|
Post by burningbush on Jul 24, 2009 20:34:59 GMT -5
Hey. I've been studying the subject of the conditional security of the believer for a while and I've seen a lot of verses I can't refute. However, there's one verse that continues to stop me from accepting it. I'm curious if there's anyone who believes in conditional security who can explain this verse.
1 John 3:6 says, "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him."
If all sinners have never seen Him or known Him, wouldn't that rule out the possibility that someone could fall away?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 25, 2009 17:37:35 GMT -5
Hey. I've been studying the subject of the conditional security of the believer for a while and I've seen a lot of verses I can't refute. However, there's one verse that continues to stop me from accepting it. I'm curious if there's anyone who believes in conditional security who can explain this verse. 1 John 3:6 says, "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him." If all sinners have never seen Him or known Him, wouldn't that rule out the possibility that someone could fall away? Burning bush, Simply put, I believe this passage is speaking of those who believe and claim to be Christians yet also believed and claimed that sin has no consequences toward their souls eternal destination. This would seem to directly contradict our Once Saved Always Saved friends. "Whosoever" is not a "Whosoever without exception". If this passage means "whosoever without exception" then anyone who ever sins never really was saved because they never really knew nor saw Christ. Thus one can never have eternal security in the doctrine of OSAS. I strongly take the position that John's addressing a false religion that was being spread. One that taught a man could live in sin and still be a Christian. These men who taught this false religion also challenged the apostleship of John. I can't help but wonder if John had this in mind when he wrote verse 6. We see in the first chapter of 1 John: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life... That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you..." 1 John 1:1-3 Here John appealed to his (the apostles) eye witness experiences with Christ to plea with these brethren over the validity of his doctrine which he received from God. Those who taught that one could sin and still be a Christian had not seen nor known Christ like the apostles had. Thus, their doctrines should have no authoritative influence over John's doctrine which taught; "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not..." "He that committeth sin is of the devil..." To answer your question: This passage does not refer to "all (without exception) sinners." I believe if we keep this passage within context then we'll find this passage to be dealing with the false teachers themselves who were also characterized as the anti-christs in 1 John 2:18. Note: It's important to remember the warning of 1 John 3:7 which says "Do not be decieved..." If one were to deceive you, wouldn't they tell you that one can work unrighteousness and still be saved? Take care, Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 25, 2009 22:20:55 GMT -5
once your saved your always saved. This statement is correct. Are their consquences to our sin most definantly. Is a person saved if is life has not been changed, probably not. Do born again Christians Sin, most definantly. Are they contnually blotted out of the book of life on a continual basis because they sin, no way! Born again Christian although they still sin are changed. The difference is sin is no longer their master, the chains have been broken. Their will has turned from serving evil continually to serving God continually, yet they still sin.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 7:52:30 GMT -5
Is a person saved if is life has not been changed, probably not. This is ludicrous. You believe a man who has obeyed the Gospel and has been a Christian for ten years can get hooked on alcohol and either... A.) He was never saved to begin with... (In which case no security can be found in your doctrine.) B.) God will over look this sin... (Read 1 John 3:7 'Do not be deceived...') Are you attempting to deceive us?
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 26, 2009 15:42:52 GMT -5
Im not tempting to decieve anybody, but if you claim to be a christian and your willingly to dismiss all of the teachers that God has given us through the ages such as Johnathen Edwards, Martin Luther, Spurgen, Calvin, and Augustine, then it is not I who you should be pointing your finger at. Why dont you point your finger at yourself.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 26, 2009 16:04:29 GMT -5
Concerning a Christian who becomes addicted to alchohal for some weired reason, God has given intructions on how to deal with situations like that:
1.) Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
2.) When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are(G) to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5)
Im very familiar with this command, for my church has had to use this command in the last year. The man who commited adultery and sexual immorality has been absent from our congregation for over a year now. Is he still a Christian? We dont know because he has not repented. Dont worry though, this was done with love and respect. We still talk to this man every once in a while expressing how much we miss him and admonishing him towards repentance. Although we still keep our bounds as the scripture says, "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, DRUNKARD, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one."
