Eternal Security Objections Thread

[francisdesales]

ADMIN NOTE:
Moved all objections, questions, concerns etc from the "Eternal Security of the Born Again Believer is Truth" thread here.

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. If someone brings up a valid argument, one should be able to defend it. Isn't that Scritpural? You ARE aware of Scriptures that tell people to attack falsehood and to defend the reason why they have their hope? As long as the intent is not to troll, I do not see why you have a problem.

The Moderators are not going to remove legitimate posts from Apologetic threads that disagree with you, unless they are personal attacks or they ignore the ToS.

If I may give a friendly suggestion, Mike, maybe you might move this thread to the "Bible study" forum? Your intent would be better served there, I believe. Such "devotional" threads are a better place to sell your wares unimpeded by those who disagree with you.


Regards

 

[stovebolts]

if I may give a friendly suggestion, Mike, maybe you might move this thread to the "Bible study" forum? Your intent would be better served there, I believe. Such "devotional" threads are a better place to sell your wares unimpeded by those who disagree with you.

Sorry Joe,

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32617

5. No debating doctrines or denominational differences. (E.G. TULIP, OSAS, Purgatory, Papacy etc)

 

[Vic C.]

This thread is an apologetic thread... This is not a debate thread, but merely a thread of teachings based on what the Scriptures reveal concerning ones eternal security.

Apologetic threads are, by nature, debates and a defense of one's beliefs. It is not a thread worthy of the apologetic forum IF one is only given one side of the discussion - and even worse when one side is censored!...

Joe, I agree for the most part. I cannot let this become a blog that write about beliefs and opinions from one point only.

So, this is how we're going to do it; we're going to give Michael and proponents of this position the opportunity to build a case without intervention for a time. The topic will go off in different directions from the get go if we don't allow this. Proponents have until Mon. morning. EST. to build their case. Counterpoints can resume the first workday of next week (Monday). 84 hours and counting.

 

[Vic C.]

The Moderators are not going to remove legitimate posts from Apologetic threads that disagree with you, unless they are personal attacks or they ignore the ToS.

This was the main issue with the last thread and the primary reason why it got locked down. It wasn't locked because of doctrinal differences alone. The site does not have in it's Statement of Faith the belief of Eternal Security or O.S.A.S. , nor would it hold members to that belief it it did.

 

[francisdesales]

if I may give a friendly suggestion, Mike, maybe you might move this thread to the "Bible study" forum? Your intent would be better served there, I believe. Such "devotional" threads are a better place to sell your wares unimpeded by those who disagree with you.

Sorry Joe,

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32617

5. No debating doctrines or denominational differences. (E.G. TULIP, OSAS, Purgatory, Papacy etc)

That's why I suggested it - albeit without thinking - no one could argue with him. However, upon more reflection and promptings from a wise man, you are correct and Vic has offered a good alternative.

Mike, I will not interfere until Monday, you have the floor. Might I suggest you break down the "proofs" into smaller packets - perhaps we can find that we agree on parts of what you will soon be discussing and that way, we can at least find some things to agree on and confine future discussion to a more narrow focus? Otherwise, I see this thread exploding in every which way...

God bless.

Regards

 

[XTruth]

Point 1 is that believers are born of the flesh, and afterward are born of the Spirit at the prompting of the Spirit, and apart from being born again, born from above, born of God one cannot see or enter the Kingdom of God.

Point 2 is that ALL are condemned already, and that God sent Jesus to "save" the world from this condemnation, not to condemn the world; therefore, all who come to the light are saved from this condemnation at the point of being born again, born from above, born of God. Those who reject coming to the light remain condemned.

The next point will be what occurs at the point of being born again, born from above; followed by what occurs after being born again, born from above.

Thank you.

Solo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XTruth wrote:
I'm not arguing anything you said, could all be true. But to help this side out a bit, b/c I can already anticipate the questions that some may have who want to believe you, 1)explain a little about what it is that condemns. 2)Explain why Christians are told to fear God. 3)Explain the only reason anyone has to fear God. 4)Then explain for the ones who want to believe you how that answer to those questions does not condemn them in the future...show them from Scripture that it is all past, present, and future sins that have been automatically forgiven, and not just merely atoned for lest 100% of people are justified.

