Featured Eternal Security the Acid test

Which is what is common for him.

 

No Scripture stands alone from other Scripture, nor is any Scripture of a private interpretation. Scripture does not stand alone against first truths of reason, matters of fact, or matters of immutable justice. All truth needs to be harmonized with each other, for all truth is of God, God being the source of all truth.

Michael Wren has raised the issue of freedom in post #7. He has every right to raise this issue, and no Scripture can be set apart from the truths of the freedom God grants to man. Biblicist has absolutely no reason not to allow this issue to be used as a check and balance of ones interpretation. If the notions Biblicist arrives at from what he sees the text alone saying, it makes a complete mockery of not only the character of God, but of His law and justice as well. it also turns the grace of God into mere justice, for if God demands something from man that he in no wise has any ability to perform. It makes out God to be arbitrary and a respecter of persons as well. There is no other conclusion than utter fatalistic determination from the interpretation Biblicist offers of this passage.


God would be under obligation to provide man with an escape if we believe Biblicist interpretation of this verse is truth. We know that is NOT truth according to reason and Scripture. Salvation is by grace, not necessitated by justice.

When one is addressing the truth of God given intuitively , by reason, or by other Scripture, one is addressing the text directly and wisely. It is simply not within the scope of reason or wisdom to consider the truth to be found standing a particular passage on its head 'alone', apart from all other revealed truth, in support of Calvinistic dogma, which is precisely what Biblicist attempts to do. If we did this to other Scriptures, one might well conclude God has feathers.

Psa 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:

 

Mandym, where is your input into the actual discussion? Did I miss your insight?

 

Consider once again the following:
There are many Scriptures that set at naught the interpretation Biblicist settles on in John 6: 37-40. There are some important factors to consider that evidently Biblicist has not yet seriously considered. The first glaring thing that stands out to me is the notion of the ‘will of Him” or the will of God. God wills many things, including the salvation of all, 2Pe 3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” When this passage speaks of the will of God ‘willing’ that every one that ‘seeth the Son and believeth’ may have eternal life, that in no wise shows support for OSAS or that all that come to Him will in fact persevere in faith until the end on the basis of coming to Christ at one point in time. Again, God’s will, in reality, does not necessitate the salvation of anyone, but is an expression of His desire which some times is not accomplished when it comes to sentient moral beings exercising a free will. The only way this passage supports OSAS is if one applies such a presupposition to the passage as a lenses by which to interpret it. The plain truth is that every issue mentioned is indeed willed by God, in that He desires each following thing mentioned to come to fruition, but His will alone in no way necessitates His will to come to pass.

Secondly, Biblicist consistently and without fail merely begs the question of the manner in which those come to Him. Biblicist insists on God as a first cause, necessitating the outcome. Again, that is absolutely contradictory to God not being a respecter of persons. The only end to the argument of Biblicist is the absurdity of Calvinistic double predestination, irresistible grace, and limited atonement. No Biblicist, you are far gone from the truth in your interpretation of this passage. You may be ignorant of your own devices, but you are allowing an unproven presupposition of OSAS drive your conclusions and as such arrive a conclusions far from the truth. The Scriptures in NO WAY, demand your conclusions.

No one can avoid the conclusion of Calvinistic fatalistic determinative double predestination if they accept Biblicist's interpretation of this passage. Not Biblicist, DHK, or any one else. You say you agree with Biblicist on this passage? Enjoy your double predestination with all its necessitated absurdities and logical wicked ends.

 

HP: From your remarks, you may be seen by some as not understanding that first and foremost Scripture is a spiritual book that must be spiritually discerned. I am not saying that one should not consider context, but neither should we scrap other revealed truths at the alter of what one thinks is the 'context.' Human wisdom, apart from God inspired wisdom, can be as much in play in discerning context as any other time. Biblicist is living proof of this IMHO. He knows that simply taking this proof text, by itself, devoid of all other God instilled wisdom and other clear passages, that it can indeed be taken to support the notion of OSAS, the holy grail of Calvinism. Why else would he have brought up this text? Lucky dip? I think not.

Neither methodology nor reason necessitates any wise individual to set aside such God given and God inspired elementary first truths of reason, matters of fact, and truths of immutable justice, or other passages for that matter, when addressing any text of Scripture.

HP: Hogwash. God's revealed truth is a corpus of ideas and means that must be used to their fullest potential when discerning truth period. Again, what I hear you asking is that we sacrifice all other revealed truth while you mechanically play mechanical human wisdom with the context. Context is indeed part of the equation, but other God-inspired truths never play second fiddle to what you may think with your human reasoning, with blinders on to all other God-inspiried truth, is the defining context.

You will not admit it, and that is ok, but you induce presuppositions into your approach, aware of it or not, the evidence being the resulting fatalism you end up with, that is at direct antipodes with other revealed truths, some so simple and plain a wayfaring man though a fool even can readily see is truth. I gave you some clear examples when addressing choice and freedom in my other posts. For you to deny or oppose such clear plain and understandable God-inspired truth is a testament to the depth of your presuppositions and allegiance, at all cost, to OSAS.

