1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Eternal Security the Acid test

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Feb 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 9 of 16
  1. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137

    You didn't answer my question, which came from your own illustration. In fact, you did your best to avoid it. Here it is again:

    Do you freely choose to fall from the tree?
    As for me, I know that my life is secure in the hand of Jesus, and it is He that will never allow me to fall from the tree.
    1. Eternal security does not emanate from Calvin.
    2. It doesn't even come from Augustine.
    3. If you are going to make unfounded statements like that then you have to back them up. Please provide documentation. Document that those before Calvin did not believe in eternal security. Would you do that for me, so that I know it is not a Calvinistic belief.
    Shall I blame the Apostles and Christ himself:

    John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

    Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
     
    #161 DHK, Feb 15, 2012
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481


    Go back and read the posts yourself and see if ANY WORD or PHRASE or grammatical or syntactical fact is ever mentioned by these posts!!!!

    You just don't like the facts and if a spade is a spade then it is a spade and I just called their posts for what they are and anyone can read them and see if I called them correctly. Prove me wrong, Quote something from Wrenn that is a direct quotation from John 6:36-65 or a reference to any Greek term, grammar, syntactical explanation - just quote one and prove me wrong!



    I feel like a teacher who has enterd a classroom of first graders who don't know what two plus two is. I have spelled out in great detail from the actual text the CONTEXTUAL reasons for my position on the term "will" in John 6:38-40. As of this point, YOU or NO ONE else has even attempted to confront and respond to the contextual evidence I have placed squarely before you SEVERAL times.

    If anyone is calling the pot black look at the kettle facing you in your mirror.
     
    #162 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
  3. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: One thing is for certain, it does no originate in Scripture neither was it taught as doctrine antecedent to Augustine. If you think it was, show us from antiquity who taught any such thing in the church prior to Augustine.




    HP: Play the ostrich if you so desire. :rolleyes:

    HP: I am under NO obligation to provide evidence from silence, and it is silence on the issue of OSAS prior to Augustine. No such notion was taught or held by the ECF antecedent to Augustine. If you desire to show differently, either produce the evidence or keep quiet. :thumbs:(As you desire to put it.)
    Quote:
    HP: When you espouse the same foundational error, or show affinity for the same necessitated ends, you can blame no one but yourself for being associated with others on the same basic path of necessitated fatalism that Calvinism imbibs.


    HP: Neither of these passages say one thing in support of OSAS nor do they support the 'deterministic' notions that Biblicist is trying so hard to squeeze out of the passage in the OP.

    Oh, by the way, don't forget the second half of the Romans 8:1 in the KJV you are so fond of. ......."who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." :thumbs:
     
    #163 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 15, 2012
  4. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, you can repeat your same false conclusions a hundred times over and it will not magically produce the truth. Your false assumptions will still be false assumptions based on the presuppositions you bring to the table concerning what constitutes the will of God and how it operates. :thumbsup:
     
    #164 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 15, 2012
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481

    When you say that I have provided "false assumptions" and "false conclusions" BUT you have not even addressed them at all, nor provided the readers with any kind of rational contextual based response to prove they are false, isn't that outright slander and lying???

    I have provided contextual based evidence IN GREAT DETAIL and placed it before you and every reader on this thread knows that. That evidence exposes your response to be FALSE accusations and it has vindicated my position. On the other hand, you are not able to respond with any textual based criticism. Rather you become PERSONAL and make PERSONAL charges that everyone on this thread knows you have not provided a single solitary post to support.

    I think that sufficient proves you don't know what you are talking about but are too proud to admit it.
     
    #165 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2012
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Here is the post that HP cannot respond to except by making personal accusations.
     
    #166 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137

    Oh, but it does originate in Scripture. The board's computer program won't allow me enough space to post all the Scripture that relate to eternal security. And I would go beyond the 30 page limit if I started on such a project. So I must decline for the time being.
    Scripture is antiquity. But you are making the bold accusations, and constantly so. Don't attribute something to a person unless you can prove it. Since you can't keep quiet about it.

    An unsubstantiated statement which I will consider a lie, unless you can prove it. That onus falls on you. You made the statement. Prove it.
    Why should I believe your lies when you can't prove it.

    Pluto is made of green cheese because I said so.
    Will you believe me.
    Prove me wrong!
    That is your MO.
    John 5:24; Romans 8:1
     
    #167 DHK, Feb 15, 2012
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    We have sufficiently shut the mouths of those who deny that eternal security is spelled out in no uncertain terms in John 6:36-65 and especially John 6:39.

    All that our opponents can do is do what characterizes all false teachers when they cannot respond to Biblical proof. They either change the subject or make personal slanderous accusations.

    We have proven that the will of the Father is declared in verse 37.

    We have proven that the will of the Father in regard to what is declared in verse 37 is precisely the very assignment Jesus came to fulfill in verse 38

    We have proven that the will of the Father first spelled out in verse 37 and reaffirmed by Christ as His own will to perform in verse 37 will be performed by Christ in verse 38 so that "of all" the Father gave NOT ONE shall be lost but EACH ONE shall be raised unto eternal life.

