Eternal Security

[DeafPosttrib]

Bro. William,

I am not member of SDA. I am baptist. I read and understand what Bible teaching, and I believe it.

I am aware most of baptists believe in security salvation doctrine. I was one of them before. I thought independent fundamental baptist is the sound doctrines with truth, because the word, 'fundamental' means strong foundation, and firm. Even, many baptists claim, 'I am a Bible believer', because of many use KJV.

Yeears later, I found out there are many holes within baptist doctrine. There is many errors in them. I was so disappointed with them.

Whilst myself was securist, in year 2000, I study on Matthew chapter 24 and 25 on eschatology. I heard often that, several baptist pastors preach or teach on Matt. 24:14-30 about talents. I watched and listened baptist pastors taught on talent. Strange, none of them mentioned on Matt. 25:30.

Matt. 25:30 really bothered me the mostly whilst myself was securist. Because, verse 30 is very strong warning that, if any servant fails to obey Lord, or not use talent, shall be cast away into the outer darkeness. This is clearly speak of everlasting fire. So, this is not security salvation doctrine.

That why, I left security salvation camp, and rather follow what the Bible saying than what men saying according Colossians 2:8.

There is so much overwhelmed passages in the Bible on conditional with warnings. These are not unconditional salvation.

I know many baptists love to believe in security salvation doctrine as what baptist churches teaching.

Eternal Security is an itching ear(2 Tim. 4:3-4), because it gives comfortable and positive to people.

Unconditional security salvation doctrine is so popular among baptist churches in America today. Look at America's spiritual mortal is actual declining so rapidly, and revivals are fading away. Because it gives a cheap grace. And they enjoying their life while they still believe in security salvation, like as they believe they are already saved at once. Actual, many of them are not doing take up the cross and follow Christ. They enjoying their own life instead follow Christ. That is fact. Sad.

We must stick with God's Word, what it saying than what men saying.

By the way,

Romans chapter 11 speaks of any individuals, not physical nation. Church doesn't replaced Israel. Israel is already expanded because of Calvary. This passage tells us, we should fear God, lest us to be cut off, to be abiding in Christ faithfully. Also, in Matt. 10:28 tells us, we must fear God, not men, because He have power to kill both our body and soul. That means, he have the power to cast us away to hell, if we do not endure for Christ. That why we must be endure for Christ to the end of our life - Matt. 10:22; & 24:13. Or, we would be cut off and cast away into fire. Very serious, we ought to obey God's Word.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Bro. Williams]

HP: Are you a child of Abraham BW? If not, why not, and if you are, what does that mean to you to be one?

I am not SDA, but why should that matter in a debate forum of ‘different denominations’ to continue dialogue with others of a different denomination than one belongs to? You sound like one without sound reasons or logic to debate one with an opposing view. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, other than it would be far more in keeping with the spirit of love to just admit that rather than to cut off a debate on the grounds of the others denominational preference. If BR is wrong, why not simply speak the truth in love so that others might be edified by your superior knowledge and or understanding of the issues? I for one am listening to this debate. Enlighten us to the error of BR’s conclusions on this matter.

Are you a child of Abraham? What does that mean to you?

As stated, my friend is SDA and I find them to be as well versed in their doctrine as those in my camp are in their doctrine. My friend, nor myself, have ever moved one inch in either direction and I do not see such happening with myself or Bob Ryan.

As well, debate is somewhat a pleasure of my flesh, to this, at the moment, I am realizing and desiring to stand away from, at least for the time. As noticeable in other posts I have not been replying as much, as heated, and as much in the spirit of debate in the last few days. This may be only a season for me, but for the time I wish not to debate in an issue where no ground is gained or lost on either side.

Furthermore, I cannot help but consider Titus 3 and verse 10, and as BR is thus to me, I am likely thus to BR.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Deleted post.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Bro. William,

I am not member of SDA. I am baptist. I read and understand what Bible teaching, and I believe it.

I am aware most of baptists believe in security salvation doctrine. I was one of them before. I thought independent fundamental baptist is the sound doctrines with truth, because the word, 'fundamental' means strong foundation, and firm. Even, many baptists claim, 'I am a Bible believer', because of many use KJV.

