I wonder if we take the plain writing of scripture seriously? In both Galatians and Hebrews. Lets look at the two warnings:
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
Now the argument usually goes like this. “Well that falling from grace in Galatians 5, means a lost of rewards” or “this is hypothetical and doesn’t mean that” or most common “they were never saved at first”. Why? Because our theological presuppositions tell us that one who comes to faith can’t fall away. Usually Romans 8 and John 5:24 are quoted.
The argument for Hebrews is usually verse 9 again this is a hypothetical statement and doesn’t mean what it says. But Paul says in Hebrews 6 that these individuals have been “enlightened”, have “tasted the heavenly gift” and “shared (partaken) ” of the Holy Spirit”. These aren’t experiences of the nonbeliever this seems to be the language of one who has trusted in the Gospel and has been born again.
Here is what I am not saying. I am not saying that sin seperates us from God and I think this is what John 5 and Romans 8 convey. I am saying that a man can willfully follow Christ trust in Him and as Matthew says in his Gospel the 13th Chapter one can get so concerned with this world, count the cost of the Christian life and walk away. I believe this is what Paul is conveying in Hebrews 6.
If we follow the letter to the Hebrews. The theme is one huge warning. “To turn back to Judaism due to persecution is to reject the true High Priest, the true land, the true sabbath rest, the true Son of God, the true temple and to turn back to Sinai which has been replaced by Zion”. That is why the writer tells the Hebrews to “go outside of the camp”. Because this is where the scapegoat goes, to take the guilt of Israel away. We see Jesus as that scapegoat, who takes our sins away and bears our guilt and shame, however, this is predicated on a continual faith.
Now there are two camps who agree with OSAS. The first are those who reject the Doctrines of Grace and for some reason these are the people I have the greatest quarrel with. They reject the Doctrine of Election by saying “Jesus would never force anyone to come to Him”. Which is fine. However, in the same breath they say “Jesus would never let someone go who doesn’t want Him anymore”. This is a blaring inconsistency here. To say Jesus won’t force you to believe but He will force you to continue believing once you have believed is a bit weird to me. The big reason this train of thought follows is to protect and uphold the erroneous doctrine of the “Carnal Christian”. Which, biblically speaking, is false.
The other camp is the Calvinistic camp. I don’t agree there anymore; however, they are the most consistent. They say “God elected you, Christ died for you, so God will sustain your faith, less He proves to not be totally sovereign over your salvtion”. I applaud the consistency though I disagree with the conclusion.
Here is why. Paul gives a stern warning in Galatians. We all know the issue. They are looking at turning back to the Jewish law for justification (Chapter 5). Paul says once you attempt to be justified by a Covenant God has rejected and replaced with the New Covenant (the Gospel), you have in turn rejected the subject of that Covenant, who is Jesus. So in essence to attach anything to Christ’s work is to reject Christ wholeheartedly. As Paul says in Chapter 2 “Christ died needlessly”. Paul goes on to say “I would have labored in vain”. This doesn’t seem like the language of the hypothetical and Paul seems to be convinced that they were born of the Spirit but now want to be justified in the flesh.
In Hebrews Paul is saying “if you turn back to a dead, obsolete, worthless, Covenant, then there is no way for you to gain favor or repentance from God”. Paul was not saying that they could never trust in Christ again. He was saying that you can’t reject the New Covenant and gain repentance from God, thus to turn back to the Old Covenant is to reject God and that Old Covenant can’t save you thus you have no hope!
I close with this. We can’t allow our theological presuppositions to drive our hermeneutic. If we do, we can’t reject the way others read and interpret the bible, because we do the same we just dress it up in theological jargon. Let me know what you think! 
Hello Lionel! Your posts always get me to thinking. Amen on your statement “we can’t reject the way others read and interpret the bible, because we do the same we just dress it up in theological jargon.”
Now, are you saying once saved always saved is not true? Help me to understand were you are going with the post.
For me I have always believe that once saved always saved is truth. Is it possible to become an unbeliever once you have become a believer? just asking.
Hey Ann,
Thanks. Yes I do believe one can walk away; however, I don’t believe moral sin is the issue. In other words, if someone committs adultrey they don’t “lose” their salvation; however, I believe one can give it up due to the high cost of being a disciple. So not a lost of salvation or salvation being taken due to sin or other issues, but one rightfully turning back to his old ways and rejecting the messiah. Does that answer your question. Another way to put it is to say “God will not put anyone in heaven that doesn’t want to be there”
LW,
I might beg to differ with you but I will check it out in more detail before I do.
