interested in text debating you as you initially agreed to. If you believe in eternal security, as you have put in print at a board, why won’t you debate this issue with me now and what was the real reason why you backed out of the debate you agreed to do?
The sooner Lirette turns from such a counterfeit grace message (Titus 2:11,12) and false gospel (1 Cor. 15:2) the better it will be for him and all those he influences.
GOD BLESS YOU.
Contending Against The Grace Changers (Jude 3,4),
Dan Corner_______________________________________ MY ACTUAL WORDS, IN CONTEXT:
s 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 13, 2007 15:01:32 GMT -5
What you say BT is correct. We are secure IN Christ, BUT, that doesn't mean that we cannot fall from His grace and so become finally lost.
It's this statement right here>>>UNconditional Eternal Security is false; Eternal Security is NOT false; I really AM eternally secure IN CHRIST., that throws everyone off. You have never defined what the difference is between the two for everyone here.
You say: UNconditional Eternal Security is false
and then: Eternal Security is NOT false
First of all you are not ETERNALLY SECURE in Christ rather you are secure IN Christ on the condition that you stay obedient to Him and never go back to the ways of the flesh. This doesn't mean He is unable, it simply means we MUST have a faith that is unto obedience and "if we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship with one another and the blood of His Son Jesus Christ purifies us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
It seems that what you are trying to do is confuse the issue. Eternal Security means one can never fall away from Christ. That has ALWAYS been the Calvinist definition. In fact this is how the "P" is defined by Calvinists: Final Perseverance, or unconditional security, by which it is assured that those who once savingly believe on Christ shall be eternally preserved from falling away. which is ONE and the SAME with what you stated and what I suppose we can understand you to mean when you give this "new title" to an old term: UNconditional Eternal Security
What you actually mean to say is that you have conditional security. Jesus saves you by grace through faith and you must put a submitted faith in Him that produces obedience to His commands which produces works of righteousness.
Romans 8:1 "1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit,"
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 13, 2007 15:27:54 GMT -5
Darc, I agree with that; we're secure IN Christ...ETERNALLY secure if we remain IN Christ.
I have no disagreement with that statement.
Living in sin will cut you off from God.
I didn't misrepresent my statements; you guys read into them something I never said.
|
|
1611isperfect
Full Member
Publick preaching in Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 140
|
Post by 1611isperfect on Jan 13, 2007 17:15:02 GMT -5
I used to believe that someone could lose their salvation if they turned from God back to their old ways, only because almost everyone said that they were saved, and weren't living for God. But the bible only appears to say that in a few scriptures. If it did say that plainly then there would be way too many contradictions in the Bible. Write back, I'd like to discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jan 14, 2007 0:28:50 GMT -5
Once saved ALWAYS saved-ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Christ died only ONCE for our sins.
Jesus said "Ye must be born again"-not born again and again and again and again.
This is NOT a license to sin.
Again I ask, if you can lose your salvation why does God threaten to chastise HIS children?
Why does Paul talk about rewards in 1 Cor 3?
If you are saved and continue in wilful sin God will chastise you-you can bet on it. That chastisement may even mean DEATH.
I fear God and love Him and therefore strive to live a holy and obedient life, but i also have the assurance that if I do sin i have an advocate in heaven pleading my case before the Father.
It's not MY righteousness that assures me of heaven but HIS.
It's not MY blood that I am trusting in but HIS.
I feel really sorry for you folks who don't know from day to day whether you will make it to heaven.
Have you really understood the gospel? your eternal destiny depends on it.
God will also hold you accountable if you are deceiving others by this false teaching of loss of security.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 14, 2007 0:31:31 GMT -5
Amen Doc. I prefer to refer to it as the Perseverance of the Saints but I believe we are on the same page here. I am really glad to actually agree with you on something.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Jan 14, 2007 0:45:48 GMT -5
Amen Doc!!
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 14, 2007 16:52:55 GMT -5
Doc....and others,
Let's reason together.
When King David was in his sin of adultery and murder, even though "he was a man after God's own heart", was he still saved, in light of Bible truths such as 1 Cor 6:9-10, which says: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor adulterers,....shall inherit the kingdom of God."?
Or how about in light of Ezek 33:13, which says: "When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he has committed, he shall die for it."?
