Two Lips

[JamesL]

I would just like to point out that the argument James is making is a good example of the "Two Lips" (TULIP"S) Phenomena. One thing is taught, another is understood. One thing is said, another is meant.

And just to clarify, this is not a thread dealing with Calv/Arm debates.

And...a sense of humor will help you in your participation.




God bless.

The double speak comes from your camp, which claims one is "saved" when you really mean he's only potentially saved - because you don't know the future and whether or not your supposed fruit will endure.

And the more double speak when you claim salvation through Faith Alone, then advocate the notion of "No works, No heaven"

And the thread is in the debate section, not the "nobody gets your humor" section

 

[Darrell C]

The double speak comes from your camp, which claims one is "saved" when you really mean he's only potentially saved - because you don't know the future and whether or not your supposed fruit will endure.

Only when you apply the false argument you create can such a scenario exist.

When one is saved, they are made complete in Christ in regards to Eternal Salvation. They have been immersed into God, they have been forgiven their sins, and there will never again be a need for sacrifice for sin because Christ's Blood has covered the debt we owed.

Once that happens, one is saved, and they are from that point on into eternity...always saved.

The works which arise in our walk do not impact that positional standing before God. They may impact our current circumstances (i.e., wilfull sin grieves God and strains the relationship, obedience allows God to further work in our lives for our profit), but have no impact on whether we are saved or not.

As far as what "my camp" is, not too sure it is a very big camp. You certainly cannot speak about it because you are not even grasping the distinction I have been making concerning positional and progressive sanctification. You keep ignoring that issue so you can nurture your dislike of whatever camp it is you think you are preaching against, which as I said, is either the one you have created in your false argument, or, those who, like you, simply do not understand Perseverance, Eternal Security, or OSAS.

And the more double speak when you claim salvation through Faith Alone, then advocate the notion of "No works, No heaven"

"No works no Heaven" is not the same as "No works salvation questionable."

You nullify a kajor portion of Christ's teaching concerning those who appear to be believers but really are not, and are exposed by their very works. John the Baptist identifies such men when he refuses to baptize them, because repentance was to precede being baptized, rather than repentance being received because one was baptized.

John gives several areas of validation one can examine, Paul and Peter call men to examine themselves, so why would you have a problem with the Biblical Perspective that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck?

And the thread is in the debate section, not the "nobody gets your humor" section

Actually, it's in the General Discussion Forum, lol, which while some might deny the potential for debate, it is truly a debate forum as well, so I agree with you in premise. Discussion does not mean we have to agree with each other, and anytime there is disagreement it falls into a category of debate, though, to properly debate, both sides have to have valid arguments. Creating false arguments places it more into philosophical musings, if you ask me.

So when you have a valid argument, be glad to debate it with you.

And by the way, I was simply pointing out that your argument is a good example of Two Lips because it deals with saying one thing and meaning another. While of course you are in fantasy land with your assertion, it does refer to the topic itself, so good job!

As far as my humor, well, it gets me in trouble sometimes.




God bless.

 

[JamesL]

Only when you apply the false argument you create can such a scenario exist.

When one is saved, they are made complete in Christ in regards to Eternal Salvation. They have been immersed into God, they have been forgiven their sins, and there will never again be a need for sacrifice for sin because Christ's Blood has covered the debt we owed.

Once that happens, one is saved, and they are from that point on into eternity...always saved.

The works which arise in our walk do not impact that positional standing before God. They may impact our current circumstances (i.e., wilfull sin grieves God and strains the relationship, obedience allows God to further work in our lives for our profit), but have no impact on whether we are saved or not.

As far as what "my camp" is, not too sure it is a very big camp. You certainly cannot speak about it because you are not even grasping the distinction I have been making concerning positional and progressive sanctification. You keep ignoring that issue so you can nurture your dislike of whatever camp it is you think you are preaching against, which as I said, is either the one you have created in your false argument, or, those who, like you, simply do not understand Perseverance, Eternal Security, or OSAS.




"No works no Heaven" is not the same as "No works salvation questionable."

You nullify a kajor portion of Christ's teaching concerning those who appear to be believers but really are not, and are exposed by their very works. John the Baptist identifies such men when he refuses to baptize them, because repentance was to precede being baptized, rather than repentance being received because one was baptized.

