Eternal Security the Acid test

[The Biblicist]

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.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Have you considered that Romans 8:1 is simply the continuation of Romans 7:25?

That Paul is speaking of the condemnation of the wretched condition previously mentioned in Romans 7:24. That Christ delivers a child of God from that wretched condemnation as long as they "walk after the Spirit" rather than after the flesh as in Romans 7:14-25?

 

[DHK]

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?

Please read my full explanation of the verse here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1803899&postcount=194

and then ask me again.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

[/b]No, but eternal security was. And that was my challenge to HP.
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.

No, eternal security was not taught by the earliest churches. To be blunt -- you don't post lies. Maybe there was an isolated person -- or a couple of people here and there -- who believed it.

But I'm saying that it was not the teaching of the churches; what was believed and taught was free will and the possibility of apostasy of believers. This was the overwhelming consensus from the earliest churches until Calvin.

The evidence is there.

Do not challenge my ability to post the facts. I take it personally when people insult me, badger me, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I finally had to shut people up on the penal substitution thread by posting an article showing what the fathers said and believed in context.

So now you put up or shut up: Show where eternal security was taught in the early church as the consensus doctrine, not just by an isolated believer.

I stand by my statement: The doctrine of eternal security was virtually untaught until Calvin. It was not taught by the early churches, the fathers, the EOC, nor the RCC.

If you ban me for what I just wrote, so be it. But I highly resent anyone telling me I'm posting lies; that is inappropriate, moderator or not, and I responded in kind. I try not to fall to that, but sometimes I'm weak and fail.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here is an excerpt from a writing entitled, "A Historical Examination of the Doctrine of Eternal Security":

"One cannot trace the doctrine of Eternal Security all the way back through the Apostolic Fathers and to the Scriptures. The doctrine had a specific time of arrival in history and it was around the beginning of the 19th century. Its beginning has its springboard taken from the absolute predestination and perseverance of the saints as propagated by the Calvinists. John Calvin himself was not the first to discover these ideas but found them loosely stated in the doctrines of St. Augustine. The trail ends here and does not have any endorsement of the early Church Fathers that preceded Augustine.

Continuing......

To counteract this argument [of Pelagius], Augustine went to the extreme opposite end by drawing from the absolute predestination that he was taught as a Manichaean. He brought this belief over with himself when he became a Christian. This was the beginning of what was to become Calvinism and then modern day Eternal Security. Ultimately, the roots of Eternal Security are in the Gnosticism that preceded Augustine, but it was Augustine that has the unwelcome honor of leavening the whole lump.

Eternal Security is pagan in its origin and is a thought that is in opposition to the Bible and genuine Christianity. Its lineage cannot be traced back but a few hundred years where it draws its inspiration from the "perseverance of the Saints" which in turn was drawn from Augustine's introduction of Gnostic and Buddhist thought into the Church. Eternal Security has a history, but not a very good one for the Christian who knows its origin."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Michael, I believe you are speaking the truth. Even Augustine. early on, believed clearly in free will. It was not until later that he turned from those truths taught to him by his Christian mentor Ambrose, as I recall, that he returned to the pagan notions he had been steeped in before coming to Christianity. He then denied a free will and placing the heart of sin in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, eternal security was not taught by the earliest churches. To be blunt -- you don't post lies. Maybe there was an isolated person -- or a couple of people here and there -- who believed it.

But I'm saying that it was not the teaching of the churches; what was believed and taught was free will and the possibility of apostasy of believers. This was the overwhelming consensus from the earliest churches until Calvin.

DHK is talking about the teaching of the churches during the Apostolic period which is reflected in the Scriptures but you are talking about secular church history!

You made the assertion that Calvin originated the doctrine of eternal security but DHK asserted it predated Calvin in the New Testament writings particular with Paul, of whom DHK cites as evidence.

Now you are attempting a slight of hand manipulation in order to change the discussion from a Biblical based discussion to a secular discussion.

DHK did not challenge you to disprove OSAS from secular history but from the scriptures. DHK presented the scriptures as his proof that OSAS was not an invention of Calvin or any other Post-Biblical theologion.

You are now attempting to derail this OP from a Biblical discussion of John 6:36-65 to an uninspired secularized church history discussion which no one cares about.

Get back on tract or go start your own thread.

