Eternal Security the Acid test

[Michael Wrenn]

First of all we are still waiting for you to give us the post #'s where you claim to have provided any kind of exposition of John 6:39 supported with any kind of exegetical evidence!

You called me a liar when I denied you ever gave such a post, so either back up your charge or give an apology for that charge!

I said I'm tired of arguing with you, and I meant it. Go argue with yourself. I'm sure you'll find disagreement even with yourself.

 

[The Biblicist]

I said I'm tired of arguing with you, and I meant it. Go argue with yourself. I'm sure you'll find disagreement even with yourself.

So it is YOU that is the liar! If you were not lying you could produce ONE post to back up your claim that you have dealt with John 6:36-65 or any text therein with an exposition supported by exegetical evidence. You claim you did. You called me a liar because I said you didn't - so here is the PROOF you lied - you are unable to produce it!

Everyone who went back through your posts I listed knows you were lying while falsely charging with with lying that you offered no such posts. Is lying part of your "love" theology?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So it is YOU that is the liar! If you were not lying you could produce ONE post to back up your claim that you have dealt with John 6:36-65 or any text therein with an exposition supported by exegetical evidence. You claim you did. You called me a liar because I said you didn't - so here is the PROOF you lied - you are unable to produce it!

Everyone who went back through your posts I listed knows you were lying while falsely charging with with lying that you offered no such posts. Is lying part of your "love" theology?

No, it's part of your loveless theology. I think you are demon-possessed.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, it's part of your loveless theology. I think you are demon-possessed.

You have been proven to be the liar in regard to your claim that you have posted an exposition on John 6:39! Tell me, where do lies come from? Whose fruit is lying (Jn. 8:44-45)??? Who is really being led by demons here?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You have been proven to be the liar in regard to your claim that you have posted an exposition on John 6:39! Tell me, where do lies come from? Whose fruit is lying (Jn. 8:44-45)??? Who is really being led by demons here?

You are of the father of lies. Again, I warn you in the name of Jesus to watch what you say about me. There's a reckoning coming if you don't repent and cease.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are of the father of lies. Again, I warn you in the name of Jesus to watch what you say about me. There's a reckoning coming if you don't repent and cease.

What a joke! You have been caught red handed in openly lying on this thread about claiming to post you never posted and you call me the liar???? .... and you claim I need to repent???:sleeping_2::laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What a joke! You have been caught red handed in openly lying on this thread about claiming to post you never posted and you call me the liar???? .... and you claim I need to repent???:sleeping_2::laugh:

You know full well that I addressed the scripture that you used as a prooftext, pulling it apart and showing you in simple terms the true meaning of it. Since you can't accept that because it would topple your entire Calvinist house of cards, you resort to insults.

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when the reaper comes to collect. I'll sit back and watch.

 

[The Biblicist]

You know full well that I addressed the scripture that you used as a prooftext, pulling it apart and showing you in simple terms the true meaning of it. Since you can't accept that because it would topple your entire Calvinist house of cards, you resort to insults.

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when the reaper comes to collect. I'll sit back and watch.

You can prove me a liar by just either telling us the post # or reposting it! If you could do it you would have done it long ago! You have lied and now you are telling me to repent because I caught you in a lie???????:sleeping_2::laugh:

 

[plain_n_simple]

On one hand, eternal security says that God will never retract His promise of salvation, if I understand it right.
I've always thought it wasn't God's end of it failing, it would be man's turning away from Him.

On the other hand, if I don't believe in eternal security, His promise is still there, and it keeps me ever running the race to the end. Seems I might be more earnest picking up my cross daily in this view.

I'm still undecided because I've not given the argument much thought.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You can prove me a liar by just either telling us the post # or reposting it! If you could do it you would have done it long ago! You have lied and now you are telling me to repent because I caught you in a lie???????:sleeping_2::laugh:

One such post is post # 129:

"What should be quite embarassing for you is that you falsely deny that you are proof texting when everyone else here can see that you clearly are.

However, your proof text is easy to interpret. The ones God gives to the Son are those who freely accept Him and freely choose to remain true to Him till the end. The end or destiny of those who receive Him and then later turn away from and reject Him, is dealt with in such scriptures as Hebrews 6. John 6:40 further clarifies the proof text which you have so arrogantly used to beat us over the head with (v.39). So, of course Jesus will lose none of those He has been given -- and these consist of the ones who do not fall away.

