Specific threats to Christians about losing eternal life!

[Yeshua1]

Galatians says such are under a curse to do the whole Law. Paul stood in doubt of these types.

BOB wants to keep sayingSpurgeon/Moody supports him and the SDA view regarding keeping law of God, but know how reformed baptists view the law for Christians NOT sameway he does in the SDA!

 

[preacher4truth]

BOB wants to keep sayingSpurgeon/Moody supports him and the SDA view regarding keeping law of God, but know how reformed baptists view the law for Christians NOT sameway he does in the SDA!

In his twisted interpretations he see this. EGW saw things as well -- it goes with the territory. They heap to themselves teachers, turning their ears from truth to fables -- and God judges them with false preachers to accomodate them.

He is on an endless objective to find a proselyte.

Knowing many passages also blinds them. 'Ever learning...'

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I give you scriptural facts that cannot be disproven and you give more blather. I could just as easily claim your doctrine is a product of Jacob Arminius, however, how does help address scrptural facts?

And I can give scriptural facts that counter your scriptural facts, but what would this prove? Only that you interpret certain scriptures as supporting your position, and I do the same.

I don't think it is necessary or wise for me to continue this. All of you know what I believe and why, and I know what you believe and why. And we'll all know fully by-and-by.

And I'll let your insult pass without commenting on it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

After reading many of the contentious posts in this thread by those who are trying to PROVE that one who was BORN AGAIN can, in fact, be LOST AGAIN, I find it utterly amazing that anybody thinks that the mere will of mortal, (still and always) fallible men could overcome or nullify the great doctrine of Justification and Propitiation (Salvation IS of the Lord) and make of none effect the Precious Blood of Christ. If that were true then it would be expedient for those saved to hope and pray for a rapid departure from this life AFTER being saved because the ever-present carnal nature will cause you to fall and sin probably sooner rather than later and make you "lose it". Such an idea is the total misunderstanding of what the "New Birth" really is. How tragic.....to finally gain liberty in Christ and then to have it stolen from you by the wicked one so rapidly. It is also tragic that many of those who are taught they can lose it will wake up in the presence of the Lord one day and realize that their service for the Lord was rendered of little or no effect by their own doubts about the eternal state of their redemption. Plus....any "works" they may have accomplished whilest trying to "keep themselves saved" will be burned up as wood, hay and stubble.
On another note...OSAS is NOT a license to sin (as some would assume and others would accuse...)or live any old way you please because "it'll all be alright in the end". Anybody who believes such a thing or lives that way was probably never genuinely saved to begin with. One must remember that when Christ died on the cross ALL our sins (past, present and future) were FUTURE from the cross forward. When we trust Christ He removes them ALL and casts them away as far as the "east is from the west". (Psalm 103:12) By His blood he cleanses us of even those sins we have yet to commit in our lifetime. He doesn't REDEEM our "old man"....He imparts to us an entirely new inner man that cannot sin.
O ' what a Saviour!!!!

Bro.Greg:saint:

The first English Baptists didn't believe OSAS. What I find amazing is that so many later Baptists follow Calvin instead of what the original English Baptists believed.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

We all agree that no external force makes the will of man choose. People have died rather than forced to choose something contrary to their convictions or feelings.

However, their concept of "FREE" will is a will that is also FREE from any internal forces within the human nature. They believe the human will sits upon a throne as a soverign "god" within the human nature and abritrarily has ability to choose that which is contrary to both the inclinations of human rationale joined with feelings.

It is certainly true that the human will can choose contrary to the inclinations of either/or human rationale and feelings but not contrary to both. Here is their fundemental problem. The will is not free from internal forces within human nature. Indeed, the human will is nothng more or less than the absolute servant for expression of man's intellect and feelings. It may be expressed by one over the other but it cannot express anything contrary to both, because it has no existence, much less freedom from both.

The human will is not only the absolute slave of human rationale and emotions but it is wholly enslaved to a totally depraved human rationale and emotions. Their problem is that the Bible teaches that the unregnerated man's rationale and emotions are in complete servitude to sin, dominated by sin, enslaved by sin in so much they are spiritually "dead in tresspasses and sin." In so much that the whole inner mind set (emotional/volitional) is at war with God and is not subject to the will of God and neither indeed can be and that is precisely why the unregenerated man cannot "please God" (Rom. 8:7-8) and one must come to God by "faith" to please God (Heb. 11:6).

Therefore, they do not merely believe in a "free" will but a "sovereign" will who has not only final decision over man's depraved nature but over the new nature in addition to the indwelling Person of the Holy Spirit.