 

[convicted1]

Well, if it was left up to me, I'd be lost again. But seeing I didn't have power to save myself, I sure don't have the power to "unsave" myself. When He saved me, He did a work that no one can disannul(sp?). I am firmly in His grasp for eternity.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is an excerpt from a writing entitled, "A Historical Examination of the Doctrine of Eternal Security":

"One cannot trace the doctrine of Eternal Security all the way back through the Apostolic Fathers and to the Scriptures. The doctrine had a specific time of arrival in history and it was around the beginning of the 19th century. Its beginning has its springboard taken from the absolute predestination and perseverance of the saints as propagated by the Calvinists. John Calvin himself was not the first to discover these ideas but found them loosely stated in the doctrines of St. Augustine. The trail ends here and does not have any endorsement of the early Church Fathers that preceded Augustine.

Continuing......

To counteract this argument [of Pelagius], Augustine went to the extreme opposite end by drawing from the absolute predestination that he was taught as a Manichaean. He brought this belief over with himself when he became a Christian. This was the beginning of what was to become Calvinism and then modern day Eternal Security. Ultimately, the roots of Eternal Security are in the Gnosticism that preceded Augustine, but it was Augustine that has the unwelcome honor of leavening the whole lump.

Eternal Security is pagan in its origin and is a thought that is in opposition to the Bible and genuine Christianity. Its lineage cannot be traced back but a few hundred years where it draws its inspiration from the "perseverance of the Saints" which in turn was drawn from Augustine's introduction of Gnostic and Buddhist thought into the Church. Eternal Security has a history, but not a very good one for the Christian who knows its origin."

Attempting to READ INTO SCRIPTURE post Biblical interpretations and theological positions may be useful after you establish a contextual based interpretation of John 6:39 but to start there as you have done is simply EISGESIS at its finest!

Produce an exposition of John 6:39 with a defensible exegetical basis before rushing to uninspired men for support.

False teachers follow your method simply because they are not able to produce an exposition they can defend with an exegetical basis.

Following your MO any false doctrine can be successfully defended as there is no end of secular uninspired souces that one can find to continue their defense of a false doctrine.

Your MO is typical of all false teachers simply because they are incapable of presenting a Biblical exposition defended by sound exegetical principles.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

DHK is talking about the teaching of the churches during the Apostolic period which is reflected in the Scriptures but you are talking about secular church history!

You made the assertion that Calvin originated the doctrine of eternal security but DHK asserted it predated Calvin in the New Testament writings particular with Paul, of whom DHK cites as evidence.

Now you are attempting a slight of hand manipulation in order to change the discussion from a Biblical based discussion to a secular discussion.

DHK did not challenge you to disprove OSAS from secular history but from the scriptures. DHK presented the scriptures as his proof that OSAS was not an invention of Calvin or any other Post-Biblical theologion.

You are now attempting to derail this OP from a Biblical discussion of John 6:36-65 to an uninspired secularized church history discussion which no one cares about.

Get back on tract or go start your own thread.

"Secular church history"! A contradiction in terms, and laughable!

As for all these Calvinist doctrines that some of you claim are taught in scripture, the principle I am pointing out remains the same: IF the scripture teaches what you claim (and it doesn't), isn't it amazing that the earliest churches and the fathers who had those very same scriptures do not interpret them the way you do! Eternal security, penal substitution, and all the Calvinist doctrines are absent from the teachings and beliefs of the earliest churches, the fathers, and down through the ages, until they are developed and formulated by Calvin. I have shown proof that this is the case, over and over again.

Rail and falsely accuse as you wish, but you cannot change these facts of church teaching and history!

The position of taught in the scripture but not evidenced in the earliest churches or the fathers is an untenable and ridiculous position!

 

[The Biblicist]

"Secular church history"! A contradiction in terms, and laughable!

The book of Acts provides the SACRED record of church history whereas the fallible pen of heretics provide the SECULAR STATE CHURCH record of church history. The former is INSPIRED whereas the latter is UNINSPIRED. Your history comes from SECULARIZED state religious sources = the old Harlot and her daughters in union with secularism.

As for all these Calvinist doctrines that some of you claim are taught in scripture, the principle I am pointing out remains the same: IF the scripture teaches what you claim (and it doesn't), isn't it amazing that the earliest churches and the fathers who had those very same scriptures do not interpret them the way you do! Eternal security, penal substitution, and all the Calvinist doctrines are absent from the teachings and beliefs of the earliest churches, the fathers, and down through the ages, until they are developed and formulated by Calvin. I have shown proof that this is the case, over and over again.

You forget that both DHK and I reject secular church history as reliable evidence because we both believe it is from the pen of heretics.

You are incapable of providing an exegetical based defendable exposition of John 6:36-65 and so you are FORCED to run to secularized Christianity.

 

[DaChaser1]

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.

Actually, many modern versions just say those in Christ are now under no condemnation, period!