Do you think, in light of Scriptures like these, that David as he was living in his unrepentant state for around nine months that he would have gone to heaven if he would have died in that state of not having repented of his sin?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 14, 2007 17:53:36 GMT -5
How is it a chastisement to be took to heaven early? I've heard others say this, but it has never made any sense to me at all.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 14, 2007 19:27:55 GMT -5
Darc Said: Do you think, in light of Scriptures like these, that David as he was living in his unrepentant state for around nine months that he would have gone to heaven if he would have died in that state of not having repented of his sin?
Responde: No matter WHAT doctrinal persuasion one looks at, we all agree that God looks to man's END, not how primarily how man BEGINS.
Hence, david's END was repentance and restoration.
David persevered to the END (those who endure to the END shall be saved) so the question is not "What woould have happened to him if he died in sin?" but the real question here is, "Do you believe God is able to take you all the way to the END?"
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 14, 2007 19:43:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 14, 2007 20:20:58 GMT -5
Darc Said: Do you think, in light of Scriptures like these, that David as he was living in his unrepentant state for around nine months that he would have gone to heaven if he would have died in that state of not having repented of his sin? Responde: No matter WHAT doctrinal persuasion one looks at, we all agree that God looks to man's END, not how primarily how man BEGINS. Hence, david's END was repentance and restoration. David persevered to the END (those who endure to the END shall be saved) so the question is not "What woould have happened to him if he died in sin?" but the real question here is, "Do you believe God is able to take you all the way to the END?" BT and Tyler, BT, that is not answering the question, instead it is side-stepping it. Yes, we know David did repent, BUT, can you give me any Scriptural support for this, that he in FACT would have repented before he died no matter what? Better yet, give me one verse of Scripture that says one is saved while being an adulterer or murderer. The fact remains that David repented after Nathan rebuked and confronted him in his sin. So if David did not repent, but died before he could have, would he have gone to heaven? The question is: was David still a saved person while in his sin? Please answer the questions.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 14, 2007 20:29:20 GMT -5
The fact is no it doesn't. I will fight THE heresy of OSAS/Eternal Security/Perseverance of the Saints 'til the day I die. If it's security in sin or whatever else it is you want than go ahead and believe this wickedness but be warned if you don't change and align yourself to what the Bible teaches then you'll end up in the fiery lake of burning sulfur, which is the second death. Romans 8:13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 14, 2007 20:38:10 GMT -5
can you give me any Scriptural support for this, that he in FACT would have repented before he died no matter what? Romans 8:28-34, 38, 39, NASB: 28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing [that includes saved people, i.e. themselves], will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. If a person is elect, they will persevere to the end and be saved. There is no missing link where a person can "fall out of God's hands" by their own or any other kind of power in Romans 8 or in John 6 which we've discussed before. Yup. This is an absurd hypothetical. I've answered this question before. Yes, David was saved because it turns out he was elect.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 14, 2007 20:40:40 GMT -5
The fact is no it doesn't. I will fight THE heresy of OSAS/Eternal Security/Perseverance of the Saints 'til the day I die. What I meant was the King David argument. It's been refuted over and over again, you need to find new material.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 14, 2007 21:10:05 GMT -5
can you give me any Scriptural support for this, that he in FACT would have repented before he died no matter what? Romans 8:28-30, 34-39, NASB: 28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing [that includes saved people, i.e. themselves], will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. If a person is elect, they will persevere to the end and be saved. There is no missing link where a person can "fall out of God's hands" by their own or any other kind of power in Romans 8 or in John 6 which we've discussed before. This passage doesn't speak to the question at hand. Romans 8:29 does not say we are predestined unto salvation or eternal security it says " For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son". DARC question: TYLER answer: The fact is you have no Scriptural basis for you stand. I asked you for the Word that supports the idea and says that one is saved while being an adulterer or murderer. Again Romans 8:28-30 does not say predestined unto salvation or eternal security, it says predestined "to become conformed to the image of His Son" which is to be Holy. DARC question: TYLER answer: Nice brush off but it does not answer the question. Call it what you will but if he would have died in his sins he would not have entered heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Rev 21:8; etc.). DARC question: TYLER answer: So, what you've just told everyone is that you believe there are two types of adulterers. Ones saved and on their way to heaven and ones unsaved headed for hell, which contradicts 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Rev 21:8; etc.. What you're saying is that the next time you see the town drunk or adultress/adulterer they could be a "Christian" and on their way to heaven because of their past moment of faith.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 14, 2007 21:34:19 GMT -5
It doesn't stop there, though. It says that those whom He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. Therefore yes, indeed, people are predestined unto salvation. The means God uses are the calling and conforming of believers to Christ.
