The D. C. of Hyper-Aminianism beliefs...

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bill, the question that should be asked is, what good does a pardon for past crimes matter if in fact one has committed new offenses? Will not one find themselves right back under the sanctions of the law for any further acts of disobedience to the law?

Are you suggesting that a pardon for ‘sins that are past’ is an automatic pardon for any future acts of rebellion? Other than to establish such a notion via the development of unfounded presuppositions, can you offer the list any evidence of that being the case?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: The new birth cannot be rejected once it has taken place. Justification is a one time event...being born again. Once born, you are NEVER unborn.

HP: Can you offer the list any Scripture, or reason from common sense reasoning, that might substantiate this presupposition?

 

[webdog]

Really? You really need Scripture to show that there is such a thing as common sense reasoning? You need Scripture to show that you cannot undo your birth?

First show me Scripture that supports combustion engines really work.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Can you offer the list any Scripture or reason from common sense reasoning that might substantiate this presupposition?

WD: Really? You really need Scripture to show that there is such a thing as common sense reasoning? You need Scripture to show that you cannot undo your birth?

HP: I evidently should have inserted a comma after ‘Scripture,’ and after ‘reasoning’ for a proper rendering of my statement. I will edit the post.

By all means, present to us the Scripture you believe establishes the fact that one canot undo ones 'spiritual' birth.

 

[webdog]

By all means, present to us the Scripture you believe establishes the fact that one canot undo ones 'spiritual' birth.

I think the fact our Lord likened it to physical birth should be enough. It's an allegory established by God. We know that we can't physically be unborn. I believe God assumes we have enough common sense to realize if we can't undo our spiritual birth, what makes us think we can undo our physical? Nicodemous summed it up pretty well when he asked Christ point blank "can we go back inside the womb to be reborn?"

 

[BobRyan]

I think the fact our Lord likened it to physical birth should be enough. It's an allegory established by God.

That is very instructive. you are taking the statement about being born again and in 2Cor 5 about the "new Creation" to argue the unbiblical idea that to be cast out of the vine of Christ as in John 15:1-6 and Romans 11 you must first be "uncreated" or "unborn". Furthermore in Gal 5 those who "fell from grace" did not have to be "unborn" to do it.

But as we note - the fact that Adam was created AND THEN fell - did not mean he had to first be "uncreated". Though Eve and the Serpent "could" certainly have made the argument to him "you would have to be uncreated to fall from your current condition" -

When God says in Roman 11 "you should fear for if He did not spare them he will not spare you either.... for you stand only by your faith" there is no possibility of saying back to God "oh no - you can do that without causing me to be unborn".

The way that a living person dies - is not to "become unborn". In John 15:1-6 the branches are removed from Christ - wither deceased and burned. There is no "uncreate"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[webdog]

Your exegesis of John 15 and Romans 11 is still wrong, Bob.

"...I give them eternal life, and they will NEVER (greek double negative: no, not EVER) perish..."

 

[BobRyan]

I am open to correction in John 15 and Romans 11 - but you have to actually "show it" in the details of the text. Until you do - it is necessary to rely on the text itself saying "you stand only by your faith.. FEAR.. for if He did not spare them NEITHER will He spare you!!.... but He is able to graft THEM in AGAIN".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The crux to me is that 'free will' presupposes choosers as were they not guilty, lost and damned sinners ALREADY, that for the first time and innocently, face right and wrong, life and death.

 

[BobRyan]

I suppose that is one kind that could be imagined.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: I think the fact our Lord likened it to physical birth should be enough. It's an allegory established by God. We know that we can't physically be unborn. I believe God assumes we have enough common sense to realize if we can't undo our spiritual birth, what makes us think we can undo our physical? Nicodemous summed it up pretty well when he asked Christ point blank "can we go back inside the womb to be reborn?"

HP: Because one uses an object in an illustration, it is no sign of there not being any other sense in which the two cannot be compared. I might use certain comparisons that exist between myself and another, yet there are numerous senses in which no such comparisons can be made. Think about it.

