Eternal Security...The Wide Gate.

Phillip, perhaps no one has taught you some of the rules of polite conversation, or perhaps you have simply forgotten them.

Making fun of opinions/beliefs that you do not understand will not cause others to seriously consider your own.

Arguing against a belief that no one has claimed does not increase the strength of your position.

I answered this question a few pages back. Perhaps I'll look for it and repost for you.

 

No, your answer made my point precisely.

 

Making fun of opinions/beliefs that you do not understand will not cause others to seriously consider your own.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, 'scuse me, but this is a "DEBATE" forum. We debate here and if you have not been involved in real debates then you will not realize that I am being polite, because I am not attacking the person, only their beliefs.

Secondly, you say I do not understand them. WRONG, I understand C of C beliefs as well as I understand Mormon beliefs, because I have had many friends and relatives who have seen the light and come out of the darkness. Are YOU saying the C of C beliefs of Baptismal salvation are Biblical? I certainly hope not, or we disagree on a lot more than just eternal security.

 

"Debate" does not necessitate the abandonment of civility. Yes, I have been involved in many "real" debates, which ranged from polite discussions of differing points of view to the verbal equivalent of a knock-down drag-out fight. Which do you think were more pleasing to our Lord?

I would say that what you understand those beliefs to be is not biblical. It's a bit hard to quantify "COC beliefs" since they do not have an official statement of belief. You will find at least as wide a range of belief among COC members as you do among Baptists.


Here is what I said earlier on this thread. The full post can be found on page 7, but this is the relevant part:

Nevertheless posted 02-13-2005 11:57 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Trotter:
If one can lose their salvation, I move that they were never saved to begin with. And if you believe that once someone is saved that they will never sin again, I want to know how...short of killing them right then and there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is your right to believe whatever you wish, and if such mental gymnastics make you feel comfortable, then more power to you! Just refrain from insulting those who don't care to do them with you. Again, no one has proposed that those who are saved never sin again. Perhaps you are under the impression that those who believe differently than you also believe in the revolving door of salvation -- every sin causes a loss of salvation until confession of that particular sin which then regains salvation until the next sin . . . That too is a grievous error.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Trotter:
Again I ask, ""How can someone remove the blood of Christ after it has been applied to him? How can a man 'unsave' himself?"

In Christ,
Trotter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite simply, by rejecting the gift of grace. How any Christian could possibly reject his Lord and Savior is beyond me, but I cannot understand how anyone could refuse to accept God's gift of grace to begin with - yet they do. It makes no sense to me that someone would make such a choice, but neither does it make sense for scripture to warn us about falling away if it were impossible for us to do so!

We are able to grasp only a small portion of the magnificence of God. When we come to something about Him that is beyond our ability to understand we try to reason our way around it, but the result is a box too small to confine Him.

God seems to delight in paradox, have you noticed that? He who wants to live must die; he who wants to be greatest must be the servant of all, etc. God is certainly able to keep us from falling, and He will do so, if we allow it. He is not so insecure that He must keep all power in His own hands. He gave to us something very powerful - choice. And He does not take our choice away once we become His. He desires love freely given, and any compulsion on His part would destroy that freedom. And so the paradox - eternal security and the danger of falling away. Both true. Do I understand it? No. But I am able to accept things about God that are too great for me to understand.

To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984. Jude 24-25.

-------------------------------------------------
That pretty much sums up my beliefs on the subject. As you can see, I do not support the "camel's back" view of salvation. Perhaps before arguing against that position you should find someone who supports it.

Never

 

I can reject my parents day and night and guess what. Whether I like it or NOT they are STILL my parents.

Once God has adopted me, then I am His, no matter how stupid I get. Nothing can pluck me from the hand of God, not even my stupid mouth.

 

You can only come to that conclusion of the prodigal by approaching it with the presupposition that it is about someone walking away from their salvation. I've already had a CoG guy try to argue that case with me. he even had a nice illustration in the back of his bible of the steps the prodigal took to leave it, and the steps he took to return.

We see and interpret this issue very, very differently. We have both set up strawmen to kick around (once saved always saved as a license to sin, how many sins disqualify one from keeping their salvation). And we have not found common ground.

You say that one can willingly give up their salvation by turning their back on God and walking away. I say that God does not let go of what is His, and that once adopted one cannot be disinherited. Both are mutually exclusive of each other.

I wish you well, JCF. Although we disagree on this, we are still part of the same family.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Yer singing to the choir.

Let us hear the warnings and the promises of CHRIST.

