Featured Debunking Unconditional Eternal Security: Hebrews 10:39

1 John rejects your doctrine and shows you yourself don't abide in the truth. You call truth nonsense.

Scripture shows a differing story than yours.

All elect will remain in Christ by His authority and will never denounce the faith. Your hybrid version of elect, well they can do anything you want them to do, after all you created them.

 

I specified it prior, but that is not to say you won't wrest the truth given to fit into your error.

Yes, your OP was quite vague and fits your premise. You were and are all over the place.

All truly converted are elect.

 

Sure there is: there's the nonsense of making unbelievers believers so one can try to teach the false doctrine of loss of salvation.

Every single passage it is clearly shown that they are unbelievers. And the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) never address the passages that say without question that unbelievers are eternally secure. It is always a wresting of certain texts, and a redefining of Biblical terminology.


God bless.

 

I have the fact that you contradict the Writer with your view. You deny that we are not of them that draw back unto perdition, and teach believers who have been forever forgiven can then not receive forgiveness.

What is anyone supposed to do with that but feel sorry for the one who doesn't understand the passage?

And I do. Apparently you have sat under false teaching, and in just conversing with you it is quite clear you lack some fundamental understandings about some fundamental issues. For example, you are not familiar with Scripture enough to properly understand a passage dealing with sanctification. You deny Christ being sanctified as the basis for your imposing a redeemed quality to those who are clearly rejecting Christ. It is basically making the text say "If you rejecting unbelievers sin willfully there is no more a sacrifice left for you."

There was never a Sacrifice applied to them...because they are rejecting that sacrifice, just as Moses' Law was rejected by some. The parallel is drawn between the unbelievers of both Age and you insert the redeemed to be in view.

So I do indeed feel sorry for you.


God bless.

 

I will, though I know you will ignore everything said, come back to your commentary in this thread. But it will be one response, which, if you do not address my critique, and instead simply insult, will be the only response in the thread.

It doesn't make sense to try to help you when you respond to that help with insult and reiterated questions answered repeatedly.


God bless.

 

So how will you be forgiven your sins, Vooks?


God bless.

 

Yes, Vooks.

That is what is meant by being made perfect by one offering for ever.

The context is dealing with the difference between the results of Christ's death and the results of the sacrifices under Law:

The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins...Christ's can and does, for ever.

That is the statement of the Word of God, and it cannot be removed. It is the clearest statement of Eternal Security in the entire Bible, in my opinion.

So our key verse is saying "You think it was rough on rejecters of the Law...you ain't seen nothing yet."

And what your interpretation does is cancel out the statement of the Writer, and ultimately, the Holy Spirit.

You are saying that those sanctified by that offering are not made perfect/complete forever.

So we have two statements, yours, and Scripture's. Guess which one I am going to stick with.


God bless.

 

No, actually you would not. If you did want to believe it, you would begin exegeting Scripture rather than inserting your own ideas when convenient.

I do not mean you then start reading Scripture taking for granted that Eternal Security is taught, but just what I said...exegesis rather than eisegesis.

I can name several:

1. They were saved in denominations that teach loss of salvation, and to go against that would cast their own salvation experience into question.

2. Because of sin in their own lives, they live in constant guilt, and think that they perform works which remedy that sin.

3. They are not actually saved, have not the Spirit of God, thus cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Their salvation is works-based, rather than relational.

4. They are young in the faith, ignorant of Scripture, and though saved, still have not learned how to study. Thus, their understanding of salvation in Christ does not replicate the expressed faith in Christ dying for them that the Spirit of God enlightened them to when He saved them. While this initial faith was generated in truth, the sin in their lives allows them to see their participation in salvation as something valid.

That is true, and even the L.O.S.T. (Loss Of Salvation Teachers) believe this to be true of themselves, though they teach loss of salvation teachings.

They desperately want to warn others that they might lose their salvation, but do not actually believe this dreadful fate could happen to them.

And here is where your eisegesis begins: you impose a belief that Eternal Security equates to license to sin. I know of not one credible teacher of Eternal Security that endorses this false argument offered as an argument by the L.O.S.T.

In fact, I have myself mentioned several times in this visit to this this forum that those who do sin and fail to repent run the danger of the very same punishment exacted in the Old Testament under Law for sin: physical death.

You have to create false arguments like these to try to support an unbiblical view, and that is the case in every point of error of those who are seriously confused about what Scripture teaches.

Who teaches that?

Except the L.O.S.T.?

This is like Pre-Trib Rapture deniers saying that view does not motivate to holy living, when in fact, that view above all views does precisely that. If we believe Christ could call us out if this world at any moment...where is the logic in thinking the view endorses license for sin?

False arguments are part and parcel for the L.O.S.T.

Just not the teaching of credible teachers of the Word of God. You will never find one to teach what you have just taught. While it might be true that equally immature believers have this impression, that does not mean it can be associated with the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security.


Continued...

 

Yup.


God bless.

 

And they are right on that point.

And if you bother to look at the context you will see that those who fall away in every passage are designated as unbelievers. The error is yours.

No-one teaches that except the L.O.S.T.

The only insecurity belongs to those who do not actually trust in Christ's death as much as they profess to. It is ironic, no?

Calvinists do not teach this. This is a construct of your own mind, a false argument to support your view.

No idea what you are talking about. But this is what happens when someone creates false arguments not even endorsed by those of opposing view.

Just as you believe the Word of God denies sanctification in regards to the Person of Christ.

Your doctrine is not derived from Scripture, but simply reflects what you want to believe. You try to conform Scripture to your own beliefs. You are not alone in this Vooks.

Where is the examination? There is no examination here.

You scoff at the very statement of the Writer, thus...you scoff at God.

How hard is it to understand that the Writer, after giving grave warning about rejecting Christ, states we are not like them?

Who are those that do draw back unto perdition? And if there is a drawing back unto perdition and a definite "believing to the saving of the soul," when would we expect that this believing to the saving of the soul takes place?

So, I exhort you to learn how to examine Scripture, rather than broadcasting your opinions in a public forum which, hopefully, you will one day look back on and regret. But, being ignorant of a very simple truth, that Christ does indeed save eternally, is not something that demands lack of relationship with Him. You are not alone in having a works-based mentality, many, if not most do. One day you might get to the place where you acknowledge that Christ actually saved you, but it may not sink in until you stand before Him.

But the choice is yours. It is just a matter of being obedient to the command to study.


God bless.

 

For the record, please answer the question: how will your future sins be forgiven, Vooks?


God bless.

 

Okay, while we await brother Vooks' explanation as to how, when he sins in the future, he is going to receive forgiveness for that sin, let's take a pro-active stance on Eternal Security. We have to not only show the weakness and error of an opposing view, but show why our view is correct.

So just a quick one:


John 10:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Now, the L.O.S.T. are going to say, "This just means that men can't take them out of His Hand, but they can remove themselves," lol.

This denies what Christ states.

Now, let's see the Hand of God again:


Hebrews 10:31

King James Version (KJV)

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.



Now the first thing to consider is the context. Here we have two entirely different actions by the same Hand.

Would anyone like to share why the context is different?


God bless.