I believe Hebrew 6 to be a massive peice of scripture. But when I get a chance to rip it apart i will take a closer look to see where you are coming from. I must assert that I take it more as a statement of impossibility of coming back to God if it was possible to break away. But I believe Paul or whoever wrote Hebrews is saying that this is a farfecthed thought because it can’t be done.
Now in the context you speak you throw a little bit of salt in the game that must be closely examined. I’ll get back with you when my internet gets back up and running.
Thanks for the clarification! So, If we don’t want to be in heaven God will honor our wishes. Got it!
Sincerly,
If I can offer some resources that greatly aided me on the issue. One is from one the ministries I’ve been in support of for awhile–as the brother was one of the main people I’ve ever seen who was extremely on point when it came to dealing extensively with the scriptures:
Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?
Additionally, on the topic of “conditions”, I’m curious as to what people would have to say about this, in light of the concept regarding how many believing in “conditions” may go the slippery slope of saying “Well, how can I ever have confidence on issues?”
Moreover, while on the issue—–as many times it seems we’ll discuss the Epistles and yet never touch the Words of Christ…
Forgot to mention this one as well—
Can Christians Lose Their Salvation? ( http://www.layhands.com/CanChristiansLoseSalvation.htm )
So what say ye, Gab?
It seems that many people who believe in OSAS use Rom 8:35-39 as proof text. However, scriptures such as these speak of EXTERNAL INFLUENCES that cannot separate us from Christ. But we still have free will to decide to no longer walk according to the spirit and thus SEPARATE OURSELVES from Christ salvation.
Rom 8:35-39
35Who shall separate us from the love of the Christ? tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36(according as it hath been written — `For Thy sake we are put to death all the day long, we were reckoned as sheep of slaughter,’)
37but in all these we more than conquer, through him who loved us;
38for I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor messengers, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,
39nor things about to be, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, that [is] in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Notice again ALL EXTERNAL INFLUENCES!
Lionel,
You said, “In Hebrews Paul is saying “if you turn back to a dead, obsolete, worthless, Covenant, then there is no way for you to gain favor or repentance from God”. Paul was not saying that they could never trust in Christ again. He was saying that you can’t reject the New Covenant and gain repentance from God, thus to turn back to the Old Covenant is to reject God and that Old Covenant can’t save you thus you have no hope!”
Exactly!
This is always an interesting subject. Personally, I don’t believe in Calvinist election but I do give a higher probability to ‘eternal security’. It would seem if God gave you eternal life when you believe it would not be eternal if you could lose it. One thing I recently learned that has helped me with some of these contradictory statements is context. Context of the writing style. Paul used classical Greco Roman argumentation style and Romans is one of the best examples of this scholastic diatribe but you can find it in Galatians and Hebrews as well. In this he uses stylistic devices such as rhetorical questions, hyperbole etc.. to make it seem like he is having a dialogue between himself and an imagined interlocutor. Some statements are used for defeating the proposed interlocutors position not create a theological point. Our only way is to look to the whole of scripture to see if the position we have is valid.
Donald,
If we look at the whole of Scriptures, have men always had the opportunity to walk away from their God or does God force them to stay? My position isn’t one of certain sins (moral) can make you fall from grace. However, if we look at the New Testament it seems that if one rejects the Covenant made with God that they could walk away and the Lord would not intervene with that decision.
I will ask you. How is that God does not force one to come (the Calvinist view of drawing/dragging) but He will force one to stay against their will? Thanks for the interaction.
Donald,
You stated:
“It would seem if God gave you eternal life when you believe it would not be eternal if you could lose it.”
Consider these scriptures:
Rom 11:21-23
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,[a] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
It sounds like you may be confusing our aionios life (aka eternal life) with immortality.
According to pop-Christianity, aionios-life (mistranslated eternal life) is something we must secure now to obtain after death. If we must yet physically die and then wait for the resurrection to receive immortality, then, do you admit that you do not have aionios-life (eternal life) within you now? Are you waiting until the afterlife to receive aionios-life (eternal life) within you?
Many Christians seem to confuse immortality with the life-of-the-ages (aionios life mistranslated eternal life).
Consider these scriptures:
2 Timothy 1:8-11
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the time of the ages, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought LIFE and IMMORTALITY to light through the gospel.
