Eternal Security Objections Thread

[XTruth]

Had more objections than posts addressing the OP in "Eternal Security of the Born Again Believer is Truth".

Moved all posts objecting from the above thread so as to keep that thread "clean".

Post your objections, questions and comments here.

Yeah, okay! You have a biased thread in order to give them the opportunity to post their beliefs w/o interference. WHAT IN THE WORLD CAUSED THE SCREWS TO FALL OUT OF YOUR MINDS??? The other side of the belief wasn't just attacking, but also defending their beliefs as evident in Scripture. All believe that eternal life is real and it is only given by grace, not of works (Acts 10:43; Rom.4:1-6; Eph.2:8-9; Tit.3:5).

The key that could end the debate and win it for the OSAS side is to show how all future sins are forgiven for the Christian and not imputed against them as the law requires. Your side has 12 hours to hand over the proof.

 

[Vic C.]

My goodness, no need to be so uncompromising. If we had allowed Solo to have his way and keep it a closed thread, it may have been fair to him and the proponents of his side, but unfair to you. I can only imagine the outcry at that point. If we had denied his request, that may have been fair to you, but unfair to him.

I decided to allow it to be open for all in less than three days. Fairness across the board.

 

[XTruth]

My goodness, no need to be so uncompromising. If we had allowed Solo to have his way and keep it a closed thread, it may have been fair to him and the proponents of his side, but unfair to you. I can only imagine the outcry at that point. If we had denied his request, that may have been fair to you, but unfair to him.

I decided to allow it to be open for all in less than three days. Fairness across the board.

Vic,
With all due respect, this thread is a place for objections, not defense. Can I please have this thread to explain my side of the view w/o interference?
Thank you, That would seem only fair.

 

[Rick W]

Vic,
With all due respect, this thread is a place for objections, not defense. Can I please have this thread to explain my side of the view w/o interference?
Thank you, That would seem only fair.

<sigh>
The entire purpose of this thread is to keep the other thread clean. Objections, fielding objections, comments, clarifications, notices, explanations, rants, fielding rants, and anything else I can think of stays in THIS thread.

 

[Vic C.]

Vic,
With all due respect, this thread is a place for objections, not defense. Can I please have this thread to explain my side of the view w/o interference?
Thank you, That would seem only fair.

Sure you can, but the majority of the posts in this thread are addressing my decision, not the OP of the other thread. If the former is the purpose of this thread, please be reminded that openly challenging Staff decisions is not tolerated.

 

[lovely]

Joe,

I thought it was a good idea to encourage Michael to break it down into smaller packets, because it opens up the opportunity of truly learning from one another and edifying the body...iron sharpening iron. And in this way we can examine Scripture on every point, have a better understanding of what's actually being communicated, define terms, stay focused, and truly get to the heart of our disagreements. Very wise. The Lord bless you.

 

[ProphetMark]

I'm a bit unsure about why people had to post their arguments against the idea of Eternal security in a different thread and wait till Monday too. Having read what the moderators have said about it in this thread, I feel a bit better about it, but my rebellious fingers are raring to go now, so here's a couple of bible references in favour of the case against:

2 Timothy 2 v 12: "if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;"

Matthew 7 v 22-23: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

 

[Vic C.]

Yes, I read it...
It's just that no other forum I've ever been involved with has simply stopped all opinions contrary to someone else's from being posted, even on different threads, for a limited time or not.

This isn't something new here; it's been done in the Bible Study and End Times forums at least twice that I can remember.

Trust me when I say, with all the whining, complaining I read here and the grief it caused the Staff, I can honestly say, it won't happen again. I've had it with all the egos. :naughty

Three days is all we asked to wait; the very amount of time Jesus was in the belly of the earth. I seriously doubt He was whining to the Father to please let Him out. 2

 

[Vic C.]

I'm a bit unsure about why people had to post their arguments against the idea of Eternal security in a different thread and wait till Monday too. Having read what the moderators have said about it in this thread...

Mark, no one said it couldn't be discussed in a different thread. ...and no one had to wait until Monday to do it either. The three day wait was for Solo's thread only.

 

[Saint_Iguanas]

The definition of apologetics follows:

• a·pol·o·get·ics (É™-pÃ…Âl'É™-jÄ›t'Ä­ks) Pronunciation Key
  n. (used with a sing. verb)
  
  1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
  2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

Exactly. You got it.

Defending or proving. Thus, one must be open to counterpoints to DEFEND or PROVE.

Wrong! All that is needed to "prove" is to state the thesis, or premise and then support it with proofs. No opposing argument is required.

If someone brings up a valid argument, one should be able to defend it.

The thesis assumes an antithesis.

Isn't that Scritpural?

What is?

You ARE aware of Scriptures that tell people to attack falsehood and to defend the reason why they have their hope?

That is exactly what the OP did.[/quote]

Hold it now, this is not a debate thread. If you have points you want to make biblically please feel free to make a case but this is not for debates. Let's not try to pick a fight. Thanks.

~Josh[/quote]

There was no intention or actuality to "pick a fight", rather, I was making a few corrections to some misconceptions.

 

[Rick W]

Wrong! All that is needed to "prove" is to state the thesis, or premise and then support it with proofs. No opposing argument is required.

lol

"No opposing argument is required."

This forum deals in discussion of religion with a certain mix of politics thrown in. Need I say more? :D