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!

"Once saved, always saved"--Fact or Fiction?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by bmerr, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I don't mind if you only pick out the most objectionable points and make your case there. In fact I would prefer that you pick out something you really really care about - and then be very thorough in refuting what I am saying on that point.

    My summary statement is simply a "claim" or "assertion" just like LLoyd has made ad nausium so far. The PROOF is made IN the comments IN the text that SHOWS both the saved and lost being addressed EXPLICITLY in the text.

    I will grant you that simply isolating my assertion at the top without reference to any of the supporting data I highlight "in bold" would be the easiest way to respond back. But I recommend that you not do that.

    For a short cut - just read the bolded text (plus anything I NUMBER from my own summary) as a first pass to get the main points I am making.

    Then read the detail AROUND whatever point you stop on and decide to make your stand there.

    Have at it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Here is a clue.

    EACH of us brings our own subjective views - our own bias to the text. That is not "the difference" all do it. Though we try not to.

    The challenge is to SHOW IN THE TEXT that a consistent exegetical support exists for that view and that in fact it is the one that BEST fits the text!

    See?

    The details.

    I do not complain when I see OSAS and Calvinism spread all over ever post that Lloyd makes. But I DO complain when he refuses to see the TEXT - the DETAILS IN the text -- EVEN if I HIGHLIGHT THEM! His bias SHOULD not stop him from seeing the text as it does.

    It takes MORE than bias for that! It takes a defensive closed attitude to the text of scripture. It takes complete rejection of Exegesis IF a text that is in focus does not fit your view of OSAS or Calvinism. If one goes to such an extreme to cling to error then it is MORE than mere bias that is motivating the tactic.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Bob

    You complete exegesis is a total ignorance of context. You miss context when you speak authoritatively. You can't figure out that the first section of Romans past the intro is against self-righteousness. The doers of the law will be justified (Rom 2:13).


    Ha - ha. What a theological failure you are if you actually think that you can obey God's law perfectly! This is part of a section that shows where the bar is set and then shows where self-righteousness leads. We will be proven so guilty that not one word will be said in self-defense (3:19).

    Yet, you wish to take a Sharpie to God's Word and make obedience the basis for salvation. Very foolish! It is total ignorance of context.

    Context rules! Your so-called proof fails miserably. Same for Romans 11, . . . .


    BUT WAIT. Why am I listing each verse that you use? I might miss one or two. I'll do better just to say that you don't do anything right because you can't understand justification. Get up to speed on justification and you'll be changing your tune.

    How's those feeble observations coming?
    I did the leg work for you.
    Perhaps I have to spoon feed you as well!

    Well, I'll give you another day before I pull out baby's high chair and spoon.

    Good luck!
    Lloyd
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In your constant quest to avoid the text of scripture in your actual posts Lloyd - you keep referencing context and exegesis AS IF you were doing it.

    How is that you are so text-adverse when it comes to the inconvenient texts I am posting yet you keep "wanting" to claim you have some credibility posting THE TEXT you are avoiding!?

    WHO is that supposed to impress?? How could such tactics ever be satisfactory in a discussion with someone that does not start by assuming your frequent and often pontifications are "evidence" in favor of your points?

    What is the strategy dude? Surely you are not as opposed to logic as you seem to be to the inconevient texts being quoted -- are you?

    Whats up? Are you giving up on scripture AND logic and just hoping to get "lucky"??

    Is this some kind of "lottery debate" theme you have going here?

    To his creded Steaver makes a good point that so many texts, so many points have been raised that he is not able to address them all.

    By contrast you seem to be stuck on zero. I just know you can do better.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Indeed "the rant and pontificate" model rather than context, rather than exegesis, rather than actually MAKING A POINT!

    I got your tactic as soon as you started using it.

    What I DON't get is your "strategy" for favoring vaccuous text-devoid pointless posts rather than trying to pick some key point and make your case.

    How is that strategy working for you? Where is it supposed to lead?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Bob

    My strategy doesn't work with someone who slices up God's Word to force fit it to their Christ-denying self-righteous human-centered theology.

    It only works with those who are teachable!

    Have you seen my points?
    __1. Justification is an EVENT.
    __2. Human activity is denied for justification.
    __3. Only God is active in EVENT justification.

    Surprise! Process justification is the anti-gospel! ! [​IMG]

    Get the point?
    Lloyd
     
  7. Frances

    Frances New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    If anyone thinks that once they are forgiven of their sins and accept the truth of the scriptures as their means of salvation that they cannot turn away you should read Hebrews 6., and by all means take it for just what it says and don't try to add to it or take away. It's simple enough for a child to understand.
    Sealed!!!So many have tried to prove you can't fall away with different scriptures which use this word in them. Have you ever seen a seal on anything that couldn't be broken or blown up? OH if only once saved always saved was a fact the churches would be running over and probably couldn't build enough to hold the people, if they would even go to church, after all why go?
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Good point Frances.
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Well I can agree to at least PART of your post.

    And that is real progress so far!

    I will take it!


    :rolleyes: err umm... 'yes' I have seen the Calvinist model that you claim is you "not being Calvinist".

    Been there. Done that. Saw it.

    Did not become Calvinist!

    Opted for the Rev 3 model instead Lloyd!

    You know - "the Bible" I keep POSTING!

    (Big surprise Lloyd?)

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Since Lloyd seems at a vulernable point now where he "might" read the Bible when posted --

    I thought I would post some scripture and see if Lloyd will read.

    This is going to be good for you Lloyd because it addresses the PRE-JUSTIFICATION moment and then walks right through to the post-Justification UNION with Christ and life IN FELLOWSHIP with Christ that is the life of the saints!


    (Notice Christ says he loves them. And it is NOT true that the Laodiceans are the ONLY ONES Christ loves. Rather "God so loved the WORLD". )

    Christ is calling for “repentance” – and stating His love for the lost – about to be spewed out of His mouth.

    Heb 12 tells us that - For ALL whom God loves He reproves and disciplines. We see this in John 15 with the trimming of the branches as well as in Heb 12 with the children of God being disciplined.

    The principle has moved to one that is general - and not some special dispensation/treatment that only applies to the Laodiceans. Those whom God loves He disciplines (disciples) Heb 12, John 15, Rev 3:19

    And in keeping with that general case we have Christ continuing to speak – to the SAME group and showing that this is a personal – direct message..
    Here we see the case of those NOT in UNION with Christ – NOT in fellowship with Christ. As even some Calvinists will admit – regeneration is the first point where a person IS in union with Christ.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1533.html#000005

    The case is made that the same “anyone” that is instructed to “open the door” is the SAME “anyone” that WILL receive the benefit of immediate fellowship with Christ (I will dine WITH him and he WITH Me). Here is picture “union WITH Christ” – following as a result of the choice to open the door.

    Many reject the idea that those being addressed in Rev 3 could possibly be OUT of union with Christ”. They shrink from thinking that the sinner is “alone and without UNION with Christ” on the INSIDE while Christ is on the OUTSIDE! The reject this because “Calvinism” needs to avoid this “inconvenient detail” of scripture..

    Yet we see “in the text” that each individual must HEAR and OPEN the door and then to each ONE that does – the RESULT will be that immediate fellowship that is promised. This is not a case of those ALREADY in fellowship with Christ and “inside the church” being promised that they WILL be in fellowship if they only open the door. Rather it is a promise to the condemned of Vs 17 that THIS action will result in the INDIVIDUAL being IN fellowship The propitiation (atoning sacrifice) of Christ provides the currency in "suffering" owed by all lost humanity - but God holds application of that currency by His OWN rules - to "Whosoever Will" saying "I STAND at the door and KNOCK if anyone HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come IN" Rev 3:21.

    Fortunately Calvinists like John MacArthur seem to “get the point” about UNION with Christ NOT being defined as “the sinner alone on the inside WITHOUT Christ while Christ is on the OUTSIDE knocking and waiting for the sinner to open the door”

    Here's what John Macarthur (calvinist) says

    From MacArthur's study Bible comments on Rev 3, page 1997.


    The conditions are clear - God is not fire-hosing us with payment of our debt. Rather the blood of Christ - and suffering for our sins is carefully treasured - held for us to claim "IF we CONFESS our sins HE IS faithful and just to FORGIVE us our sins AND to CLEANSE us from ALL unrighteousness".

    It could not BE any clearer.


    Salvation is “individual” the remedy is “individual” the people IN the church of Laodicea are in fact “individuals” with the spiritual condition described, and in need of taking the “action” described – individually – to obtain the “individual solution” described IN the text in “individual” terms.

    Note – the “individual terms” continue –

    It is NOT just the Laodiceans that will enjoy God's company and sit with Christ - but ALL who open the door.

    At times – the Calvinist approach is to imagine “the door of the CHURCH” is closed to Christ and all on the inside of the church are “without Christ” – all on the inside are “spiritually blind, wretched, poor, miserable and spiritually naked” without the robe of Christ. Then in that view – one of the members is asked to “let Christ into the church” since He is outside the door of the church knocking. But in that case the “result” would be that only to that One – is fellowship restored – the REST would remain – spewed out – miserable and lost since the language of the solution shows that “I with HIM and HE with ME” is the nature of this 1-to-1 solution.

    Calvinism’s attempted rework of the text is not possible.


    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  11. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Bob

    Much better. You actually put some thought into that post. Is this a genuine posting? Regardless, you did well until you said:

    Salvation is IN Christ. This happens 77 times in the KJV. Once one is IN FELLOWSHIP, one cannot fall out of fellowship. A believer can be out of fellowship but not out of union.

    Your very nice references to discipline is just that - discipline. Where is the mention of "kick out of family" or "eternal damnation" or "hell?" It isn't there except that you wish to force fit these into your errant PROCESS justification.

    Nice try. Really! I'm pleased to see that you've stopped the personal diatribes. We should note that even while we are theological adversaries, that we (me too) must avoid the ways of the world. The Bible is where we should together seek the truth.

    Meanwhile, those of Rev 3 can fail and lose out on intimate fellowship - but not their union IN CHRIST. You have taken sanctification verses and attempted to redefine them as justification verses. This is very bad. It is why I want you to see that justification involves three key aspects
    (1) Justification is an EVENT
    (2) God alone is active in justification.
    (3) Humans are passive in justification.

    Justification comes by God's IMPUTATION - not by works. Since it does not come by works, how can it be maintained by works (Gal 3:1-3)? This is rhetorical question Bob. Paul expects an answer like: "It doesn't!"

    Good work - except for the wrong redefinition of sanctification. This, I posit, comes from your misunderstanding of justification.

    Lloyd
     
  12. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    OK, let's see what it says
    Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."

    I read this plainly "...it is impossible for those who were once enlightened....if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again..." Christ. In other words, if you WERE able to fall away, you would be UNABLE to be renewed since this would take Christ dying a second time, and brother, it aint happenin'. The "tasted" phrases in this passage are the same as the "tasted death" that Christ went through on the cross, since no tomb was able to hold Him.
    By a man? Sure, all seals can be broken. By God? NO! You think you can break a seal that God has put on? When the Bible say NO MAN can pluck (us) out of His hand, are you not included in "no man"? Are you, and those who deny OSAS, the lone exceptions to "no man"?
    If it "were" a fact? It IS a fact whether you believe in it or not! How do I know? The Bible tells me I am to KNOW that I have ETERNAL LIFE (life without an end).
    Let me ask you a question. If you were saved and had eternal life, and "fell away", and became "saved" again (eternal life), what do you call your first "episode" of salvation? It can't be eternal life, because it ended. It can't be everlasting life, because it didn't last. What then was it?
    If salvation can be lost by man, then that means salvation has to be maintained by man. This no longer is grace, but becomes "works" whether you want to admit it or not.
     
  13. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Webdog

    Your response is deficient for TWO reasons. First, you ignore Jesus’ ministries such as the Surety, Mediator and High Priest of the New Covenant. I don’t think you realize that you unwittingly deny the Jesus you claim to worship.

    For this post I wish to discuss the context of Heb 6 and hope you can open up to the truths of the greater context. CONTEXT RULES!

    The word “impossible” is your death knell. If we take this word “impossible” to its natural conclusions then even you have no proper explanation and quickly avoid any further discussions on that avenue. Why? In your view, if a person was saved and then lost, it would be impossible to restore such a person. This is heavy duty trouble for your view since it nullifies repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. It makes Christianity a hopeless one-shot religion. Thus, you must “backs off” from the natural consequences of this self-righteous system by using theological “double-talk” in order to disguise it. You adjust scripture to fit your beliefs.

    The natural conclusions of the word “impossible” should make anyone see that salvation is not being discussed. This is a good example of how an unclear verse should not be allowed to nullify an already clearly established doctrine.

    Verses 7-8 show us what is being discussed by using an analogy to farmland. The land wasn’t productive. Nothing but thorns grew on it and the owner had to bear its fruitlessness. Today, many people burn their lawns to eliminate dead stuff and enhance the new growth. Burning only prepares it for the next cycle of cultivating, sowing and reaping so that it can bring fruit in its due time. The ground properly burned and prepared will produce fruit NEXT YEAR! Your view would have to say that land can only produce one crop or that God doesn’t tend to His own fields or that after burning the field He sells it. Each of these options is a damnable heresy!

    In verse 9, the readers receive BETTER things than the apostates. Better is a comparative word. Both apostates and the faithful receive the same type of judgment differing only in a comparative degree. The faithful receive a better reward than the apostates; not a different destiny as in heaven or hell. Here again, if a different type of judgment was in mind the author had other choices of words such as: artatotos or heteros (Gal 1:6) or nearly 100 other words.

    In context, the Jewish Christians suffering from intense Roman persecution had determined to return to the faith of their fathers. They thought that God was still pleased with the Old Covenant system. Their mind was made up – it would be impossible to return them to the faith. The author was writing to say that God had abandoned the Old Covenant in favor of the New. The author used strong words because they were actually turning their backs on the Majestic God to Whom they thought they returning.

    There is no mention of eternal damnation. Either the author was terribly incompetent to say Corner was right OR the issue of losing one’s eternal life was never considered because the author believed in OSAS! Clearly God isn’t incompetent; so OSAS is biblical.

    Lloyd
     
  14. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Webdog

    Here is reason #1 why your view of Hebrews as a whole is deficient.

    Context determines everything. A word has no meaning outside of its sentence. The five dire warnings in the book of Hebrews have no meaning outside of its first century milieu. Context will be useful as a reference to provide correction in the exegesis of this great book and its warnings. In this fashion, context will serve as the star constellations to the old time sea-faring captains.

    Stanley suggests that the author (Paul?) wrote the book to Jewish Christians. These Jewish Christians were already ostracized by their families for leaving the Judaic faith of their fathers. Now they were also suffering from intense Roman persecution against the new Jesus sect. In face of all these persecutions, they were contemplating leaving their dependency on Christ and returning to Judaism.

    Townsend agrees: The “Hebrews were Jewish believers in Christ living in or near Rome who were feeling the aftershock of persecutionquakes.” He places the date of the writing before A.D. 64.

    This book is very relevant to all Christians everywhere because those Jewish Christians were not hearing the good news about Jesus for the first time. They had already made a “decision” for Christ. They had already demonstrated extreme faith through persecutions and sufferings. Their faith was reaching an end - like the experience of many modern day Christians. Would they abandon their faith or remain steadfast?

    If this abandonment of the faith was the equivalent of losing one’s salvation, then the author should have declared it. Search all you want. You can’t find the words unsaved, damned, UNadopted, go to hell, lost or anything else that would suggest your position.

    The overarching peculiarity of this book is the author’s silence with respect to your conclusion. If anyone of your view was writing the book, the dire message of eternal damnation would have been inserted into every warning, several times - - - and then some. Yet – this kind of summary conclusion is no where to be found.

    Either the author of Hebrews was terribly incompetent in fulfilling his responsibilities or the warnings meant something else. The first option must be discounted for although a human hand held the pen that wrote the words, God’s Spirit superintended the writing of those words. The real Author of Hebrews is God Himself. He certainly is not incompetent or irresponsible. Hence, something else must be the focus of the warnings - something other than loss of salvation.

    We can catch an idea of what God had in mind by the consistency of conclusions drawn. Consistency in this one book will lead to theological harmony in the entire Bible. What is the Author consistently saying throughout the book? Stanley, for good reason, used Hebrews 10:1-18 as the summary of the entire book.

    Consider the follow features of Jesus’ ministries.
    (1) Jesus is our High Priest. He faithfully (3:1) has purged our sins (1:3) and makes reconciliation for sins (2:17-18). But since He is seated in the heavenly places (8:1) this work is finished! Since sins have been forgiven and reconciliation has been accomplished no more sacrifices can be made (7:27). For by one offering He has perfected FOR EVER them that are sanctified (10:14). Jesus understands our situation (4:14-15) and is able to grant grace and mercy (4:16). As our faithful High Priest He is both the author (5:9) and finisher (12:2) of our faith. He is the forerunner for all those who believe in Him (6:20).

    (2) Jesus is the Surety (7:22) of the New Covenant. As the equivalent of the co-signer of a bank loan, Jesus supplies the covenantal requirements that God expects when first named believers fails in their tasks. The failures can be anything such as rebellion, slipping, drifting, apostasy, disobedience, etc. From God’s view, with Jesus as the surety, nothing is lacking in the covenantal arrangement.

    (3) Jesus is the Mediator (8:6) of the New Covenant. As 100% God He is able to represent God in the mediation. He makes sure that God gets people that love Him, who are holy, unblemished and perfect. As 100% human He is able to represent humans. He makes sure that God is faithful to fulfill each of the seven covenantal clauses. Jesus keeps both sides in line.

    (4) Jesus is the Finisher (12:2) of our faith. He finishes the little nudge of human faith that took hold at the new birth and is faithful to deliver what He has promised (Heb 10:23) making it easy for us to draw near to Him.

    (5) Jesus will never ever leave or forsake us (13:5). This is good news especially knowing that He never changes (13:8). In the government administration, someone initiates program X. This goes fine until the next administration comes along and program X is lowered on the priorities. This won’t happen with Jesus.

    (6) As the great Shepherd (13:20), He tends for His flock like no earthly shepherd can. If one of the sheep drift away, rebel or apostatize in some other way, Jesus goes after that sheep and brings it home (Luke 15:4-6)!

    Let’s summarize. The Author does not use any words that support your position and the Author supplies six ministries of Jesus where any one of them would be sufficient to build a theological system around eternal security. … Hmmmm. Nothing for your view; everything for OSAS.

    If you are as yet undecided as to which view is the most coherent system, have you ever seen any work from your side give an answer to these facets? or weave a system that faithfully captures these comforting eternal ministries? I am quite sure that there has never been, is not now, nor will ever be such a work (at least any work that is faithful to scripture). It isn’t possible.

    So when the total book of Hebrews presents such a lopsided, one-sided (for humanity), emphatic view of the believer’s security in Jesus, how do you suppose that we should approach five questionable and highly debated warnings? Is it right for the NSNS view to ignore the general teaching of the book? Can your view force conditional security on these five warnings when the tenor of the entire book is UNconditional security? Is it right to have two systems that pit the Author against Himself? Can we slice up the book of Hebrews and pick and choose what we like? The answers to these rhetorical questions should be an easy “NO.”

    Harmony and consistency pave the road to the truth. As discussed in virtually every chapter in this section, harmony involves an understanding of the distinct and mutually independent contrasts between salvation (justification) vs. sanctification; destiny vs. rewards; and works vs. grace. This is the approach that will be used to unmask your subtle treachery in the five dire warnings.

    Don't be an unwitting Christ-denier.
    He is the only WAY to eternal life (John 14:6)
    Lloyd
     
  15. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Webdog

    I guess the #1 reason is your deficient view of justification. I extend to you the same challenge that I gave to BobRyan. Look at my post that gives the 40 occurences of dikaioo in the Greek NT.

    What conclusions can be generated from this list?
    Here you will see that justification is an EVENT in which humans are merely passive recipients. God alone is active in justification.

    That should jump start you on this important topic. What now do you wish to add?

    Lloyd
     
  16. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,438
    Likes Received:
    180
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Lloyd,

    You have a habit of misreading post that are intended to be on the OSAS side of the fence.

    Webdog is a OSAS brother in Christ. When you see something in a quote like this...

    I did not say it...this will always mean someone other than the one writing this post said this, unless otherwise indicated, and now I am going to respond.

    There will usually be a quote given from another and then a response to that quote. You are reading it as though the quote and the response is coming from the same person. This why many times you say that the poster is contradicting themselves.

    Some posters will add to the quotes just who said it. I don't because I believe the one who said it knows they did and will pick it up and respond back.

    Here is another example...

    See, I did not say this, you did. If you see quotes it is usually always another's words and then the poster is going to respond.

    God Bless!

    ps. your teaching is very sound, keep it up, I am learning much!
     
  17. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Steaver

    Yes! Guilty as charged. This topic is so important we must be able to articulate it without confusion.

    My apologies to webdog if any personal offense was given or taken.

    I don't really wish to apologize for being zealous in defending such a critical doctrine, but I will most certainly expurgate my posts.

    Thanks for your wise counsel.
    Lloyd
     
  18. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings webdog and Steaver

    Ah Yes! I have re-read webdog's earlier post. I see that I am totally guilty of the spring-board fallacy. I saw a group of words that triggered a "hot key" response before I fully read and understood his expostulation.

    My repartee comes from the fact that there are so many who willfully deny the Christ the claim to worship. I see whole denominations that have embraced a human-centered system for pleasing God. They unwittingly rebuff our Father's plan of redemption.

    LLoyd
     
  19. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Lloyd, no apology necessary. :D

    I have to admit, you had me pretty confused!
     
  20. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings

    What do Christ-denying heretics make of "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the UTTERMOST that come unto God by him" Heb 7:25?

    It seems to be the height of folly to redefine the common sense OSAS understanding into something good only to the "next major sin." I note that no Christ-denying heretic is ever able to give a sufficient description of what the "next major sin" might entail.

    Common sense must reign! UTTERMOST must be seen as just that - beyond any speculation of loss or irreparable damage.

    Lloyd
     
Loading...