Yeears later, I found out there are many holes within baptist doctrine. There is many errors in them. I was so disappointed with them.

Whilst myself was securist, in year 2000, I study on Matthew chapter 24 and 25 on eschatology. I heard often that, several baptist pastors preach or teach on Matt. 24:14-30 about talents. I watched and listened baptist pastors taught on talent. Strange, none of them mentioned on Matt. 25:30.

Matt. 25:30 really bothered me the mostly whilst myself was securist. Because, verse 30 is very strong warning that, if any servant fails to obey Lord, or not use talent, shall be cast away into the outer darkeness. This is clearly speak of everlasting fire. So, this is not security salvation doctrine.

That why, I left security salvation camp, and rather follow what the Bible saying than what men saying according Colossians 2:8.

There is so much overwhelmed passages in the Bible on conditional with warnings. These are not unconditional salvation.

I know many baptists love to believe in security salvation doctrine as what baptist churches teaching.

Eternal Security is an itching ear(2 Tim. 4:3-4), because it gives comfortable and positive to people.

Unconditional security salvation doctrine is so popular among baptist churches in America today. Look at America's spiritual mortal is actual declining so rapidly, and revivals are fading away. Because it gives a cheap grace. And they enjoying their life while they still believe in security salvation, like as they believe they are already saved at once. Actual, many of them are not doing take up the cross and follow Christ. They enjoying their own life instead follow Christ. That is fact. Sad.

We must stick with God's Word, what it saying than what men saying.

By the way,

Romans chapter 11 speaks of any individuals, not physical nation. Church doesn't replaced Israel. Israel is already expanded because of Calvary. This passage tells us, we should fear God, lest us to be cut off, to be abiding in Christ faithfully. Also, in Matt. 10:28 tells us, we must fear God, not men, because He have power to kill both our body and soul. That means, he have the power to cast us away to hell, if we do not endure for Christ. That why we must be endure for Christ to the end of our life - Matt. 10:22; & 24:13. Or, we would be cut off and cast away into fire. Very serious, we ought to obey God's Word.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

okay. I am taking a break from debating, please excuse me.

 

[Eric B]

Unconditional security salvation doctrine is so popular among baptist churches in America today. Look at America's spiritual mortal is actual declining so rapidly, and revivals are fading away. Because it gives a cheap grace. And they enjoying their life while they still believe in security salvation, like as they believe they are already saved at once. Actual, many of them are not doing take up the cross and follow Christ. They enjoying their own life instead follow Christ. That is fact. Sad.

You must also look at the other side of it, even from those so-called "revivals" where everyone clenched their seats in utter fear. This motivates people to frantically try to do good enough works to be or "prove" that they were saved, but that tends to diminish simple trust in Christ. So you have a bunch of people working hard to be righteous, but they have actually bypassed "the door" of new-birth salvation at the Cross, asfter all, it is all about good works and morality. Thus they LOOK all "righteous" and Christian, and society looked Christian. But the phoniness of this comes out, first by them being SO strict and rigid, and adding a whole bunch of rules, that go beyond the Bible. Again, it looked so "righteous", and we look back on those times as some golden age of rigteousness. But there still is a lot of sin, some hidden, and some outward, and not even acknowledged as sin. There is minimal conviction of the Spirit, because after all, it is all about the written or spoken "rules". So there is a lot of abuse in relations, and then people begin looking at this and questioning it.
The whole paradigm cracks, and then begins to fall. Some just throw off the whole veneer of "Christianity" as phony, and become secular hedonists. Others instead learn the lesson all over again seen in the NT, looking back at the OT, where the works of the letter of the Law could not save, which was illustrated in living color by the wickedness of the "pious Israelites" whose zeal for the Law led them to kill Christ and continue to oppose the Gospel. They then realize our utter sinfulness, and inability to save ourselves by our own works, and by extension believe that we are kept saved by Christ and not our works as well. Some then use this as license to sin, and of course, those favoring the old ways point and say "See! Look what your doctrine has done; now everyone is freely sinning because they believe they will still be saved". But the downfall had begun already, because the earlier method of keeping people strapped in line by fear did not really make people "good" to begin with. It only suppressed their sin. It did not truly regenerate. It was just a pragmatic attempt to maintain control in society, which turned not to be built on the solid foundation of the Gospel.

