No playing with words but instead reading the WHOLE counsel of God and not taking words out of context. If you choose to not do that, it is your decision and your stand before God, not mine.
-
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!
A rather complete list of warning Scriptures against OSAS
- Thread starter evangelist-7
- Start date
No playing with words but instead reading the WHOLE counsel of God and not taking words out of context. If you choose to not do that, it is your decision and your stand before God, not mine.
evangelist-7
New Member
Perhaps I will break tradition and respond to you here ...
all who are chosen before the foundation of the wolrd are all
"chosen TO SALVATION through sanctification of the Spirt and beleif of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:13)
This obviously refers to the elect ... but does it refer to all BACs?
NONE "of all" that come to Christ in faith shall be lost - Jn. 6:37,39.
Above refers only to 6:39, and it appears to be a problem which must be resolved
... because it stands in opposition to a huge portion of my 65.
A few of my 65 may be erroneous ... News Flash: I'ze not perfect like you iz.
.
evangelist-7
New Member
Instead of copying my 65 proofs, why not be useful for once and disprove a couple of them?
.
missed question
Well Bob, there are probably two factors. 1) it's a time issue, I have to pick and choose what topics I can get in on, it takes a lot of time debating issues in depth. Take Evangel and the OSAS issue, I could post exegesis showing each and every scripture proof text he posted does not refute OSAS, but that would take hours of my time, for I don't have a library of already prepared expositions on each one, maybe I should have after all these years, but I never saved any of them, when I wish to engage I re-study each passage before I comment on them. 2) I believe TULIP believers are a minority, and the one's I have debated are very determined they are correct and there isn't any wiggle room for compromise.
I will say that I believe God draws all men and men must make a choice. I could be wrong, the Calvinist could be right, but it doesn't really matter if they are. We both still preach sanctification of the believers.
evangelist-7
New Member
Great ... I wish to make it extremely easy for you.
I'll pick one of my 65, and you can do a nice exegesis on it.
And I'll comment on it, and we'll see what happens.
Then, if you wish to continue, we can do another, etc.
.
You are missing the point! There are no BAC apart from "salvation" and Salvation is what only the elect are "chosen to"!
In other words, A = chosen and B = salvation. You can't get to B without being A! Hence, ALL BAC are chosen to salvation as there is no other way to get to salvation without being chose to it.
evangelist-7
New Member
Yes, I responded too quickly because I was considering your words as Scripture.
"chosen TO SALVATION through sanctification of the Spirt and beleif of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:13)
IMO, this refers to all those who become BACs, but only a portion of these are the elect.
I.E. some BACs drop out ... I must believe this because of all of the warnings towards this eventuality.
Hence, all who are called do not end up being part of the elect.
Man has free will, and can immediately or eventually choose not to go all the way!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly are the tares?
IMO, many nice passages are only talking of the elect.
These are the wheat ... but ... these are not the tares, which are indistinguishable from the wheat.
IMO, the tares are the BACs who do NOT end up being part of the elect.
Just IMO ... difficult to prove.
Some spiritual truths only come through spiritual revelation ... they're not obvious in Scripture.
A famous example: the Triune Godhead ... Maybe this "BAC but not elect" is another one.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not difficult to prove brother. Please take some advice about hermeneutics. We have to let the Scripture interpret the Scripture. This takes research, reading commentaries, others have spent thousands of hours pouring over the Scriptures to make the proper connections, we should take advantage of their hard work. It is God who raises up preachers and teachers within HIS BODY OF BELIEVERS, for our learning and edifying. There are many cross-referencing bibles on the market for us to take advantage of today which can quickly lead us from one passage of Scripture to other supporting passages of Scripture.
This is how easy it was for me to prove just who are the tares. I brought up BlueLetterBible.org , typed in the search box the word "tares". It gives me 8 matches in 8 verses in the KJV (which is the version I have it set on). I find the definition of the "tares" in Matt 13:25....
"But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way."
"Tares" in no way can be Born of God Christians for they are of the "enemy".
We could go on from there, who is our enemy? Satan, the Devil. We could give Scripture which states there are only two types of children in this world, children of the devil and children of God...
"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1Jo3:10)
This is dangerous thinking. If it is not found in the Scriptures, it is not of God. The Trinity is there, all throughout. Born of God but not Elect is not only NOT there but it is directly refuted.
Please consider...................:love2:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
A couple of points.
1. I try to save off the essential points for a given topic - and the next time it comes up - I bring them out - and then refine them based on whatever I learn from the next go-around. After all - the most likely benefit in a debate is that you yourself learn something and that the unbiased objective readers learn something. But what is most certain is that the two sides in dialogue during the debate will not change views.