OK, if you say so. I beg to differ, and I've shown why at length before, but hey, who cares when you can just slap the "License for Immorality" sticker on someone and ignore what they have to say?
That's right, and it goes on to say that those predestined to be conformed to the Son are also glorified. Hence, yes, they are predestined unto salvation.
The question is absurd to begin with and therefore does not need to be answered. That is why I said it was an "absurd hypothetical." This baseless speculation is not the kind of thing we should be building doctrine on. The verses you've cited here have been covered in past threads.
This is another Dan Corner-ese line of reasoning that begs the question and has been answered by me and others who believe in the perseverance/preservation of the saints here several times... You need to stop looking at this from a linear, time-bound perspective and look at what Scripture has to say about election. Time and time again I have laid it out and I am told I'm obfuscating the question at hand, when in fact election couldn't be more relevant to the subject of security - just as the idea of libertarian free will is essential to your theology, and you do appeal to it. I do not object to this in and of itself, but the problem is that free will merely an axiom which is not found in Scripture, and is in fact directly refuted by Proverbs 16:4, 9, and 21:1, as well as the verses which speak of unconditional election such as Romans 8, 9, and Ephesians 1.
No, the town drunk or town adulterer is probably not saved, but it is possible for one of the elect to backslide to that point (for example, David). Therefore this point is moot. I have a feeling that when you bring this kind of reasoning to the front, it is supposed to shock me or others or something, whereas I've already handled it several times and you just keep repeating it over and over again without actually paying heed to or interacting with my arguments.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 14, 2007 23:37:15 GMT -5
Tyler, First you say David was still saved in his adultery and murder then you say there's no way a person with a past moment of faith could be the town drunk or adulterer, instead they were never really saved to begin with. So, if they were never really saved to begin with why then isn't David also seen in this light?
To you, what's good for David should also apply to everyone else that has had a past moment of faith in Jesus, BUT, you can't say that because then you could indeed have drunkards and adulterers running around that would still be saved too.
But you see the reason why I keep bringing this to the forefront is due to the fact that it is full of holes as I have just shown you.
If you are going to say David was still saved in his sin of adultery and murder then to be consistent you have to say the same thing about all other drunkards and murderers who had a past moment of faith in Jesus. To not hold this line puts you in an inconsistency and/or contradiction.
BTW, this has nothing to do with Dan Corner rather it has everything to do with Holy Scripture and sound reasoning. This is a truth that is as old as the Holy Scriptures that many, many true preachers of the Gospel have preached on down through the centuries. I am just one in this generation that holds out the Truth so maybe some will see and so have their eyes opened and so be saved.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 14, 2007 23:46:30 GMT -5
Tyler, First you say David was still saved in his adultery and murder then you say there's no way a person with a past moment of faith could be the town drunk or adulterer, instead they were never really saved to begin with. So, if they were never really saved to begin with why then isn't David also seen in this light? To you, what's good for David should also apply to everyone else that has had a past moment of faith in Jesus, BUT, you can't say that because then you could indeed have drunkards and adulterers running around that would still be saved too. But you see the reason why I keep bringing this to the forefront is due to the fact that it is full of holes as I have just shown you. If you are going to say David was still saved in his sin of adultery and murder then to be consistent you have to say the same thing about all other drunkards and murderers who had a past moment of faith in Jesus. To not hold this line puts you in an inconsistency and/or contradiction. No, this is a misunderstanding of what I am saying. If I hinted or said in the past that someone who is living in that sin is without a doubt, not saved, and never was, then I take it back. It is indeed possible. I have said before that to any person at the time that David was in sin during Bathsheba's pregnancy, it would have been fully warranted to doubt his salvation. Anyone who is living this way in the church needs to be disciplined according to Matthew 18 - confronted gently on an individual basis, then with a few brothers/sisters, then with the church, and if the person still rejects this rebuke, he must be excommunicated. The only reason we know David was saved the whole time is because he is elect and had been saved beforehand. That does not mean anybody who is living in the same should just be patted on the head and told "it's ok." I have never condoned adultery or drunkenness on the boards and it is illegitimate for you or anyone to misapply my theology to try and tell me that what I'm saying is really a "license for sin." Theology which maintains that we (the elect) are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, as Romans 8 says, is anything but a license for sin. The theology I hold to would say that if anyone is living in willful sin then they must be confronted Matthew 18 style, not that "well, it's ok because you are probably elect." For all we know that person may not be elect. Or they could be. Hence, it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved, but it is NOT to be condoned in any way. Why should those who have been redeemed go on in sin any longer? We should not sin that grace may abound (Romans 6).
