Dr. Stanley and Eternal Security

Hope of Glory,
I didint think you had called me rude, I should have been more clear. Bro Bob had called me rude earlier.

Bro Bob,
The arrogance remark was not made to just you, there were several of you guys that were going at each others throats and it just irked me that Christians cant discuss something in a more mature manner. You get so involved with "I believe..." and it seems that no one else can be right.

As to the OP,

No one has yet to show biblically one person (by name) that had a split salvation.

 

You never included anyone but me. I went back and looked at the posts and I see nothing arrogant about them.

PastorSBC1303 to Bro Bob

BB; I think you are the one who steps his foot in where it does not belong, such as now.
This is where you attacked, when I had not even mentioned your name or responded to you at all. It is your "high and mighty attitude" that got the response you got.

Here is your post;


PastorSBC1303 to Bro Bob
You are not upholding God's word, but rather your own arrogant standard.

You have done nothing but quote Scriptures completely out of context that do not support your claims at all!


Quote:
If I found myself in adultery, I would withdraw myself from the church and pray for the rest of my life for forgiveness. If I ever felt that God had forgiven me, then I would come back by the door.


This is awful theology and NO where in Scripture!

Those who are in Christ are forgiven eternally.

You have nothing more than a system of man that leads to fear and bondage.

BB; These are your arrogant remarks without me ever addressing you.

I would like both of you to post what I posted that was arrogant.

This post was made entirely in response to post #80 and #81.

 

What do you mean by split salvation? If you are meaning spirit saved and soul unsaved I hav given MANY examples. If you need there names well there is Peter, James, John, Mark, Paul, Matthew, etc. etc. etc. How many names would you like? :laugh:

 

Brother Bob sometimes when people exude confidence in what they believe that is viewed as arrogant by some. I have been accused MANY times of being arrogant, but its because I am willing to take a stand where others will waffle or could care less about the topic.

But I say that I'm going to believe what I believe until someone can show me "in Scripture" that what I believe is wrong. We have to be confident enough to believe what we believe, but not arrogant to think that we could possibly be wrong.

That is a VERY FINE line I know .

 

There was no call for the remark at all JJ. I don't go around calling others names unless they attack me, then I respond. They made their responses to the OP, and I made mine of which the OP asked us to do.

Have you found the line? Read post #82 and if you think that makes me arrogant, then tell me. If you care to really check out the posts, you will find where I only responded to their posts. I never made one to them, except to respond.

 

You must be feeling overly defensive today Brother Bob. I did nothing in my post to attack. I was trying to help you see why "some" folks may think you arrogant. Sorry I will not try to help any more :laugh:.

So responding with a bad attitude is okay if someone starts it? I thought it was do unto others as they would "have them" do unto you.

You go by the old playground rule of do unto others as they do unto you huh?

I understand because I am guilty of that myself sometimes, to my shame. But that's not how we should respond even if addressed in that manner. And I'm talking to myself as muh as anyone!

I hope that I have.

I'm not sure if it was or wasn't, but what I was trying to help you see is that there are some folks that will call you arrogant just because you stand up for what you believe in.

Personally I think there have been a couple of post that have been overly harsh toward you and certainly didn't do anything to help you come to a different conclusion.

You and I disagree on many things, but I don't think calling you arrogant is going to help you see the error of your ways I think that only serves to harden you more into what your present stance is.

Scripture says we are to proceed with patience and gentleness and I have found myself lacking in that area especially with a few regular posters. And I keep telling myself that I'm not going to engage with them, but keep getting sucked back in.

I do like having conversations with you though because for the most part they have been very civil in the give and take.

Again my post was not an attack on you, but trying to help you see the mentality of some of those that throw out the arrogance line. I'm not even sure that is the mentality of those that have used it here, but was rather speaking of my past, so hopefully that staves off any attacks that might be headed my way

 

J. Jump;

Do you not see the difference between these two remarks. The fact that neither you or I call each other arrogant, though we do differ on many scripture.

I thought I was only minding my own business.

 

Absolutely I see the difference. And I don't condone what was said to you. I don't think that helps further anything but anamosity. But I think the more we can take the Scriptural approach to being attacked the better off we are going to be in the long run and again I say that to myself as much as anyone!

 

Bro. Bob, you believe what you want. I am done on this thread. We have went off completely from the intent of the OP.

Jump, we will have to agree to disagree. I have seen nothing in any of your responses that leads me to accept your conclusion.

 

Well unfortunately you have gone the way of most. I told you the matter wasn't going to determined within a matter of a few posts. But you have access to go deeper if you desire. I hope for the sake of your congregation you will at least study the matter out to its end instead of making up your mind without all the facts.

 

Hope of Glory;

I agree with this, except I believe the hell spoken of here, was the confinement to the cross.


Rich man
haides hah'-dace: unseen, i.e. Hades or the place (state) of departed souls -- grave, hell.

The rich man was in a place of departed souls, a place of punishment in flames and his body was not there, it was in the grave.

On the other hand Jesus was in a type of hell the same as Jonah where there was both soul and body, and Jonah was suffering and confined, but there were no flames there.

Jonah
sh'owl (sheh-ole')
Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates -- grave, hell, pit.

Jesus
sh'owl (sheh-ole')
Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates -- grave, hell, pit.

The only place I can read where Jesus was punishing and confined, was when He was on the cross, where He cried "Father why hast thou forsaken me". I believe this to be the Hell where Jesus was.

 

Accountable, IamBlessed --- Let me explain how I come to call them the reverse of what you do.

To me, the Spirit of God is His mind, emotions, and will. The Spirit comes through the word of God which is His "wisdom." "His Spirit witnesses with our spirit"... not with our soul. If God's wisdom indwells us, does His indwell our conscience or our mind? Our mind/heart which is the exact place the Satan tries to attack ("Satan hath blinded the MINDS of them that are lost.").

