Donations for the month of January

We have received a total of $155 in donations towards our goal of $175.

Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Featured Member
Registered: Monday, September 8, 2003
Posts: 2765
Forum Stats
892 Members
30 Forums
6294 Topics
49086 Posts

Max Online: 72 @ Thursday, September 8, 2016 10:03 PM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13822
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 4266
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2765
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2289
John_C 2044
gotribe 1780
Top Posters (30 Days)
Tom 15
Pilgrim 13
chestnutmare 7
rstrats 7
Mckinley 6
AJ Castellitto 6
John_C 3
Robin 2
goldenoldie 1
RJ_ 1
Recent Posts
by Pilgrim
03:53 PM
JI Packer Question
by chestnutmare
Sunday, January 15, 2017 6:53 AM
Genesis 1 & 2. What do we have a right to deduce?
by Pilgrim
Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:18 PM
Enough with the 4 pointers
by Pilgrim
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:09 AM
Reading and Meditation
by chestnutmare
Monday, January 9, 2017 10:17 AM
orthodoxy Christianity
by Tom
Saturday, January 7, 2017 4:36 PM
Page 13 of 14 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#876 - Tuesday, October 1, 2002 11:35 AM Re: In reply... [Re: J_Edwards]

Dear Joe,

"...the ONLY limit God placed upon Himself was His elective grace and not being submissive to “our works” for if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Rom 11:6-7)"

Really? Then please tell me why Jesus was grieved over Jerusalem not coming to Him, despite His desire that they do.

"Josh, stop taking verses OUT OF CONTEXT : Revelation 2:21 was written to the CHURCH which is, was, and is to come. The space He gives is only to the elect, no others, for their space was already prepared for them before the creation of the world (Rev 13:9, 17:8)"

I was talking about people that were saved. This was in response to your suggestion that I believe that God repeatedly saves and damns people.

"Opportunity, yes, God does give each the opportunity. To the blind, He says see, but they don’t see. To the cripple He says walk, but they don’t walk, to the ….I hope you get the point…..only if Christ ‘heals’ them and raises them from the deadness of their sins will their opportunity ever come to salvation. Plus, your personal opinion means nothing as weighed by Scripture"

My opinion is from the scripture. An opportunity without possibility is no opportunity.

"Of course you are right here . I should have known that saying you believed in “works righteousness” and supporting it with all your quotes would not have offended you, for you believe it to be so. May God give you grace!"

Your quotes do not support your case. I invite you to prove that humbling yourself and hearing God are 'works'.

In Christ,

#877 - Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:06 PM Re: In reply... [Re: fredman]

