• 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!

can we loose salvation ......

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: How can this sound like eternal security to you when he specifically is making mention of the clear possibility of “departing” from the Living God? You have to know God to depart from Him.
I have already explained that.
The context is self explanatory. Go to the Bible, which I assume that the ECF are referring to, and if not why would we have any reason to trust them? There are only two groups of people mentioned in the episode with Lot. Lot and those that were rescued with him. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah which perished in brimstone and fire. Lot was saved for all eternity. In spite of his unjust acts he was declared righteous. He was a sinner as we all are.
He offered his daughters to a crowd of homosexuals to be abused all night by them.
He got plastered--drunk out of his mind.
He committed incest.
He had two children out of wedlock.
This man was no saint.

However he was declared just and righteous by God. That is eternal security.

The rest, whom are referred to as condemned, are obviously the unsaved. They were the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. There was no one else that it could have been. There are no other choices to us available.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: That certainly is not a quote in agreement with the OSAS’ers I listen to on this list. Justin Martyr sounds more like those that are told they believe in salvation by works than a OSAS'er. We are constantly told are works have nothing to do with our salvation and nothing we can do to loose it. Here Justin Martyr states he has proved to God by their good works, while the OSAS’ers tell us that we are all liars (remember DHK?) and all remain as sinners, failing to do that which we desire to do and doing that which we detest.

Sorry DHK, you are going to have to try again if you are going to pin OSAS on an ECF antecedent to Augustine.
Like I said they are ambiguous quotes. Take the first part of the quote:

For, impelled by the desire of the eternal and pure life, we seek the abode that is with God,

Any person believing in OSAS would say something like that. We are impelled by the desire of eternal life. We have eternal life and for the hope of that eternal life we seek that abode that awaits us. We thus live for God, and the result is the good works that follow on. That is an OSAS argument.

But you can read what you want into the writings of the ECF. They are not that important to me for those readings. The Bible is what is important. The Bible is very specific on these matters. It is clear. It is final.
Concerning OSAS, I will state again: Those who do not believe in the eternal security of the believer do not have a good grasp on the doctrine of salvation.
 
DHK: Those who do not believe in the eternal security of the believer do not have a good grasp on the doctrine of salvation.

HP: Let’s examine the logical inferences necessitated by your own stated beliefs concerning salvation. You clearly have stated that you believe that man is born totally morally depraved, hence Total depravity. Have you not stated that man has nothing to do with his salvation nor can he do anything to loose his salvation? If man has nothing to do with his salvation and can do nothing to loose it, the idea of Unconditional election cannot be logically avoided. Since man has nothing to do with his salvation, God has chosen those that will be saved and by necessity has chosen those to withhold the only means possible from the lost, hence Limited atonement is necessitated. Since man cannot thwart the chosen hand of God acting upon the elect, nor can one do despite what God has foreordained, God’s grace is necessitated as Irresistible. Reasoning once again from the presupposition of God foreordaining those that would be saved, and the stated notion that man has nothing to do with his salvation, and can do nothing to loose it due to the fact it is nothing more than the predestined plan of God, one can only conclude as you do DHK in OSAS or as stated by the Calvinists, Perseverance of the saints.

Does anyone smell a Tulip? Tell us again DHK that you are no Calvinist. Show us how you can logically deny any one of the points in Tulip when you openly state your adherence to original sin and OSAS.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Zenas said:
DHK has posted the following quotation from Clement of Rome:
With all due respect, I see nothing about eternal security in this passage. In fact, it clearly indicates that salvation can be lost. Look at it with the highlighting on the last clause:

Good point -- and then of course there is always scripture -- to boot.

Matt 18 - forgiveness revoked for example. Same as we see in Ezek 18.

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
However to "TEST" OSAS you need a text that actually addresses points like the following -

1. Can you have your forgiveness revoked? (Matt 18)
2. After being joined to Christ can you be "severed from Christ"? (Gal 5)
3. After entering into salvation and under grace can you "Fall from Grace"? (Gal 5)
4. After being united to Christ in the VINE of Christ - can you be "cut off", spiritual die, and then burn? (John 15:1-7)
5. After being joined to the body of Christ by faith - can you be removed for "unbelief" just like the unbelieving Jews? (Rom 11)
6. Once God has removed someone from the body of Christ - from union with Christ -- can he "restore them once again if they do not continue in UNBELIEF"? (Rom 11)

In otherwords IF go to texts that explicitly deal with these subjects and they teach an OSAS friendly view that "no such thing can possibly happen" THEN you have actual Bible support for OSAS.