As well, debate is somewhat a pleasure of my flesh, to this, at the moment, I am realizing and desiring to stand away from, at least for the time. As noticeable in other posts I have not been replying as much, as heated, and as much in the spirit of debate in the last few days. This may be only a season for me, but for the time I wish not to debate in an issue where no ground is gained or lost on either side.

I can attest to that as well. Only I don't just leave (though sometomes I wish I could), so I'm trying to let the latest debates I'm in die down (But as you see, with Bob, it is hard to, because for one thing, the stuff he says cannot go unanswered). I already had taken a break from Feb to April, but was lured back by the gun debate after the VA Tech shooting. and them of course, the old sabbath debate started up again.

It truly is pleasing to the flesh, especially when you see that it is fruitless on both sides, as you point out. Everyone will believe what they want, and not only that, but stop at nothing to twist and even rewrite the scriptures any which way possible, all the while accusing you of twisting them. So it becomes impossible for anyone to agree, or decipher any kind of "truth", and to the watching world, it all the more proves that there is no discernable "truth", and that all is relative, yet everyone is just right in their own eyes, as a boost of their own ego. This has been discouraging to my own faith in recent years.

Issues like both this and the sabbath, and some of the fundie issues like KJV, music, etc., one side wants to step up and claim everyone else is "disobedient", or "taking the easy way" or something like that, and also blame the "downfall" of society and all of the sin this, even. And it must feel so good to the ego to do that. Even though they are trying to emulate legitimate biblical prophets, apostles, Christ, etc., they are raising issues that are not perefectly clear, and using them to denounce others, and they fail to realize this is only feeding their own flesh. Everyone wants to the the prophet; noone wants to be the penitent. It is the "strifes and dissensions" warned about in the NT, and attributed to condemned false teachers. We are told to avoid those, but then again, we also must be able to defend our positions biblically, so you can't ignore the false teacher dissenters but so much. That is why we get locked into these debates, but we have to beware of feeding our own flesh as well.

 

[BobRyan]

All -

You are missing the point if you think that "converting the one who posts the opposing view" is the limit/purpose/focus of this board. That almost NEVER happens no matter who opposes me (Catholic, JW, Calvinist etc).

The purpose is to provide a clear non-passionate objective review of the topic where both sides get down to the heart of the the salient points that sustain that particular POV.

Then let the unbiased objective reader WHO DOES NOT "already agree with you" decide for themselves based on what SCRIPTURE says.

So often in these debates against my POV someone digs in their heels and pretends that the ONLY goal is to close their eyes and ears - deny all and say "you can't convince me you can't convince me".

I have no problem with that at all - because I think that when they do that it is GLARINGLY obvious to the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

...

So often in these debates against my POV someone digs in their heels and pretends that the ONLY goal is to close their eyes and ears - deny all and say "you can't convince me you can't convince me".

I have no problem with that at all - because I think that when they do that it is GLARINGLY obvious to the unbiased objective reader....

Actually, BobRyan, it is often because some people recognize when an argument is not worth staying in.

The cause is sometimes due to multiple things, including but not limited to:
1) Realizing that the other person is listening only selectively if at all;
2) The argument involves conduct unworthy of Christ's followers or is heading that direction;
3) Realizing that the other person is not going to be convinced by your reasons;
4) Realizing that with limited time and energy that we all have, these resources are better spent on other endeavors than an argument going nowhere.

 

[Eric B]

Claiming that the purpose of engaging in these debates to influence the "objective reader" is still doing nothing but feeding our own egos. We cannot read other people's minds to tell if they are objective or not, or which way they will take the points discussed.
So what we are doing is imagine "well, since I'm so right, everyone will see it, even if I can't convince the other side", and this is feeding our ego, as for all you know, "objective readers" just might not be agreeing with you. But it' sure nice to think they are, and have no way to prove or disprove it.

If I want to convince "readers", that's what I put up my own web pages for.

 

[hillclimber1]

Actually, BobRyan, it is often because some people recognize when an argument is not worth staying in.