God has to justify us by reconning to our spiritual account due Him the credit of Christ atoning on the Cross, and once we are justifie, at moment of receiving jesus by faith, we have been fully forgiven of ALL sins and our sin natures, fully restored to the Father!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The book of Acts provides the SACRED record of church history whereas the fallible pen of heretics provide the SECULAR STATE CHURCH record of church history. The former is INSPIRED whereas the latter is UNINSPIRED.




You forget that both DHK and I reject secular church history as reliable evidence because we both believe it is from the pen of heretics.

You are incapable of providing an exegetical based defendable exposition of John 6:36-65 and so you are FORCED to run to secularized Christianity.

Not true, and I request that you either stop posting untruth about me, or stop replying to me. I have provided you with scripture that refutes eternal security, but you will not accept it.

Further, let me show you just how foolish what you have written is: So, in the Book of Acts, people believed in eternal security and Calvinist doctrines, but outside of that and other scripture they didn't, even though they had this same scripture to read. And the church fathers, who date from the first century on, even though they had these same scriptures, didn't believe the Calvinist doctrines that you claim these scriptures teach. Nor did the earliest churches believe this way. So, right after the Book of Acts, belief in these doctrines ceased until Calvin revived them centuries later!

That's hilarious! Surely you must concede that is does irreparable damage to your position to hold something so untenable and ridiculous!

 

[The Biblicist]

Not true, and I request that you either stop posting untruth about me, or stop replying to me. I have provided you with scripture that refutes eternal security, but you will not accept it.

Would you be so kind then to point to any post that contains your expository or exegetical response so that I and the readers may read it? I have gone through every single post you have posted on this thread and only thing I can find are two posts that merely states your own personal opinion without any expository or exegetical basis provided. If I have missed one of your posts that provide such an exegetical based exposition I would like to read it.

I await........

Further, let me show you just how foolish what you have written is: So, in the Book of Acts, people believed in eternal security and Calvinist doctrines, but outside of that and other scripture they didn't, even though they had this same scripture to read.

First, I did not say that the book of Acts contained any defense of the doctrine of eternal security. What I said was that the book of Acts contained the sacred history of the early congregations as opposed to secularized state church history. The doctrine of these congregations are found in the epistles addressed to them and these epistles were all written (except a few exceptions) during the period covered by the book of Acts.

And the church fathers, who date from the first century on, even though they had these same scriptures, didn't believe the Calvinist doctrines that you claim these scriptures teach. Nor did the earliest churches believe this way. So, right after the Book of Acts, belief in these doctrines ceased until Calvin revived them centuries later!

That's hilarious! Surely you must concede that is does irreparable damage to your position to hold something so untenable and ridiculous!

What is hilarious is that you cannot defend your position by the scriptures alone but like Roman Catholic apologists must ALWAYS flee to their heretical hertiage to defend their doctrines. In contrast, Baptists can and do defend theology by scriptures alone. Ultimately, you show your true colors by fleeing to your true source of doctrine - history of heretics rather than the scriptures.

 

[DaChaser1]

Not true, and I request that you either stop posting untruth about me, or stop replying to me. I have provided you with scripture that refutes eternal security, but you will not accept it.

Further, let me show you just how foolish what you have written is: So, in the Book of Acts, people believed in eternal security and Calvinist doctrines, but outside of that and other scripture they didn't, even though they had this same scripture to read. And the church fathers, who date from the first century on, even though they had these same scriptures, didn't believe the Calvinist doctrines that you claim these scriptures teach. Nor did the earliest churches believe this way. So, right after the Book of Acts, belief in these doctrines ceased until Calvin revived them centuries later!

That's hilarious! Surely you must concede that is does irreparable damage to your position to hold something so untenable and ridiculous!

PLEASE do yourself a favor as stop associating calvinism=eternal security, that ONLY we would teach that!

not just cals hold that as being bibilical, as majority, if not all others here posting on BB hold to it, regardless IF Cal/Arm Non cal etc!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Would you be so kind then to point to any post that contains your expository or exegetical response so that I and the readers may read it? I have gone through every single post you have posted on this thread and only thing I can find are two posts that merely states your own personal opinion without any expository or exegetical basis provided. If I have missed one of your posts that provide such an exegetical based exposition I would like to read it.

I await........



First, I did not say that the book of Acts contained any defense of the doctrine of eternal security. What I said was that the book of Acts contained the sacred history of the early congregations as opposed to secularized state church history. The doctrine of these congregations are found in the epistles addressed to them and these epistles were all written (except a few exceptions) during the period covered by the book of Acts.




