The bible is our weapon. It's called the sword of truth for a reason.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Eternal Security the Acid test
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The bible is our weapon. It's called the sword of truth for a reason.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
How is it fatalistic to believe God's promise of redemption from this wicked world and this dying body?
Why don't you post some scripture to prove that a Christian can break God's seal?
I've done that; no reason to do it again. Not going to get into a proof-texting war.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
The bible is our weapon. It's called the sword of truth for a reason.
So, I refuse to use it as a sword on a fellow believer.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I have yet to see you present a contextual based response on anything! So is that practice all in the past with you? You have done it with some texts before but that is a thing of the past now? Now you just make theological classifications?
I guess I just don't give up on people that easy.
Do me a favor and give up on me. :laugh:
So, I refuse to use it as a sword on a fellow believer.
I'm not sure yet if we are fellow believers.
Is Jesus God?
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I'm not sure yet if we are fellow believers.
Is Jesus God?
Then you shouldn't be talking to me.
Yes, Jesus is God. If you had read my website -- Statement of Principles, you would know that, I suppose. I am not a Socinian.
Actually, I think you're right.Then you shouldn't be talking to me.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Actually, I think you're right.
I never questioned your salvation, no matter how strongly we disagreed.
I know what Gandhi meant when he said that he liked and admired Christ, but not many of his followers.
Don't respond to me anymore, and I'll return the favor.
No, but eternal security was. And that was my challenge to HP.That does not teach OSAS, unless you believe that humans are puppets or automatons with no will.
Yes, you are sealed when you believe, and if you finally and impenitently turn away, you break the seal, as the scriptures teach. I don't like to proof text, but others don't seem to mind it.
Don't Calvinists find it strange that there is virtually no evidence for the Calvinist distinctives prior to Calvin? Or maybe Calvinists could point out where those distinctives were taught before the Reformed tradition sprang up. And saying "the Bible" is not sufficient because there are just as many places where the Bible contradicts those distinctives. That being the case, one must look to the earliest churches to see what was taught -- and it wasn't Calvinism.
If you say or lay claim that eternal security was an invention of Calvin then back it up. Don't post things here without evidence. Can you prove that no one before Calvin (or for that matter Augustine), never believed in eternal security. If only one person believed in eternal security then your claim is false. So to be blunt--don't post lies. Unless you can back up what you say, don't post it.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: No, but eternal security was.
HP: Prove it. :thumbs:
That onus is on you. Either demonstrate that your "lie" is not a lie, or recant.HP: Prove it. :thumbs:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: That onus is on you. Either demonstrate that your "lie" is not a lie, or recant.
HP: You made a definitive statement. Why would no the onus be on you to demonstrate ( and the following I will use your own words) "your "lie" is not a lie, or recant."?:wavey:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: Just for your satisfaction (as if it will win you over to the truth) ??
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The word "who" is a connective. Unlike "if" it does not show a condition. It is not conditional but rather qualitative. It underscores the qualities of the subjects being described.
HP: It could be justly said that those who are in Christ Jesus but walk after the flesh will have condemnation. Condemnation is indeed conditional on one either walking after the Spirit and free from condemnation, or walking after the flesh and having condemnation. Being free from condemnation is indeed conditional upon walking after the Spirit.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The saved is characterized by those who show the fruit of the Spirit and not the works of the flesh, or walk after the flesh. Those that are saved do not walk after the flesh but after the Spirit. The "who" indicates quality, not condition.
Therefore, there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. For those that are in Christ Jesus are those that are saved, walking after the Spirit. They can never be lost; never be condemned.
HP: Well, on one hand you preach real good, but on the other hand, I know you DHK. We have walked together for quite some time now. Let's test your preaching.
So, the life of the believer is characterized by those who show the fruit of the Spirit and NOT the works of the flesh. Why am I having such a hard time believing you really believe that? Lets take this a step further. So, one sinning every day in thought word and deed (showing the works of the flesh in their daily lives) would not characterize a believer, right?
Another subject. Start another thread.HP: Well, on one hand you preach real good, but on the other hand, I know you DHK. We have walked together for quite some time now. Let's test your preaching.
So, the life of the believer is characterized by those who show the fruit of the Spirit and NOT the works of the flesh. Why am I having such a hard time believing you really believe that? Lets take this a step further. So, one sinning every day in thought word and deed (showing the works of the flesh in their daily lives) would not characterize a believer, right?
This subject is about the eternal security of the believer, not the Christian walk.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Are you claiming that when you tell us what the context is you are speaking infallible truth?Biblicist: Biblical context is the product of Inspiration by God not dependent upon human reason or interpretation by men but is objective truth regardless if men interpret it correctly or incorrectly. Interpretation only serves to reveal the objective truth contained therein or distort it but it does not change it or make it subject to human reason or interpretation.
HP: It could be justly said that those who are in Christ Jesus but walk after the flesh will have condemnation. Condemnation is indeed conditional on one either walking after the Spirit and free from condemnation, or walking after the flesh and having condemnation. Being free from condemnation is indeed conditional upon walking after the Spirit.
This is why I didn't quote the last half of the verse in the first place. I didn't want to get into this with you. I gave you an explanation, and instead of accepting it you simply want to argue.
No, it cannot be justly said that those who are in Christ Jesus BUT walk after the flesh will have condemnation, because the statement is not conditional, but qualitative. It is characteristic of those whom it is speaking of not conditional of those who it is speaking of. That is what the verse is speaking about. I am dogmatic about it. There is no further argument. Take it or leave it.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK: No, it cannot be justly said that those who are in Christ Jesus BUT walk after the flesh will have condemnation, because the statement is not conditional, but qualitative
HP: I have clearly shown that according to the Scripture condemanation is INDEED conditional upon waliking after the flesh or after the Spirit. Why are you so dogmatic about your position when common sense testifies to the truth of what I presented?
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.HP: I have clearly shown that according to the Scripture condemanation is INDEED conditional upon waliking after the flesh or after the Spirit. Why are you so dogmatic about your position when common sense testifies to the truth of what I presented?
The word is WHO, not IF.
It is qualitative, not conditional. Case closed.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The word is WHO, not IF.
It is qualitative, not conditional. Case closed.
You have stated in another thread that you and all Christians often walk after the flesh, that it is always a struggle not to, and a struggle that they often fail. Therefore, with your reasoning, do you not see how one can be in danger of not qualifying for the way you interpret Romans 8:1?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.