Simple, isn't it? And so easy to have knocked down your entire false, exclusivist, fatalist, determinist, Calvinistic system which has done so much harm to the freedom-loving character of God.

I thank Him every day for endowing His sentient creation with freedom, a freedom which drives away the black cloud of Calvinism!"

There is still time for you to repent -- maybe, as I don't know God's timetable.

 

[DHK]

No, eternal security was not taught by the earliest churches. To be blunt -- you don't post lies. Maybe there was an isolated person -- or a couple of people here and there -- who believed it.

But I'm saying that it was not the teaching of the churches; what was believed and taught was free will and the possibility of apostasy of believers. This was the overwhelming consensus from the earliest churches until Calvin.

The evidence is there.

If it is there where is it? My only concern is that one make what I consider foolish statements when that I can't back them up. I can make the same dogmatic statement. Eternal security certainly was taught in the early churches. It has as much validity as your statement. Prove me wrong. You can't. Your argument is one of silence. That is a logical fallacy. Calvin never came up with the doctrine of eternal security.

It is well established in the Bible. It has been said by many a scholar that those who reject the doctrine of eternal security do not have a good grasp on soteriology which I believe to be true. Remember I am not speaking of TULIP, but simply what this thread is about: eternal security.

Do not challenge my ability to post the facts. I take it personally when people insult me, badger me, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I finally had to shut people up on the penal substitution thread by posting an article showing what the fathers said and believed in context.

But are you posting facts. To claim that this is a Calvinistic doctrine is not true. In order to make that claim you have to demonstrate it to be true. I don't believe you have done that. Don't say it is a fact until you can provide the evidence. It is not a Calvinistic doctrine; it is well established in Scripture believed by the early churches, and taught by the Apostles long before Calvin ever existed.

So now you put up or shut up: Show where eternal security was taught in the early church as the consensus doctrine, not just by an isolated believer.

I can show you from the Scriptures themselves. The issue is this: If I were to give you infallible proof that the doctrine of eternal security were true--irrefutable evidence, would you accept my evidence? Probably not. You are set in your ways and are not about to change your beliefs no matter what the evidence is. It seems that you are completely unteachable by the posts that you are making.

I stand by my statement: The doctrine of eternal security was virtually untaught until Calvin. It was not taught by the early churches, the fathers, the EOC, nor the RCC.

But I haven't seen any documentation to that fact. You only make that claim. Back it up.

If you ban me for what I just wrote, so be it. But I highly resent anyone telling me I'm posting lies; that is inappropriate, moderator or not, and I responded in kind. I try not to fall to that, but sometimes I'm weak and fail.

First, I don't ban people. I am a moderator. The administration bans people.
Second, you have done nothing wrong.
Third, I have only asked you to back up your statements. This is a debate forum. Don't be so sensitive. As I posted before by example, If I make the claim that the planet Pluto was made of green cheese, why should you believe me unless I could back up such a foolish claim. We give evidence for the things that we say.

 

[DaChaser1]

One such post is post # 129:

"What should be quite embarassing for you is that you falsely deny that you are proof texting when everyone else here can see that you clearly are.

However, your proof text is easy to interpret. The ones God gives to the Son are those who freely accept Him and freely choose to remain true to Him till the end. The end or destiny of those who receive Him and then later turn away from and reject Him, is dealt with in such scriptures as Hebrews 6. John 6:40 further clarifies the proof text which you have so arrogantly used to beat us over the head with (v.39). So, of course Jesus will lose none of those He has been given -- and these consist of the ones who do not fall away.

Simple, isn't it? And so easy to have knocked down your entire false, exclusivist, fatalist, determinist, Calvinistic system which has done so much harm to the freedom-loving character of God.

I thank Him every day for endowing His sentient creation with freedom, a freedom which drives away the black cloud of Calvinism!"

There is still time for you to repent -- maybe, as I don't know God's timetable.

When did he EVER link calvinism to concept of eternal security?

Wasn't that you?