Dear Fred,<br><br>IRT:<br>"4:1. How exactly does Hebrews 4:1 demonstrate that Jesus is faithful to not fail, but men could possibly fall short? I sort of miss that. As I read Hebrews 4, it looks like to me that these people who may fall short did not have real faith, (see verse 2), and those who do believe will most certainly enter God's rest (see verse 3). You need to re-consider your 'pet verses' you believe support conditional security in their contexts."<br><br>It does not indicate that Christ can fail, but that man can. Paul is speaking not to those who have not true faith, but who have truly believed (vs 3), and warning them not to fall short of entering His rest just as those in the wilderness did, vs 11 also restates this warning.<br><br>IRT:<br>"First off, you approach my specific question about this text (as well as this entire debate) with the the theological presupposition that men must act in cooperation with God in order to be saved, or they will loose their salvation. It is a deplorable presupposition, but a presupposition none the less."<br><br>I invite you to disprove it Biblically.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Next, you have an improper reading of scripture. What on earth does a discussion about salvation to the mass of people who thronged Jesus in Capernaum as recorded in John 6, have to do with an intimate conversation between Jesus and his 11 remaining apostles as recorded in John 15?"<br><br>It is the same truth about the same subject spoken by the same Man. Romans 11 also confirms this teaching.<br><br>IRT:<br>"The text of John 6 emphatically states that those individuals given by the father to Christ will not be lost, and they will be raised up on the last day. There are no conditions mentioned any where in the whole dialogue of John 6. Any conditions you want it to promote are brought there to the text by your theological presupposition."<br><br>There is also no mention of election or predestination in John 3:16, am I to assume that such a doctrine is not taught in the Bible? A verse that does not state a condition does not negate a verse that does.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Well Josh, this may shock you to no end, but it exactly does mean they will not be cast out. There is no way any honest evaluation of the grammar and context could yeild any other conclusion. You are basically saying the passage is not saying what it is saying! John means to record these direct statements by Christ like he did, because he wants to tell his readers that those given to Christ by the Father will never, no never, be cast out; even for not abiding (which is an impossibility as well) as you so claim."<br><br>No, you are reading more into it than is written. John 15 and Romans 11 clearly state that those who do not abide will be cast out. If not abiding is an impossibility, then why are there so many warnings in the scripture against it, or warnings like Revelation 22:19?<br><br>IRT:<br>"(then Josh adds)<br>But as I pointed out above, John 15, as well as Romans 11 prove that one can be cast out for not abiding in Christ<br>(Fred responds) Yes, Josh, you did point those passages out, but you fail to realize those passages do not prove what you want them to prove."<br><br>Show me how they do not prove it.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Josh, all of these passages, as well as the many other 'so-called' problem passages you keep raising are easily answered if you would read the text properly. Now reading the text involves more than reading the Bible with your conditional security glass in place."<br><br>Then answer them conclusively.<br><br>IRT:<br>"You need to consider context, grammar in the original language, the point of the book and so on if you wish to handle properly the word of God, or as Paul told Timothy 'rightly dividing' the word of God."<br><br>I do, thank you.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Regarding Rev. 22:19, perhaps you can explain to me why you think this is a reference to loosing salvation? Is it because of John using the phrase 'book of life?' How exactly does the addition of plagues mentioned in verse 18 play into your understanding of one loosing his salvation? If I am looking at this passage the way you do, it seems like only plagues are added to the person who adds to the things in the book. Nothing is taken away. So, could the person who only adds to the book of prophecy still maintain his salvation, yet with the addition of plagues?"<br><br>I would think that taking away is a worse transgression than adding, but to answer your question, possibly, but I don't think I would like to find out the hard way.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Moreover, perhaps you can explain what it means to add or take away from the book of this prophecy?"<br><br>Adding to or taking from the book or Revelation specifically (which has been done by some scholars before).<br><br>IRT:<br>"If doing either of these things is possible for a genuine Christian to do so that they loose their salvation, it would be important to know with certainty what it means exactly to add to, or take from, the book of life. Enlighten us please."<br><br>Anyone not found written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). The meaning should be obvious. If it is not possible for a true Christian to do this, then why is God giving us a warning?<br><br>IRT:<br>"Regarding Galatians 5:4. How exactly does this teach us that we can loose our salvation? Do you know that the word translated as "fallen" literally means "to lose one's grasp on something?" It is not the word for apostasy, or turning from the truth. Considering the context of Paul's polemical letter to counteract the heresies of the Judiazers, why is it wrong to understand that Paul is telling the Galatians that by them embracing the Judiazing heresy they are placing themselves under a salvation theology that teaches works, rather than the biblical theology that teaches salvation by grace? Why is that not valid to see this verse as Paul telling the Galatians that they have slid into theological ignorance and are in need of simply being rebuked for their lack of discernment and corrected in their doctrine, rather than telling them lost their salvation? Why is it incorrect to undestand what Paul is saying to mean, "you Galatians have lost your grip on the doctrines of grace and have slid away from the truth of salvation by grace; let me help you regain your grip on the truth"?"<br><br>"Christ will profit you nothing" (vs 2) "You have become a stranger to Christ" (vs 4). Consider this, the scripture says that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, it also says that if any man has not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His; so it follows that all who are Christ's have His Holy Spirit and are free. How then can you think that those who turn again and put themselves in bondage are Christ's? And besides, if one has let go of grace, how can he be under it any longer?<br><br>IRT:<br>"Then regarding 2 Peter 2:20. What makes you believe that these individuals addressed by Peter were saved to begin with? It seems like to me that Peter is condemning men who were false prophets and teachers to begin with, not genuine believers who turned from Christ. Their character, as describe in chapter 2 by Peter, demonstrates that they never had any foundational change in their spiritual life. They only wanted to hook up with the Christians and the churches to gain from them for their own selfish interests. Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong with my understanding of this passage."<br><br>Certainly: Several quotes show that they are not only false teachers, but apostates from the Christian faith. Vs 1 indicates that they will deny the Lord that bought them, and vs 14 calls them accursed children. The character they are shown to have does not prove that they never had any change in their lives, but that they have fallen away from what is right "forsaken the right way and gone astray." And my original argument, one cannot escape the pollutions of the world unless one has partaken of the divine nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4)<br><br><br>In Christ,<br>Josh

#878 - Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:10 PM Conditions and works [Re: lazarus]

Dear Laz,<br><br>IRT:<br>"Are you not simply doing the double-speak? You say that believing and making a decision are not 'works' you say that FOLLOWING (i.e., persevering for a lifetime even) Christ is also NOT a work...but merely a 'condition'."<br><br>No, they are not works but conditions met by abiding in Christ and through the power of the Holy Ghost. I invite you to show me where these are ever referred to as works.<br><br><br>In Christ,<br>Josh

#879 - Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:19 PM Re: In reply...