Now as to the soul, what do you think is the ultimate authority wihin us? Our conscience, right? We choose good or bad, God or self, in our conscience. Which part do you suppose is "separated" from God by sin? Our conscience --- we no longer want to do it God's way but our own way even when it comes to salvation! Thus, the soul/conscience is the 'father' of our spirit and 'son'/flesh

BTW, "spiritually dead" simply means that the soul and spirit are dead from the "soul leading" us into righteousness. On the other hand,when we become "spiritually reborn," the soul is the "anchor" for all our decisions so long as we are not grieving, quenching, or rejecting the Spirit in our hearts.

This is sotierological as well because whether born or reborn, we first "process" every "issue of life" through our spirits/minds/emotions/wills. Without God in our soul, the "governing factor" in our decisions is "self" in our soul. However, even self can understand the gospel -- there is still a "God awareness" in our soul (that empty "God-like hole" where God was) that needs to be filled. So when it comes decision time, if we can ignore self long enough to acknwledge God, we may come to believe (mind) and be soul-saved forever (justified, given the "righteousness of God" in our soul/control-center of our lives).

skypair

 

This is just some man thinking he knows better than the KJV translators -- but he is wrong. Read it again. "we are not of them that draw back unto perdition! A "just man" canNOT draw back unto perdition. That is heresy!

"Perdition" is HELL, friend!

You're just "taggin' along' with the Catholics on this one, aren't you? You meant to say "pergatory" -- as in "draw back unto purgatory."

Blasphemy! Are you kidding me!? The Phaisees saved? The "man with no wedding garment" is AC! The 5 foolish virgins were "pew warmers" before the rapture! The "wicked, slothful" servant was never saved! I hope you will humbly resign from wherever you learned this stuff and start going somewhere where the Bible is taught!

One thing you could do now is begin to reevaluate your "soul-spirit" dichotomy. Perhaps some or all of your blasphemy and departure/"shipwreck" from the faith comes from a total confusion as to soul and spirit.

You need to look at Phil 1:6 "Being confident that He who has begun a good work in you will perform it unil the day of Christ [Bema]."

And 3:21 "who shall change our vile bodies that is may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able to subdue all things to Himself." I don't see any "perdition"/purgatory here, do you? I see Christ working on us until we die and the next thing is the judgment/Bema!

Please don't subject immature Christians to your teaching.

skypair

 

"Them" are the lost -- probably Hebrews in this case who saw Christ but "drew back."

skypair

 

What HoG should be saying is that they are "saved by His death" but not being "saved by His life." Rom 5:10

And the correct interpretation of this is that their SOULS are saved in eternity but their mind, emotion, and wills are being tested day-by-day as to whether they will 1) choose God's way or 2) choose their own way. See, in the realm of our minds/spirits, we have decisions to make that will either sancitify us or cause that at the Bema we will lose rewards. HoG merely replaces "today" with some mystical 1000 years in which we "pay off" our sin (much like Catholic "purgatory").

The "coin" was one of 10 a MARRIED woman would wear on her forhead to show she was married (symbolizing salvation). Of the 3 parables, this one has to do with the Holy Spirit seeming to be "lost" to the woman. But she "lights a candle" (word of God), sweeps up (cleans up) her "life" and finding the coin, rejoices with the saints once again!

What she DIDN'T do was perish. What an utterly foolish interpretation!

skypair

 

Christians don't PRACTICE those things but I know many a Christian who has done them, including myself, while rejecting/grieving/quenching the Holy Spirit through "stinkin' thinkin'". And I say that because I didn't "lose my own soul" which was already saved eternally, but I did lose my reward and any earthly inheritance that comes of living a perfect life.

skypair

 

Salvation is between each and everyone and the Lord. Who am I to question another's salvation? I have my belief in what a Christian can do and cannot do and they seem to differ with most on BB. The Bible is too plain on who will not get in Heaven. I have to admit, I have been shocked since being on BB, what the vast majority says about what a Christian can do, and not lose his salvation, or as I say, "never had it to start with". God Bless,

BBob

 

Good morning Bro. Bob I hope you are having a great start ot Father's Day. I would like to address your point here. The "proof" texts that you keep using for this idea that a Christian won't do x,y,z is not talking about who will and will not get to "heaven."

Each of those texts are talking about who can and who can not enter the kingdom or inherit the kingdom.

The kingdom and eternity are not the same thing.

We have to let the text say what the text says.

If the kingdom is eternity or Heaven as you call it can you please provide Scripture that makes that connection.

Again you continue to fail to see the next part in a saved individuals life and that is the coming kingdom of Christ not eternity. Now I know you believe the 1,000 years is already over, but you haven't even come remotely close to showing Scripture evidence that that is the case.

I look forward to your response.

 

Hi J. Jump;
Why don't you first show me by scripture that the 1000 years is yet to come?

Also, show me by scripture that the Kingdom is not eternity?

If you like we can take one subject at a time.

 

Sure Bro. Bob.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
"Shall reign" is a future tense verb. It hasn't happened yet. But that day is coming.

Is that enough to show that the 1,000-year reign of Christ has not yet come?

As to the other one your "proof" texts are enough, because they talk about inheriting the kingdom. Eternal salvation is not an inheritance, but a gift. The gift is available to everyone, while an inheritance is only available to those that are already a member of the family. If you are not saved you can not inherit something that you have no right to.

You must be eternally saved (become a child of God) before you are in a place to receive an inheritance. But we see that not all saved folks will receive that inheritance. Those that will receive the inheritance of the kingdom are the ones that obey.

Disobedient, unfaithful, non-overcoming saved folks will not inherit the kingdom.

That should get us started.