Seems like a good exercise for the unbiased objective reader.

1 Cor 9 "I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the gospel to others I MYSELF should be disqualified" -

If one is open to the true ECF of the first century - then we would accept the teaching of these NT authors.

in Christ,

Bob
 

DeafPosttrib

New Member
I would like to add something to say. Baptists saying, our sins all are forgived at once by through Christ's blood by Calvary. In their words, they saying Christ already paid all our sins at once of all our past, present, and future. That mean, we have don't have to worry about our future sins that we are yet to commit it, because we are already automatically already saved at once.

But, Matthew chapter 18 did mentioned about forgive.

Notice Matt. 18:32-35 is a serious warning from Christ's words. Christ says to a person, "O thou wicked servant, I already forgived thee all that debt because thou desiredst(ask) me. But, Christ saying to a person, that person should be a compassion toward one each other same as God does, but have no pity on person, and a person saying to other, "Too bad, you owe me" shoe no compassion or mercy, makes master or King becomes angry to send person returns back to prison again till a person pay all debts first. Likewise, God shall do the same thing to you, if we do NOT forgive one each other. That means, what IF we won't forgive person who trepasses or sin against us, then God would NOT forgive us. This is speak of currently & future unforgiven sins.

I would like to tell you something about atonement of Calvary.

I do believe Christ's blood washed all our sins away at once 2000 years ago by BASE upon our confesses and repent of all our past, present and future sins.

Christ's blood meets our unconditional forgiveness sins of all our past sins when we believed and confessed our sins to Christ for salvation. But, Christ's blood have to be reply upon our conditional future forgiveness sins unless, IF we confess our sins to Christ.

Christ would NOT forgive our present and future sins, if we don't confess them to Christ according to 1 John 1:9.

Also, I want to tell you something on 1 John 2:1. Baptists saying that Christ is our 'advocate'. They meaning that, Christ is our defense or "attorney", because Christ already pay all our sins at once as Christ shall confess to God for us.

I think, two important things need to discuss with you. 1. Confess 2. Deny

I would like to show you in Matthew 10:32-33. "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father which is in heaven."

I understand what Christ means of 'confess' & 'deny' are talking about.

When you are facing people when they asking you, "Are you a Christian?" . Would you be brave enough to confess them that you are a truly Christian? This case is speaking of being face persecution.

For example- when Christ was arrested to face judgment before Pontius Pilate during in that night, disciples were scattered away from Christ. Peter was also fled hide somewhere in Jerusalem. When Peter was with small group outside. They asked Peter, does he was with Jesus? He deny them three times, when after he deny them three times, he saw Christ appeared with soldiers, and heard rooster crowed. He guilted and wept. But, Peter DID repented it after that.

Christ's point is, while we are living, when you are facing people or soldiers, or Police. They would ask you, "Are you Christian?" Are you brave enough to admit tell them yes I am Christian? Because, in your flesh feeling fear for being facing persecutions and torture, or beating to death.

If suppose, soldier comes to you now, he will ask you, "Are you a Christian?" In your flesh, feeling of being fear, refuse to admit it, so, intead to tell the lie to them, "No, I am not a Christian", that mean, you DENY Christ. Then, soldier will leave you alone and stay alive(flesh). But, at the end- Judgment Day, Christ will DENY you before angels and Father!!!

'Deny' is clearly mean, our names might be blot out from the book of life, and cast away into the lake of fire.

Same with Rev. 3:5. This verse tells us, if any person overcome them in life, Christ will not blot person's name away from the book of life, and will confess person's name before angels and Father at the Judgment Day.

OR..... if suppose a person fails to overcome them in lifetime at the end, then Christ would removed person's name away from the book of life, and Christ shall DENY person before angels and Father at the Judgment Day.

That's scary!

Now back to 1 John 2:1.

I think many baptists misintepreting or misunderstanding what 1 John 2:1 means.