So we can walk in this newness of life immediately but immortality is yet to be realized in any of us until we have received our glorified bodies (life more abundant).
I hope that makes sense.
I understand where you are coming from. However the idea that I could walk away is frightening. Is it not? If any part of my salvation is up to me or if any part of my new life is dependant upon me not walking away how scary is that? What if I get dementia?
As for the usage of aionios I posted a response on my blog as it was too lengthy for a comment. http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/5-christianity/28-what-is-eternal
Donald
Dementia is a sickness and therefore would fall under the external influences category which therefore cannont separate us from the love of Chirst.
Hi Jon-
1. What criteria would one use to determine that they or someone else had walked away from God and lost their salvation? Would it be subjective or would one know beyond a shadow of a doubt?
2. With the rest of your universal salvation of every human being beliefs, why would it matter if someone walked away from God and lost their salvation if they as you udnerstand and teach will still ultimately be in God’s presence in Heaven?
Donald-
If you could walk away, you would…just like everyone else would.
The good news is that God is committed to conforming his elect that He foreknew into the image of Christ.
If it was up to your commitment to God, you would be in big trouble just like I would be, but God keeps His commitments.
The critical missing ingredient in the life of the deceived but unregenerate who merely profess faith in Christ and then fall away is the ministry of the Holy Spirit by which someone who has been born again is said to be sealed unto the day of redemption.
A great word study is to cross reference every instance that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is mentioned and where He leads a believer.
Those who fall away merely prove that they were not called of God and not born again or sealed unto the day of redemption.
Hutch, Amen!!!! I was waiting to see if you comment on this. You presented the case well in your comment to Donald.
Jesus said that no one can take us (the called out ones or elect) out of the Fathers hands. If that is the case I don’t see where we could fall away if we are elect.
Steven O.
Hutch,
1) I don’t think there is any criteria that any of us could suggest other than the many repeated warnings against luke warm Christianity in the Bible that may eventually cause one to be blotted out of the Book of Life. This is a heart issue that only God can judge.
2) In the age to come the scripture speaks of some (overcomers of sin through Christ in this current age)to be raised to life more abudant while all others (those who did not overcome sin through Christ in this age) will go through God’s judgement/chastisement/fire where there will be great sorrow, pain, and grief. They will not be joint heirs with Christ ruiling and reigning with Him. They will suffer the wrath of God at the resurrection as well as in this present age. They are dead to God and alive to sin. The carnal mind is death.
SO THERE IS A GREAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE WHO OVERCOME SIN THROUGH CHRIST IN THIS PRESENT AGE VERSUS THOSE WHO MUST BE TRIED IN THE LAKE OF FIRE (SECOND DEATH) IN THE COMING AGE(S)!
SOwen & Hutch,
I do believe that God has sealed us with His Spirit against any EXTERNAL influences. I do believe that no one or nothing can take us out of (EXTERNAL) the Father’s hand.
My question to you and SOwen is how do you deal with the many scriptures that seem to speak of a BELIEVER being spewed out, cut off, blotted out, cast out as a result of their (INTERNAL) continued unfaithfulness?
Jon-
They are unregenerate people who Jesus said He never knew-not those He once Knew-He never knew them! They made a profession of faith in their own strength and it will always manifest itself for what it is having confidence in the flesh and not in Christ. The parable of the soils tells us 1 response in 4 is not a salvation experience that is why the wheat and tares grow up together until the end of the age. They look like wheat, but they never were.
How many times have you lost your salvation?
Steven-
Phillipians 3:3 – For we are the true circumcision who worship God in the Spirit, Glory in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.
Those who have confidence in the flesh will come up short every time.
I have no confidence that I can hold onto my salvation, but I am absolutely confident in teh finished work of Christ and the Spirits ability to deliver me into Christs image in the Fathers presence.
Hutch you said:
“They are unregenerate people who Jesus said He never knew-not those He once Knew-He never knew them! They made a profession of faith in their own strength and it will always manifest itself for what it is having confidence in the flesh and not in Christ. The parable of the soils tells us 1 response in 4 is not a salvation experience that is why the wheat and tares grow up together until the end of the age. They look like wheat, but they never were”
Given the two sections of scripture I provided, where do you read that the warnings Paul gives the Galatians and the Hebrews were to the “unregenerate”? How does the unregenerate “fall” from something they never had and how do I severe an arm that was never on my body?