 

[The Biblicist]

One such post is post # 129:

"What should be quite embarassing for you is that you falsely deny that you are proof texting when everyone else here can see that you clearly are.

However, your proof text is easy to interpret. The ones God gives to the Son are those who freely accept Him and freely choose to remain true to Him till the end. The end or destiny of those who receive Him and then later turn away from and reject Him, is dealt with in such scriptures as Hebrews 6. John 6:40 further clarifies the proof text which you have so arrogantly used to beat us over the head with (v.39). So, of course Jesus will lose none of those He has been given -- and these consist of the ones who do not fall away.

Simple, isn't it? And so easy to have knocked down your entire false, exclusivist, fatalist, determinist, Calvinistic system which has done so much harm to the freedom-loving character of God.

I thank Him every day for endowing His sentient creation with freedom, a freedom which drives away the black cloud of Calvinism!"

There is still time for you to repent -- maybe, as I don't know God's timetable.

I quoted the only part of this post where you even refer to the text and what I said, was that you made no exposition of the text supported by any exegetical evidence but merely rendered an opinion.

You claimed I had lied. I will let the readers judge for themselves if I lied.

Do you consider your comments above to be expository and exegetical in nature?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I will let you all have the last word. I am weary.

I can say that I have never encountered such hostility anywhere except by a Methodist turned Catholic on a Methodist forum years ago. I think he and some here would have gleefully burned me at the stake if we had lived in the 16th century.

Actually, regardless of what I have said in the heat of battle, I wish no one harm.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will let you all have the last word. I am weary.

I can say that I have never encountered such hostility anywhere except by a Methodist turned Catholic on a Methodist forum years ago. I think he and some here would have gleefully burned me at the stake if we had lived in the 16th century.

Actually, regardless of what I have said in the heat of battle, I wish no one harm.

Nobody wants to burn you at the stake. That is all it was the "heat of the battle" and nothing more!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Nobody wants to burn you at the stake. That is all it was the "heat of the battle" and nothing more!

Okay, I'll accept what you say at face value. Grace and peace to you.

 

[mandym]

First, I want to say that a person can be sure of their security in salvation. I am sure of my salvation, and it is a great thing to be sure. However, the Bible warns us about falling away and drawing back, if no one can lose their salvation, then there would be no warning. There are scriptures that tell us about those who lost their salvation.

1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

1Co_1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Moriah]

1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

1Co_1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you think that the two scriptures you quoted to me disprove what you quoted me as saying?
You quoted me saying: First, I want to say that a person can be sure of their security in salvation. I am sure of my salvation, and it is a great thing to be sure. However, the Bible warns us about falling away and drawing back, if no one can lose their salvation, then there would be no warning. There are scriptures that tell us about those who lost their salvation.

You quoted the scripture that tells us no one born of God makes a practice of sinning. This is true, but some people on this board say that they are Christians who often do what their flesh desires. In fact, these people on this board say also that if you do not admit to losing often the battle to do what the flesh desires, then you are a liar.

You also quote 1 Corinthians 1:8 that tells us Jesus will sustain us to the end.
You must acknowledge that we have a free will and can choose to sin or not.

As for you quoting these scriptures to me, how do you think that they relate to Peter telling us to make our calling and election sure so we do not fall away, if we cannot ever fall away?

2 Peter 1:10. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall,

If no one can ever lose their salvation, then who are the foolish that ran out of oil and their lamps went out?

Matthew 25:8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

If no one can ever lose their salvation, then why does Paul tell us people can fall from grace?

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4.

If no one can ever lose their salvation, then why does one have to pay more careful attention? Why are we warned not to drift away?

We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. Hebrews 2:1.

If no one can lose their salvation, then why does Jesus tell us he takes no pleasure in the one who draws back?

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Hebrews 10:38.

If no one can lose their salvation, then how can many become defiled?

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Hebrews 12:15.

If no one can lose their salvation, then why did Paul have to form Christ in the Galatians again?

My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, Galatians 4:19.

If people cannot lose their salvation, then why does God say He will judge His people?

Hebrews 10:30, 31 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[DHK]

If no one can ever lose their salvation, then why does Paul tell us people can fall from grace?

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

But notice that "ourselves" is not in the list.