'Advocare' could be mean like as our defense or "attorney", because Christ already paid all our sins through Calvary to proved that I am belong to Christ's.

Notice first part of 1 John 2:1 says, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye SIN NOT." This is clearly speak of warning. Bible commands us, that we do NOT sin. That mean, we cannot do practical or habitully sinning daily in our life.

SO, John continued explained the same verse- "And IF any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

I would like to discuss on the identify of 'man' & 'we'. Does 'man' always mean apply to believers only? No. Not always. This is speak of ANY individual either believer or nonbeliever of thewhole world(1 John 2:2). Also, do 'we' always means that it apply to us as believers only? Yes, partially, BUT, not just for believers only, also, to the WHOLE WORLD(1 John 2:2). To my understanding, "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" pictured as he is our JUDGE.

I want to show you of NIV Bible on 1 John 2:1, that I do not agree with it. It says, "...we have one who speaks to the Father in 'our DEFENSE-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."

This seems that, it supports of security salvation doctrine.

Remember that, NIV was just translated only less than 40 years ago. That was created by religions.

In the dictionary for word, 'advocate' means lawyer.

I think word 'advocate' in King James Version is probably not correct define word. Because, all translators of 1604 Hampton Council under King James, all were Anglicans, almost same Catholic religion.

I realize that Calvinism doctrine borrowed from St. Augustine, himself was catholic. Both Catholic and Anglican religion are almost same doctrine.

I feel that the word, 'advocate' of KJV is not properly. Because, it sounds like it is security salvation or 'Perservance of the Saints' doctrine because of atonement blood of Christ already "paid" all our sins at once proved that we are automatically already saved at once.

I believe it should saying, Christ is our "Judge".

But, I believe Matthew 10:32-33 explains more clear example of 'advocate' according 1 John 2:1. Even, also, Rev. 3:5 too.

Does, the word, 'advocate' always, always mean that Christ is OUR "defense"- the authority of our perservance or security of our salvation?

No. Not always.

Matt. 10:32-33 and Rev. 3:5 explain more clear with 1 John 2:1.

Right now, Christ is not yet confess for us before the angels and Father in the heaven. The Judgment Day is not yet occur. Because we are still in warfare while we are on the road (Matt. 7:13-14). While we are battling with world, Satan, and flesh, Christ is in the heaven, He is watching over us, what we are doing right now.

When we finally overcome them at our death. Then, Christ shall confess to angels and Father on us. Being "confess" is picture like as 'advocate' as defense. Confess is like as "to declare".

In 1 Cor. 3:13 says, "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire."

"Confess" of Matt. 10:32-33 & Rev. 3:5 is pictured as to make declare or reveal. When Christ sees our works in our lifetime, at our result or consequence, what we have done at our death, then He shall be determined to make "confess" or "deny" upon us before the angels and Father in heaven at the Judgment Day.

The point of 'advocate' of 1 John 2:1 should be better say, "Judge". Because, 1 John 2:2 says, Christ died not just for us(believers) only, but, also he died for ALL sinners of the world.

Again, I feel that the word, 'advocate' of KJV is not a better word, because, many saying it is a positive word and good news that Christ "already paid all our sins at once" to support unconditional security salvation doctrine as what baptists teaching.

Understand, I do NOT attack God's word. I love God's Word. What I am trying to telling you on translation and interpreting verse, what it means.

Before, we come to understand advocate in 1 John 2:1 of KJV, first, we look at first part of verse 1 says, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye SIN NOT." This is not a positive thing. This is a warning passage. So, the follow sentence says, "And IF any man sin", (SO, the result is), we hav an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." This mean that, if we sin, then, Christ shall judge us at the Judgment Day, because he died on the cross for our sins through his Blood.

Romans 6:1-2 warns us, we do not take advantage of God's grace while we sinning same time.

No, Christ WILL NOT forgive our future sins, IF we do not confess and stay pracitical sin life same time. Christ would deny us at the judgment day - Matt. 10:33.

True, Christ's atonement is no limited for our sins with forgivesness, but his atonement is conditional for to meet our confess and repent first.

I better stop now, because this post is already LONG. So, I better make another post. To be continue....

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
 

DeafPosttrib

New Member
Before we believe and receive Christ, our sins were remain unforgive, yet, Christ died on the cross for our sins. Christ forgived all our sins at once forever.