So there you have it.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 16:22:59 GMT -5
Concerning a Christian who becomes addicted to alchohal for some weired reason, God has given intructions on how to deal with situations like that: 1.) Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 2.) When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are(G) to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5) Im very familiar with this command, for my church has had to use this command in the last year. The man who commited adultery and sexual immorality has been absent from our congregation for over a year now. Is he still a Christian? We dont know because he has not repented. Dont worry though, this was done with love and respect. We still talk to this man every once in a while expressing how much we miss him and admonishing him towards repentance. Although we still keep our bounds as the scripture says, "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, DRUNKARD, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one." So there you have it. So you and your congregation do not know if this man is saved. Furthermore, this man can't know whether or not he is saved either. If this man believes that he is saved then he believes that one can be a drunkard and inherit the kingdom of heaven --> 1 Corinthians 6:10. Too which we are told not to be deceived. If he does not believe that he is saved then he never really was saved (According to your doctrine.) How then can anyone know in this life that one can be saved (according to your doctrine) They can't.Those men you listed did not teach the truth and were not from God.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 26, 2009 17:03:17 GMT -5
Whatever dude. That is so silly. Your just being silly...
1.) So far, we have no reason to think that he is saved. He is living a sexual immoral lifestyle and has not expressed to us that he wants to come back.
2.) one year has passed and he is still living with this woman.
3.) Red flags.
4.) We still pray for his repentance.
5.) If he does not think he is saved that should propell him to repentance.
6.) Church discipline is means to promote repentance. Your right, drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
7.) If he repentse for his sin it means he always was saved, but until he repents he cant come back to Church.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 26, 2009 17:05:25 GMT -5
So it the verse stands, "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."
Eternal security stands as Biblical truth.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 20:50:30 GMT -5
So it the verse stands, "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Eternal security stands as Biblical truth. Ones eternity is conditionally secured. Do not be deceived the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. There's no security in the doctrine of OSAS.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 20:53:47 GMT -5
7.) If he repentse for his sin it means he always was saved, but until he repents he cant come back to Church. My point exactly. You've chosen: B.) God will over look this sin... (Read 1 John 3:7 'Do not be deceived...')
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 26, 2009 21:48:50 GMT -5
Are you ok bra? Because it looks like to me that you did not read the passage that supports eternal security. Do you read scripture in context or do you pick and choose what you want to here. Is jesus not the author of life? Also, is he not the author and finsher of our faith? Are you the author and finisher of your faith? Do you think the reason why you have not commited some heinous sin is because it has been ny your own strength? Or do you soley depend on God's favor and power to keep you from falling away? If you do, then you believe in Grace. If not, then your confused.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 22:45:22 GMT -5
Are you ok bra? Because it looks like to me that you did not read the passage that supports eternal security. Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he who hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." Paul was confident of this thing. Paul's confidence does not necessitate the impossibility of apostasy. Their good works gave Paul this confidence. Their salvation is still conditional. Do you read scripture in context or do you pick and choose what you want to here. Is jesus not the author of life? Also, is he not the author and finsher of our faith? Are you the author and finisher of your faith? "And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Hebrews 5:9 Do you think the reason why you have not commited some heinous sin is because it has been ny your own strength? Or do you soley depend on God's favor and power to keep you from falling away? If you do, then you believe in Grace. If not, then your confused. I have not committed a "heinous sin" because I have chosen to keep myself in the love of God. I am dependent on Christ because he has the words of Eternal Life. Had he not revealed those words, I'd never be able to keep myself in the love of God. Without God's guidance I'd never be able to walk in the light.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 27, 2009 1:54:26 GMT -5
Your boasting about your own strength. You reduced preseverance to a deed that is produced by ones own effort, and not produced by Gods Spirit, which is wrong.
Your statment about Philippians 1:6 holds no validity whatsoever becuase Paul said that God would finish what he started. It is God who intiates salvation in someones life and it is God who finishes.