Dear RefBap,<br><br>IRT:<br>"The thing it seems like you're not understanding is that true humility, for example--the kind that is pleasing to God--is good. It's a type of goodness, and without being born from above, we just don't have any of that in us."<br><br>It is true, men do not have any inherently; but it does not mean that one has to be born from above (regenerated, in your lingo) to have it, it comes when God draws a sinner, when God shines His grace on a fallen man, he may decide to humble himself and listen to God or stiffen his neck and stop his ears.<br><br>IRT:<br>"So, when you say: He simply has chosen to save those who humble themselves and hear His voice, you are basically saying that God has chosen to save those who had this goodness in them in that they were truly humble and listened to Him."<br><br>Incorrect. Unless God calls the sinner first, there can be no good in him, including humility; for nothing good is present in our flesh. The big difference in our beliefs is that I believe that one can decide to be humble or not. To clarify, God does choose to save those who humble themselves in response to His drawing and conviction by the Holy Spirit, not those who are just not as proud as their fellows.<br><br><br>In Christ,<br>Josh

#880 - Tuesday, October 1, 2002 6:57 PM Re: Conditions and works
lazarus Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 799
Loc: Morgantown, WV
JoshT - welcome back.<br><br>You say that persevering is a 'condition'.....not a work.<br><br> are mistaken.<br><br>Persevering is the same as being obedient (til the end even) ....and obedience is an active (and passive also when we refrain from sin) response to God's law....i.e., WORK! <br><br>No?<br><br>So, your system is works based.<br><br>

#881 - Wednesday, October 2, 2002 12:56 PM Re: In reply...
fredman Offline

Registered: Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Posts: 593
Loc: Canyon Country, CA
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns

#882 - Wednesday, October 2, 2002 1:15 PM Re: In reply...

Hi Josh,<br><br>I had said in my post to you: <br><br>[color:blue]The thing it seems like you're not understanding is that true humility, for example--the kind that is pleasing to God--is good. It's a type of goodness, and without being born from above, we just don't have any of that in us. When the Bible says that we are dead in sin, it means it. We can't DO any good in the sense of godly goodness. True humility is one of those things. We simply don't possess the ability to be truly humble before God when we are outside of Christ. We also don't have a true forgiving spirit or true love for others, or any other of these things that you listed that God sees as good. We can have things which masquerade as them, but at best they are all tainted with sin.</font color=blue><br><br>I also said:<br><br>[color:blue]So, when you say:</font color=blue> [color:red]He simply has chosen to save those who humble themselves and hear His voice,</font color=red>[color:blue] you are basically saying that God has chosen to save those who had this goodness in them in that they were truly humble and listened to Him. </font color=blue><br><br>You responded with this:<br><br>[color:red]Incorrect. Unless God calls the sinner first, there can be no good in him, including humility; for nothing good is present in our flesh. The big difference in our beliefs is that I believe that one can decide to be humble or not. To clarify, God does choose to save those who humble themselves in response to His drawing and conviction by the Holy Spirit, not those who are just not as proud as their fellows.</font color=red><br><br>My reply to that is that Scripture shows mankind (after the Fall, before Glory) who are living on the earth to be in one of two states. Either man is: (1) dead in sin or (2) alive in Christ. In which state would we find the person you are talking about? This person who you are saying has not humbled himself or herself but is able to, are they dead in sin or alive in Christ? I just don't see Scripture showing us any "in-between" state. It is my belief that we are dead in sin UNTIL we are alive in Christ and that while we are dead in sin we can do no good, which would include truly humbling ourselves before God. Further, I see that while we are dead in sin we have absolutely no desire to even do so. <br><br>Looking forward to your reply,<br>RefBap<br><br><br><br><br>