Once, we believed and confess to Christ to forgive our sins. Christ forgived ALL our sins of PAST only, not present, not even, future sins too. God forget our sins from west to east far away in the sea, remember them no more. It speak of our PAST sins.

Now, our responsible is to confess our sins to Christ daily long as He is faithful to forgive and cleanse all our sins - 1 John 1:9. That means, His blood is always wash our sins away faithful by base upon our confess first- 1 John 1:9.

1 John 1:7 tells us, IF we walk in the light, so, Christ's blood is continue cleaning all our sins faithfully. OR, if we do NOT walk in the light, then Christ's blood would NOT clean our currently sins.

Understand?

Christ's atonement is not always automatically "already paid off" all our present, present, and future sins at once for good(according as what baptists teaching).

BobRyan is right on Matthew chapter 18.

Some saying it is for Jews only. That is type of dispensationalism teaching.

Also, some saying this is "parable", mean it is not literal.

Christ used many parables in the four gospels are examples of apply our spiritual life, what Christ expecting us to do.

Parables are examples with types of pictures. But, these are truly apply our spiritual life, what Christ expecting us.

Yes, Matthew chapter 18 of 'forgive' is a parable.

Understand, Christ made point on this, that He wants us to understand what God would do with us, what IF we won't forgive their sins which against us. This is obivous always apply to us, not just for Jews only.

What I am trying to tell you of Matthew chapter 18 on 'forgive', because, every named of sin what we did commited, have to confess it to Christ, so, His blood would "forgive" our sins. BUT, IF we refuse to forgive person's sins which against us, THEN, Christ's blood will NOT forgive our currently sins and also future not yet commit sins too! Same thing as if we commit sins daily in our present life, if we stopped confess our sins(1 John 1:9), THEN Christ will NOT forgive our current & future sins unless till we confess him first.

What IF...... suppose, we stopped confess our sins to Christ throughout our lifetime, while we doing practical sin life, Christ will NOT forgive all our current and future sins. What happen to us afterward??? Christ will DENY us! Where we will go? Go to lake of fire.

That what Rev. 3:5 says.

Overcome have many means. For example, we must fight against sins, long as we continue to confess to Christ daily throughout our life till our death. Or, if we give up on temptations of sins, and falling away, then we will not be saved at the end - Matt. 10:22 & Matt. 24:13. Same thing as if we fail to overcome sins, then Christ would removed our names from the book of life, and He will DENY us before angels and Father instead of "confess" .

That's scary!

See? My point on Matthew chapter 18.

That why, I was no longer believe in unconditional security salvation doctrine. Because, I can see so many passages in Bible with warnings. All are conditionals. If we take heed of warnings, then, we can have eternal life at the end - Matt. 10:22 & Matt. 24:13.

Read Matt. 10:22; Matt. 24:13 is not hard. Why cannot you accept what Christ actial saying? Is this too hard for you to understand? You better listen Christ's words, so, you can have eternal life at the end. Or, if you don't listen His words, then you will not be saved at the end, that mean, we will go to lake of fire, if we fail to overcome them.

I hope that you understand what I am trying to saying to you on 1 John 2:1 of 'advocate' relate with Matthew chapter 18 of "forgive" issue.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: Let’s examine the logical inferences necessitated by your own stated beliefs concerning salvation.