The cause is sometimes due to multiple things, including but not limited to:
1) Realizing that the other person is listening only selectively if at all;
2) The argument involves conduct unworthy of Christ's followers or is heading that direction;
3) Realizing that the other person is not going to be convinced by your reasons;
4) Realizing that with limited time and energy that we all have, these resources are better spent on other endeavors than an argument going nowhere.

A hearty AMEN.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

EB: Claiming that the purpose of engaging in these debates to influence the "objective reader" is still doing nothing but feeding our own egos.

HP: Possibly it is time to initiate another loaded poll. The question could be: Which motivates you most to post? 1. Feeding your own ego? 2. Love for the truth?

Can I guess what the response might be?:laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

Claiming that the purpose of engaging in these debates to influence the "objective reader" is still doing nothing but feeding our own egos.

The unbiased objective reader can not be affected by arguments of the form "I am right because I don't like reading the points you keep bringing up".

The unbiased objective reader does not start out by saying "I believe what Eric says no matter what the evidence against his POV".

IF it is true as you say that my points are easily refuted by the objective reader - then so much the better for your POV sir. Why complain that I admit to the presence and objectivity of the unbiased reader?

Why do you feel threatened by admitting to this fact?

We cannot read other people's minds to tell if they are objective or not, or which way they will take the points discussed.

Rabbit trail. The point is not "mind reading" the point is that when someone "ducks out of the discussion" by post after post of the form "I am right because I don't pay attention to the objective points you are posting" they are fully exposing the flaw in their position to the unbiased objective reader.

If you want to pretend that I am the one that resorts to such tactics - then that would be "so much the better for your POV" -- why would you cmplain that I point out this objective variable??

What do you have to fear?

So what we are doing is imagine "well, since I'm so right, everyone will see it, even if I can't convince the other side", and this is feeding our ego, as for all you know, "objective readers" just might not be agreeing with you. But it' sure nice to think they are, and have no way to prove or disprove it.

Again - if what you have imagined was in fact reality - then so much the better for your POV when comparing it to mine -- why do you complain??

I am more than happy to take those "debate ender" responses that people give of the form "I am right because I don't like talking to you" or "I am right because no matter how objective your methods I don't have to match them" -- and leave it to the unbiased objective reader to sort out.

The DIFFERENCE between THIS form of debate and exchange and "two people sitting in a room talking" is "the unbiased objective reader". You can not reach a "good result" by simply shaking your head and repeating - "you can't make me.. you can't make me listen". Works great 1-on-1 but not in a "reviewers" context.

If I want to convince "readers", that's what I put up my own web pages for.

wishful thinking?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Possibly it is time to initiate another loaded poll. The question could be: Which motivates you most to post? 1. Feeding your own ego? 2. Love for the truth?

Can I guess what the response might be?:laugh:

Let me "guess".

Everyone will say about themselves "love of the truth" And everyone will tend to say about those who most directly refute their POV "feeding ego"!!:laugh:

Often the more "difficult" the challenge to one's POV - the more bluster, pulpit-pounding, ad hominem or "circling to ignore points raised" you get.

But why should Christians resort to such tactics?

Who do they think they are convincing by such tactics?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Let me "guess".

Everyone will say about themselves "love of the truth" And everyone will tend to say about those who most directly refute their POV "feeding ego"!!

Often the more "difficult" the challenge to one's POV - the more bluster, pulpit-pounding, ad hominem or "circling to ignore points raised" you get.

But why should Christians resort to such tactics?

Who do they think they are convincing by such tactics?

HP: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood”

 

[Eric B]

The unbiased objective reader can not be affected by arguments of the form "I am right because I don't like reading the points you keep bringing up".

The unbiased objective reader does not start out by saying "I believe what Eric says no matter what the evidence against his POV".

IF it is true as you say that my points are easily refuted by the objective reader - then so much the better for your POV sir. Why complain that I admit to the presence and objectivity of the unbiased reader?

Why do you feel threatened by admitting to this fact?