Warnings-
to the Pharisees who refused to see,
to the self righteous who said that they did not need His righteousness,
to the greedy who made merchandise instead of worship,
to the lawyers and scribes for their puffed up knowledge without faith.

Promises-

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(Joh 3:16-18 KJV)
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
(Joh 3:36 KJV)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(Joh 5:24 KJV)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(Joh 6:47 KJV)
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
(Joh 10:9 KJV)
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
(Joh 10:27-29 KJV)
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
(Joh 11:25-26 KJV)

Jesus Christ is the new covenant. He is the Son of God. From before the foundation of the world He has existed with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. He helped to lay the very foundations of creation. And He emptied Himselfof it all to provide the means of eternal life through His life, death, and resurrection. Praise His holy name!

In Christ,
Trotter \o/ \o/ \o/

 

Sorry, jcf. I checked out your other threads on this forum. It was a real eye-opener.

Besides, the last part of vers 1 is not in most manuscripts. it was a copyist error fromt he end of verse 4. Do some research.

Until you get straight Who Jesus is, and has always been, I'm just wasting my time here.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

To quote MacArthur:

NASB- 1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Any translation based upon erasmus' hodge-podge editorial will show the same mistake.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Whether it's a copyist's error or not is irrelevant. It simply says that those who are in Jesus walk after the Spirit. It does not say if you want to be in Jesus start walking after the Spirit.

What's the difference, you might ask. All of the difference in the world!

As it is stated in this verse "walk after the Spirit" is a description of those who are in Jesus, not a prerequisite for being in Him. Those who are His are known by their fruit. But fruit is the end result of the growth of a plant, not its precursor.

First we are made a part of His body, then we learn how to walk in the Spirit. First we are born, then we grow, and evidence of that growth is seen in our actions, which are the outflow of our "heart" or inner self.

 

JCF, I would appreciate your forwarding the following to John Ferreira in respect to his misuse of Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-27. And if he would like to discuss this issue, please, set up the board. Thanks.

By its title God identified those the Hebrew Epistle was for, because Hebrews (1 Cor 7:18), not Gentiles (Gal 5:1-4), observed the entire law as, the following proves, for God had not officially released them (Deut 13:1-10) until that Epistle.

1) It is a fact that Israel had its conception as a nation with signs & wonders (Ex 4:1-9; v 28-30; 7:3; 8:23; 10:1-2; Deut 4:33-39 etc), yet God also warned about those who could do signs & wonders to cause them to abandon His commandments (Deut 13:1-10). Obviously Christ knew that thus the reason why He demanded His disciples keep the entire law (Mt 5:17-19; 28:19-20).

2) It is a fact the 12 Apostles never released their Hebrew converts from one iota of the law, because that would disobey Christ’s commandments to them (Mt 5:17-19; 23:1-3; 28:19-20). As late as Acts 21, @ 60 A.D., the scriptures prove the Apostles & their converts observed the law, in & @ Jerusalem.

3) It is a fact that had the Apostles rescinded any portion of the law, they & their converts would have been restrained from the temple, if not slain, since Pharisees & Sadducees would use Deut 13:1-10 as justification. (Frank, perhaps you now better understand why the Lord told His Apostles this Mt 23:1-3 ?)

4) It is a fact that at that council meeting (Acts 15, @ 20 years after Acts 2) nothing is said about releasing any Hebrew from any portion of the law.

5) It is a fact that for the believing Pharisees (Acts 15:5) to demand circumcision, & not be quickly rebuked by any Apostle (v6), with something like Gal 5:1-4 had the law been rescinded for Hebrew believers, proves the Apostles & Hebrew converts still observed the law! ( Frank, have you ever thoughtfully read Acts 21:17-25 then asked yourself WHY Paul didn’t even proffer Gal 5:1-4 at the Acts 15 council meeting? Can’t you see what CoC indoctrination does to the thinking process? )

6) It is a fact that as late as Acts 21:18-26, @ 60 AD, believers observed the entire law, as was expected of them by their lost Hebrew kinsmen. Those who object that James was not an Apostle & thus not qualified (Mt 18:18-19) to speak for the Church by telling Paul what to do, need to recall that James spoke for that Acts 15 council meeting & the Apostles were pleased with his decision (Acts 15:22). They also need to seriously think about this. Would the Pharisees & Sadducees allowed the Apostles into that temple were they not in total compliance to Israel’s law? Wouldn’t Deut 13:1-10 still have been justification to have, at least, expelled Hebrew believers, including the Apostles? (Frank, is any of this starting to sink in? )

7) Thus the necessity for the Epistle that officially released Hebrew believers from the O.T. religion that God gave their “fathers.” In that Epistle believers learned about the antitypes in Israel’s religion were fulfilled in & by The Lord Jesus Christ. (Frank, you ever thoughtfully read Mt 24:1-51? There is no way that Heb 10:25 refers to Sunday!) In the summer of 66 A.D. Titus Vespasian began the military campaign against Jerusalem, but on the death of Nero returned to Rome to become its emperor. During that pause, before Titus’ son comes to destroy Jerusalem, believing Hebrews left the city. ( Frank, now do you fully understand the reason for The Lord’s statement about the “sabbath day” Mt 24:20 ?