Salvation from start to finish is monergism; that is, it is not coopertive evennt as it seems. God works in our hearts and changes our disposition from having an inclination to pursue evil and chnges the direction of our wills towards God to do good, which is called regeneration. Therfore God turns a person will, so that they are willing to recieve him and follow him. We cooperate becuase God has regenerated our hearts. He does this because we were appointed to be saved, we accept the offer because we were destined to recieve it, without this inward call we would no way recieve the Gospel. recieveing the Gospel is not a matter of being smart enough or to be able to comprehend it. There are many people who are smart enough and can comprehend the message, but they wont becuase their will's are slaves to sin; therefore, they will not surrender to the Gospel unless there wills are set free. This can only happen if God wants to free that person from the slavery of sin. It is only then that they will choose to follow Christ and be saved John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
According to John Calvin, "A mere external offer of grace or assitance to the weakend will which Calvin calls a scanty kind of grace, is insuffecient to bring the sinner to faith and salvation. The flesh is so impotent that more than external drawing is needed to liberate the creature from its bondage." (RC)
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 7:26:17 GMT -5
Your boasting about your own strength. You reduced preseverance to a deed that is produced by ones own effort, and not produced by Gods Spirit, which is wrong. I'm not boasting. Had not God revealed His righteous ways, I could in no way obey them. Your statment about Philippians 1:6 holds no validity whatsoever becuase Paul said that God would finish what he started. It is God who intiates salvation in someones life and it is God who finishes. A contextual approach to this verse destroys your argument. What was Paul confident of: That God would finish the good work which he had begun in them. Why was Paul confident: Because they were faithful. Had these men not been faithful Paul would not have been confident. This verse does not abolish the free-will of man to change his ways. Once again, Paul's confidence does not necessitate irresistible perseverance John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. You must be a baptist because you forgot to quote the next verse: "It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Every man therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me." How does God draw men --> by teaching them How does God teach men --> through the preaching of the Gospel. Who comes to the father --> Those who have heard and learned. Man can choose to hear, believe, and learn the things of God. You cannot abolish the free-will of man.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 27, 2009 12:00:01 GMT -5
Your still not getting it. Paul was confident becuase they had the Spirit. People who posses the Spirit are guranteed succes.
Another reason he had confidence in the church of Philipi was becuase God was working in these fellows in a special way. Conversly, we see that in other letters that Paul wrote, he rebuked the Churches. Yes they were faithful, but was it because of their own effort? I think not. You make it seem that their faithfullness comes from the same will that they had before there were regenerated. Also, It seems to me that you think that obedience comes from sheer will power alone and not God's power. If that were so why did Paul use these 3 pwerful statmens concerning that it is by Gods power alone that enables people to do his will and not by human effort alone:
1.) "... and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power"
2.) "... that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
3.) ... "For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power."
Im not saying that Human will has been abolished, but what I am saying is that succes comes from God alone. Therfore it could not be possible for them to remain faithful with that same will before they were regenerated, for that will was in bongage and a slave to sin. Further they were not able to listen nor make a move towards God. These Christians were faithful becuase of a couple of factors:
1.) They were faithful because of Paul's prayers.. "And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more... that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ... "
2.) They were faithful because of God wanted then to be faithful. We know that since God ordains the means as well as the ends, he used Pauls prayers to preserve his saints in order to make them faithful. Next, he preserved them for his own purposes that his name would be glorified in the world at that time. Lastly, we know from scripture that he was working in them to enable and impower them to be faithful for his own name sake, for Paul said himself, "... for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." People who have the Spirit are led by God and will never fail at following Him, for he himself says we who are Christians "walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans) He also has confidence that their hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit, "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit..."