It would seem to me, that anyone thinking like this should be able to easily see that what really needs to be saved from sin is the human will since it is ultimately that which would damn the whole human being.

To show I can be objective, I think that is a well-reasoned and sensible post. I think you mis-characterize a couple of things, but overall it's a good post.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

IF you have the anchor of your salvation your free will and your faith, then you will see able to lose it, but thankfully Bible shows the anchor as being the Cross, and the truine God Himself, ALL 3 , save and keep us saved!

But not against our will, should we decide to willfully reject what we have received. And to deny that we can do this not only denies scripture but the essential nature of God.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Once again, Jesus will lose none -- John 6:39.

Everything else is mans conjecture borne of erroneous conclusions on Scripture.

7 has nothing to stand on but his own misinterpretations and attempts to enslave others to man made theological legalism.

Evangelists such as he are ones who come into churches thinking they told everyone the truth and that they are some maverick of truth, and feel themselves to be heroes.

Jesus' words supplant any such misnomer.

Jesus will lose none -- but 7 comes along some 2000 years later and says Jesus is wrong, and that He will lose some.

- Blessings

I have given you the true meaning of the verse. I can't do anything to help your willful blindness. You are, after all, exercising that free will in refusing to acknowledge the truth.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have given you the true meaning of the verse. I can't do anything to help your willful blindness. You are, after all, exercising that free will in refusing to acknowledge the truth.

Yes, we're well aware of your ability to twist the words of Christ.

He will lose none.

 

[The Biblicist]

The first English Baptists didn't believe OSAS. What I find amazing is that so many later Baptists follow Calvin instead of what the original English Baptists believed.

The First English Baptists did believe in eternal security. Benjamin Cox wrote explanatory notes for the 1644 Confession of faith. Coxe wrote as the authorized representative for those who produced the 1644 Confession of Faith. He denies any of the elect will be lost.

 

[The Biblicist]

And I can give scriptural facts that counter your scriptural facts, but what would this prove?

No you can't! Scripture is not a chamelon with multi-contradictory meanings. False interpretations can be demonstrated false by the immediate context.

You said that you gave the true meaning of John 6:39. I have done detailed exegesis of this passage in its context and there is no honest way you can interpret that text to deny eternal security. Please point me to your post where you supposedly prove the contrary.

 

[evangelist-7]

Just to cut to the chase for a moment (or perhaps this is too much logic for you to handle) ...

If you honestly look at all 30 warnings I have given about the possibility of losing eternal life,
and if you find even ONE that you can agree with ... then you have just see that OSAS is wrong.
.

 

[The Biblicist]

Just to cut to the chase for a moment (or perhaps this is too much logic for you to handle) ...

If you honestly look at all 30 warnings I have given about the possibility of losing eternal life,
and if you find even ONE that you can agree with ... then you have just see that OSAS is wrong.
.

All 30 are misinterpretations

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yes, we're well aware of your ability to twist the words of Christ.

He will lose none.

I do not twist. That is your dance.

I have adequately explained the meaning of the relevant scriptures to you, but you have very little ability to comprehend. I'm sorry you won't be able to change that since it was predetermined.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The First English Baptists did believe in eternal security. Benjamin Cox wrote explanatory notes for the 1644 Confession of faith. Coxe wrote as the authorized representative for those who produced the 1644 Confession of Faith. He denies any of the elect will be lost.

You need to study your history a little more. The first English Baptists were Thomas Helwys and followers. They produced the first English Baptist Confession of Faith in 1611. They were General Baptists and did not believe in eternal security/OSAS. The Particulars who came later were influenced by the English Separatist Independents -- the Calvinistic Puritans.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

All 30 are misinterpretations

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No you can't! Scripture is not a chamelon with multi-contradictory meanings. False interpretations can be demonstrated false by the immediate context.

You said that you gave the true meaning of John 6:39. I have done detailed exegesis of this passage in its context and there is no honest way you can interpret that text to deny eternal security. Please point me to your post where you supposedly prove the contrary.

Read......

The only way you or anyone can interpret it to affirm eternal security is to approach it with determinist presuppositions.

 

[The Biblicist]

You need to study your history a little more. The first English Baptists were Thomas Helwys and followers. They produced the first English Baptist Confession of Faith in 1611. They were General Baptists and did not believe in eternal security/OSAS. The Particulars who came later were influenced by the English Separatist Independents -- the Calvinistic Puritans.

