Who are the false professors?

[Isaiah40:28]

Even in good ole' righteous Job's life?

sorry, I don't think like you.
you'll have to elaborate on your point

 

[Amy.G]

He would make a good Arminian huh?
:laugh:

Maybe he is.

:laugh:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Alex,
I find this type of response so useless.
The intent of your position is to give those who profess to believe the application of salvation regardless of what life they live in evidence of it. I find that completely unbiblical.

You have decided not just to read what I say but determine "my" intent. The attempt to MIND READ is practically forbidden in Scripture, never mind being wrong.

I know my intents, you do not, stick with what I have said, not what you think I have said.

I refer only to those that "believe" just as the text did. You and whomever else want to INJECT "profess" which is not present.

The text in Luke treats those that "believe" the gospel as coming to life and the one that did not believe was not saved. There is nothing there about "professing". You are imposing on the text and my argument, an element that are not there. I make the distinction clearly and concisely between professing and believing and the text only deals with believing and that is what I am dealing with.

You think that everything you post needs to be dealt with in a fashion that you demand.
I read your statements and asked you how your treatment of Luke 8 squares with the Jews "belief" in John 2 and John 8.
I stilll believe your position to be false teaching which brings confusion into the word of God and His people.

I expect, if one wants to be taken seriously regarding their position that if they cannot provide a hermeneutically/exegetically based refutation then they need to put their flotation devices back on and stay in the shallow end.

When you can treat the text with some degree of expertise and argue from that point, then the appeal to other texts may have weight. Until then you are only revealing that you cannot and wish only to escape the reasonable and mature expectation for a refutation by running to another text.

Mind you, the text you posted I can handle just as easily, but we began with Luke and when your hermeneutical/exegetical argument is posted then secondary texts can be dealt with.

 

[Amy.G]

Even in good ole' righteous Job's life?

What is your point?

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Maybe he is.

:laugh:

No one on this board apparantly is anything except a non-Calvinist, aside from the Calvinists, of course.

 

[webdog]

sorry, I don't think like you.
you'll have to elaborate on your point

My response was geared towards...

regardless of what life they live in evidence of it.

 

[reformedbeliever]

then they need to put their flotation devices back on and stay in the shallow end.

You might try visiting the shallow end some of the time...... it may keep you from drowning.

 

[Amy.G]

My response was geared towards...

regardless of what life they live in evidence of it.

I must be dull. I still don't get it.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

**Post deleted**

Moderator warning: Rudeness is "unbecoming" of a Christian who is worthy of the Lord Jesus Christ!!

Please post in accordance with the conduct of our coming Lord Jesus!

 

[reformedbeliever]

No, the point you were making was one out of ignorance.

There is no principle in "even the demons believe".

All it did was demonstrate you utter confusion regarding why Christ was born into the human race, for whom he died and to whom the promise of the gospel is given.

As is noted here in your inability to grasp the context of James' letter and comments 2 Peter 3:16 aptly describes what is your great self-inflicted misfortune:


When you can retain and profit from even the milk of the Word, it is possible there might be an opportunity for further enlightenment, but until then I can only pray you don't choke so often as to permanently injure yourself.

Do you have a father? Did he teach you common decency and respect? If not, i'd be happy to give you some lessons. You need to get a grip on your emotions. I'll stop here and get a grip on mine.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

You have decided not just to read what I say but determine "my" intent. The attempt to MIND READ is practically forbidden in Scripture, never mind being wrong.

I know my intents, you do not, stick with what I have said, not what you think I have said.

I refer only to those that "believe" just as the text did. You and whomever else want to INJECT "profess" which is not present.

The text in Luke treats those that "believe" the gospel as coming to life and the one that did not believe was not saved. There is nothing there about "professing". You are imposing on the text and my argument, an element that are not there. I make the distinction clearly and concisely between professing and believing and the text only deals with believing and that is what I am dealing with.


I expect, if one wants to be taken seriously regarding their position that if they cannot provide a hermeneutically/exegetically based refutation then they need to put their flotation devices back on and stay in the shallow end.

When you can treat the text with some degree of expertise and argue from that point, then the appeal to other texts may have weight. Until then you are only revealing that you cannot and wish only to escape the reasonable and mature expectation for a refutation by running to another text.

Mind you, the text you posted I can handle just as easily, but we began with Luke and when your hermeneutical/exegetical argument is posted then secondary texts can be dealt with.

I'm done, Alex.
I'm sure you have answers for everything and will claim victory in all your positions.
I don't really care.
Teaching that there are "unfruitful believers" is a dangerous lie that does nothing edifying for the church of God.
Besides giving unrightful assurance to many, it undermines the purpose of the gospel.

 

[Amy.G]

Alex, you have been reported. Just wanted you to know.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

He would make a good Arminian huh?
:laugh:

Maybe he is.

:laugh:

For the record, I am not an Arminian, I have made that abundantly clear and reject Arminianism. And in case your conscience is subject to a higher power, I am sure from this point on you will be lead to respect that, if of course it is influenced by something other than you own need to try and sound clever.

Then those that "believe for awhile" are only saved for awhile?

While you ask questions, you obviously don't have any. "Believe for a while" represents the limited period of growth as noted by Jesus. It "SPRUNG UP" and as our Lord made clear it whithered. But I dealt with the text in detail and of course you didn't. You are busy making investments in asking questions you cannot answer and resenting real answers.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Alex, you have been reported. Just wanted you to know.

Oh so you are reporting to me that you reported me. I see. I understand. When you have no answers in a debate one option is always to try and find a way to silence the opposition.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I'm done, Alex.
I'm sure you have answers for everything and will claim victory in all your positions.
I don't really care.
Teaching that there are "unfruitful believers" is a dangerous lie that does nothing edifying for the church of God.
Besides giving unrightful assurance to many, it undermines the purpose of the gospel.

So if you don't really care then all this posturing was for?????

You are contradicting yourself here. Your posture was quite dogmatic and suddenly you don't care?

I don't claim anything. I have challenged you to deal with the text. This is a debate forum. You are ceding here. I accept that.

There are unfruitful believers, the text in Luke makes that clear and it remains UNTOUCHED, UNREFUTED and only complained about.

 

[Amy.G]

There are unfruitful believers, the text in Luke makes that clear and it remains UNTOUCHED, UNREFUTED and only complained about.

Mat 13:8 "And others fell on the good soil and *yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.

The only group that yielded a crop was the one where the seed fell on the good soil. And that group did yield a crop, but not all yielded the same amount.


Show us scripture that says that some born again believers do NOT yield any fruit.

 

[webdog]

I must be dull. I still don't get it.

Maybe this tidbit from Isaiah40 will help...

Teaching that there are "unfruitful believers" is a dangerous lie that does nothing edifying for the church of God.

Again...Lot?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

The only group that yielded a crop was the one where the seed fell on the good soil. And that group did yield a crop, but not all yielded the same amount.


Show us scripture that says that some born again believers do NOT yield any fruit.

That isn't what is being debated. No one is debating who the fruitful believers are. Good grief, is there ANYONE here that can follow an argument anymore?

 

[Amy.G]

Maybe this tidbit from Isaiah40 will help...

Teaching that there are "unfruitful believers" is a dangerous lie that does nothing edifying for the church of God.

Again...Lot?

Lot? You said Job at first.

Anyway, where does it say that Lot was unfruitful? Unfruitful means NO fruit, not some fruit.

 

[webdog]

Lot? You said Job at first.

Anyway, where does it say that Lot was unfruitful? Unfruitful means NO fruit, not some fruit.

I did? Oops. No wonder you had no idea what I was talking about, I obviously didn't either. Brain cramp