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 15, 2007 0:50:27 GMT -5
No, this is a misunderstanding of what I am saying. If I hinted or said in the past that someone who is living in that sin is without a doubt, not saved, and never was, then I take it back. It is indeed possible. I have said before that to any person at the time that David was in sin during Bathsheba's pregnancy, it would have been fully warranted to doubt his salvation. Anyone who is living this way in the church needs to be disciplined according to Matthew 18 - confronted gently on an individual basis, then with a few brothers/sisters, then with the church, and if the person still rejects this rebuke, he must be excommunicated. The only reason we know David was saved the whole time is because he is elect and had been saved beforehand. That does not mean anybody who is living in the same should just be patted on the head and told "it's ok." I have never condoned adultery or drunkenness on the boards and it is illegitimate for you or anyone to misapply my theology to try and tell me that what I'm saying is really a "license for sin." Theology which maintains that we (the elect) are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, as Romans 8 says, is anything but a license for sin. The theology I hold to would say that if anyone is living in willful sin then they must be confronted Matthew 18 style, not that "well, it's ok because you are probably elect." For all we know that person may not be elect. Or they could be. Hence, it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved, but it is NOT to be condoned in any way. Why should those who have been redeemed go on in sin any longer? We should not sin that grace may abound (Romans 6). Say what you will Tyler, this is nothing more than a license for imorality at it's best. You said: The theology I hold to would say that if anyone is living in willful sin then they must be confronted Matthew 18 style, not that "well, it's ok because you are probably elect." For all we know that person may not be elect. Or they could be. Hence, it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved, but it is NOT to be condoned in any way.This is a license to sin and what your are saying is that "it is possible for" the person next door who might be watching porn and is involved in the sin of adultery "to be saved".
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 15, 2007 1:02:41 GMT -5
I want to clarify what I said. I just realized it could be read in a different way than that which I intended. it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved What I mean here is that one may be going through a period of sin much like David did, and still have been truly saved like in David's example. I did not mean that one will be saved if they are persevering to the end in willful sin. Again, one who is doing such should be excommunicated after the appropriate actions are taken beforehand, and treated as a pagan. You may read this as a license to sin if you wish. I will not be surprised. I do believe it is intellectually dishonest to do so, however. Calvinism teaches that the elect are predestined unto the conforming into the image of Christ. It seems to me that it'd be pretty hard to twist that, especially having read any of the writings of famous Calvinistic preachers of the past like Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, or etc., into saying that Calvinists believe or imply that one may or should go on living in sin so that grace may abound. On the contrary, Corner's theology (which you have echoed here in this respect) is a license for sin in that it allows him to go on in worry, lack of humility or unthankfulness day after day, since it's one of those that he's decided is not "a sin unto death." It's OK because it's one of those little sins, the ones that won't send him to hell. It must be convenient to be able to redefine sin and partition sin into the Catholic categories of mortal and venial.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jan 15, 2007 1:32:59 GMT -5
How is it a chastisement to be took to heaven early? I've heard others say this, but it has never made any sense to me at all. Because you will not get your rewards! Both the saved and unsaved will be judged. You and I will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Not our salvation but our WORKS. To whom much is given, much is expected. If God takes you 'prematurely' because of practising sin you are sure going to be embarrased when you bow your knee before Christ.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 15, 2007 11:12:33 GMT -5