My stated beliefs? Where have you stated them? You haven't! You have only assumed what you think you know of my beliefs which really ends up to be more like slander or false accusation. My suggestion is to first go and study and find out what Calvinism is really all about.
Then when you think you know what someone believes, you probably should quote them anyway. I see no quotes in your post quoting my beliefs, yet I told you plainly that I was not Calvinist. So is this slander, calling me a liar, or just plain ignorance, I know not what.
You clearly have stated that you believe that man is born totally morally depraved,
If I have clearly stated such, then quote me.
hence Total depravity.
I do not, repeat do not believe in the Calvinist view of Total Depravity. You will not get me to admit to their view of Total Depravity. Here is where your responsibility is to study what the Calvinist view of Total Depravity is, and furthermore quote me where I made such a statement. Hence, I should be upset about innuendo and "slander" if I can put it that way. I hope you get my point here.
Have you not stated that man has nothing to do with his salvation
Have I ever stated any such thing in any of my posts? Again, please quote me. Why do you assume that you know what I believe when you don't?
nor can he do anything to loose his salvation? If man has nothing to do with his salvation and can do nothing to loose it, the idea of Unconditional election cannot be logically avoided.
Since premise A is false, and premise B is true, then your conclusion remains false. You would do better to quote me, rather than assume that you know what I believe. When I tell you I am not a Calvinist why don't you just believe me instead of basically calling me a liar and trying to prove to me that I am not. I find this exercise in futility offensive.
1. Salvation is by faith, and faith alone. One must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Salvation is not by works. It is by faith. The only thing a person must "do" is have faith or "trust" Christ as His Savior.
2. A Christian cannot lose his salvation any more than eternal life cannot turn into temporary life. If it could then Christ is a liar. The same is true with the new birth. Once born into the family of God, one is always God's child. He does not disown His own. He cannot be unborn.
3. Christ did not die for one, two, three, 144,000 or xyz number of people called the "elect." He died for the world--all the people of the world throughout all the ages of the world. He paid the penalty for all. 4. Therefore, I do not, I repeat do not, believe in Unconditional Election. Don't attempt to tell me what I do and do not believe. This is very offensive. Why haven't you provided quotes.
Since man has nothing to do with his salvation, God has chosen those that will be saved and by necessity has chosen those to withhold the only means possible from the lost, hence Limited atonement is necessitated.
Why are you trying to force your theology down my throat and then tell me that this is what I believe. This, on your part is offensive and arrogant. It is not debate at all. It is calling someone a liar and then telling them "You don't believe what you said; you really believe this..."
I do not, repeat do not, believe in Limited Atonement. What you posted above I consider as false doctrine. God only chooses according to his foreknowledge. The choice is always up to the person. God does not force any person to receive or reject Christ. The choice is always theirs. They do have a choice. It is not foreordained. Omniscience is an attribute of God. Because God knows does not mean God forces the decision. There is still free will.
Since man cannot thwart the chosen hand of God acting upon the elect, nor can one do despite what God has foreordained,
Is this supposed to be what I believe or what you believe? I don't believe it. This is not the Cal/Am forum, and I have no desire to discuss the topic here. Are you deliberately trying to derail this thread?
God’s grace is necessitated as Irresistible
This is the most foolish point of Calvinism I have ever heard. People resist the grace of God all the time. God brought a flood upon the world because those wicked people kept on resisting the grace of God, BUT, Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord. Stephen rebuked Israel:
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
--There are dozens of Scriptures to prove this tenet as a false doctrine, a foolish doctrine. People resist the grace of God every day.
. Reasoning
Stop reasoning and start quoting me for my beliefs and quoting Calvin for his.
once again from the presupposition of God foreordaining those that would be saved,
Another false statement that I don't believe. More slander. Please provide the quote or don't "quote" me at all.
and the stated notion that man has nothing to do with his salvation, and can do nothing to loose it due to the fact it is nothing more than the predestined plan of God,
The statement is partly true and partly false leading me to believe that you are a very confused person.
one can only conclude as you do DHK in OSAS or as stated by the Calvinists, Perseverance of the saints.
Yes, I believe in OSAS or the eternal security of the believer. But do I believe exactly as the Calvinist does? I doubt it. Go and study what Calvin actually believed.
Does anyone smell a Tulip? Tell us again DHK that you are no Calvinist. Show us how you can logically deny any one of the points in Tulip when you openly state your adherence to original sin and OSAS.
I smell someone who likes slander. I smell someone who doesn't like to believe one when told the truth. I told you I am not a Calvinist. You went to all this trouble to try and convince me that I am what I said I wasn't. I find your entire post repulsive.
 
DHK: I do not, repeat do not believe in the Calvinist view of Total Depravity.

HP: First I am NOT trying to derail this thread in any way. This thread is about OSAS. Ones view of the state we are born into is key in the development and understanding of ones view of the security of the believer. OSAS is a notion that has its foundation firmly planted in Augustinian original sin. The issues are inseparably tied. This connection will be made exceedingly clear as we go along.

