If you are not Reformed, you cannot believe in eternal security

[TCassidy]

This is deceitful, you are claiming I said I am better than someone because I believed and they didn't.

Please. Stop trying to avoid the issue by playing the victim. Note the sentence I wrote ends with a question mark (?). It was a question. You can either answer it by outlining what was better about you, or you can say nothing was better about you. But playing the victim card is not an option.

This is the intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about.

Please. No victim card.

Why did he not draw my neighbor?

The good pleasure of His will. Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

T.C:

Your question is wrong-headed, but not exactly because it's a red-herring.
It's wrong because it assumes the truth of precisely what Jon denies:

Namely, that any set of factors act as sufficient guarantors for decision-making.

Jon (and anyone who believes in LFW) denies that decisions are always necessitated by pre-existing conditions.

You are right, he "can't" answer it...because whether or not it even makes sense to ask "why"...is precisely the point at issue.

Of course the question makes sense to you, because you believe that decisions are necessitated by pre-existing conditions.....Jon denies that.

He isn't wrong, nor is his view threatened, nor is his Soteriology at peril because he has absolutely no idea "why" his neighbor chose differently. It would only be a problem if YOU couldn't answer it.

You are effectively asking a non-determinist what determined a decision.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If you don't want to accept it coming from me...
J.C. Thibodaux articulates the problem very well:

The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #1: “If we have libertarian free will, what makes us choose one way or the other?”

In short you are question-begging.

 

[Rob_BW]

Has ANYONE actually read what was wrote? I never said you DON'T BELIEVE, I said YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR THIS SECURITY. Arminians believe THEY KEEP THEMSELVES, OR THEY FALL AWAY, SO THEREFORE SINCE ITS UP TO YOU, YOU CAN LEAVE, WALK AWAY FROM THE FAITH, AND now have no assurance. So YES, you can believe it all you want, but you have no basis for it.

Only Reformed, where the bible is clear that it is GOD WHO KEEPS US, can have security.

You do not get to divide Christendom into Reformed and Arminians. When someone espouses a view outside of your false dichotomy, "But Arminians think this..." is not a rebuttal.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Where in my post did I say anything about what I believe? I didn't. I place all my security in what God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit have done and continue to do.

Has ANYONE actually read what was wrote? I never said you DON'T BELIEVE, I said YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR THIS SECURITY. Arminians believe THEY KEEP THEMSELVES, OR THEY FALL AWAY, SO THEREFORE SINCE ITS UP TO YOU, YOU CAN LEAVE, WALK AWAY FROM THE FAITH, AND now have no assurance. So YES, you can believe it all you want, but you have no basis for it.

Only Reformed, where the bible is clear that it is GOD WHO KEEPS US, can have security.

 

[kyredneck]

If someone says they don't not believe in either camp they know not of which they speak.

mugwumps....adherents to mugwumpism

...can't decide even in these simpler terms:

What Side Of The Fence Are You?

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

 

[kyredneck]

As for the bit about my appearance, you will need to explain that one. Perhaps you are making another rash assumption.

Whatever the "bit", you've asked for it by choosing such an avatar.

 

[kyredneck]

I vote to let him stay

Lol, yea, he has to stay, too entertaining, and actually seems to pretty much know his stuff....

 

[Rolfe]

Whatever the "bit", you've asked for it by choosing such an avatar.

This is not directed at you, but I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks that my avatar is an accurate representation of my appearance.

People need to lighten up regarding such things.

 

[Rob_BW]

This is not directed at you, but I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks that my avatar is an accurate representation of my appearance.

People need to lighten up regarding such things.

Wait, you mean you aren't a pilot?

 

[Rolfe]

Wait, you mean you aren't a pilot?

Sometimes I wonder on bad days. *laugh*

 

[Rolfe]

Friend of mine had a vanity plate for his auto. Was "Pileit". Appropriate some days.

 

[MennoSota]

This is not directed at you, but I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks that my avatar is an accurate representation of my appearance.

People need to lighten up regarding such things.

Indeed, in your picture you're wearing far too much make-up... [emoji41]

 

[HankD]

No but like everything else they read into what people say what they don't say, whether it's lack of understanding or lack or actually reading. I thought this forum was Christians debating, so far I haven't had one person try to debate me one on one, many personal attacks, so it's really not worth it, if they aren't serious about learning, or making a case, there is no point.

Enjoy my friend.

Come on calv, put the gloves on and get in the ring...

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones..."

Some of us play "devil's advocate".

True, some of us are better equipped than others for the job

HankD

 

[HankD]

mugwumps....adherents to mugwumpism

...can't decide even in these simpler terms:

What Side Of The Fence Are You?

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

Don't know, I keep FLOP-FLIPPING oops, I mean FLIP-FLOPPING

HankD

 

[Rolfe]

Come on calv, put the gloves on and get in the ring...

Perhaps he sees now that one does not need to fully subscribe to Reformed Theology to know that one is secure.

 

[HankD]

Perhaps he sees now that one does not need to fully subscribe to Reformed Theology to know that one is secure.

Maybe.

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Hey, don't EVER do that, that's a flat out lie, misquoting me as if I meant that sentence in isolation. Do you guys not care about lying, aren't we Christians here? My point was that we don't go off our own understanding, but trust in the Lord, we can't trust our thoughts, emotions, our only guide is God's revelation to us.

Don't ever misrepresent others who do not believe as you do as you have been doing. What you have been doing is in fact going off your own understanding. It is foolish to assert, imply or anything else that reformed folks cannot be wrong because they are the only one's with pure motives and control over their thoughts, as you have said. Jumping on a board as a newbie and slamming others as you have is childish.

 

[JonC]

If you deny all 5 points of Calvinism, I presume that's what you meant, or did you the 5 Arminian Remonstrants? If the former, you are Arminian by definition, whether you accept it or not. I like these people who say "I'm neither', when in fact we all are one or the other.

The five points are the rebuttal to the five articles, but you are missing the fact that Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory (it is Calvinism except where it departed).

There are people who believe men are born with the ability to turn to God if afforded the opportunity. This is a denial of Arminianism by definition (it denies articles 3 and 4). But it is also a denial of Calvinism (it denies total depravity).

My argument is that all five points or articles are essential to the theology of each camp, otherwise they would not have been expressed. A denial of one of them is a denial of that theological system. There is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. A Calvinist who is moderate is moderate not because he rejects an essential doctrine of Calvinism but because of his stance on how that doctrine is defined. If you reject Limited Atonement then you are not a Calvinist because you reject Calvinism as it has been defined. There is no such thing as a 4 Article Arminian either. If you reject total depravity as defined in the articles of the Remonstrants, then you reject Arminianism. If you reject the idea of predestination as defined by Arminianism, then you do not belong in that camp.

 

[MennoSota]

Come on calv, put the gloves on and get in the ring...

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones..."

Some of us play "devil's advocate".

True, some of us are better equipped than others for the job

HankD

But your devil is a Barney Fife devil, Hank. [emoji48]