What is hilarious is that you cannot defend your position by the scriptures alone but like Roman Catholic apologists must ALWAYS flee to their heretical hertiage to defend their doctrines. In contrast, Baptists can and do defend theology by scriptures alone. Ultimately, you show your true colors by fleeing to your true source of doctrine - history of heretics rather than the scriptures.

First of all, "secularized state church history" didn't begin right after the last Bible book was written! Secondly, the church fathers were not heretics; the earliest fathers learned from the apostles. And still there's not any evidence of Calvinist doctrines in the earliest churches or the fathers. That says it all, and it totally destroys your argument.

Calvinist Baptists defend their theology by Calvin's interpretation of scriptures alone; maybe a new term should be applied -- "sola scriptura Calvin"!

Let's see now; The scriptures themselves, and then skip down many centuries to the time of Calvin for your secondary source! Yeah, that's convincing, alright! Even though your doctrines are actually not taught in scripture, the earliest churches, the fathers. Your true source of doctrine is the heretic above all heretics, the murderer, Calvin!

 

[DaChaser1]

First of all, "secularized state church history" didn't begin right after the last Bible book was written! Secondly, the church fathers were not heretics; the earliest fathers learned from the apostles. And still there's not any evidence of Calvinist doctrines in the earliest churches or the fathers. That says it all, and it totally destroys your argument.

Calvinist Baptists defend their theology by Calvin's interpretation of scriptures alone; maybe a new term should be applied -- "sola scriptura Calvin"!

Let's see now; The scriptures themselves, and then skip down many centuries to the time of Calvin for your secondary source! Yeah, that's convincing, alright! Even though your doctrines are actually not taught in scripture, the earliest churches, the fathers. Your true source of doctrine is the heretic above all heretics, the murderer, Calvin!

calvinism in some ways no even direct productof Calvin though!

he is credited with being major one to see it in the Bible, but NOT the sole author of its theology, and in some ways, some have taken calvinism beyond what he actually wrote!

Is there any difference between where cals and Arms and others get their theologies from?

isn't it ALL based upon our interpretation of what the scriptures teaches us?

 

[The Biblicist]

First of all, "secularized state church history" didn't begin right after the last Bible book was written! Secondly, the church fathers were not heretics; the earliest fathers learned from the apostles. And still there's not any evidence of Calvinist doctrines in the earliest churches or the fathers. That says it all, and it totally destroys your argument.

Everything you are asseting rests solely upon the credibility of the documents that Rome has provided. If the documents are not reliable then everything you assert is equally not reliable.

Let's see now; The scriptures themselves, and then skip down many centuries to the time of Calvin for your secondary source! Yeah, that's convincing, alright! Even though your doctrines are actually not taught in scripture, the earliest churches, the fathers. Your true source of doctrine is the heretic above all heretics, the murderer, Calvin!

Everything you are asserting rests solely upon the credibility of the documents that Rome has provided. There are Waldenses articles of faith dated before the Reformation that assert eternal security of the believer dating from the 12th century.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Everything you are asseting rests solely upon the credibility of the documents that Rome has provided. If the documents are not reliable then everything you assert is equally not reliable.





Everything you are asserting rests solely upon the credibility of the documents that Rome has provided. There are Waldenses articles of faith dated before the Reformation that assert eternal security of the believer dating from the 12th century.

Neither of us will change our minds, so I'm going to stop arguing about it. I'm tired.

 

[savedbymercy]

Its denying the Gospel of Substitution !



To teach or believe that any sinner for whom Christ died, shall be lost or can be lost, is a flat out and blatant denial and repudiation of the Gospel Truth of substitution, that Christ died in the stead of Chosen sinners ! Now either Christ bore the full extent of God's wrath for those He died for, dying for every last one of their iniquities, to include unbelief, and God has been completely satisfied with Justice for those persons, in Christ death, or He has not. The persons faith or repentance has nothing to with it ! Matt 20:28

28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

This little word for is key to understanding the doctrine of substitution, for it is the greek preposition anti:


over against, opposite to, before

2) for, instead of, in place of (something)

a) instead of

Christ gave His Life, His Soul a ransom to God's Justice, instead of or in the place of the many for whom He died !

Now, based on that Fact, if they are not Eternally Secure, then its a denial and repudiation of Christ Substitutionary and atoning death ! Which is a Gospel Truth !

 

[The Biblicist]

First of all

First of all we are still waiting for you to give us the post #'s where you claim to have provided any kind of exposition of John 6:39 supported with any kind of exegetical evidence!

You called me a liar when I denied you ever gave such a post, so either back up your charge or give an apology for that charge!