Next what does it mean to “taste, share, be enlightned and taste”? These are never words that describe a nonbelievers relationship to the Holy Spirit.
Finally I think you are misunderstanding me. I don’t believe moral sin is what can make someone “lose” their salvation. I don’t think one can “lose” their salvation due to moral sin. However I do believe one can forfeit or lay aside their salvation. I believe one can experience all of what Paul talks about in Hebrews 6 and the find out the cost is too much. You and I may agree but the only way you can make the two people groups nonbelievers is to superimpose “eternal security” on them.
I don’t worry about my salvation because of sin; however, I take the warnings very serious and we all should. If not those verses are just fluff.
Lionel
How would you lay your salvation aside?
Do not get me wrong, I do not subscribe to easy believism or to the belief that everyone who has made a verbal profession of faith is actually saved. Quite the contrary, I believe that most professions of faith according to the parable of the soils are non-salvation experiences. Jesus said there will be those who say Lord, Lord, who thought they were His children and who did “ministry” in His name that He never knew-never knew-they were deceived.
Again, the missing ingredient is the ministry of the Holy Spirit by which a small minority of people from all languages, tribes and tongues are called out to live as aliens and strangers in this present world system sealed and indwelt and empowered by the Spirit, this group of people are sealed unto the day of redemption and will never fall away and cannot fall away, they are the Saints of God.
In the Galatians passage, Paul is warning a group of people and anytime you or I or Paul or anyone else addresses a group of “Christians”, we are always addressing a mixed group of people made up of the 4 responses to the gospel.
If those who profess faith in Christ and then turn back to trusting in the works of the law for their justification will find that Christ will be of no benefit to them and their attempts at law keeping will as always damn them for their poor performance. The professing church is full of these unregenerate legalists, some of them even call themselves pastors! They do not trust Christ, they trust in their ability to keep the law and they will suffer the penalty for rejecting Christ.
Those who are the elect will walk by teh Spirit and will not turn back to trusting the law and tehir performance to save them.
Phillipians 3:3, baby for all eternity!
I´m like Lazarus, I could do nothing to help my dead condition but I was also unable to ignore Christ´s command to come forth, its the iresistable call of God on the elect who grow up amidst false brethren that can look almost identical to the wheat.
The Hebrews passage is addressing false teachers who deceive others and who reject Christ, false teachers are never named among the sealed saints of God almost all of them seem to stay rigid and unrepentant in their errors and heresies until their death as well.
Hey Hutch,
I actually got a post coming called “1 Parable For 2 Points” that speaks to your paragraph:
I´m like Lazarus, I could do nothing to help my dead condition but I was also unable to ignore Christ´s command to come forth, its the iresistable call of God on the elect who grow up amidst false brethren that can look almost identical to the wheat
To whoever: where is the word “backslider” at in the New Testament?
I feel the position of someone losing their salvation comes from the false teaching of being a backslider. Which as far as I have noticed is not New Testament.
When the scripture says that it would have been better to have not ever heard the gospel than to hear and then not follow, is something that I feel gets mis-interpreted. People use that as backsliding. It seems it is a temporary faith not a saving faith and as such you get the people who believe they can lose their salvation mis interpreting the word.
Hutch I am loving your examples and again am glad you are posting from the Swiss Alps.
StevenO.
SO,
Let me ask you. So if you use the word “backslider” as salvific, could someone lose their salvation under the Old Covenant?
Steven-
Although I am NCT for the most part as I think it has fewer weaknesses than CT or Dispensationalism and focusses on the New Birth and the primacy of the New Covenant, I think all the systems fail in some ways to properly incorporate Christs parables of the Kingdom into the rest of the NT. For instance, I feel in some ways the gospels should moderate the rest of the NT not the other way around.
Lionel, The word backslider happens to be in the Old and referred to Israel and their falling. My point is that so many today use that word to make excuses why they don’t follow Christ. It gets abused without reason.
StevenO.
P.S. may I have the definition of “salvic” and could you use it in a sentence please. LOL
Hutch, I feel that we put a lot of emphasis with what Paul says, without realizing what Jesus spoke also.
Should there be a balance? Honest question.
StevenO.
I believe that the TRUE biblical view holds that folks can willingly come to salvation, and can lose their salvation, based on their constant quenching of the spirit, and lack of sensitivity to the unctions from the Holy Spirit.
Everything else is just man made theo-babble.