Because it becomes a waste of valuable, God-given time. All you do is assert your views and claim I'm not answering them, or whatever, when I spend so much time addressing everything you say.
We just go around in circles with this stuff, and are not convincing each other or anyone else of anything. The point of ths forum is to discuss things with each other, not "to let 'objective readers' see how I am right".That is just feeding the ego. So yes, if I'm right it's all the better for my POV, but then after awhile, it's no longer worth it. How many times do the readers need to see the same POV's over an over? Unless, you're really doing it for yourself, and not them!

Rabbit trail. The point is not "mind reading" the point is that when someone "ducks out of the discussion" by post after post of the form "I am right because I don't pay attention to the objective points you are posting" they are fully exposing the flaw in their position to the unbiased objective reader.

That's all in your mind. This is just what I mean. all you do is judge the other side's motives such as accusing them of not paying attention to objective points, etc. just presuming that your POV is "obvious" truth that all can see. It gets tiring after awhile.

If you want to pretend that I am the one that resorts to such tactics - then that would be "so much the better for your POV" -- why would you cmplain that I point out this objective variable??

What do you have to fear?

A waste of time and energy. And just unfruitful feeding of our egos.

Again - if what you have imagined was in fact reality - then so much the better for your POV when comparing it to mine -- why do you complain??

I am more than happy to take those "debate ender" responses that people give of the form "I am right because I don't like talking to you" or "I am right because no matter how objective your methods I don't have to match them" -- and leave it to the unbiased objective reader to sort out.

When all you do is accuse the other side of those things, because YOU aren't satisfied with the responses, that's why it gets tiring and becomes a waste of time.

The DIFFERENCE between THIS form of debate and exchange and "two people sitting in a room talking" is "the unbiased objective reader". You can not reach a "good result" by simply shaking your head and repeating - "you can't make me.. you can't make me listen". Works great 1-on-1 but not in a "reviewers" context.

And where are all of these "objective readers" who so clearly see the truth in your POV, and how I'm "failing so miserably" as you always put it? They're all in your imagination! nobody comes and agrees that you're right on the sabbath issue, except other SDA's and other sabbatarians in the past, and sometimes GE, and even he disputes you on many things. Your posts only look good in your own eyes. That is a waste of everyone else's time.

wishful thinking?

Why? That's better than spamming someone elses' bandwidth with this nonsense.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
The unbiased objective reader can not be affected by arguments of the form "I am right because I don't like reading the points you keep bringing up".

The unbiased objective reader does not start out by saying "I believe what Eric says no matter what the evidence against his POV".

IF it is true as you say that my points are easily refuted by the objective reader - then so much the better for your POV sir. Why complain that I admit to the presence and objectivity of the unbiased reader?

Why do you feel threatened by admitting to this fact?

Eric
Because it becomes a waste of valuable, God-given time. All you do is assert your views and claim I'm not answering them, or whatever, when I spend so much time addressing everything you say.

#1. I do agree that you spend a lot of time addressing the posts - the points raised.

#2. I still don't see why you would object to the fact that I claim the objective reader can see the gaps between our two views. Surely you would argue "They see the gaps and they will select in favor of Eric" and obviously I think they will select in favor of what I have posted given the objective model that I use.

But our "wishing" it does not make the unbiased objective reader who does NOT start out saying "I believe what Eric said no matter how difficult the challenge of texts against his views" -- that person will be free to weigh the evidence and SEE the objective methods either used or avoided.

If as you say - your responses are thorough objective and to the point -- and mine are not -- the reader will see it and will be glad to have your careful studied responses to hard questions. Why treat this like it is a bad thing Eric??

It is what it is.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Quote:
Again - if what you have imagined was in fact reality - then so much the better for your POV when comparing it to mine -- why do you complain??

I am more than happy to take those "debate ender" responses that people give of the form "I am right because I don't like talking to you" or "I am right because no matter how objective your methods I don't have to match them" -- and leave it to the unbiased objective reader to sort out.

In THAT case I am referencing examples where I show top-shelf objectivity by showing that EVEN in the camp of those who differ with my views are well respected sources that will not go to the wild extremes of the one posting against my views on this board.