If the reader has carefully read each verse when cited they should now know why Hebrew believers in & @ Jerusalem were observing the law as late as 64 A.D, for until then they were never officially released by God as Deut 13:1-10 proves. The reader should also know that those Hebrews outside Israel had more exposure to the truth (Rom 8:3; Eph 2:15; Phil 3:3-8, etc) thru the Apostle Paul’s teaching to the Gentiles. And that Paul also told those Hebrews 1 Cor 7:18-20.

Now read Heb 6:4-6; 10:12 & then ask yourself: Is it possible to ever physically crucify The Lord Jesus Christ again? Clearly it cannot be done physically, so the meaning must be spiritual. Did Paul say the law was spiritual (Rom 7:14)? Doesn’t the Hebrew Epistle deal with the law? Now think. Were you a believing Hebrew, that just read / heard that Hebrew Epistle, wouldn’t you be in a bind if your family, friends etc were lost? Wouldn’t they expect you to continue to observe the law? OK, what did God tell you to do (Heb 13:13)?

Therefore, if you continue in Israel’s religion, are you not in effect stating that the blood of bulls & goats (Heb 10:4; v19) is the same value as the Son of God’s (1 Pet 1:19)? Are you not insulting God (Heb 10:26-31)? What sin is of greater affront then that? Consequently, are you not spiritually crucifying the Son of God afresh, & putting him to an open shame before the lost since you now know better (Heb 6:6)?

Acts is the divine history of God’s temporal (Romans 11; Acts 3:20-26; Lu 21:24, etc) setting aside of the nation Israel for the non-law observing Gentiles (Acts 28:17-30). Brethren, if you don’t believe that then give the above your best shot, but remember, while your opinion is your right, God has told believers how to correctly handle His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15).

Cordially, Dave

 

Who's Frank?

 

Hi Never, since you couldn’t bring your hammock rocking kitten from gracecentered.com I’ll introduce you, hubby & said cat to this board.

http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=6d738a4eeb4692e63b3b4a7ca1897c5c;act=Profile;CODE=03;MID=78-1013165304

As for “Frank”, go to this page
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2875/5.html?

& scroll down & click on his moniker.

Did you notice Gracecentered dropped my topic about "Christian"?

 

Yep, that's us.

Ok, so that's who Frank is, but why did you address a post to him on this topic? He's not posting here. You seem to be answering some questions posed by him, but it's unclear since his statements aren't to be found on this thread.

No, I don't remember a topic titled "Christian". Gracecentered is in the middle of an upgrade, and not all the posts have made it to the new site yet. There have been a lot of kinks that are being worked out and they assure us that the old threads will all get there eventually. Don't take it personally -- lots of my stuff hasn't been transferred yet either.

 

Good morning, Never.

I PM Frank earlier with a rough outline on the matter stated above since it proves that;

1) believing Hebrews, including the then 11 Apostles, continued to observe the law,

2) the correct scriptural (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15) application of those Hebrew verses,

3) CoC potentates, like Frank, clearly mis-apply those verses in Hebrews in order to, supposedly, disprove eternal security,

which he rejected.

Since Frank is currently silent on the beliefs of the CoC board, I figure he may be “lurking”, so I want to let him know he’s not forgotten &, hopefully, enlighten him & those who have perhaps never been shown the correct application.

I posted twice on Gracecentered board to the CoC erroneous precept that the “new name”, the “everlasting” name is “Christian” (sic). You were kind enough, if I remember correctly, to respond to my comment regarding CoC potentates might not like its presentation. That is how I know about your “laid back rocking cat.“

Apparently that Gracecentered upgrade is giving them fits, their IT administer must be bald by now, for they keep logging me out when I never have. And no, I don’t take it personally, & hopefully it will be resolved soon.

Meantime, welcome to the BaptistBoard.

Dave

 

Yes, lots of people are having trouble with that. You might try bookmarking the page once you are logged in, that fixed the problem for several.

Thanks for the welcome. Though I am neither COC nor Baptist I enjoy both boards.