#883 - Friday, October 11, 2002 9:49 AM Re: Josh [Re: Pilgrim]

Dear Pilgrim,<br><br>IRT:<br>"But you can't believe in 'conditional salvation' but then deny that salvation is not merited by some form of works. That's inane!"<br><br>It is not merited, it is conditional, there is a big difference.<br><br>IRT:<br>"For if all have the same grace, but some fall away, then it isn't 'grace' that saves."<br><br>It is grace that saves, they have simply fallen from it.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Dress it up any way you wish, but it still ends up being a system of 'grace + works = salvation'."<br><br>The conditions of grace are not works. Prove me wrong if you think I'm lying.<br><br>IRT:<br>"Protest as loudly as you will, it's still nothing more than SYNERGISM; God helps man to save himself."<br><br>God worked for our salvation, God guides us to receiving and retaining that salvation.<br><br><br>In Christ,<br>Josh

#884 - Friday, October 11, 2002 10:19 AM Re: Josh
Ehud Offline

Registered: Sunday, April 29, 2001
Posts: 264
Loc: n/a
JoshT,<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The conditions of grace are not works. Prove me wrong if you think I'm lying.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>What is the difference in saying that "I've met the right conditions, so I get to go to heaven" than saying "I've done the right things, so I get to go to heaven." Or I've done the correct things that I am supposed to do so I get to go to heaven. Or I've done the things that God has asked of me and based on me meeting those requirements then I get salvation. Finally, God has saved me because I have met the conditions while this other poor soul has not met the conditions, therefore my salvation is not based just upon Christ, it is now based on who met the right conditions. <br><br>All of this is the same as merits. There is no difference than meeting the right conditions and meriting something. You have simply changed the words around and instead of calling it grace and works, you call it grace and conditions. Martin Luther said that we could do this with anything. We could say that the thorn tree is a good tree and that the fruit tree is a bad tree. We can just change names and call it anything we want to. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It is grace that saves, they have simply fallen from it.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>For you grace is some sort of tool that you use to get right with God. If grace saves, then it is not up to the person, it is up to grace. "Oh yes grace did a whole lot for me, but if it were not for me meeting those conditions, boy oh boy I sure would be lost. Thanks a lot grace, but with my actions grace was effective." <br><br>I think the burden of proof lies with you. I would love to see logically, how meeting a condition to gain a prize is different from doing a work to merit a prize. <br><br>Sincerely,<br>Ehud<br><br><br>

#885 - Friday, October 11, 2002 10:52 AM Re: In reply...

I notice Josh didn't answer my question. [img]" alt="frown[/img]

#886 - Friday, October 11, 2002 10:54 AM Re: In reply...
Ehud Offline

Registered: Sunday, April 29, 2001
Posts: 264
Loc: n/a
RefBap,<br><br>I rather liked your question[img]" alt="grin[/img]<br><br>Ehud

#887 - Saturday, October 12, 2002 5:50 PM Re: Josh [Re: Ehud]
lazarus Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 799
Loc: Morgantown, WV
Excellent post!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br><br>How on earth will/can Josh get out of that pickle???<br><br>conditions, merit, works....if it quacks like a duck....<br><br>blessings,

#888 - Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:36 AM Re: In reply...
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
[color:red]Really? Then please tell me why Jesus was grieved over Jerusalem not coming to Him, despite His desire that they do.

Josh, I continue to be amazed of your taking things out of context to attempt to prove your point. You crucify the Scriptures afresh because you will not believe in the crucified Saviour alone for salvation. Of course, the natural mind can not comprehend the things of the Spirit of God. We will continue to pray for your salvation.

Now, to answer your question….Yes, really! God does love all with a GENERAL love…I believe you and I have discussed this before…if not then I know it has been discussed in this forum before.

Though you did not quote the text of Matt, it reflects I believe what you were attempting to say:
[color:blue] Matt 23:37-38 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Now, Josh if you ever asked yourself the question, “Why did not Israel desire to come” and looked at the parallel Scriptures (to Matt 23), you would have come upon Deut 32. They would not, because they were not God’s called, or as Deut 5:29 so stated, they did not have “the” heart that would--which only God can put within one (John 3)!