 

HP: God alone will have the final answer. He may well have had a reason in placing that in Scripture your OSAS bias does not desire to accept at this time.

So much for your loyalty to the truth of the KJV.

 

HP: Biblical context is subject to interpretation. Anything subject to interpretation is subject to the 'human wisdom' God warns us to be aware of. Truth existed before Scripture was written. What 'Biblical context' was evidence of the validity of God's truth before Scripture? You could not be further from the truth with this piece of human philosophy. Show us where God informs us of any such thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Neither methodology nor reason necessitates any wise individual to set aside such God given and God inspired elementary first truths of reason, matters of fact, and truths of immutable justice, or other passages for that matter, when addressing any text of Scripture.

HP: The same could be said about what you perceive as 'context.' I would see depraved human reasoning as human reasoning so biased to OSAS that one can deny simple first truths of reason, matters of fact, truths of immutable justice, and other clear Scriptural passages and concepts as you have so clearly exhibited your skills in refusing this God-inspired witness. What is amazing, is the one area God has given you clear light to discern truth, you avoid like the plague.

Scripture clearly refutes your position. The heathen which do not even have the Scripture, nor understand the first truth of Scriptural 'context,' know intuitively truth and as such are a law unto themselves, yet the heathen are also adept at false philosophy and understanding as Augustine clearly exhibited. Still, God says that some do indeed do the things contained in the law without the written law, even when Augustine claimed he could not, others did. Biblicist, your position is getting more pathetically wrong by the post. 'Context the root of all false doctrine??' Not in a million years. It indeed can add to false doctrine as you have clearly shown (and others on this list as well) by your refusal to examine it carefully in Psalms 14, 51, and 58 just for starters, but it is not the sole root cause of error.

God has given us truths via conscience that are as pure as the driven snow, positive truths, if you will but listen to them over the objections of your OSAS biased mind.

 

HP: "Whatever law" they happen to be under?? Excuse me? What context or presuppostion drives such an absurd notion as you are presenting concerning the 'law' spoken of in Romans?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
God has given us truths via conscience that are as pure as the driven snow, positive truths, if you will but listen to them over the objections of your OSAS biased mind.

HP: Are you even attempting to read what I posted? Where did I say ones conscience was as pure as the driven snow?? I said some TRUTHS THAT RE REVEALED TNES CONSCIOUS are as pure as the driven snow revealing posiitve truth of love and justice etc. There is a clear distinction between ones conscience and truths revealed to ones conscience Biblicist.

HP: Sure Biblicist , to you the law could be the official rules on the side of a box of cold cereal if they happened to be the rules of ones culture.

The law, as set forth in Romans, has definitive boundaries, universal with all men. It is not necessarily a violation of God's law, the law spoken of in Scripture, to break some standard put up by some men or certain culture. David ate the show bread and was guiltless and Jesus and the disciples healed and ate corn on the Sabbath. I am sorry, but you certainly reveal some off the wall unfounded positions the longer we converse.

Show us in the word of God where your idea of what constitutes the law is indeed the case. Show us where the violation of ones culture is what condemns such a man of sin. Surely you are not serious. If you are, you certainly are in dire need of a study of what constitutes God's moral laws. I hope the possibility exists it is just me misunderstanding your position on the law.

 

Just for your satisfaction (as if it will win you over to the truth) ??

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The word "who" is a connective. Unlike "if" it does not show a condition. It is not conditional but rather qualitative. It underscores the qualities of the subjects being described.

Here is an important command of Scripture:
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
--These are the works of the flesh. They characterize the unsaved.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
--This is the fruit of the Spirit. In opposition to the works of the flesh they characterize the saved.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The saved is characterized by those who show the fruit of the Spirit and not the works of the flesh, or walk after the flesh. Those that are saved do not walk after the flesh but after the Spirit. The "who" indicates quality, not condition.
Therefore, there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. For those that are in Christ Jesus are those that are saved, walking after the Spirit. They can never be lost; never be condemned.

Now that I have explained this for you, keep your promise and start believing in OSAS.

 

I know you weren't addressing your post to me, but I couldn't help answering anyway. I couldn't accept a doctrine that didn't exist before Calvin.

 

Those who reject the biblical teaching of Eternal Security for the Believer, they do not believe Pauls words to some believers 2 Thess 3:3

3But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

Now its evil for one to depart from the Lord Heb 3:12

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

So if one who truly believes can depart from God as desribed here, then Paul lied in 2 Thess 3:3, even moreso, God the Holy Spirit lied since He inspired Paul on what to write !

 

Some modern versions also just have it reading that there is now NO condemnation for those in Christ period!

 

Don't think DHK would be biggest fan of John calvin, as he is not a calvinist, so would indeed use the scriptures alone to refute Micheals belifs concerning this point!