I want to clarify what I said. I just realized it could be read in a different way than that which I intended. it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved What I mean here is that one may be going through a period of sin much like David did, and still have been truly saved like in David's example. I did not mean that one will be saved if they are persevering to the end in willful sin. Again, one who is doing such should be excommunicated after the appropriate actions are taken beforehand, and treated as a pagan. You may read this as a license to sin if you wish. I will not be surprised. I do believe it is intellectually dishonest to do so, however. Calvinism teaches that the elect are predestined unto the conforming into the image of Christ. It seems to me that it'd be pretty hard to twist that, especially having read any of the writings of famous Calvinistic preachers of the past like Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, or etc., into saying that Calvinists believe or imply that one may or should go on living in sin so that grace may abound. On the contrary, Corner's theology (which you have echoed here in this respect) is a license for sin in that it allows him to go on in worry, lack of humility or unthankfulness day after day, since it's one of those that he's decided is not "a sin unto death." It's OK because it's one of those little sins, the ones that won't send him to hell. It must be convenient to be able to redefine sin and partition sin into the Catholic categories of mortal and venial. OK Tyler, but it still remains that you believe someone who is living in sin can be a saved person on their way to heaven. This comes out both in your statements and your defence that David was indeed still saved in his sins of adultery and murder. This is your theology: The theology I hold to would say that if anyone is living in willful sin then they must be confronted Matthew 18 style, not that "well, it's ok because you are probably elect." For all we know that person may not be elect. Or they could be. Hence, it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved, but it is NOT to be condoned in any way.It wouldn't matter if you attempted to deflect the attention off you onto Dan Corner everytime you opened up here, that couldn't take away from your theology that says: "it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved." And it seems that no matter how much this works on your conscience that it's wrong and distorts and twists God's Word you still hold on to it. Such wickedness. You see the error in your ways and understanding yet you refuse to change.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 15, 2007 12:04:26 GMT -5
How is it a chastisement to be took to heaven early? I've heard others say this, but it has never made any sense to me at all. Because you will not get your rewards! Both the saved and unsaved will be judged. You and I will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Not our salvation but our WORKS. To whom much is given, much is expected. If God takes you 'prematurely' because of practicing sin you are sure going to be embarrassed when you bow your knee before Christ. So, let me get this straight, you think it is God's chastisement to a "believer" who is living in sin to be taken to heaven early? In other words what you just said is that a believer living in sin will be rewarded with the ultimate reward of heaven because of practicing sin, BUT, he will surely be embarrassed ? In your mind this "believer" that was "taken prematurely" has just been glorified in his sin! God has just given him HEAVEN in spite of his wickedness! You cannot be set free from sin (John 8:32; Rom 6:22, etc.) and be practicing sin at the same time, can you? Romans 5:19: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." As we all would agree that by one we were all made sinners then it also must apply that by one we are made righteous. If the effect of one's sin on us is so great to make us a sinner then would it not be that Christ who died for sins and His work on the cross is all efficient then to say we are made righteous? It doesn't say "and are being made righteous" it says "are MADE righteous. My question, to all who have a similar belief as Doc, is this: Is Christ's completed work on the cross not really all that effective to where we can be made free from sin? Or is it? Does Jesus have the victory over sin for us? Or not? You have either been set free from the slavery of sin or you haven't. If you haven't then you have neither Jesus nor His Spirit living in you. The Bible clearly states: 1 John 3:6-10: " 6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 15, 2007 13:25:00 GMT -5
Darc, this is nothing more than the same "hey, let's sit around and try to figure out what our opponent is thinking, and then base our arguments on it" junk that some of the unbelievers here try to use. It is worthless as an argument, and it is telling that you're falling back on to that tactic. I have explained in great detail how I see the issue of security, and it takes one who is simply dishonest to say that after reading all of it, it is a license for sin.
There's no error in my ways here, Darc. I am taking all the issues and Scriptures into account. I already explained how Romans 8 speaks to the believer's security (it is eternal - the elect are predestined unto calling, then justification, then glorification). You said in our thread on immutability that free will and conditional security are the ideas that make the Bible make sense, that make it come together. I then asked you there, and have asked you again here, what you do with Proverbs 16:4, 9, and 21:1 when it comes to free will. No response.
It seems that you can't handle these verses, but if you can, please do prove me wrong. Show me how it is the wicked themselves who are preparing themselves for the day of evil, as opposed to the Lord. (Prov. 16:4)
Without free will, your whole theology dissolves. Of course, I am sure I will be accused of diverting the subject here or something, but that is a fact. If there is no libertarian free will (and there isn't), then Arminianism and Pelagianism fall flat to the ground.