You know my view, but w/ all sincerity, these are the questions that cause people to doubt. Effectively explain these w/ the evidence of Scripture and it would prove your case w/o doubt and bring the opposition to a minimum on Monday.(edited by Staff)

Thanks

 

[Solo]

Point 1 is that believers are born of the flesh, and afterward are born of the Spirit at the prompting of the Spirit, and apart from being born again, born from above, born of God one cannot see or enter the Kingdom of God.

Point 2 is that ALL are condemned already, and that God sent Jesus to "save" the world from this condemnation, not to condemn the world; therefore, all who come to the light are saved from this condemnation at the point of being born again, born from above, born of God. Those who reject coming to the light remain condemned.

The next point will be what occurs at the point of being born again, born from above; followed by what occurs after being born again, born from above.

Thank you.

Solo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XTruth wrote:
I'm not arguing anything you said, could all be true. But to help this side out a bit, b/c I can already anticipate the questions that some may have who want to believe you, 1)explain a little about what it is that condemns. 2)Explain why Christians are told to fear God. 3)Explain the only reason anyone has to fear God. 4)Then explain for the ones who want to believe you how that answer to those questions does not condemn them in the future...show them from Scripture that it is all past, present, and future sins that have been automatically forgiven, and not just merely atoned for lest 100% of people are justified.

You know my view, but w/ all sincerity, these are the questions that cause people to doubt. Effectively explain these w/ the evidence of Scripture and it would prove your case w/o doubt and bring the opposition to a minimum on Monday.(edited by Staff)

Thanks

XTruth,

The short time line of Monday stifles going into depth on quite a few areas of eternal security of the believer, therefore, I am laying out a basic generalized outline with points (thanks to francisdesales comments) that explain God's Salvation for those condemned, along with the basic process provided by God Almighty in a born again, born from above believer's justification, sanctification, and glorification.

If I get an opportunity after I post the initial points of discussion, we can go into depth as to further Bible study on the matter.

Thanks,
Solo

 

[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.

 

[cyberjosh]

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.


[quote:3t8at1r1] 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:3t8at1r1]

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

 

[XTruth]

I've seen great words of encouragement and a little scripture here and there. To help this thread along before the Monday morning deadline, I'd like to encourage more evidence so that the other view won't have so much ammo. From a book thats sole purpose is to teach men how to be restored back to their Creator, there must be more evidence than I'm seeing to support this argument if true. You all have been given an unpresidented gift that I've never seen before...a determined amount of time to present your case w/o anyone saying you are wrong, and then proving it with more Scripture references than I know any of you have actually bothered looking up. Please use your time wisely for the argument that there is nothing man can do in order to be condemned after he was made righteous like Adam. Time is ticking...fingers are itching.

 

[Joe67]

I've seen great words of encouragement and a little scripture here and there. To help this thread along before the Monday morning deadline, I'd like to encourage more evidence so that the other view won't have so much ammo. From a book thats sole purpose is to teach men how to be restored back to their Creator, there must be more evidence than I'm seeing to support this argument if true. You all have been given an unpresidented gift that I've never seen before...a determined amount of time to present your case w/o anyone saying you are wrong, and then proving it with more Scripture references than I know any of you have actually bothered looking up. Please use your time wisely for the argument that there is nothing man can do in order to be condemned after he was made righteous like Adam. Time is ticking...fingers are itching.

A born again believer's righteousness exceeds the righteousness of Adam. Adam was made a living soul. Which is good. But less than an angel's authority. God made man lower than the angels, for a little while.

Jesus was made a quickening spirit in the power of the resurrection. He has authority over the highest heaven and all principality and power in heaven and earth, in this life and the life to come, which is a world without end. This power and authority gives the new birth. Jesus has by inheritance a better name than the angels and this name is ours.

This is our birthright. (Jacob, the elect servant of the Lord, a shadow of Jesus, was victorious over the angel.) The gates of hell cannot prevail against the authority of Jesus' name. In Jesus' blood we are washed and in his Word we are regenerated in the power of the resurrection, through the faith of the operation of God.

Regeneration cannot be taught but it can be experienced through that working whereby God is able to subdue all things unto Himself, in Jesus Christ. We must first be cut to the quick. You cannot circumcise your own heart. When God cuts us to the quick, then we are like the people on the day of Pentecost or the people listening to the testament through Stephen. Jesus only loses one, the betrayer, the man without the wedding garment.

Joe

 

[Vic C.]