Unless reprobate, you MUST agree with Scripture that God is utterly sovereign and therefore fully capable of bringing to pass whatever He desires (Is. 46:10)—including the salvation of whomever He chooses (Eph. 1:4-5). Yet, He sometimes expresses a wish for that which He does not sovereignly bring to pass. I can safely say that all are NOT SAVED, but look at a parallel passage:
[color:blue] Deuteronomy 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

All are not saved, because “such an heart is not in them,” and this by sovereign design or all would have this “type of heart” and all would be saved. But, God is still full of compassion (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11) towards those that do not have this type of heart. While affirming God’s sovereignty, one must understand His pleas for the repentance of the reprobate as well meant appeals—and His goodness toward the wicked as a genuine mercy designed to provoke them to repentance (Rom. 2:4):

Judges have approved the death penalty for murders. A violation of a righteous law. Judges give out and enforce this penalty. They righteously support the law. The penalty is deserved and fully warranted. But when the judge reflects on his day do you not think that one, full of compassion and mercy, would weep at such a sentence? Do you not think it causes them thought of what they had to do?


[color:red]My opinion is from the scripture. An opportunity without possibility is no opportunity.

Josh the only surety in grace is election and not the work (possibility/opportunity) of your will. Without election grace loses its total meaning.

God is not a God of possibility or probability, but of surety and of “Thus saith the Lord.”

Your statement [color:red] An opportunity without possibility is no opportunity merely affirms your heresy of believing in the sovereignty of Satan’s power and man’s will over the power of the blood of Christ, for not all are saved--P.S. An [color:red]opinion not supported by Scripture. Man will only be willing in the day of HIS POWER and that being the giving a new heart that is capable of believing!

May God humble you so you will see and understand His mercy, grace, and Word.
Reformed and Always Reforming,

#889 - Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:53 AM conditional salvation and God's warnings [Re: fredman]

Dear Fred,

"First, would you say that your position would be something like, God did his part to provide salvation to men through Christ, but now it is up to men to avail themselves of this salvation? Thus any appropriation of salvation must come by the faith of the sinner, correct?"

To receive salvation, a man must be drawn and called by God (for salvation is of God, not of us), and then answer His call and receive His grace. If any man will hear God and receive His word, he will be granted faith in Christ and repentance to life.

"The really burden of proof, however, is for you Josh, to show us, from the text of scripture, why you believe men have the ability to cooperate with God in salvation."

Certainly, John 5:25 says,

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

As you can see, there is regeneration does not precede hearing the call of God, but those that hear will live. How can they hear while they are dead? If God's call can even reach those who are physically dead, then why not those that are spiritually dead as well? Does God compel them to hear, I don't think so; for while it is God who opens the ears and the heart, man can resist him and shut himself off to God's word.

"But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear." Zechariah 7:11

"Really? Are there any principles of hermenuetics you utilize when you study the Bible? Could you show me how this two passages are even remotely similar? And on top of that how does Romans 11 confirm your understanding of these two unrelated passages? I look forward to your response."

They don't have to be similar, simply about the same subject, salvation specifically. I have, by the way, already seen the article you wrote me about at Alpha and Omega ministries (believe it or not, I am somewhat of a fan of James White's work on the KJV only controversy). But back to the subject. Many contend that the phrase "in Me" does not necessarily mean saved. But I cannot think of an example from scripture where a person can be 'in Christ' and not be saved. But if being 'in Christ' is 'not necessarily being saved', then why would Christ command us to remain in that in order to bear fruit? 'Abide,' indicates continuation, and a person who abides in Him will bear fruit. If a person were not really saved, then abiding anywhere or in anything would do no good at all. To put it simply, you cannot remain in what you were never in, and it does no good to remain in where you should not be. That is why I believe that this is a reference to conditional salvation.

"I acutally wrote out a lenghthy exegetical essay about John 3:16 which I can email as an attachment to you if you wish, or to anyone else for that matter. You are correct in pointing out that it is not mentioning election or predestination, but the one thing you fail to take notice from this passage is that it emphatically establishes that those who believe can not loose their salvation. The text literally states that the believing ones will not perish. The purpose of God giving the son was so that those believing will not perish. There is a grammatical hina clause in this verse, and the hina clause expresses purposeful results. The aim of the action in the main verb. It explains why X does Y. This hina clause, along with the phrase "should not perish" establishes the fact that there is no loss of this eternal life. The result of the father giving the son was that every believing one will never, without a doubt, perish. There is no way you can get around the force of the grammar in this passage Josh. Unless of course you do what the JWs do, and physically change the text."