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 14:18:42 GMT -5
Your still not getting it. Paul was confident becuase they had the Spirit. People who posses the Spirit are guranteed succes. Another reason he had confidence in the church of Philipi was becuase God was working in these fellows in a special way. Conversly, we see that in other letters that Paul wrote, he rebuked the Churches. Yes they were faithful, but was it because of their own effort? I think not. You make it seem that their faithfullness comes from the same will that they had before there were regenerated. Also, It seems to me that you think that obedience comes from sheer will power alone and not God's power. If that were so why did Paul use these 3 pwerful statmens concerning that it is by Gods power alone that enables people to do his will and not by human effort alone: 1.) "... and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" 2.) "... that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." 3.) ... "For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power." Im not saying that Human will has been abolished, but what I am saying is that succes comes from God alone. Therfore it could not be possible for them to remain faithful with that same will before they were regenerated, for that will was in bongage and a slave to sin. Further they were not able to listen nor make a move towards God. These Christians were faithful becuase of a couple of factors: 1.) They were faithful because of Paul's prayers.. "And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more... that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ... " 2.) They were faithful because of God wanted then to be faithful. We know that since God ordains the means as well as the ends, he used Pauls prayers to preserve his saints in order to make them faithful. Next, he preserved them for his own purposes that his name would be glorified in the world at that time. Lastly, we know from scripture that he was working in them to enable and impower them to be faithful for his own name sake, for Paul said himself, "... for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." People who have the Spirit are led by God and will never fail at following Him, for he himself says we who are Christians "walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans) He also has confidence that their hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit, "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit..." Sir, we all "get" what you're saying yet we know it to be unscriptural. Your minds clouded with many presuppositions. I suggest studying each passage within it's own context. According to your view: God's out of reach --> We can't know if we're saved --> You've transformed "Walking according to the Spirit" into some sort of mystical magic trick --> You've abolished the free-will of man --> etc. We "get" it. Why don't you "get" it?
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 27, 2009 15:27:26 GMT -5
Presuppositions- good word, I like that word, but everybody has presuppositions including yourself. Im not sure how much studying you have done of church history, but your ideas stem from a heritics named Pelagious wh was refuted by Augustine long ago. Our debate is the same debate that Erasmus and Martin Luther had in the 1500's. However they were more articulate than both you and I, and Luther more so because he knew God better than we do, for he was closer to him then we are. Here is a piece of writing that Luther wrote Erasmus in responce to free will: "It is then fundamentally necessary and wholsome fr for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contigently, but that he foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his immutable, eternal and infallable will. This bombshell knocks "free will" flat and utterly shatters it ... You insist that we should learn the immutability of Gods will, while forbidding us to know the immutablility of his forknowledge! Do you suppose he does not will what he foreknows, or that he does not forknow what He wills? If he wills what he foreknows, his will is eternal and changeless, because his nature so. From which he it follows, by resistless logic, that alll we do, however may appear to us to be done mutably and contigently, is in reality done necessarily and immuatblly in respect to Gods will..." Martin Luther
1.) God is out of reach though he is a God near and far off. Why do you think people oppose the Gospel is it because they are not smart enough to accept it, or because they are not logical enough to figure it out? No, that is not the case at all. First you know from Romans 3 that it says , "...there is no one who seeks God... there is know one who truly understands." Also in John 1 it says that the light shines in darkness but the darkness has never comprehended it. So how then can they recieve that Gospel if their disposition is to follow sin and the devil? They cant. No matter how much you try to persuade them they will not budge unless God chges their wills. Thats why the scripture says, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them..." Even if you give them all the evidence that is needed, even a miracle they will not come as you know from the scrptures. 2.) This postions never states that people can never be aware of their salvation, but if your life has never changed and your will has never turned to Christ then your probably not saved. Not that a person when they accept Christ needs to be perfect, but somewhere down the line there should some kind of change.