I've seen great words of encouragement and a little scripture here and there. To help this thread along before the Monday morning deadline, I'd like to encourage more evidence so that the other view won't have so much ammo. From a book thats sole purpose is to teach men how to be restored back to their Creator, there must be more evidence than I'm seeing to support this argument if true. ...

...Time is ticking...fingers are itching.

Wow! Everyone be patient now. Michael originally asked that this thread be for the presentation of his side only. He made the concession that allows rebuttal this Monday. At least you all can do it hold back until then.

From a book thats sole purpose is to teach men how to be restored back to their Creator...

I believe it is Michael's desire to show us that Scripture reveals God's written word is to reveal to us HIS plan to restore Man back to HIM, not the other way around. This is the one thing Christianity has over all other religions; that we believe in a Creator that seeks us and wishes to have a relationship with HIS creation. All other religions have Man seeking God and trying to please HIM.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Please allow Michael and other believers of this position to systematically show this to us. If he and others do not present their case as one feels they should, Monday will be the time to air your concerns and counterpoints.

Thanks.

 

[francisdesales]

You all have been given an unpresidented gift that I've never seen before...a determined amount of time to present your case w/o anyone saying you are wrong...

No one can deny this is true. I have never seen such one-sided "preaching" on an apologetic forum and I've been doing this for awhile. I doubt if Mike has, either...

Where were you, Vic, with this idea when we were allowed to talk about Catholic stuff???!!! That would have been so much fun...



:P

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

How can giving the opposing view the opportunity of a rebuttal starting Monday be one-sided?



He wanted a closed thread; I didn't. It was a concession.

:P

 

[boringtom]

The OP suggested that anyone that didn't agree with his premise start another thread, so I did...
But my thread was locked so nobody else can respond to it, period, no matter what their opinion on the OP of this thread (or mine). So not only can't we offer opposing views on this thread, we apparently can't offer opposing views on a different thread either.
I'm new to this forum, so I don't really know how this place works, but this is certainly not what I expected.
If this is standard procedure here, I don't think calling this a forum is quite accurate.

 

[Gabe]

The OP suggested that anyone that didn't agree with his premise start another thread, so I did...
But my thread was locked so nobody else can respond to it, period, no matter what their opinion on the OP of this thread (or mine). So not only can't we offer opposing views on this thread, we apparently can't offer opposing views on a different thread either.
I'm new to this forum, so I don't really know how this place works, but this is certainly not what I expected.
If this is standard procedure here, I don't think calling this a forum is quite accurate.

If you've read the OP then you should have also noticed this announcment made by Vic, four posts down:

We're going to give Michael and proponents of this position the opportunity to build a case without intervention for a time. The topic will go off in different directions from the get go if we don't allow this. Proponents have until Mon. morning. EST. to build their case. Counterpoints can resume the first workday of next week (Monday). 84 hours and counting.

 

[boringtom]

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.
It's your forum, and I surely don't mean to impose contention on it, but shouldn't the OP simply have already had his arguments ready before he started the thread in the first place.
Even if he didn't, why would the moderators extend his self-imposed restriction to another thread that seemed to be entirely in line with the forum's policies and practices?
As I said before, I'm not meaning to cause any trouble, and I won't bother you about this anymore. I was just a bit surprised :crazy and maybe disappointed ... It's nothing that I can't live with.

 

[Rick W]

It IS unusual. I believe the purpose of this strategy is to prevent the contention witnessed in other threads where people could not avoid the temptation to voice opinions about others' beliefs and stick to addressing the topic at hand rather than the person.
This has never been done as far as I can recall but if it keeps the peace then I'd say it's worth the time involved. We'll see.

 

[Free]

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.
It's your forum, and I surely don't mean to impose contention on it, but shouldn't the OP simply have already had his arguments ready before he started the thread in the first place.
Even if he didn't, why would the moderators extend his self-imposed restriction to another thread that seemed to be entirely in line with the forum's policies and practices?
As I said before, I'm not meaning to cause any trouble, and I won't bother you about this anymore. I was just a bit surprised :crazy and maybe disappointed ... It's nothing that I can't live with.

Please read the reason I locked your thread a little more closely: there is already another thread about this that you can post in. It was only on the second page and I bumped it so you can post in there. There is no reason to have multiple threads on the same topic.

 

[Rick W]

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.