The Particulars did not come later. The 1640 theory has been totally disproven by J.T. Christian. Both Kiffin and Knollys claimed that the churches in London had been organized by Preachers coming from early churches in the country side outside of London:

"I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) that they were thus gathered; Viz., Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the ministry, BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THE COUNTRIES where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates [Episcopalians] came to sojourn in this great city....." - Hensard Knollys - A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called Independency not God's Ordinance. London, 1645

"It is well known to many and especially to ourselves that our congregations as they are now, were erected and framed according to the rule of Christ BEFORE WE HEARD OF ANY REFORMATION EVEN AT THE TIME WHEN EPISOPACY WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS VANISHING GLORY." - William Kiffin: A Brief Response of the Reasons of those People Called Anabaptists for their Separation; London, 1645, p. 6

Dr. John T. Christian researched this quotation and found that a Mr. Joseph Richart, who corresponded with Kiffin over this statement said:

Mr. Joseph Richart, who says he wrote the queries to which Kiffin replied, affirmed tht he understood the Episcopal and not the Presbyterian Reformation. "You allege," he says, "your practice, that your congreations were errected and framed in the time of the Episcopacy, and before you heard of any Reformation." (Richart, A Looking Glass For Anabaptists, p. 7 London 1645).
Here were Baptists churches, according to Kiffin, before the times of Henry VIII. And this fact was well known to the Baptists. Further on Kiffin makes the claim that the Baptists outdated the Presbyterians. - John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, Vol. 2, p. 255

The Church in the Hop Garden can be dated by archeological remains to as early as 1414 (John Stanely, The Church in the Hop Garden) and the Hillcliffe Baptist church as early as 1300's based upon archeological remains.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The Particulars did not come later. The 1640 theory has been totally disproven by J.T. Christian. Both Kiffin and Knollys claimed that the churches in London had been organized by Preachers coming from early churches in the country side outside of London:

"I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) that they were thus gathered; Viz., Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the ministry, BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THE COUNTRIES where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates [Episcopalians] came to sojourn in this great city....." - Hensard Knollys - A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called Independency not God's Ordinance. London, 1645

"It is well known to many and especially to ourselves that our congregations as they are now, were erected and framed according to the rule of Christ BEFORE WE HEARD OF ANY REFORMATION EVEN AT THE TIME WHEN EPISOPACY WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS VANISHING GLORY." - William Kiffin: A Brief Response of the Reasons of those People Called Anabaptists for their Separation; London, 1645, p. 6

Dr. John T. Christian researched this quotation and found that a Mr. Joseph Richart, who corresponded with Kiffin over this statement said:

Mr. Joseph Richart, who says he wrote the queries to which Kiffin replied, affirmed tht he understood the Episcopal and not the Presbyterian Reformation. "You allege," he says, "your practice, that your congreations were errected and framed in the time of the Episcopacy, and before you heard of any Reformation." (Richart, A Looking Glass For Anabaptists, p. 7 London 1645).
Here were Baptists churches, according to Kiffin, before the times of Henry VIII. And this fact was well known to the Baptists. Further on Kiffin makes the claim that the Baptists outdated the Presbyterians. - John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, Vol. 2, p. 255

The Church in the Hop Garden can be dated by archeological remains to as early as 1414 (John Stanely, The Church in the Hop Garden) and the Hillcliffe Baptist church as early as 1300's based upon archeological remains.

So, you deny and dismiss John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. You are mistaken.

 

[The Biblicist]

You need to study your history a little more. The first English Baptists were Thomas Helwys and followers. They produced the first English Baptist Confession of Faith in 1611. They were General Baptists and did not believe in eternal security/OSAS. The Particulars who came later were influenced by the English Separatist Independents -- the Calvinistic Puritans.

You have been led down the pathway of pedobaptist historical perversion. I know my history quite well. The idea that Thomas Helwy was the earliest English Baptist is a joke! John T. Christian provided more than sufficient historical evidence to expose that theory as completely false.

 

[The Biblicist]

Read......

The only way you or anyone can interpret it to affirm eternal security is to approach it with determinist presuppositions.

I have approached it solely on the merits of the text itself not by some philsophical bias. I have given two threads to this passage. If you are a capable exegete then point out my expositional flaws in those thread. As of yet, NONE have attempted to dispute the expositonal facts I have laid out for all to examine. It is disgenuine to impute a philsophical bias when you have not even examined the contextual based evidence presented. Proper exegesis only will determine whether philsophical bias has been injected. You cannot conclude what you have not examined. Your charge of philosphical bias is repudiated by proper exegesis of the text. Doubt me? Then demonstrate where my exegesis incorporates any philosophical bias or drop your charges.