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Mthew 7 21
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 17:22:33 GMT -5
Presuppositions- good word, I like that word, but everybody has presuppositions including yourself. Im not sure how much studying you have done of church history, but your ideas stem from a heritics named Pelagious wh was refuted by Augustine long ago. Our debate is the same debate that Erasmus and Martin Luther had in the 1500's. However they were more articulate than both you and I, and Luther more so because he knew God better than we do, for he was closer to him then we are. Here is a piece of writing that Luther wrote Erasmus in responce to free will: "It is then fundamentally necessary and wholsome fr for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contigently, but that he foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his immutable, eternal and infallable will. This bombshell knocks "free will" flat and utterly shatters it ... You insist that we should learn the immutability of Gods will, while forbidding us to know the immutablility of his forknowledge! Do you suppose he does not will what he foreknows, or that he does not forknow what He wills? If he wills what he foreknows, his will is eternal and changeless, because his nature so. From which he it follows, by resistless logic, that alll we do, however may appear to us to be done mutably and contigently, is in reality done necessarily and immuatblly in respect to Gods will..." Martin Luther 1.) God is out of reach though he is a God near and far off. Why do you think people oppose the Gospel is it because they are not smart enough to accept it, or because they are not logical enough to figure it out? No, that is not the case at all. First you know from Romans 3 that it says , "...there is no one who seeks God... there is know one who truly understands." Also in John 1 it says that the light shines in darkness but the darkness has never comprehended it. So how then can they recieve that Gospel if their disposition is to follow sin and the devil? They cant. No matter how much you try to persuade them they will not budge unless God chges their wills. Thats why the scripture says, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them..." Even if you give them all the evidence that is needed, even a miracle they will not come as you know from the scrptures. 2.) This postions never states that people can never be aware of their salvation, but if your life has never changed and your will has never turned to Christ then your probably not saved. Not that a person when they accept Christ needs to be perfect, but somewhere down the line there should some kind of change. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' Mthew 7 21 Sir, why do you idolize men who were not members of the Lord's church? Or any man.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 27, 2009 18:30:01 GMT -5
Excuse me? I think that you should study a little more before you make that assumption. Maybe you should check your own lifestyle, are you saved? . You cant deny the goodness that came out out of Martin Luthers, and Johnathen Edwards ministry; they both produced huge revivals. One was called the Reformation, and the other the Great Awakening. They both derived their teachings from Augustine. So dont give me that crap about them being a couple of decievers. Futhermore stop spreading your doctrine about people being able to lose their salvation and that they can live a sinless life, thats a bunch of garbage and you know it. Stop laying burdens on peoples shoulders that they cant bare.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 19:29:47 GMT -5
Excuse me? I think that you should study a little more before you make that assumption. Maybe you should check your own lifestyle, are you saved? . You cant deny the goodness that came out out of Martin Luthers, and Johnathen Edwards ministry; they both produced huge revivals. One was called the Reformation, and the other the Great Awakening. They both derived their teachings from Augustine. So dont give me that crap about them being a couple of decievers. Futhermore stop spreading your doctrine about people being able to lose their salvation and that they can live a sinless life, thats a bunch of garbage and you know it. Stop laying burdens on peoples shoulders that they cant bare. The Bible talks about Martin Luther and Johnathan Edwards: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own body, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the innocent."
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 27, 2009 22:16:36 GMT -5
Why dont you use that for yourself. Your not even making any sense anymore. Why dont you go rethink your position and get back to me. Also, I would say: dont encourage anyone with your faulty doctrine or you will just incur a whole lot of hardship for yourself and others. Never talk about Doctrine until you get it right otherwise you will lead people astray, understand?!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2009 22:27:28 GMT -5
Actually, Luther did not produce a "huge revival". Luthers teachings produced lawlessness and antinonianism amongst the Germans...
And you could lose your salvation.
And you could live a perfect life free from sin.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 27, 2009 23:22:32 GMT -5
Sorry Jesse, but I dont agree with you and neither does history.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 27, 2009 23:34:04 GMT -5
1) Martin Luther according to history, echoes this passage, "Luthers proclamation was widely echoed and he became the hero of Germany." 2.) Martin Luthers 95 theses marked the beginning of the reformation. According to History, "Luther repudiated the infallibility of both general councils and the pope, and replaced them with Sola Scripyura, Scripture alone."