2. I think it "does matter" whether God "so loved the World" as He claims - or if this is really just overblown false advertising making "appear" more magnanimous than He really is - because after all no one can make Him do anything He does not want to do.
The alternative to that down-sized god of Calvinism - is that the God of the Bible is in fact far more generous than He claims and we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
in Christ,
Bob
Oh, there can be some change now and again. I think with my own experience is that rather than embrace a doctrine and then have to change my pov later, I always stayed neutral until I was convinced after much deliberation and study. I listened to many pastors and teachers say this or that is fact, and even though I respected them, I didn't just believe as they taught, I dug into it and covered all sides of the issue before accepting a pov as truth.
While I can understand why Calvinist believe they way they do concerning Election, I still after all these years of debate on the subject am not convinced people do not have a choice. Election from the foundation of the world is certainly biblical, but somehow God has given freewill choice within that plan to be Just. Some day I would like to take the time to study and fully harmonize Election and Choice, if that is at all possible, But it would take some intense study time I'm sure.
Now brother, I have Calvinist as close friends, and they certainly do not down-size OUR God. Do not all Christians by imperfect nature have to be wrong about something? Will the teaching of TULIP actually add or take away from one's salvation? Will OSAS add or take away from one's salvation? Will eating pork or worshiping on Saturday add or take away from one's salvation?
As Paul said in Romans 11:20, "Ye stand fast ONLY by faith" (RSV) Amen!?
Last edited by a moderator:
evangelist-7
New Member
Yes, I forgot that verse, so you have the upper hand on this one,
but to play the devil's advocate ...
13:41 says the tares offend and practice lawlessness.
13:43 says the wheat are righteous.
Another problem is ... I thought I read somewhere that the tares were indistinguishable from the wheat.
You could check and see the attributes and lifestyles of the righteous,
and realize that many BACs do not match this criteria in the least.
In fact, Paul warns that many church members offend and practice lawlessness.
Truly, if these are not BACs, why doesn't Paul come right out and say it?
No, instead he talks about them losing eternal life.
Ref. in that dreaded list of 65.
If there were not warnings about this, I probably wouldn't be focusing on it at all.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
evangelist-7
New Member
Steaver,
When do I get to present one of the 65 for you to dance around and try to explain?
Note: the dreaded list of 65 ends with Rev 22:15
.
evangelist-7
New Member
Yes, as I said before, this is the only hang-up I can see @ this moment.
And I haven't had time yet to research it fully.
Right now, I am matching this against the list of 65 (some of which may be bogus).
As always, I am trying to be as honest and sincere as possible.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, here in lies the problem. You have constructed a list of proof text, mostly one liners, and quite a long list at that. So if I do an adequate exposition on just one passage from the proof text, do all the research necessary, lay it all out, probably would take an hour or two. Then you would say, ok, I concede that one doesn't speak about losing salvation, now go ahead and do another one. You are hoping that in the 65 there just might be one, just one, that proves you are correct, or at the least may cause a doubt in the OSAS doctrine. But who has to do all the exegesis?? Who has to do all the work?? 65x2 equals 130 hours worth of work, just to have you say "naw, you are still wrong steaver and I still believe Christians can lose there salvation.
So how about you spend the time to exegesis out one of the proof text you posted and let me respond to your exposition?? :smilewinkgrin:
But tell you what, how about you agree to do one and I will agree to do one? You pick which ever one you want to do for yourself, and pick the best one you like for me to do. Out of the 65, give me your favorite one, your rock! I have lot's on my plate, so it might take me a couple of days.
Blessings! :thumbsup:
evangelist-7
New Member
Steaver,
Sorry, I just realized how much this smacks of ridiculousness!
You want to spend an hour or two to exegesis out a single passage
when the Holy Spirit is able to reveal the truth to you in one second!
You want to spend an hour or two to exegesis out a single passage
so you can rationalize your way out of admitting the obvious!
Man is intelligent enough to rationalize almost anything.
Here's how 2 Germans with intellect like to have a discussion:
they each argue one side for an hour, and then they switch sides and argue for another hour.
Most of these 65 passages comes down to:
DO NOT WALK IN THE FLESH ... DO NOT SIN ... OR ELSE, ETERNAL DEATH.
And this applies to absolutely everyone! ... And everyone has been warned!
And it's all been done quite tactfully, hidden even.
.
Ok! This kind of response I can respect.
Sometimes when explaining something very clear to someone who doesn't get it, you need to take your time and spell it out vvveeerrrryyyyy cccaaaarrreeeeffffuuuullllllyyyyyyyyyy......... Thus the hour or two. It's like boiling water. You know how to do it but to explain it step by step to someone so they understand it, you will use much more time than it takes for you yourself to understand it.