Seekerman-
Do you have any verses from scripture that support that your sensitivity to the unctions from the Holy Spirit is what keeps you saved?
You are probably just a lot stronger than I am, I would rather trust in the finished work of Christ and the fact that scripture says that I have been sealed unto the day of redemption to keep me saved.
I am fearful when folks seem to trust in their flesh to stay saved.
Are you confident that you have been sufficiently sensitive to the unctions from the Holy Spirit today to keep you saved? -or- did you lose your salvation today?
Phil. 3:3 – all the way.
Wow Seekerman,
If I were to believe what the way you are saying then,
if that is the case I constantly lose my salvation when my children are home. When I drive in traffic, and when I am around other people who annoy me.
Quenching the Spirit doesn’t have anything to do with losing our salvation.
Steven O.
Seekerman,
Can you elaborate a little more. Here are some questions to help stimulate the dialogue.
1. How much is constant?
2. Which sins would I have to commit constantly quench the Spirit?
3. What about sins that I am not fully aware of? Does those sins quench the Spirit or just sins I am fully aware of?
4. What do I have to do to EARN my salvation back? In other words, Jesus gives us salvation by “grace through faith” (which is Paul’s focal point in each of his epistles), but I must keep it up by not sinning? Can you show us biblically how you deduce that a man must do salvation “maintenance” to keep from going to hell?
Seekerman-
Do you have any verses from scripture that support that your sensitivity to the unctions from the Holy Spirit is what keeps you saved?
*I don’t need to quote any scriptures, for it is common sense, to those who are biblically literate, and read the Bible for what it’s worth. There aren’t any scriptures that directly states child molestation as a sin, especially in the New Testament, but there are scriptures that deal with such a sexual perversion, in an all encompassing way-when it discusses sexual immorality- similar to there being scriptures referring to folks losing their salvation.
Sometimes in arguments dealing with biblical matters, people will tactically use the “quote chapter and verse” argument in order to stifle, deflect, or muddy, an obvious biblical truth(s), because it runs counter to their beliefs.
But to be gracious, I will post up a verse from scripture that augments my claim:
“1 Tim 4:1-2 – Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.”
The only way “some will depart from the faith” can be deduced by coming to the conclusion that those who do indeed leave the faith, consistently quenched the unction of the Holy Spirit while in the faith, for they wanted to do their own will and pleasure, especially if they gave “heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.”
-You are probably just a lot stronger than I am, I would rather trust in the finished work of Christ and the fact that scripture says that I have been sealed unto the day of redemption to keep me saved.
*No my brother, it has nothing to do with me being stronger, but heeding the words of scripture:
“Acts 2:40 – 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”
“Galatians 5:17 – So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”
2 Peter 3:17 – You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked.
-I am fearful when folks seem to trust in their flesh to stay saved.
*Then you greatly err, and don’t comprehend the position of those on my side of the aisle. It’s no so much depending on your flesh to save you, for your flesh cannot and will not save. Rather, it’s more like depending on, well – let’s have scripture take this point on home:
“Galatians 5:17 – So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”
Simply put, it’s not about my flesh saving the day, but me allowing the Spirit to get maximum usage of my temple, which can come about through constant communion with God, fasting, etc. You see, it’s not about the flesh making me stronger, but the Holy Spirit that we pray will mortify and deaden our sinful flesh.
-Are you confident that you have been sufficiently sensitive to the unctions from the Holy Spirit today to keep you saved? -or- did you lose your salvation today?
*Firstly, your question betrays a lack of knowledge concerning the positions that I hold, which is evident in the questions you pose. They (certain types of questions I’m subjected to) obviously come straight out of the reformed theology playbook; which are quite childish (childish in that you guys repeat the same old questions, as if they’re all too penetrating, and not easily answered, which makes the questions annoying, because of the consistency, more so than insurmountable).
It’s also childish, because in the attempt to shut down my position, or expose my position as being incredulous, your side continues to resort to petty, uneducated questions that are borderline undignified-especially to answer.
Secondly, losing one’s salvation, or maintaining it, isn’t a black or white construct that we can easily point to as we would someone obviously being baptized. Why? Because losing or keeping one’s salvific faith is a dilemma that is thankfully in the hands of God, and not mine.
Only he alone can determine whether someone has fully gone astray, or not.
Hopefully this bit of word can shed some light:
“2 John 1:8-9 – Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
-Phil. 3:3 – all the way.