    We have shown that the reason those in verse 36 saw Christ but did not believe in Christ was because they were not given to Christ by the Father in verse 37 because ALL that are given by the Father come to the Son in faith and not one fails to come to Christ in faith and they did not.

    We have shown that NONE CAN COME to the Son in faith except it "were given unto him of the father" (v. 65) and therefore the Father must give them in order for them to come to him - this is the cause and effect order established in verses 36-38 and our opponents must REVERSE this order to sustain their false doctrine of apostasy and denial of OSAS.
     
    #168 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2012
  9. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: Don't be arrogant and condescending DHK. It serves no purpose. :thumbs:


    HP: What is this about "most manuscripts???" When I cited a reference (not KJV) without some things in it, with the only purpose just to consider what they said, you told me what? Oh, I remember. Here is what you told me.


    HP: Now what is puzzling to me is why you would now act as if though any other manuscript other than the KJV you are so adamant in support of as being the only real Bible, should even be considered. Following your former advice they all should be chucked out if they differ from you obviously believe is the only inerrant Word of God, all others worthy of being cast aside as rubbish. How dare you tell us that nothing is changed without the last half of the verse, which clearly qualifies the first half.

    Here we have a clear sign as to ones real tactics and beliefs. If the KJV can be show to support ones presuppositions, by all means demand that we should chuck all others out.... BUT if the KJV states something that is not in keeping with our presuppositions, we will just say that portion of the KJ can be cast out for our presuppositions will not allow us to consider the effect of the truth of the last half qualifying the first half of the verse for obvious reasons.

    If that is not allowing ones presuppositions drive any and all conclusions from Scripture, the Pope is not a Catholic. And that is no red herring.
     
    #169 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 15, 2012
  10. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
     
    #170 DHK, Feb 15, 2012
  11. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I have stated is simple enough and evident enough for anyone to understand. I will not descend to your level; it would be a long descent. I have made my point sufficiently with scripture and reason to disprove your house of Calvinist cards, as others here can clearly see.

    I suppose you think you can score points by insulting me and maligning me. I'll let the fair-minded people judge who is exhibiting arrogance, ignorance, and the blowing of hot air. In fact, I shall henceforth refer to you as, "Windy". :laugh:

    Continue to flail away, flapping your wings and gums. :)
     
    #171 Michael Wrenn, Feb 15, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2012
  12. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your kind words, here and elsewhere; I appreciate it very much!

    It's easy to see who has the Spirit of Christ, and who does not.
     
    #172 Michael Wrenn, Feb 15, 2012
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    I never denied what you said could be understood. What I denied is that you provided any kind of contextual based support from John 6:36-65 to prove it.

    For example? Where have you even gone to John 6:36-65 and provided a single solitary text, statement, word, grammatical note or any kind of quotation whatsoever???????? This is precisely the hot air I have accused you for - big words with no contextual based evidence!:BangHead:
     
    #173 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
  14. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carry on; it's clear that you don't think very highly of me. :)

    But that's your prerogative.
     
    #174 Michael Wrenn, Feb 15, 2012
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    It has nothing to do with "you"! It has to do with your obviously false claims.

    Anyone can go back to each of your posts and see clearly you offered not one scintillia of contextual evidence from John 6:36-65 in spite of your claims you gave scriptural support for your conclusions.
     
    #175 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    What arrogance! More truthfully it is easy to see who is making false claims, false accusations and who is not.
     
    #176 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
  17. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    It certainly is; on that we can agree!

    And it is also easy to see who has personally insulted and personally maligned.
     
    #177 Michael Wrenn, Feb 15, 2012
  18. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gave scriptural support; it contradicts your fallacies; therefore, you choose to ignore and/or deny it.

    Pretty easy to gore that bull. LOL
     
    #178 Michael Wrenn, Feb 15, 2012
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481


    Well, just cite ONE post among the many you have made where we can see the scriptural evidence you have provided from John 6:36-65 and you can shut my mouth!!

    Surely, it should be easy for you to cite just ONE post?????????
     
    #179 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Dear Readers,

    Here are all the posts that Michael posted on this thread:

    Posts# 7, 11, 38, 39, 73, 105, 107, 129 171, 172, 174, 177, 178

    Not a single one of these posts ever provides his readers with any evidence from John 6:37-65 - Not one! The closest he gets to the text is merely making an unsubstaniated statement which I quote:


    However, your proof text is easy to interpret. The ones God gives to the Son are those who freely accept Him and freely choose to remain true to Him till the end. The end or destiny of those who receive Him and then later turn away from and reject Him, is dealt with in such scriptures as Hebrews 6. John 6:40 further clarifies the proof text which you have so arrogantly used to beat us over the head with (v.39). So, of course Jesus will lose none of those He has been given -- and these consist of the ones who do not fall away. - Post #129

    So you be the judge who is telling the truth here. He says he "gave scriptural support" and I say he simply made unsubstantiated comments that included references to scripture but nothing to support or prove his comments.
     
    #180 The Biblicist, Feb 15, 2012
Page 9 of 16
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...