Featured Thanks for being objective

I have most, not all, cals on ignore. However the title of this thread made me curious. I appreciate your acknowledgment. It appears someone has once again derailed a thread. But to be fair some cals have contributed to that. It became obvious that I needed to add one more to the old list.

 

He is mocking because I do not believe in Original Sin. For some reason I have a profound effect on Protestant, he has started many threads dedicated especially to me. I believe my views cause him a lot of conviction. He is gnashing on me with his teeth like they did Stephen, but hopefully he will come around like Paul did. :thumbs:

Of course, that has nothing to do with speaking to the issue of assurance in the Calvinist model as you have correctly stated.

 

How can I derail a thread that concerned me? Iconoclast was thanking you for criticizing me.

You also accused me of questioning someone's salvation, but no one has shown where I actually did that.

Since YOU are the one who made this accusation, perhaps you would like to show where I ever questioned someone else's salvation in the thread that was closed.

I don't believe that is an unreasonable request. So if you would, please show where I questioned someone's salvation.

I'll be waiting.

 

Anthony, who is "RM"?

 

....................................................................

 

yes I agree that the issue of the sinful nature is being mentioned there in his post - I just don't see the connection between that and the subject of how the assurance of salvation is obtained according to the theology of Calvinism - as you point out above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I think that is a good point.

The Arminian position really has no way to argue for OSAS since we believe in Free Will as the model that God has chosen for Creation.

So then for the lost you have "persevere in continuing to try to find salvation" but for the saved you have "a rock is a rock - it will never be anything else - it does not persevere in being a rock".

What then about the Romans 11
20 "Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

In the actual wording of the text above - I think we can all see how this fits the Arminian POV to the Tee just as it reads.

You and I both would expect that the Calvinists among us would wish to resort to redefining terms and bending the entire text to some direction that is more suitable to their tradition.

you take a text that speaks of not committing sin and then contradict the very wording of the text replacing it with words not found in the text at all " the born again Christian cannot fall away forever in unbelief,"

You make it say
1 Jhn 3:9 (I do NOT say) Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and (I do NOT mean) he cannot sin, because he is born of God -- but rather
the born again Christian cannot fall away forever in unbelief,"

I think that exegesis demands that we stay closer to the actual wording in the text than that. What odd denomination on the planet could not thrive if they could just insert any wording they wish into the text and insert "not" in front of any wording actually IN the text?

How could the Protestant reformation ever have gotten off the ground if such methods were viewed as "best"??

Note that your edit does not work in 1John 2:1 "These things I write to you that you SIN NOT - and IF anyone DOES SIN we have an Advocate with the Father".

Now lets replace that idea of "Sin not" with fall away forever in unbelief as you suggest for John in the book of 1John and see what happens to 1John 2


These things I write to you that you do NOT fall away forever in unbelief - and IF anyone DOES fall away forever in unbelief we have an Advocate with the Father".

in Christ,

Bob

 

I was wondering who you were referring to because I cannot see his posts. Thanks, Anthony. Have a blessed day.

 

So then it is not a case of free will and choice for the born again saint - but rather their incorruptible "nature" makes it so they cannot fall away .

Suppose for a moment that Lucifer, or the 1/3 of angels - fallen, or Adam or Eve had been created by God with that "Cannot Fall" nature!

Then their faithfulness would not be so much a matter of free will choice - but a fact of their incorruptible nature that "cannot fall".

This means that "for whatever reason" God did not make them of such enduring "nature" so as to never fall -- but for the born again saint - He does that very thing.

The Calvinist might argue that "for whatever reason" God makes Lucifer and Adam and Eve a certain way so that they will fall and then for "Whatever reason" makes two thirds of the angels - unfallen such that they will not fall.

And even on earth - making one vessel for wrath and another vessel for mercy.

in Christ,

Bob