If your arguments here are to stand, you must explain how those verses in Proverbs allow for free will, and you must also refute my interpretation of Romans 8. Let alone all the other arguments I've made for unconditional election -> perseverance of the saints, such as those related to Ephesians 1, the problems with the Arminian view of "looking down the corridor of time" election, the problems with foreknowledge without foreordination, etc...
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 17, 2007 21:52:19 GMT -5
I post this again to make the point that you believe in a security in SIN Gospel. By your very remarks you've made, this is your belief. How can you you be HOLY, as we are commanded to be (1 Peter 1:15-16) and be IN SIN at the same time? Without holiness no one can see the Lord (Heb 12:14). That my friend is a major contradiction to the Holy Script.
1 John 3:6-10: 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
Be so warned if you don't strive to live a pure and holy life free of sin you are deceiving yourself and you have never seen Him nor known Him! Repent and live. Don't be Deceived!
From several days ago... OK Tyler, but it still remains that you believe someone who is living in sin can be a saved person on their way to heaven. This comes out both in your statements and your defence that David was indeed still saved in his sins of adultery and murder.
This is your theology: The theology I hold to would say that if anyone is living in willful sin then they must be confronted Matthew 18 style, not that "well, it's ok because you are probably elect." For all we know that person may not be elect. Or they could be. Hence, it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved, but it is NOT to be condoned in any way.
It wouldn't matter if you attempted to deflect the attention off you onto Dan Corner everytime you opened up here, that couldn't take away from your theology that says: "it is possible for one who is living in sin to be saved."
And it seems that no matter how much this works on your conscience that it's wrong and distorts and twists God's Word you still hold on to it. Such wickedness. You see the error in your ways and understanding yet you refuse to change.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 17, 2007 22:16:18 GMT -5
I post this again to make the point that you believe in a security in SIN Gospel. By your very remarks you've made, this is your belief. How can you you be HOLY, as we are commanded to be (1 Peter 1:15-16) and be IN SIN at the same time? Without holiness no one can see the Lord (Heb 12:14). That my friend is a major contradiction to the Holy Script. 1 John 3:6-10: 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. Be so warned if you don't strive to live a pure and holy life free of sin you are deceiving yourself and you have never seen Him nor known Him! Repent and live. Don't be Deceived! Even if your arguments here are valid (they aren't), you have some work to do because you have not begun to directly respond to the points that have been raised against your position. Therefore those arguments are still in force, and at the very best you stand in contradiction if not utter falsity if you do not or are unable to address them. This position is not acceptable for a Christian. This has been responded to.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 18, 2007 21:17:20 GMT -5
I post this again to make the point that you believe in a security in SIN Gospel. By your very remarks you've made, this is your belief. How can you you be HOLY, as we are commanded to be (1 Peter 1:15-16) and be IN SIN at the same time? Without holiness no one can see the Lord (Heb 12:14). That my friend is a major contradiction to the Holy Script. 1 John 3:6-10: 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. Be so warned if you don't strive to live a pure and holy life free of sin you are deceiving yourself and you have never seen Him nor known Him! Repent and live. Don't be Deceived! Even if your arguments here are valid (they aren't), you have some work to do because you have not begun to directly respond to the points that have been raised against your position. Therefore those arguments are still in force, and at the very best you stand in contradiction if not utter falsity if you do not or are unable to address them. This position is not acceptable for a Christian. This has been responded to. Sadly Tyler you think that you have done something (coming against the Biblical Truth of Conditional Security) yet you haven't. The Truth of God's Word is that you can die spiritually. Plain and simple. Romans 8:12-13 12"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Gal 5:19-2119Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Gal 6:88"The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Clearly Paul is speaking to Christians and tells them that if they live according to the flesh, i.e., Gal 5:19-21, they will NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Clearly God is warning Christians that if after initial salvation we go back and live according to the flesh they would become spiritually dead and not inherit the Kingdom of God rather they would reap destruction (Hell). Sadly you are unaware of these truths and cannot see them because you have a veil over your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 18, 2007 22:33:16 GMT -5
Instead of interacting with the arguments presented against your position, here you just re-assert your view and say it's true by fiat. If that's an acceptable tactic, then your apologetic methods must not be very difficult (or effective) either.
