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

[webdog]

You have the free will to enter a building - you have the free will to leave the building.

This is apples and oranges as some things you can enter and exit, and some things you cannot. Salvation falls under the latter.

The vines that are in Christ in John 15 are never said to "uncreate themselves" and then get removed from Christ.

For an accurate understanding of that passage I would suggest Bruce Wilkinson's Secrets of the Vine

in Romans 11 the branches that are in Christ and that remain there "only by faith" did not "uncreate themselves" to get cast out. Paul does not say in Romans 11 "but you should FEAR for if He did not hesitate to uncreate the natural branches neither will he hesitate to uncreate you"...

Romans 11 is dealing with the jews and God's final purpose for them. This has to be read and understood in context of chapters 9 (the jewish problem) and 10 (the jewish purpose).

The entire notion of "unborn" or "uncreate" is missing in scripture as something that happens when you are removed from Christ. Instead it is referred to as spiritual death.

The notion is plain as day. It's supported by commons sense. One can be born and die...but one cannot be born, and then zip back through time to be "unborn". Also apples and oranges.

 

[BobRyan]

If you found an "unborn" or "uncreate" text then please show it.

I imagine you are looking for something of the form "Once you are born again you must become unborn to become lost -and that is not possible".

Such "only by being unborn" arguments are all missing from scripture.

Perhaps you seek a verse saying "it is just as impossible for a man to become unborn as it is for anyone of you to turn from your faith and become lost".

By the way - the points raised about Jon 15 and romans 11 saying nothing about "being uncreated" as a step necessary in the scenarios each chapter presents for casting someone out of the vine of Christ and burning them in the fire.

And the Romans 11 "You too should FEAR for if He did not spare THEM neither will he spare YOU - for you only STAND by your faith" - is a point that still remains for it comes right after the gentile says "So the Jews were taken out that I might be grafted IN".

 

[webdog]

If you found an "unborn" or "uncreate" text then please show it.

Likewise with Trinity.

I imagine you are looking for something of the form "Once you are born again you must become unborn to become lost -and that is not possible".

I'm not really looking for anything. I know one cannot be unborn. I am considered a child of God. I'm not spiritually dead (separated) from Him, and His Word tells me nobody can snatch me from His hand. I'm included in "nobody".
Your John 15 and Romans 11 proof texts are being used out of context.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

WD: Your John 15 and Romans 11 proof texts are being used out of context.

HP: Show us the context.

By the way, just because one decides to read something into the text, and judge everything through the lens of their presuppositions, does not equate to that being the context.

 

[webdog]

HP: Show us the context.

By the way, just because one decides to read something into the text, and judge everything through the lens of their presuppositions, does not equate to that being the context.

Start other threads if you want to debate John 15 and Romans 11. It really has nothing to do with presuppositions. Context will reveal itself if you have an open mind and heart.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

WD: Context will reveal itself if you have an open mind and heart.

HP: An open mind and heart does not consist of passing the Word of God through a filter consisting of presuppositions of ones own making.

 

[Dustin]

I have Dan Corner's book, The Believer's Conditional Security. Corner is certainly a "Repeated Regenerationist." I don't know his theological or denominational history, but in reading his work, I came to the conclusion that his view is quite semi-pelagian, and not representative of either Reformed Arminianism or Wesleyan Arminianism in their classical/traditional sense.

JDale

Hence the name "hyper-Arminian".


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[webdog]

HP: An open mind and heart does not consist of passing the Word of God through a filter consisting of presuppositions of ones own making.

Exactly. That's why Bobryan's interpretation of those passages is in error.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

WD: Exactly. That's why Bobryan's interpretation of those passages is in error.

HP: You are entitled to that have that opinion. What do you see as the presupposition BR is filtering the texts through?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"I imagine you are looking for something of the form "Once you are born again you must become unborn to become lost -and that is not possible".

Such "only by being unborn" arguments are all missing from scripture."

GE:

By your own admission ....
In support of sovereign grace!

 

[BobRyan]

The false barrier that Calvinist try to insert for OSAS "only by being uncreated" or only by "being unborn could you be lost" is NEVER an argument that scripture makes on behalf of OSAS.

So Calvinists simply "make it up".

How "instructive".

In Christ,

bob

 

[webdog]

Bob, I'm not a calvinist. Even if I were, just because something is not found word for word in Scripture doesn't make it false. The Trinity is never found word for word, rapture, sin nature, etc.

Common sense has to prevail. If God calls us children...children cannot EVER be unborn. They can die, but Scripture tells us we have passed FROM death to life, so dying is out. God doesn't use these allegorical phrases and terms out of foolishness, but truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Common sense has to prevail. If God calls us children...children cannot EVER be unborn. They can die, but Scripture tells us we have passed FROM death to life, so dying is out. God doesn't use these allegorical phrases and terms out of foolishness, but truth.