Original sin is total moral depravity from birth no matter how you slice it. To claim that one is totally morally depraved from birth is simply to state ones belief in Augustinian original sin. It is simply stating that the sin of Adam is passed on to his posterity by way of natural generation, and due to that malady all men are born sinners, born spiritually and morally depraved due to the nature they are born with. Original sin places sin in the natural physical makeup of man as opposed to the will of man where it rightfully belongs. Man in this fallen estate cannot repent or turn to God without God first enabling them with the necessary abilities according to the well undersood principles of original sin otherwise noted as total moral depravity and that from birth.

Tell us DHK, what part of what I have stated is either a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position or of your own? If you do not desire for those to misunderstand your position, now is the time to define for the list exactly how your position of original sin differs from the well known and established position of the Calvinist following the ideas introduced into the Church by Augustine and further propagated by Calvin commonly known as original sin or complete moral depravity from birth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
Tell us DHK, what part of what I have stated is either a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position or of your own? If you do not desire for those to misunderstand your position, now is the time to define for the list exactly how your position of original sin differs from the well known and established position of the Calvinist following the ideas introduced into the Church by Augustine and further propagated by Calvin commonly known as original sin or complete moral depravity from birth.
I believe you are derailing this thread.
I believe that man is morally depraved, but I do not believe in the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity. Stay on topic. It is your turn, as I suggested to hit the books and find out what Calvinism really teaches.
 

DHK: I believe that man is morally depraved, but I do not believe in the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity.

HP: How are you trying to clear up any disagreements when you avoid clear cut questions concerning your views, yet you lambaste me for failure to understand you. Why do you not simply explain the difference between what you seem to believe is the vast difference between your view of total depravity and the Calvinistic view?

It adds nothing useful for you to tell another what they need to study. That only serves some selfish interest in the matter, and does nothing to aide in this debate or to enlighten the listener as to the truth. You have no idea as to the years I have put into careful study of these issues. It may just be the case that one you belittle may have a far better understanding of these issues that you would desire for them to have. I hope that you will try and find new ways to get your points across without all the personal attacks. Again, they do nothing for the debate in the least, nor does it help to elucidate the listener as to your position.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: How are you trying to clear up any disagreements when you avoid clear cut questions concerning your views, yet you lambaste me for failure to understand you. Why do you not simply explain the difference between what you seem to believe is the vast difference between your view of total depravity and the Calvinistic view?

It adds nothing useful for you to tell another what they need to study. That only serves some selfish interest in the matter, and does nothing to aide in this debate or to enlighten the listener as to the truth. You have no idea as to the years I have put into careful study of these issues. It may just be the case that one you belittle may have a far better understanding of these issues that you would desire for them to have. I hope that you will try and find new ways to get your points across without all the personal attacks. Again, they do nothing for the debate in the least, nor does it help to elucidate the listener as to your position.
1. I told you plainly that I am not a Calvinist.
2. To be perfectly clear on the matter I don't believe in any of the points of Calvin, the way that the Calvinist defines them, not the way that you may think they are defined.
3. So please don't tell me what I believe, when I have plainly told you that I am not a Calvinist. This discussion is closed.

The topic is: Can one lose their salvation, NOT:
Is DHK a Calvinist?

If you want to know about Calvinism I leave you to your own studies, but that is not what this thread is about.
 
DHK: The topic is: Can one lose their salvation, NOT:
Is DHK a Calvinist?

HP: The whole idea of OSAS is a decidedly Calvinistic position. It is based upon Calvinistic notions, in particular, the dogma of original sin. If I was not desiring for another to label me as Calvinistic, I would be trying to distance myself from the very cornerstones of their theology.

I believe that it is beyond question that DHK has stated he believes in original sin as well as OSAS. He has refused my questions asking him to explain to us the distinction in what he sees as original sin and what the well known stated position of the Calvinist. Let the reader understand that I believe that by doing so it would expose the inconsistency of his stated ‘distinctions’ between Calvinism’s total depravity and his own views of original sin……. but I await his reasoned response to prove me wrong.