John gives several areas of validation one can examine, Paul and Peter call men to examine themselves, so why would you have a problem with the Biblical Perspective that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck?




Actually, it's in the General Discussion Forum, lol, which while some might deny the potential for debate, it is truly a debate forum as well, so I agree with you in premise. Discussion does not mean we have to agree with each other, and anytime there is disagreement it falls into a category of debate, though, to properly debate, both sides have to have valid arguments. Creating false arguments places it more into philosophical musings, if you ask me.

So when you have a valid argument, be glad to debate it with you.

And by the way, I was simply pointing out that your argument is a good example of Two Lips because it deals with saying one thing and meaning another. While of course you are in fantasy land with your assertion, it does refer to the topic itself, so good job!

As far as my humor, well, it gets me in trouble sometimes.




God bless.

All that quacking, and you still haven't addressed my assertion...good grief.

I really don't care about how you think your faith plays out, how you think you're enduring, why, how, or anything like that.

I made a simple asssertion that if you are a Calvinist (which I doubt), then you will agree with an Arminian as to the eternal destiny of each person who has ever been born.

And that's the only assertion I'll discuss. And you said you've proved me wrong, but you haven't given any example of any scenario of faith and works where those two groups would disagree on someone's fate - where one group would say the guy went to heaven and the other group said he went to hell.

Is it really that hard for you to understand? Gimme a name.

 

[Darrell C]

All that quacking, and you still haven't addressed my assertion...good grief.

Well I am, after all Charlie Brown...a Duct Man.

I really don't care about how you think your faith plays out, how you think you're enduring, why, how, or anything like that.

"Me" has never been a part of the responses. Though I will throw in I endure because of the keeping power of God. Nothing else. Unless we want to look at His patience. I would have been destroyed long ago but for that.

I made a simple asssertion that if you are a Calvinist (which I doubt), then you will agree with an Arminian as to the eternal destiny of each person who has ever been born.

I'm not a Calvinist, you are correct about that, but I would agree with some of the basic premises it is built on.

And I don't see it as this simple assertion, because you also asserted that both are works-based mentalities, which is untrue.

The double speak comes from your camp, which claims one is "saved" when you really mean he's only potentially saved - because you don't know the future and whether or not your supposed fruit will endure.

While we can't know the hearts of others as God does, we can make some pretty good guesses. For example, how about a preacher that states "If you send me the prayer cloth I have sent you, having prayed your troubles and griefs into it, along with $100 (or your best "love gift"), I will pray over that cloth and throw it in a fire and your prayers will be answered!"

Would we think this guy is teaching from the same Word of God we do?

And that's the only assertion I'll discuss. And you said you've proved me wrong, but you haven't given any example of any scenario of faith and works where those two groups would disagree on someone's fate - where one group would say the guy went to heaven and the other group said he went to hell.

As far as this assertion, on it's own, not sure how there would be another option in which they could disagree, unless we consider Purgatory.

As far as a Calvinist agreeing with an Arminian as to the fate of each person ever born, this is a little different than saying Calvinists can't know where one is headed, or that the Armnian would speculate the unsaved going anywhere but Hell.

Calvinists do not view the Elect as "potentially saved," they view the Elect as saved from eternity past. It's a done deal. They know where they are headed. The Arminian comes into disagreement in that they believe everyone has the potential to be saved, rather than the list is written, just being filled as time goes.

So at this point your "assertion/s" are a little confusing, lol. Maybe you could try to explain this again? Never said I was smart, so speak slowly.

Is it really that hard for you to understand? Gimme a name.

How can I give you a name for a scenario that makes no sense? You are the one under obligation to give the scenario. If you do that, perhaps I will know what it is you are trying to say. As far as addressing your statements, they stand uncorrected.

You said:

But I will say as I have before...Calvinists are nithing but Arminians in disguise.

If you do not understand the fundamental differences between the two, and will not discuss the responses to what you have said...what exactly is it you want?

There is a significant difference between the two camps, and your assertions, plural, are incorrect.

Especially when it comes to OSAS, because many Arminians believe salvation can be lost.

Calvinists do not.


God bless.