Featured Specific threats to Christians about losing eternal life!

BOB wants to keep sayingSpurgeon/Moody supports him and the SDA view regarding keeping law of God, but know how reformed baptists view the law for Christians NOT sameway he does in the SDA!

 

In his twisted interpretations he see this. EGW saw things as well -- it goes with the territory. They heap to themselves teachers, turning their ears from truth to fables -- and God judges them with false preachers to accomodate them.

He is on an endless objective to find a proselyte.

Knowing many passages also blinds them. 'Ever learning...'

 

And I can give scriptural facts that counter your scriptural facts, but what would this prove? Only that you interpret certain scriptures as supporting your position, and I do the same.

I don't think it is necessary or wise for me to continue this. All of you know what I believe and why, and I know what you believe and why. And we'll all know fully by-and-by.

And I'll let your insult pass without commenting on it.

 

The first English Baptists didn't believe OSAS. What I find amazing is that so many later Baptists follow Calvin instead of what the original English Baptists believed.

 

To show I can be objective, I think that is a well-reasoned and sensible post. I think you mis-characterize a couple of things, but overall it's a good post.

 

But not against our will, should we decide to willfully reject what we have received. And to deny that we can do this not only denies scripture but the essential nature of God.

 

I have given you the true meaning of the verse. I can't do anything to help your willful blindness. You are, after all, exercising that free will in refusing to acknowledge the truth.

 

Yes, we're well aware of your ability to twist the words of Christ.

He will lose none.

 

The First English Baptists did believe in eternal security. Benjamin Cox wrote explanatory notes for the 1644 Confession of faith. Coxe wrote as the authorized representative for those who produced the 1644 Confession of Faith. He denies any of the elect will be lost.

 

No you can't! Scripture is not a chamelon with multi-contradictory meanings. False interpretations can be demonstrated false by the immediate context.

You said that you gave the true meaning of John 6:39. I have done detailed exegesis of this passage in its context and there is no honest way you can interpret that text to deny eternal security. Please point me to your post where you supposedly prove the contrary.

 

All 30 are misinterpretations

 

I do not twist. That is your dance.

I have adequately explained the meaning of the relevant scriptures to you, but you have very little ability to comprehend. I'm sorry you won't be able to change that since it was predetermined.

 

You need to study your history a little more. The first English Baptists were Thomas Helwys and followers. They produced the first English Baptist Confession of Faith in 1611. They were General Baptists and did not believe in eternal security/OSAS. The Particulars who came later were influenced by the English Separatist Independents -- the Calvinistic Puritans.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Read......

The only way you or anyone can interpret it to affirm eternal security is to approach it with determinist presuppositions.

 

The Particulars did not come later. The 1640 theory has been totally disproven by J.T. Christian. Both Kiffin and Knollys claimed that the churches in London had been organized by Preachers coming from early churches in the country side outside of London:

"I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) that they were thus gathered; Viz., Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the ministry, BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THE COUNTRIES where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates [Episcopalians] came to sojourn in this great city....." - Hensard Knollys - A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called Independency not God's Ordinance. London, 1645

"It is well known to many and especially to ourselves that our congregations as they are now, were erected and framed according to the rule of Christ BEFORE WE HEARD OF ANY REFORMATION EVEN AT THE TIME WHEN EPISOPACY WAS AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS VANISHING GLORY." - William Kiffin: A Brief Response of the Reasons of those People Called Anabaptists for their Separation; London, 1645, p. 6

Dr. John T. Christian researched this quotation and found that a Mr. Joseph Richart, who corresponded with Kiffin over this statement said:

Mr. Joseph Richart, who says he wrote the queries to which Kiffin replied, affirmed tht he understood the Episcopal and not the Presbyterian Reformation. "You allege," he says, "your practice, that your congreations were errected and framed in the time of the Episcopacy, and before you heard of any Reformation." (Richart, A Looking Glass For Anabaptists, p. 7 London 1645).
Here were Baptists churches, according to Kiffin, before the times of Henry VIII. And this fact was well known to the Baptists. Further on Kiffin makes the claim that the Baptists outdated the Presbyterians. - John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, Vol. 2, p. 255

The Church in the Hop Garden can be dated by archeological remains to as early as 1414 (John Stanely, The Church in the Hop Garden) and the Hillcliffe Baptist church as early as 1300's based upon archeological remains.

 

So, you deny and dismiss John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. You are mistaken.

 

You have been led down the pathway of pedobaptist historical perversion. I know my history quite well. The idea that Thomas Helwy was the earliest English Baptist is a joke! John T. Christian provided more than sufficient historical evidence to expose that theory as completely false.

 

I have approached it solely on the merits of the text itself not by some philsophical bias. I have given two threads to this passage. If you are a capable exegete then point out my expositional flaws in those thread. As of yet, NONE have attempted to dispute the expositonal facts I have laid out for all to examine. It is disgenuine to impute a philsophical bias when you have not even examined the contextual based evidence presented. Proper exegesis only will determine whether philsophical bias has been injected. You cannot conclude what you have not examined. Your charge of philosphical bias is repudiated by proper exegesis of the text. Doubt me? Then demonstrate where my exegesis incorporates any philosophical bias or drop your charges.