Yes the possibility exists that one can fail the grace of God having at one time having received the hope of eternal life by repentance, faith and obedience, yet turn their back on God and be lost in the end. The Apostle Paul was not tangled in the Augustinian web of original sin and as a result was exceeding clear that the possibility existed one could enter into a hope of eternal life and then perish. Paul strived for this not to be the case in his life and set forth that it does not have to be, nor should it be, the case. We would all do well to follow his example and heed his clarion warnings.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: The whole idea of OSAS is a decidedly Calvinistic position.
This is absurd. Both Christ and His Apostles existed far before Calvin. Calvin is totally irrelvant. My theology is not dependent upon him and I pity those who must depend upon him for what they believe.

OSAS or Eternal security is true because:
1. It is a promise of God.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2. If this gift of eternal life could stop or be lost at any time it would only be temporal and Christ would be found to be a liar. The Christ that I believe in is not a liar.

3. Christ promised that I would never perish.
John 10:27-28 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.

4. Accordingly, he promised that no man wold pluck them out of His hand.

5. He promised that no man would pluck them of His Father's hand.

6 After having said that, He declared His deity; in essence saying that he had all authority and what He said was true.

7. He promised me that I have already passed from death unto life.
John 5:24 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.
--Also the promise is there that I will not come into condemnation.
--I already have eternal life.

8. The Apostle Paul testifies:
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
--There is no condemnation; none whatsoever; absolutely none. Nothing can condemn me to Hell. My salvation is secure in Christ.

There are scores of other verses; perhaps hundreds. I do not rely on Calvin or any other man's theological system. Don't try to box me into one. I am not a Calvinist. I believe in sola scriptura, that is, that the Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. The above Scriptures demonstrate beyond any doubt that the believe has eternal life and that life can never be lost.

Furthermore when he is born again, he is born into God's family, and God will never disown His own. He cannot be "unborn." To say that one can lose their salvation is to display some ignorance of the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of the new birth, of being a child of God, the family of God, and even simple definitions such as "eternal" and "perish."
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: The whole idea of OSAS is a decidedly Calvinistic position. It is based upon Calvinistic notions, in particular, the dogma of original sin.


Not original sin - but "arbitrary selection" and irresistable grace - combined with limited atonement.

The mixture above argues unquestionably for OSAS.

If arbitrarily God selects you - then irresistably CAUSES you to accept salvation such that Christ specifically dies for you -- and not the rest of your family for the precise reason that He knows that ONLY you will be "selected" and saved -- then you as Calvinism points out " you have no free will".

And without free will - and with irresistable grace -- how could you ever be saved then lost?

Can't happen!

Calvinism is the perfect home for OSAS.

For Arminians to claim OSAS they would need to embrace gross contradiction in their own doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
BobRyan said:
Calvinism is the perfect home for OSAS.

For Arminians to claim OSAS they would need to embrace gross contradiction in their own doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob
Bob, Which is the correct color: blue or green? Please choose one. There is only one option. I want you to choose the correct one.

That is the manner of your argumentation, and it is ridiculous. I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an Arminian. There are other options when one follows the Bible. One does not have to boxed into a single man's system of theology. What makes you think that they do?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I am simply observing the fact that Calvinism provides the perfect logical foundation for OSAS - especially 4 and 5 point Calvinism.

For Arminians to embrace OSAS and free will - they have to be willing to do so by overlooking the fact that this results in a contradiction in their own doctrine.

In Christ,

Bob
 
DHK said:
Unfortunately almost all the ECF write in such an ambiguous manner that their writings can be taken either way. For example a good case for OSAS can be made from this quote of Justin Martyr:

OK. We've got Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr.

Any other ECF with an OSAS view?

Also, what is the reference for the Justin quote?

Thanks.

CA
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
CarpentersApprentice said:
OK. We've got Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr.

Any other ECF with an OSAS view?

Also, what is the reference for the Justin quote?

Thanks.

CA
I failed to copy the source down when I was perusing through some of their writings. It would take me a long time to find that exact quote again, so you will have to excuse me on that one.

I am not going to go through that fruitless exercise again, as I have said repeatedly I don't put much stock in the ECF. I don't value their writings too much. There is much contradiction and error in them.
I don't understand why you don't accept the inspired Word as God's Word, and that it should be all sufficient for you. These fallible men cannot really do much for your understanding of it.
 
DHK, have you ever posted your beliefs as to how the Calvinistic eternal security differs in your opinion from what you say you believe in, i.e., the security of the believer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top