So I guess the rest of Romans 8 isn't important then, eh? What do you do with the fact that your interpretation of Romans 8:12-13 doesn't jive with the rest of the chapter or the next? I have already provided a view of this verse which is consistent with the rest of the Bible and with Reformed theology.
Yes. I am wrong because I am deceived, and I am deceived because I have a wrong view of things which is why I continue to deceive myself. Is this an accurate summary of your argument here?
Who put this veil in front of my eyes? Was it me? Did God create me knowing that I would have this veil in front of my eyes by my own "free will"? If so, how is my will free? If not, how is God sovereign and omniscient? Am I the one who is putting it back over my eyes even though I am, supposedly from time to time, seeing the so-called validity of your arguments? If I am really a wicked heretic who hates the truth and hates God and so on and so forth then wouldn't it be true that I am the sole reason for this?
Or is Proverbs 16:4 true when it says that "The LORD works out everything for his own ends - even the wicked for a day of disaster"? Is Proverbs 21:1 true when it says "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases" or is the king's heart NOT in the hand of the LORD? Is the king's heart under the king's control or God's? If it is under the king's control and not God's then how can you claim to believe the Bible? If the king's heart is in God's control and not his own then how can you affirm "resistible grace"? Doesn't what I am saying here line up perfectly with Acts 13:48b when it says "and all who were appointed for eternal life believed"?
Is the devil autonomous or are he and his deeds a means to God's desired end (see the book of Job)? Is Satan outside of God's control? Is anything outside of God's control? If anything is, how can you still say that God is sovereign? Or do you have to redefine sovereignty to fit with the humanistic and unbiblical free will presupposition? But again, if you change the definition of sovereignty in order to jive with human libertarian free will, then what do you do with Proverbs 16:4, 9, and 21:1?
I've already indirectly dealt with conditional security, along with your interpretation of the Bible in favor of this doctrine, in a variety of ways. Generally, you respond to my rebuttal by restating your original argument. This is unacceptable.
You cannot both assert conditional security and ignore the arguments for unconditional election and determinism (which is to effectively accept them, as you have no response against the Biblical arguments thereof), which chop off conditional security at the ankles. If you think it is unnecessary to do this, then you are basically saying it's ok to hold to a belief system that is full of inconsistencies. How can you do this and then defend the faith from the constant outside attacks which have always existed, let alone attack Calvinism from an inconsistent vantage point either?
You have to be able to interact with your opponents' arguments in order to defend your own beliefs. How do you deal with unbelievers who mock God and the Bible? Do you just re-assert what you said the sentence before and not give any consideration to what they are saying? How is that "giving a reason for the hope that is within you" as 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to do?
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 20, 2007 19:32:28 GMT -5
So I guess the rest of Romans 8 isn't important then, eh? What do you do with the fact that your interpretation of Romans 8:12-13 doesn't jive with the rest of the chapter or the next? Quite the contrary Tyler. The Chapter begins with conditions. Does that just simply get ignored as it marches down through verses 12 and 13? No! Romans 8:1 says (notice the condition): "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit," This truth then is reemphasized in v13 again: "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live," What are we to do with this vital truth Tyler, simply ignore it? I think not. It's clear that we must do our part and live in step with holiness and purity, free from sin by the Holy Spirit's enabling in order to not be under condemnation and to have life continually. Romans 6:22 reaffirms this truth that we are indeed set free from sin. "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (NASB) If this be the Truth, being set free from sin, then how is it possible to be free of sin and living in sin and both be on their way to heaven? How is possible to be commanded to be holy (1 Peter 1:14-15; Romans 8; etc.) in order see God (Heb 12:14) and yet as Calvinism says be living in sin and still be on the way to heaven? "As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." 1 Peter 1:14-15"Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14Yes, but God ultimately puts there, to answer your last question. To answer your first question, God puts it there upon your continued rejection of His Word. You keep throwing these two verses out there as if that's going to change the whole rest of the Bible. Did you ever stop and think that hey maybe it's possible that God does move and change according to man's actions but at the same time He will cause certain men/people to do or become whatever in order to bring about His will? The fact remains Tyler, that no I don't have to do anything with your continued attempts of redirecting off of the Biblical facts that there is a condition to our security and that is we must hold firmly to end that which believed in the beginning in order to share in Christ (Heb 3:14) and "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain." 1 Cor 15:2
|
|