I do this with atheist darwinists -- well respected authors and scientists who ADMIT to a few of the basic flaws in their argument at times -- yet we have diehard supporters of that atheist view of origins who post as Christians here and yet go to even MORE WILD extremes than the ATHEIST darwinists I quote. I SHOW objectivity by going to the sources of the OTHER side and showing that even THEY can not bring themselves to the wild extremes of those who oppose my views here.

I do the same thing with my position on Romans 14 and the Ten Commandments. And Eric opposes that objective method in the case of Romans 14.

Eric
When all you do is accuse the other side of those things, because YOU aren't satisfied with the responses, that's why it gets tiring and becomes a waste of time.

That is a great example of dodging the point you are supposed to be responding to - EVEN those authors that are on YOUR side are SHOWN to avoid the error of going to your extremes and you spin this as "my fault"???

Be that as it may -- that is why I point out the fact that there are objective readers who will not go to those wild extremes with you.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
The DIFFERENCE between THIS form of debate and exchange and "two people sitting in a room talking" is "the unbiased objective reader". You can not reach a "good result" by simply shaking your head and repeating - "you can't make me.. you can't make me listen". Works great 1-on-1 but not in a "reviewers" context.

Eric
And where are all of these "objective readers" who so clearly see the truth in your POV, and how I'm "failing so miserably" as you always put it? They're all in your imagination!

If the silent objective readers don't exist (as you seem to hope) then so much the better for your form of argument that simply presumes "digging in your heels" is the only answer needed.

If you are correct - then my point yields no benefit for my appeal to objectivity - you should be extatic.

Eric
nobody comes and agrees that you're right on the sabbath issue, except other SDA's and other sabbatarians

This is a good example of why your arguments fail from time to time. In the case above you whine that nobody here is posting with me in favor of the Christ's SAbbath Mark 2:28 EXCEPT those people who are in favor of the Sabbath (Sabbatarians as you call them).

Kind of circular Eric!

But more to the point - the group that views these posts as objective unbiased readers - do not post often if ever.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

I still don't see why you would object to the fact that I claim the objective reader can see the gaps between our two views. Surely you would argue "They see the gaps and they will select in favor of Eric" and obviously I think they will select in favor of what I have posted given the objective model that I use.

That was precisely my point. What was accomplished there? You think you've been proven right, and I think I've been proven right. That is stroking the ego, not constructuve, not fruitful, and a waste of time after a while. But you're getting a big kick out of it!

But our "wishing" it does not make the unbiased objective reader who does NOT start out saying "I believe what Eric said no matter how difficult the challenge of texts against his views" -- that person will be free to weigh the evidence and SEE the objective methods either used or avoided.

If as you say - your responses are thorough objective and to the point -- and mine are not -- the reader will see it and will be glad to have your careful studied responses to hard questions. Why treat this like it is a bad thing Eric??

Because it's tiring and wasting of time and energy for a working person. If I was retuired, then yes, I could do it all day.

In THAT case I am referencing examples where I show top-shelf objectivity by showing that EVEN in the camp of those who differ with my views are well respected sources that will not go to the wild extremes of the one posting against my views on this board.

I do this with atheist darwinists -- well respected authors and scientists who ADMIT to a few of the basic flaws in their argument at times -- yet we have diehard supporters of that atheist view of origins who post as Christians here and yet go to even MORE WILD extremes than the ATHEIST darwinists I quote. I SHOW objectivity by going to the sources of the OTHER side and showing that even THEY can not bring themselves to the wild extremes of those who oppose my views here.

I do the same thing with my position on Romans 14 and the Ten Commandments. And Eric opposes that objective method in the case of Romans 14.

That is a great example of dodging the point you are supposed to be responding to - EVEN those authors that are on YOUR side are SHOWN to avoid the error of going to your extremes and you spin this as "my fault"???

Be that as it may -- that is why I point out the fact that there are objective readers who will not go to those wild extremes with you.

And all of this is an OT spillover from that thread. I tried to make a simple point about carnal "disputation", and you have to go and start debating on that, and hijack the thread. All you're doing is justifying yourself, over here, and over on the other thread. Who has time for your own personal ego-stroking?