HP: Would to God that common sense would prevail. First, the term ‘children of God’ can be used in different senses. ALL men, women and infants are 'children of God' in a broad sense. Just the same, there is a sense, a sense that directs ones attention to those born again, that the believers are those classified, again in a particular sense, as 'children of God. '

If the unsaved are not children of God in any sense, whose children are they? Did Satan create them? Sure Jesus tells us in one passage that some are the children of Satan, but that can only be true, in a particular sense, the sense that Jesus was using in that particular passage.

For you to make the argument that children cannot be ‘unborn’ in any sense because they cannot be in one particualr sense, without clarifying to the reader exactly what sense you are using the term, ‘children of God,’ that is far from approaching this issue using common sense.

Tell us. Is God not the father of all men in a sense? Are not all men, in a sense, the children of God? It would be a given that we cannot cease to be that which we were created, does it not. Tell us how you then make this leap of judgment to apply this to the spiritual notion that if you are once a child of God you cannot do despite that grace, and find oneself on the outside of a sure hope of eternal life when there are clear passages to the contrary? Where is your Scriptural proof for this assertion? It sure cannot be derived from a common sense logical connection mandated simply by the term ‘child of God,’ can it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog, lets suppose I heard someone refer to a ‘dog.’ What if then I were to conclude that all dogs are canines without understanding the sense of which the author was using the word dog? Could I logically then conclude that once a dog always a dog? What if the word ‘dog’ had nothing to do with canines at all, but rather was used first to indicate the character of a despicable individual? Could you logically assume then that once a despicable person always a despicable person? Would that be using common sense?

 

[webdog]

HP: Would to God that common sense would prevail. First, the term ‘children of God’ can be used in different senses. ALL men, women and infants are 'children of God' in a broad sense. Just the same, there is a sense, a sense that directs ones attention to those born again, that the believers are those classified, again in a particular sense, as 'children of God. '

If the unsaved are not children of God in any sense, whose children are they? Did Satan create them? Sure Jesus tells us in one passage that some are the children of Satan, but that can only be true, in a particular sense, the sense that Jesus was using in that particular passage.

For you to make the argument that children cannot be ‘unborn’ in any sense because they cannot be in one particualr sense, without clarifying to the reader exactly what sense you are using the term, ‘children of God,’ that is far from approaching this issue using common sense.

Tell us. Is God not the father of all men in a sense? Are not all men, in a sense, the children of God? It would be a given that we cannot cease to be that which we were created, does it not. Tell us how you then make this leap of judgment to apply this to the spiritual notion that if you are once a child of God you cannot do despite that grace, and find oneself on the outside of a sure hope of eternal life when there are clear passages to the contrary? Where is your Scriptural proof for this assertion? It sure cannot be derived from a common sense logical connection mandated simply by the term ‘child of God,’ can it?

No, all men are NOT children of God...and God is NOT the father of all men "in a sense". You are trying to use flawed phylosophy to explain what a true child of God is. Let Scripture say what it says.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name,

Joh 8:44You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: No, all men are NOT children of God...and God is NOT the father of all men "in a sense".

HP: You have left the realm of common sense and reason with this remark. There is nothing that anyone can add that has the ability to overcome the shere impervious bar of unfounded presuppositions. Nothing can be more detrimental to the open examination of any notion. There is simply nothing further that your mind will even consider objectively in this matter at this time, taking into consideration your present stated opinion. I consider that as sad and detrimental to any discovery of the truth.

 

[billwald]

>Salvation can NOT be earn by good deeds, and therfore, it can NOT be LOST by our bad deeds (sin).

1. Non sequitur.

2. Salvation can be rejected. God will not force people into Heaven.

 

[webdog]

HP: You have left the realm of common sense and reason with this remark. There is nothing that anyone can add that has the ability to overcome the shere impervious bar of unfounded presuppositions. Nothing can be more detrimental to the open examination of any notion. There is simply nothing further that your mind will even consider objectively in this matter at this time, taking into consideration your present stated opinion. I consider that as sad and detrimental to any discovery of the truth.

So you just deny John 1:12, 8:44? That, to me, is truly sad.

 

[webdog]

2. Salvation can be rejected. God will not force people into Heaven.

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.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Billwald: >Salvation can NOT be earn by good deeds, and therfore, it can NOT be LOST by our bad deeds (sin).

HP: We all agree that salvation can not be earned by good deeds. That is a given. The problem lies with your conclusion, i.e.,”it cannot be lost by our bad deeds.”

Your conclusion suggests illogical and unfounded notions. To illustrate the error, I would offer this illustration. A pardon from a crime cannot be earned by good works. That is a given. Would it be proper to assume that a pardon cannot be revoked or forfeited by future acts of disobedience to the law?