You have leveled the accusation against me that I don't take into account the original language. You say this without even knowing or asking, and have made a hasty conclusion; for nothing could be farther from the truth. Perhaps your deductions of me are as far-fetched as your conclusions about eternal security.
To go back to the original language, 'believes' in John 3:16 is present active tense, indicating a presently occuring event. So those who "are believing" in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. The question is then, can a person lose their faith? I believe so, consider 1 Timothy 5:11-12, which speaks of younger women who are supported by the church, but begin to turn against Christ, it says,

"But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith."

People sometimes ask me, "well, what was their first faith?" Not to be condescending, but one does not have condemnation for casting off a false faith.

"First off, I think several othes who have been posting to you have offered up their understanding of these various texts. The issue is that you do not like their interpretation, but it is your burden to show us why we are wrong with that interpretation. Several of these folks offered up some solid exegesis, but you do not interact with that exegesis. Below, I will send you to a link that will give you an extensive understanding of John 15 and the article will show you why Jesus is not teaching conditional security."

Concerning Romans 11, it is clearly speaking of salvation for individuals. The example of the root and branches is used to illustrate Israel's fall and the Gentiles obtaining mercy through their fall. Even John Calvin could not escape the conclusion that this was a reference to individual salvation. He simply concluded that it was something that God said to push believers to obedience, but would never really do.

"That is what John summed up in his epistle that they went out from us, because they were not of us (1 John 2:19). These people were not Christian to begin with. If they had been, their would had been perseverance on their part."

What John was saying was that those who were not of God departed from out of the church, not from following God.

"Huh? you have yet to show us that you have any competence in handling the word of God. You are pulling verses out of context, cross-referencing unrelated passages, and not even considering the original language."

Fred, if your goal is to tease and infuriate me till I give up or get flustered, you are targeting the wrong individual, and your method of persuasion is, to put mildly, somewhat ineffective. A soft word says much more than a sarcastic one; and even if your allegations had a hint of truth to them, I can't think of anyone I have ever persuaded of anything by insulting them.

IRT (in regards to Revelation 22:19):
"Why should I even bother responding? This is basically a non-answer. Come on Josh, you're a student in electrical engineering. You can do better than that. You replied further that "taking away or adding to this prophecy" is to be understood as taking away from the Revelation specifically. But the transgression to get your part taken away from the book of life is defined as just that, adding to or taking away from the prophecy of the Revelation. So, if we use your logic, as long as a person doesn't add or take away from the Revelation, their salvation is secure. Would that not be accurate to say? To answer your question once again, "why does God give us this warning?" To weed out false professors from true possessors. The true believers will never do this."

If you don't like the simple answer, I'll give you a more elaborate one. Though it is not specifically stated that God will take one's part from the book of life for adding to His word, I believe He is simply emphasizing different parts of the punishment for each offense. As an example from the same book, the seven churches were each promised a different reward for overcoming. Ephesus in particular was promised that they would not be hurt by the second death. Let's hope for our sakes that He meant that for all who believe (I'm sure He did). So in the same way, I think God saw it fitting to emphasize the punishment that best fit the crime in Revelation 22:19 (If you add to My word, I will add plagues to you, if you take away from my word, I will take your part from the book of life...). Secondly, no. One's salvation is not secured by just not committing a particular sin. It does not follow that just because I show a condition, that I believe that is the only condition; you simply jumped to conclusions about me again. I'll elaborate on your third point below.

"Again, you totally miss Paul's thoughts here. He is speaking about the influence of false doctrine. Someone was spreading false leaven among the Galatian church (5:9). This is another area where you seem to have no room in your system. You do not see that Christians can come under the influence of errant doctrine, yet still be saved. Thus, in your system, if an immature believer happens to come under the influence of false teaching, he looses his salvation?"

You're on a roll, aren't you? No, I do not believe that a small doctrinal error is damnable, this is evidenced by the fact that I do consider Calvinists to be Christians, albeit errant on a secondary point. But the Galatians were a bit different you see, Paul said that they had been taken by another gospel, and noted in Galatians 1:8,

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

It's kind of funny talking to a Calvinist about this, because the charge that I believe in works righteousness is often leveled falsely against me. But the Galatian believers were moved from the true gospel into a false on, and some who had known God embraced it.

"Moreover, if Paul is saying the Galatians lost their salvation, what does he mean when he writes in 5:10 that he has confidence in them that they will have no other mind? It seems like to me that Paul is contradicting your beliefs, because he had confidence in their assurance and that there is no loosing one's salvation being taught here."

"Of course not all of the believers were taken in by this, it was not to these that Paul wrote,
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."

But to those who had embraced this false gospel, he proclaimed that Christ had become of no effect to them, and that they had fallen from grace; and contrasted them with those who still waited for righteousness by faith, that is to say, the ones who had not gone after the false gospel. So he was confident that those who had not fallen from grace would heed his words in one accord.

IRT: (Concerning 2 Peter 2:20)
"At any rate, Peter distinguishes between false teachers and the people in verse 1. These false prophets were present among the people of Israel, and will be present in the church. They were not first of the people and became false teachers; they have always been false teachers who came in among the people. That is what Peter means when he says they secretly bring in heresies. This is something from the outside being brought it. Nothing in Peter's description of these false teachers suggests that they were partakers of the divine nature of Christ. They were corrupt from the beginning."

Not really, the false prophets often (I would say usually) came from the holy people of Israel. Peter's description of them shows that they were believers at one time, for how can one "escape the pollutions of the world by knowing the Lord Jesus Christ," and not be saved? As most of you are so fond of pointing out to me, the spiritually dead can do nothing to be subject to God's law. So how then did they rid themselves (even for a time) of the world's pollutions -- much less by the knowledge of Christ?

Concerning Hebrews 4:2, you only assumed that I believed that the people of 4:2 were saved, I never claimed as much, but simply implied that they were our example, that we should not act as they did.

"I believe the warning passages weed out false believers from true ones. Your position has no room for the fact that there are many individuals claiming they are Christians, but in actuality, they are not truly saved."

Where did I ever state that? I think you just assumed that, because I believe there are many who go to church and claim Christ who are not (and never have been) saved. This does not exclude the fact that others fall away from Him. Now about the warnings in scripture, if it is impossible for a thing to happen to us, then why are we warned of it? You seem to think that this is to 'weed out' the true believers from the false, that not one true believer will be lost, and that the scriptures do not imply conditional salvation. Here is where I have a problem, if a conditional statement is made (such as in Revelation 22:19), then that is a condition that is set. It would not matter if the fulfillment or violation of that condition ever occured, it is still a condition. So I cannot see why you fault me for believing in conditional salvation.

Secondly, I do believe that God's word clearly states that some will not remain in God's grace, but will fall away. Matthew 24:12 says,
"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."

Yep, 'love' in this passage is agape love. And we read in 1 Corinthians 16:22,
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha."

So I believe that it is a Biblical fact that many will fall away in the latter times.

Thirdly, if the warnings in scripture are given by God with the intention that we receive them and believe them, (such as: If I do not abide in Christ, then I will be 'cut off,' or that my name will be 'removed from the book of life'), then why do you fault me for taking them quite literally? If it was God's purpose that believers actually believe His warnings, then am I not serving God's purpose by teaching the same and believing it to be so? And are you not defying God's purpose by stating effectively that such could never happen, therefore making His warning of no effect? Just a thought.

"By the way, you haven't answered my question about Dan Corner of Evangelical Outreach. Are you a fan of his?"

Oh gee, let's see, I don't feel particularly inclined to answer a question that begins with the words "You haven't been deceived by the lies of...?" So I hope you'll forgive my obstination in answering such an inquiry. But since you've put a bit more politeness into your tone, I will say that I have read some of Dan Corner's work, but it was long after I knew about eternal security. His articles on eternal security are usually pretty good, but haven't really tell me anything new. My favorite thing that he wrote was his critique of Gail Riplinger's book on KJV onlyism (Riplinger claims one of her books was written by God Himself).

In Christ,

#890 - Wednesday, April 2, 2003 11:21 AM Re: Revelation 22:19 Contradicts Calvinist Doctrine
li0scc0 Offline

Registered: Thursday, December 19, 2002
Posts: 647
Loc: South Dakota
For clarification see Luke 8:18. Taking this away is only taking away that which it appeared they had. Thus, what we have here in Revelation 22:19 are those who seemed to be elect.


Page 13 of 14 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 21 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Tony Tersigni, usher, Tracker, wins3, dennis G
892 Registered Users
Shout Box

Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
Big B, margien
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 1030522
Westminster Larger Catechism 765543
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 695895
Roman Catholicism and salvation 583956
Double predestination 552154
The importance of going to church 484644
Gospel truth 479478
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 430086
Creation 375000
Continuity in Old and NT 372763