And then, in that debate, you put these commentators YOU site on MY side, to prove my own view is too bizarre even for "my side". When did I ever say they were on my side? You made that up! I said I did not agree with them. I don't even believe in Sunday sacredness (which is what is supposed to place them on "my side"), so I have nothing at all to do with those commentators, yet you go and twist everything like that into a straw man. I have told you in every debae that this straw man tactic of yours is what makes it so tiring to debate with you. You can't ever argue against what someone actually SAYS; you have to interpret it, and twist it, to make it easy for you to knock down.

If the silent objective readers don't exist (as you seem to hope) then so much the better for your form of argument that simply presumes "digging in your heels" is the only answer needed.

If you are correct - then my point yields no benefit for my appeal to objectivity - you should be extatic.

Well, there is more to life then "proving your point". But you act as if that's what life is all about. It's not going to make me ecstatic when I'm getting to be late, waking up tired, trying to squeeze this stuff in every break I get. It's just not fruitful when you are going to debate the way you do.

This is a good example of why your arguments fail from time to time. In the case above you whine that nobody here is posting with me in favor of the Christ's SAbbath Mark 2:28 EXCEPT those people who are in favor of the Sabbath (Sabbatarians as you call them).

Kind of circular Eric!

But more to the point - the group that views these posts as objective unbiased readers - do not post often if ever.

And this is just what I figured. What it comes down to, is that the only "objective readers" are sabbatarians who don't post here, right? I was thinking of starting a poll on the Romans 14 debate and others, and seeing if everyone here agrees with your interpretation of that passage, and if they didn't, what would be your only recourse? Nobody posting here is objective!

So basically, what you're doing is tickling the ears of readers who agree with you. You probably go to other boards or email friends and say "come, look at the discussion I'm having on the Baptistboard, and how unobjective those dirty sabbathbreakers [or Sunday worshippers, OSAS heretics, etc] and their "failed arguments" are, and they all say "amen". Again, that is all ego stroking and the true "tickling of the ears", and precisely my point. You even go and highlight another one of your debates with the evolutionists, getting further and further OT. It becaomes more clear now that it's all just a great big ego trip! We're not here to entertain your fans. That's a waste of valuable time and energy!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
I still don't see why you would object to the fact that I claim the objective reader can see the gaps between our two views. Surely you would argue "They see the gaps and they will select in favor of Eric" and obviously I think they will select in favor of what I have posted given the objective model that I use.

Eric

That was precisely my point. What was accomplished there? You think you've been proven right, and I think I've been proven right. That is stroking the ego,

You seem to be stuck in "game mode" -- you are missing the point entirely.

I am simply pointing out that the gap between your approach and mine IS apparent to the unbiased objective reader. I claim this is true "in general" in all cases on this board - not just between you and me.

You continually try to dial this down to a question of "win-lose" between you and I. I keep pointing out that this is a general fact true in all cases no matter who is debating. To the extent that each side is able to state its case and respond to the hard questions -- the unbiased objective reader will see it.

Simply ducking with "well you are not right because I say you are not right" or "because I always say I am right" is not going to convince any unbiased objective reader. And it does not matter WHO the proponants are on each side.

Why do you object soooo strongly to this glaringly obvious fact?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But our "wishing" it does not make the unbiased objective reader who does NOT start out saying "I believe what Eric said no matter how difficult the challenge of texts against his views" -- that person will be free to weigh the evidence and SEE the objective methods either used or avoided.

If as you say - your responses are thorough objective and to the point -- and mine are not -- the reader will see it and will be glad to have your careful studied responses to hard questions. Why treat this like it is a bad thing Eric??

Eric
Because it's tiring and wasting of time and energy for a working person. If I was retuired, then yes, I could do it all day.

I do not ask that anyone do this "all day" -- on this thread we see the many texts given in favor of the Bible position on perseverance and the warnings against falling from grace - and being "severed from Christ" Gal 5.

We also see those who try to debunk those texts as quoted here. One may come to this thread with some bias clinging to one of those positions "no matter what"-- I see you as being just one of those people.

But there are others who read this and have not already fully bought in to your particular POV. They will judge to see if the texts given here have really been refuted or not.

In the recent posts where the complaint is given that "the various sides do not change" -- they are missing the "silent group" of unbiased objective readers who see the gaps and then "decide for themselves".

In Christ,

Bob