It is simply error to injected notions that are completely foreign to the text concerning the relationship that exists between God as our spiritual Father and God being the creator of all men. There is nothing in the text stated or implied that would eliminate another relationship to exist between God and all men, the relationship of God being the Father of all in a particular and limited sense. There is no such comparison that can be reasonably or logically inferred by suggesting that because we cannot be unborn physically that we cannot forfeit our standing with God. The text simply does not substantiate or imply any such injection of presuppositions into the meaning of the passages in question in any way, shape, or form as it is being attempted. Your logic is as follows: If something applies to the spiritual realm, it must be applied in the same manner to the physical realm.

Follow the logic. If I am to assume that the physical realm and the spiritual realm are of like natures, and what can be said of one must then be applied to the other, can one get a taste of the absolute sheer folly one will of necessity fall into?

For example. Scripture informs us that the physical is temporal and the spiritual realm is eternal. Could one assume by turning Webdogs argument around that if it is said to be true of the spiritual realm, it also can be assumed true of the physical realm? What would this due to the case of the physical being temporal? Could we now assume that the spiritual is temporal, in direct opposition to Scripture? Why or why not?

One needs to bear in mind that Nicodemus exhibited a gross lack of spiritual insight. I would hope that we on the list could find better insight to emulate. Certainly because in his obvious twisted way of reasoning he reasoned in a certain fashion does not mandate or imply that such reasoning is in any anything other than a show of spiritual ignorance. His warped reasoning should not be mistaken for the correct way to view the relationship that Jesus was speaking concerning and the sense in which Jesus was using the term ‘birth’ in the allegory to convey.

 

[webdog]

Do you know what a similie is?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Do you know what a similie is?

HP:I believe I do. I also believe you need to ask yourself that question and post your answer.

 

[webdog]

Why do you always turn questions to you back on to the one asking you the question? I asked you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: I asked you.

HP: I answered you, did I not? Why is it somehow wrong for me to ask you basically the same question? I fail to see your point.

 

[BobRyan]

That is very instructive. you are taking the statement about being born again and in 2Cor 5 about the "new Creation" to argue the unbiblical idea that to be cast out of the vine of Christ as in John 15:1-6 and Romans 11 you must first be "uncreated" or "unborn". Furthermore in Gal 5 those who "fell from grace" did not have to be "unborn" to do it.

But as we note - the fact that Adam was created AND THEN fell - did not mean he had to first be "uncreated". Though Eve and the Serpent "could" certainly have made the argument to him "you would have to be uncreated to fall from your current condition" -

When God says in Roman 11 "you should fear for if He did not spare them he will not spare you either.... for you stand only by your faith" there is no possibility of saying back to God "oh no - you can do that without causing me to be unborn".

The way that a living person dies - is not to "become unborn". In John 15:1-6 the branches are removed from Christ - wither deceased and burned. There is no "uncreate"

In Christ,

Bob

the point remains

However this merely addresses the OSAS point - not hyper or "ultra" anything. Certainly no way to show that rejecting the error of OSAS is somehow "ultra" Arminian. Nothing in the Arminian position requires acceptance of OSAS

 

[webdog]

HP: I answered you, did I not? Why is it somehow wrong for me to ask you basically the same question? I fail to see your point.

OK. Since I see I have to be painfully accurate with my questions...since you know what a similie is, please share.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: OK. Since I see I have to be painfully accurate with my questions...since you know what a similie is, please share.

HP: If you desire discussion, simply make your point.

 

[webdog]

It's been made. The fact you refuse to answer a simple question only adds to that point.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: It's been made. The fact you refuse to answer a simple question only adds to that point.

HP: This is not an English class. Anyone that has a dictionary close can tell you what a simile is. What would it prove if I wrote it down for the list? You have a dictionary. Look it up if you do not know. What does any of this have to do with our discussion? Make your point clear so we can understand you, lest you appear like a confused individual. (simile intended) :thumbs: