[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by OutThere

Hello?

Man, I hate these restricted participation debates. I'm liable to forget all about them. Here, I have some other verses to give you. Just so you can make some sort of reply to them as well so I can reply to yours in bulk.

http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...0&postcount=79

This is a reply to someone debating against me on the same issue. I make a new point. The verse in huge print are particularly the ones I want you to see.

http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...6&postcount=81

Another reply to people.

[OutThere]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Man, I hate these restricted participation debates. I'm liable to forget all about them. Here, I have some other verses to give you. Just so you can make some sort of reply to them as well so I can reply to yours in bulk.

I'll be happy to address those other verses in a future post, but first please comment on my last post. I am especially interested in your comments on these points:

-a believer is no longer his own
-a believer has a new nature
-a believer is a slave of righteousness
-God does not turn back on the promise of eternal life
-salvation is not of ourselves
-salvation is a gift, which when accepted, cannot be returned
-please explain how conditional security is not salvation by works
-please explain how you can imply "as if" in 1 John 2:19

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by OutThere

I'll be happy to address those other verses in a future post, but first please comment on my last post. I am especially interested in your comments on these points:

-a believer is no longer his own
-a believer has a new nature
-a believer is a slave of righteousness
-God does not turn back on the promise of eternal life
-salvation is not of ourselves
-salvation is a gift, which when accepted, cannot be returned
-please explain how conditional security is not salvation by works
-please explain how you can imply "as if" in 1 John 2:19

alrighty. Just remember though, I don't want to run two lines of debates congruently in one thread. That's why I thought that you should answer them first. I'll start answering it now (should take awhile).

[OutThere]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

alrighty. Just remember though, I don't want to run two lines of debates congruently in one thread. That's why I thought that you should answer them first. I'll start answering it now (should take awhile).

Two lines of debates is what you appear to be trying to do, saying I should cover points made by you in some other debate with someone else. Anyway, I look forward to your comments on my last post.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by OutThere

What I know is that the text does not support any exceptions to "no one". Whether the "plucking" is active (done by you) or passive (done to you by another) is irrelevant to who can perform it. This is what I understand your argument to be on this point:

Premise- a person cannot pluck or steal himself from God's hand
Fact- this verse speaks of the inability of being plucked from God's hand
Conclusion- therefore "no one" must by definition exclude one's self

I disagree with your premise, as there is no proof for it. It is an assumption you started with. On what authority or proof can you assume this? The NT makes it clear that we are God's possession, so to remove ourselves from his hand is, in fact, stealing what does not belong to us. 1 Cor. 6:19-20 says "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body." So the reason we can steal ourselves is because we don't own ourselves. My argument is:

Premise- a saved person is not his own; he belongs to God
Fact- this verse speaks of the inability of being plucked from God's hand
Conclusion- therefore "no one" applies to one's self as well as others

Congratulations on producing a strawman right off. My conclusion is that since we are RECIEVING the action, we cannot do it to ourselves. It's all about the greek bro. You may disagree with it. but that doesn't make it true. The word here for pluck/snatch is harpazo.

Harpazo

1. to seize, carry off by force
2. to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly
3. to snatch out or away

None of which are we capable of doing to ourselves. This is why even the Calvinists here have stopped using this verse in debate against me. As I have indeed shown it not to be viable for this cause. It strictly a verse protecting us from outside forces.

Eh? Why isn't it a factor, just because you decided a priori that it isn't? I don't see how you made any valid point here.

It isn't a factor because regardless of who it is to, either a small group (which no one else thinks it is) or a large group, it is to believers, whom none should be able to fall away according to eternal security.

all it takes is one to ruin the theory. And that has been provided.

I think what I do because I see it in the Bible, and I really don't care how popular or unpopular a given idea is. Appealing to popularity is a common logical fallacy. And I did not say that this verse did not refer to believers, but that these particular believers are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit individually.

The Holy Spirit must be removed from the earth before God rains down the judgment of the Tribulation, so any who become believers during that time cannot be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. How are these people then "saved"? If they in fact do not have the Spirit which is "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance", then their salvation must be conditioned on something which is not guaranteed. These are the believers who must "endure".

No, he said that only those who endure till the end will be saved. And the ones he spoke to would be filled with the spirit well before their end. So again, it is not feasible. Also, it was predestined that Jesus should lose NONE that were given to him (specifically, the disciples. Except for Judas of course). So he wouldn't be talking about the possibility of disciples falling away as they were hand picked. Your arguement also fails in the area of refering to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and refering to the Tribulation. Even if you believed that the tribulation was in the first century (which I most certainly do not), they were still filled with the Holy Spirit prior to it. The whole verse is as follows. They do have the spirit and he is not just talking about his main 12

Mat 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mat 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Only the spiritually dead need to be reborn, and Adam was not created spiritually dead. He did not die spiritually until the moment he sinned against God. So Adam was spiritually alive when he fell, but not born again. That condition can only apply to those who were dead and then made alive again. Neither was Adam personally indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Surely you recognize the uniqueness of Adam's situation and why it cannot be applied to any of his offspring.

Adam was blameless. He was "saved" in every since of the word that we will be in Heaven. Yet he was able to fall away. The condition doesn't say that only those who were dead are protected. No, the word of God is immortal. The condition is that you're in God's hands so nothing can "pluck seperate" us from Him. Well, Adam was certainly in God's hands. So either we can accept that he fell away or you have to make up "special" doctrine for him.

I appealed to the context, didn't I? That would include the first 3 verses, so don't say I left them out. The meaning of the first 3 verses is that we must not continually focus on the basics but move on to maturity. There is no warning here at all, but an exhortation to mature.

No, it was a plea not to fall away (so that they don't have to renew the foundation of repentance unto dead works). SO that was a warning. It was a prewarning.

This was already covered at the beginning of this post.

ah... if you think so. Not adequatly though.

Didn't Paul cover this in his letter to the Romans (see esp. chapter 6)? Why would he be exhorting us not to sin and never mention the danger of losing one's salvation? In fact, in Rom. 6:18 he says that we are "enslaved to righteousness". Slaves are slaves, not people who are free to go as they choose. And on what would any believer base his confidence of salvation? Our own strength? Yet even Paul had "no confidence in the flesh"! 1 John 5:13 says "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." If I am not eternally secure, then there is no way that verse can be true! Eternal doesn't mean eternal if it can be lost.

You had better quote what you have bolded. I do not see it. And it is a good question, why does he exhort us not to sin?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Obviously, we are not servants of righteousness in the terms that your refering to. Because we still sin. Or at least I do. I don't know about you. As Christians we are able to do good. As sinners we are not (because everything we do as sinners is out of Christ). But we can only serve one master. But there's nothing that says we can't go back to the dark one. You assume always that being a servant means that the one who is a master cannot be changed. But it already was for us once since we are Christians now. And Adam went from serving God to serving Satan. So he also did that.

The text does not say "it is as if"; those are words you added. Here is the exact quote: "1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." Where is "as if"? As I tried to point out, this is a statement of fact.

Are you familiar with the non-calvinist idea of what the elect are? They're the ones that will endure until the end.

Like I said, even if they are believers, there is no justification for declaring that being spewed out of Jesus' mouth constitutes loss of salvation. You completely ignored that point, so it really is your argument that "doesn't follow".

What does it mean then? "Oh no, I've been spewed from Jesus mouth, now I don't get a car in heaven..."

You can make declarations of your opinion but that is hardly a convincing argument. Deciding what it must mean is precisely what we're debating, so to simply declare your meaning the correct one is to say "I say it means thus and so" without any reason.

Yeah, I suppose you don't care about Jesus' so called "opinions" either then? Cause I was quoting him.

Mat 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Extreme injustice?? Is disagreeing with you an injustice? Sorry, but disagreements happen, and my opinion is as valid as yours. You miss the whole point of the parable, which is that you will be judged according to the standard you use against others. Are you saying God can turn back on the promise of eternal life? Do you accuse God of changing his mind, or of equivocating on the meaning of "eternal"? Far from being "the strongest bit of evidence against eternal security", your view does great injustice to the nature of God.

An extreme injustice is just enterpreting a verse to conform to your beliefs. Jesus not only says that this is likened unto the kingdom of God in the beggining of the whole thing, but he also finishes it by saying this.

Mat 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Meaning that it is refering to sin. The debt which he was thrown back in jail to pay was the origional debt he owed. So this is someone who if forgiven of a sin and then does something to lose it. Completely his choice.

You admit that the OT is only a shadow of the things of the NT, yet you lump them together when your system requires it. It's a shadow, not the real thing, so by your own standard there must be differences.

SO? The difference is just that the sacrifices were a shadow of Christ's death. They weren't made complete until Christ actually died.

Again, simply declaring your view to be the correct one does not win points in any debate. The fact that we do sin because no one is perfect is a very good argument in favor of eternal security. Since we are so hopelessly inclined to sin, practically no one could ever be saved.

Sinning isnt' the issue. Not repenting of it is. Or losing faith/belief in God is as well.

Over all, I see the arguments against eternal security as arguments in favor of salvation by works. In other words, if you can lose it by works then you can gain it by works. To say that you can remain saved only by choosing to do so is to say that you have power of your own to live righteously instead of being completely dependent on the Holy Spirit for this power. That's the whole meaning of salvation by grace through faith: it is not of ourselves. If you had the ability to keep yourself saved then you would have "something to boast about". This is against what the Bible teaches about salvation.

No, just as Adam did nothing to get into the Garden of Eden, we have no bearing on getting into it. Not by works I mean. It is sad to think that people believe someone who was a believer when they were ten could be Marilyn Manson (sp?) or something today and still be going to heaven. You are totally removing the consequences of sin by doing this and you know that that is a terrible fallacy. Review your life right now, are you a believer? Good, go out, get drunk, go thither a whoring (Zanah in Hebrew for you), and whatever other sin you've desired doing. Cause according to your terrible exegis of scripture, it won't matter.

As a sinner we cannot do good. but as a believer we can do both good and bad. That's the difference between the two. That's why we can't save ourselves but we can cause ourselves to walk away.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by OutThere

Two lines of debates is what you appear to be trying to do, saying I should cover points made by you in some other debate with someone else. Anyway, I look forward to your comments on my last post.

What I mean is that I've added to my anti-eternal security vocabulary since we've started and I want to include it in this debate. I had offered giving you a mass reply to two different posts, you declined, so now I'd like a mass reply to mine.

[OutThere]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Congratulations on producing a strawman right off. My conclusion is that since we are RECIEVING the action, we cannot do it to ourselves. It's all about the greek bro. You may disagree with it. but that doesn't make it true. The word here for pluck/snatch is harpazo.

What straw man? I accurately stated your premise and argument. And you still haven't countered my point here, which is that YOU ARE NOT YOUR OWN. Do you deny that God owns you, that you are therefore unable to walk away? "No one can pluck them out of God's hand" means no one can steal from God, and as I said, if you are owned by God then to walk away is to steal what is not yours.

It isn't a factor because regardless of who it is to, either a small group (which no one else thinks it is) or a large group, it is to believers, whom none should be able to fall away according to eternal security...

There you go again, asserting the conclusion in the premise. You have already assumed conditional security and then "proved" it by presuming what "should be able" to happen.

No, he said that only those who endure till the end will be saved. And the ones he spoke to would be filled with the spirit well before their end.

Where does the Bible make it clear that these people are individually filled with the Spirit as we are?

So he wouldn't be talking about the possibility of disciples falling away as they were hand picked.

So being hand picked before the Cross guarantees salvation, but being saved afterwards does not?? They got assurance but no one else??

Even if you believed that the tribulation was in the first century (which I most certainly do not), they were still filled with the Holy Spirit prior to it.

No, I do not, I am not a Preterist. Of course that means that all church-age believers, since it's all before the Tribulation, are individually filled with the Spirit. Matthew 10:19 does not require the Spirit to be personally indwelling them permanently. Remember that the Spirit in the OT did indwell individuals from time to time, but not permanently.

Adam was blameless. He was "saved" in every since of the word that we will be in Heaven. Yet he was able to fall away.

Apples and oranges. Adam was NOT saved as we are, since he had nothing to be saved FROM. He could fall because had not yet been tested and did not have an inherited sin nature. He was innocent, not saved.

No, it was a plea not to fall away (so that they don't have to renew the foundation of repentance unto dead works). SO that was a warning. It was a prewarning.

You already asserted this before, and I already disagreed. Here is a link to an excellent series of articles that may help clear all this up for you:
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/es.html

You had better quote what you have bolded. I do not see it. And it is a good question, why does he exhort us not to sin?

You want me to quote something that ISN'T in the scriptures?? I don't know what you're asking.

Obviously, we are not servants of righteousness in the terms that your refering to.

The Bible says we are, and no, no one believes we don't still sin. Everyone does. But this does NOT amount to loss of salvation with every sin committed! Your conditional security is impossible, because we'd never in our own strength be able to stop sinning. And if it isn't by our own strength we are saved, then it is secure.

You assume always that being a servant means that the one who is a master cannot be changed. But it already was for us once since we are Christians now. And Adam went from serving God to serving Satan. So he also did that.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, I suppose you don't care about Jesus' so called "opinions" either then? Cause I was quoting him.

I quote him too. You're resorting to ad hominem now, not a good idea. Charging me with not caring about Jesus' words is very serious and you will have to answer to God for that.

An extreme injustice is just enterpreting a verse to conform to your beliefs.

I totally agree. So you admit to committing this injustice yourself.

Meaning that it is refering to sin.

Still your assertion, your spin. Sorry, it doesn't help your case.

You are totally removing the consequences of sin by doing this and you know that that is a terrible fallacy. Review your life right now, are you a believer? Good, go out, get drunk, go thither a whoring (Zanah in Hebrew for you), and whatever other sin you've desired doing. Cause according to your terrible exegis of scripture, it won't matter.

Sheesh, now you're accusing me of promoting a license to sin! You hold to a false dilemma: that if one believes in eternal security that one has this license to sin, but that is simply not true. Try reading that passage in Romans I referred to earlier. As for "terrible exegesis", it's a two-way street man. And you've still not answered all the points.

I really must insist that you stop the false accusations and personal attacks. I will not tolerate it anymore. Converse in a civilized manner or go bash someone else.

[Lightknight]

Dude, I can't debate someone who ignores large portions of my posts and then acts oblivious to half of what I say. Especially to someone who's going to post the part of my response that sets up for a rebuttal, then ignore the rebuttal (leaving it out of the quote) and say that I haven't made a rebuttal yet. I'm sorry, I just don't deal with that. I can deal with bad interpretation of scripture, but not just ignoring portions of what I say.

[OutThere]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Dude, I can't debate someone who ignores large portions of my posts and then acts oblivious to half of what I say. Especially to someone who's going to post the part of my response that sets up for a rebuttal, then ignore the rebuttal (leaving it out of the quote) and say that I haven't made a rebuttal yet. I'm sorry, I just don't deal with that. I can deal with bad interpretation of scripture, but not just ignoring portions of what I say.

I'm sorry you have such a distorted view of our discussion, but I can't make you see. All I can do is present my position and hope you'll at least consider the possibility that you are completely close-minded about this issue. I could easily accuse you of the same deliberate ignorance of my points and the same "bad interpretation of scripture". At least read that link, it answers everything you say I ignored.

You have proved me wrong about one thing though: I had thought you could debate without personal attacks. Declare yourself the winner as you did in anther debate if it makes you feel superior, but remember that the participants in a debate do not make such declarations; that's up to the onlookers. Goodbye.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by OutThere

I'm sorry you have such a distorted view of our discussion, but I can't make you see. All I can do is present my position and hope you'll at least consider the possibility that you are completely close-minded about this issue. I could easily accuse you of the same deliberate ignorance of my points and the same "bad interpretation of scripture". At least read that link, it answers everything you say I ignored.

You have proved me wrong about one thing though: I had thought you could debate without personal attacks. Declare yourself the winner as you did in anther debate if it makes you feel superior, but remember that the participants in a debate do not make such declarations; that's up to the onlookers. Goodbye.

You don't see what I mean? Here, look.

I posted this,

Originally Posted by I previously

Congratulations on producing a strawman right off. My conclusion is that since we are RECIEVING the action, we cannot do it to ourselves. It's all about the greek bro. You may disagree with it. but that doesn't make it true. The word here for pluck/snatch is harpazo.

Harpazo
to seize, carry off by force
to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly
to snatch out or away

None of which are we capable of doing to ourselves. This is why even the Calvinists here have stopped using this verse in debate against me. As I have indeed shown it not to be viable for this cause. It strictly a verse protecting us from outside forces.

Then you quoted only this part.

Originally Posted by your quote of me

Congratulations on producing a strawman right off. My conclusion is that since we are RECIEVING the action, we cannot do it to ourselves. It's all about the greek bro. You may disagree with it. but that doesn't make it true. The word here for pluck/snatch is harpazo.

Then you said I didn't make a rebuttal when my rebuttal was the part of the quote that you didn't include. What am I supposed to think? Words don't just disappear. I'm sorry if you were personally offended. But I said what I saw. It was not meant for a personal attack, but rather to push you to avoid doing it in the future. I could have simply not said anything and then for all I know, you would have continued doing the same thing. Had I known you would take it this way, I would have said nothing and just let you have it your way.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by OutThere

Declare yourself the winner as you did in anther debate if it makes you feel superior, but remember that the participants in a debate do not make such declarations; that's up to the onlookers. Goodbye.

that post in my debate against Deren was a joke. He just simply stopped replying altogether. And no, a successful debate is when the side who is wrong realised the truth. If neither side can agree, then there is no victory in it. Even if one person is obviously in the wrong, such as Deren was.

[Lightknight]

Are you still there? If so, I have something important to pm you that I won't post here.