Eternal Security

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Quote:
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.

Eric said
And all of this is an OT spillover from that thread.

1. I hardly think the Evolution -vs - Genesis Creation debate example given above is simply "the OT spillover" where the OT is wrong an Atheist Darwinism is right.

2. I also do not think that the objective approach shown there were atheist darwinists themselves are quoted as refusing to go to the wild extremes of some pro-darwinist christian posters here - can be bent to fit your spin above reducing it all to the "OT spillover" issue.

Eric

I tried to make a simple point about carnal "disputation", and you have to go and start debating on that, and hijack the thread.

I am not debating/refuting/rejecting the point that some here do turn away from calm objective review of points raised and instead turn toward a spin in favor of name-calling ad-hominem and pulpit-pounding labeling of entire denominations.

I agree some do resort to those tactics and they were wrong to do it.

Eric said

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?

Again you pretend not to see the SAME point being argued in all cases "not just when you and I debate".

As I show in the case of atheist darwinists and in the case of anti-Sabbath sources -- well known, respected sources can be found that promote those specific views and yet THEY do not go to the wild extremes posted in some cases on these threads.

I merely point that out - and I am not singling you out as the only person that gets caught in that light from those sources.

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

I do not use the term "sunday sacredness" when referring to D.L.Moody's quotes, Jamieson Fausset Brown quotes, Adam Clarke etc. I simply identify sources as being "pro-Sunday" and some as also being "Anti-Sabbath".

In any case - my intent here was not to single you out other than giving specific examples of this objective model where "the other side" is quoted in the form of well respected sources that do not go to wild extremes when interpreting some texts.

In the recent posts here I simply point out that we are giving objective readers a view between two views -- and they can easily see the gaps.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And now to return to the OP - post 164 on Page 17

. The "you" in Romans 11 is "individual".
2. The "Jews" that were cut off did not include Paul or Peter.
3. EACH one "stands only by their faith" that is an individual act.


Inidividual acts are the context and highlight for Romans 11 --


1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3“Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.”
4 But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.”


Paul seeks to save both Jew and Gentile - on an individual basis.

"God is able to graft them in Again".

11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be [/quote]! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!


Rom 11
13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, [b]I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. [/b]

So this chapter DOES deal with INDIVIDUAL salvation and can NOT be spun around to only speak to "national acceptance".