Featured Free Will and Loss of Salvation

More addressing the poster, and running from the poster's position. This is all Calvinism has to offer, false charge after false charge.

Can anyone placed by God into Christ jump ship? Of course not. Does that mean someone could not ponder that thought? Nope. We operate within the confines God allows, thus we have limits to our will. Scripture says once we are actually "born anew" our faith is protected such that we will always love Christ. (See 1 Peter 1:3-5)

And pay no attention to the idea that either we either are unable to have autonomous thoughts, or we can have no limits imposed by God on our autonomous thoughts. Both those false views are silly, the mindless screed of false teachers.

Does the above address loss of salvation by clearly stating those actually saved are saved forever. Does the above address the red herring construct "free will?" You bet. So once again a Calvinist has posted an absurd falsehood and every other posting Calvinist has condoned the practice. Go figure...

 

More nonsense, more defection, more of the same denial of truth.
Can anyone placed by God into Christ jump ship? Of course not. Does that mean someone could not ponder that thought? Nope. We operate within the confines God allows, thus we have limits to our will. Scripture says once we are actually "born anew" our faith is protected such that we will always love Christ. (See 1 Peter 1:3-5)

And pay no attention to the idea that either we either are unable to have autonomous thoughts, or we can have no limits imposed by God on our autonomous thoughts. Both those false views are silly, the mindless screed of false teachers.

 

Yet another obfuscation, another dodge of the OP topic.

Can anyone placed by God into Christ jump ship? Of course not. Does that mean someone could not ponder that thought? Nope. We operate within the confines God allows, thus we have limits to our will. Scripture says once we are actually "born anew" our faith is protected such that we will always love Christ. (See 1 Peter 1:3-5)

And pay no attention to the idea that either we either are unable to have autonomous thoughts, or we can have no limits imposed by God on our autonomous thoughts. Both those false views are silly, the mindless screed of false teachers.

Does the above address loss of salvation by clearly stating those actually saved are saved forever. Does the above address the red herring construct "free will?" You bet. So once again a Calvinist has posted an absurd falsehood and every other posting Calvinist has condoned the practice. Go figure...

 

Assumes equality between the OLD man and the NEW man ... which is contra-indicated by scriptures like "a new creation" and "a new heart" and Philippians 2:13 ... so the New Man may have assurances where the Old Man was free to rebel. [Just as a logical hypothetical.]

I think scripture affirms TU*IP with (L) being a "logical" conclusion not explicitly affirmed by scripture, but implicitly suggested by some verses (and implicitly contra-indicated by other verses).

 

What a JOKE!

 

It is believed in early Chruch history, that Nicholas in Acts 6:5, is the same person condemned by Jesus Christ, whose followers were known as Nicolaitans, in Revelation 2:6, 15. This was stated by Irenaeus and Hippolytus

 

I don't think he was joking. He SAID that was his belief and I believe that he DOES believe that.

 

I know, but the notion is a JOKE! because it is UNBIBLICAL

 

Only your OPINION until you present your case to back it up.
(I am only saying that dueling opinions is tedious and unproductive ... "Is not" ... "Is so" ... "Is not" ... "Is so" ... )

 

everything that we say, is really only our "opinions", as all we can do is comment on what the Bible says. Like John 3:16-18, some, who take the Bible at face value, and for what it exactly says, will say that God loves the entire human race, and those out of this race, who believe in Jesus Christ, will be saved; and those who don't believe, will be damned to eternal punishment. Then we have those, who for theological gain, will force its plain meaning, to say that the world here means only "the elect", which then leaves us with the absurdity, that some of this "world/elect", will not believe, and be damned! TULI of TULIP is rendered UNBIBLICAL from these three verses. I am yet to see anynone who is honest in their interpretation, use this for their "Calvinism/Reformed" theology. Only those who wrest with the Word of God, will do so!

 

An interesting observation.

As you might recall, I am one of those oddities that takes the Scripture factually unless it is indicated in the text that it is using some allegorical presentation. I have also close ties with the Calvinistic thinking.

However, as far as Calvinistic thinking on the eternal security, that is for another thread.

This one concerns those who hold to both freedom of the will concerning salvation based on terms of human determination in acceptance or rejection, and how then that same group may claim they cannot loose the salvation by the same act of the freedom of their own will.

I seems logically unbalanced to present "once saved always saved" when it is the freedom of the human that accepts salvation yet rejects that that same freedom of the human cannot reject salvation at a later date.

At least those of the Church of God are consistent in holding that humans can loose their salvation.

 

The OP is really quite pointless, and it actually "proves" nothing!

 

What a stupid comment.

 

The OP rarely is about proving, but raising a question that might or might not have other than an opined answer.

For example, there are some on the BB who consider that humankind have the innate capability and unfettered freedom to become sincere enough in seeking salvation through repentance and other means to actually get God's attention so He can examine them and perhaps if finding they are devote enough grant them to be saved.

Can one who has started out by the flesh then rely upon God and not the flesh for eternal security? What Scriptures would that person hold as evidence?

 

Responding to a stupid comment