3.) Things became a problem when his teachings were considered heritical.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 28, 2009 11:33:12 GMT -5
Augustine had the Pelagians excommunicated from both Church and State, removing them from their pulpits and even having their properties confuscated.
Martin Luther advocated the burning of Jewish Synogogues. Hitler greatly respected Luther and even began one of his greatest raids on Luther's birthday.
John Calvin had many excommunicated, imprisoned, and even burned at the stake.
And these are your heros???
George Fox won souls and killed nobody. William Booth won souls and killed nobody. John Wesley won souls and killed nobody. Charles Finney won souls and killed nobody. And you think these men were heretics?
The Augustinians persecuted the Pelagians. The Reformers persecuted the Anabaptists. The Calvinists persecuted the Arminians. The Puritians persecuted the Quakers. By persecuted I mean that they had them beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and executed.
Which side of history are you on??
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jul 28, 2009 12:03:37 GMT -5
So it the verse stands, "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Eternal security stands as Biblical truth. Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.Christ was an effect on them, but... they have FALLEN from grace. 2Peter 2:1b ...even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.They were bought with a price (1Corinth 6:20) they did not choose to glorify God in their body, and in their spirit, which are God's. They denyed Him (Mat 10:33, Luke 12:9, 2Tim 2:12-13) God will deny them. Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: :7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.Fact is that people may forfeit their salvation, they may divorce themselves from God by being decieved, not by acts of sin. The Greek word for divorce is apostacy. Salvation is not a thing which we can loose like car keys, but it is a relationship with God through Christ. If one adopts anothr christ, he does not have the same God as Scripture describes, therefore, he divorces/apostacizes Christ by his choice to adopt another gospel.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Jul 28, 2009 13:04:30 GMT -5
Jesse im sorry to say I have not read about those incedents, but I heard about them. All I can say That even the Puritans were harrased by the King of England. That is why they fled to America to enjoy religious freedom. Even if they excommunicated some people from their colony, they had the right to do it because they were in the seat of power. You could say that for the Jews as well. When they were in power during the times of the Old testament they were mandated not to allow any kind of influence that would corrupt their moral life style and their allegiance to God. If Calvin had someone thrown out for being a heritic and maybe burned at the stake I bet he had good reasons to do it. After all he was in the position of authority as well. Just remember he wwas not a bloodthorsty Tyrant as person like bloody mary.
Next, if you think because since finney never persecuted or killed anyone makes him a good thelogin then your wrong. From what I have gathered from his ministry was a joke and had many backsliders and false converts.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 28, 2009 19:30:42 GMT -5
We need to get back to "What does the Bible say?!"
"For if we sin willfully their remaineth no more sacrifice for our sins." Hebrews 10:26
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 28, 2009 23:30:21 GMT -5
Suppose it was the Pelagians who had all of the possessions of the Augustinians confescated, would you say "I bet he had good reasons to do it"
Or suppose it was the Quakers who had the fingers of Puritans removed, would you say "I bet he had good reasons to do it"
Or suppose the Arminians had the Calvinists imprisoned for the rest of their lives, would you say "I bet he had good reasons to do it"
Or if the Anabaptists had the Reformers burned at the stake, would you say "I bet he had good reasons to do it"?
The great theologians and groups that you exalt were really used, not as instruments of God, but instruments of the devil.
Suppose the scenarios were reversed? Would you still justify it?
Those who have good theology throughout history were persecuted, like Jesus said would happen.
Those who have bad theology persecuted believers, thinking they would do God a favor, like Jesus said would happen.
Something like 90% of his converts stayed in the faith. Even Moody only had 45% stay in the faith. And Finney converted nearly a quarter million people!
You obviously haven't seriously studied Finney. Studying his critics doesn't count. You need to actually study his autobiography, or his sermons and lectures.
Calvin was not a soul winner. Augustine was not a soul winner. I would take 1 Finney over a 1,000 Calvins or Augustines any day. Those men can't even be compared to Finney.
|
|