*This verse of scripture says:
Philippians 3:3 (New International Version)
3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.
When all is said and done, this verse of scripture doesn’t contradict what I’m putting forth in regards to folks willingly allowing the Holy Spirit to take over, and mortify the deeds of the flesh by living “by the Spirit,” which “will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature (Galatians 5:17).”
Again, compare that to 2 John 1:8-9, where it says “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.”
Can’t you see the scriptural synergy between what you yourself ought to do, in order to maintain a faithful walk, by way of the Holy Spirit that resides in you.
Again, it’s not your flesh that saves, but the power of the HOLY SPIRIT,
-Wow Seekerman,
*Yeah what’s up?
-If I were to believe what the way you are saying then,
*Okay?
-if that is the case I constantly lose my salvation when my children are home. When I drive in traffic, and when I am around other people who annoy me.
Quenching the Spirit doesn’t have anything to do with losing our salvation.
*I never claimed that an act of sin, or sins, will make you lose your salvation, but rather a constant and perpetual lack of sensitivity to the unction of the Holy Spirit, to where you begin to sin with impunity, because you no longer care about the things of God, or how God feels on a particular matter, due to justifying your continual wrong, as being right. Or simply put-you just no longer care.
When someone gets to this state- it is only for God to determine. Thankfully, he doesn’t leave such decisions up to us mere mortal mortals.
Seekerman-
So, are you saying that you do not know if you are still saved? -or- That you cannot know that you are still saved?
As far as being childish, as my buddy Forest Gump would say-childish is as childish does.
If you cannot answer a question without being childish by calling anothers legitimate question childish, maybe you are the one who is childish?
Anyways enough of that silliness.
The funny thing that I have always noticed is that those who think that others can lose their salvation highly overestimate their own performance in being as you stated sensitive to the unction of the Holy Spirit.
Have you ever lost your salvation?
Lionel asks:
Seekerman,
Can you elaborate a little more. Here are some questions to help stimulate the dialogue.
1. How much is constant?
2. Which sins would I have to commit constantly quench the Spirit?
3. What about sins that I am not fully aware of? Does those sins quench the Spirit or just sins I am fully aware of?
4. What do I have to do to EARN my salvation back? In other words, Jesus gives us salvation by “grace through faith” (which is Paul’s focal point in each of his epistles), but I must keep it up by not sinning? Can you show us biblically how you deduce that a man must do salvation “maintenance” to keep from going to hell?
My response:
Read my responses to Steve and Hutch, and therein you will find most of my answers to your questions.
As far as earning your “salvation back,” well-read the parable of the Prodigal Son, wherein lays the methodology and example, that portrays God as a loving Father, embracing his wayward son, who once was lost, but became found again.
-Seekerman
*Yeah what’s up?
-So, are you saying that you do not know if you are still saved? -or- That you cannot know that you are still saved?
*I’m not saying anything you’re asking, nor have I even implied it. I will say that I am saved, and know that I am saved, because of my faith, and reliance on the Spirit of God to be my guide, even though I fall short at times…
-As far as being childish, as my buddy Forest Gump would say-childish is as childish does.
*Whatever that’s suppose to mean. But in all fairness, I guess you thought you really told me on that one-right?
-If you cannot answer a question without being childish by calling anothers legitimate question childish, maybe you are the one who is childish?
*No, you are the one who’s childish, asking childish and undignified questions, which I did eventually answer, if you bothered to read my response to you in full, instead of looking for a portion of my response to disagree with.
-Anyways enough of that silliness.
*Okay?
-The funny thing that I have always noticed is that those who think that others can lose their salvation highly overestimate their own performance in being as you stated sensitive to the unction of the Holy Spirit.
*Again, it’s not about my performance, but my reliance on the Spirit of God, that allows me to put on this “performance”, though I may at times fall short.
-Have you ever lost your salvation?
*No.
Next question…
This is what I should’ve said in the first paragraph of my last response to Hutch:
“I’m not saying anything you’re asking, nor have I even implied it. I will say that I am saved, and know that I am saved, because of my faith, which is evident in my reliance on the Spirit of God to be my guide, even though I fall short at times…”
I can explore this question from Lionel, a little further:
“What about sins that I am not fully aware of? Does those sins quench the Spirit or just sins I am fully aware of?”
My response:
1 John 2
“1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”
Simply put, within your daily prayers, repent of sins that you are unaware of, because as Paul said in Romans 7:18:
“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.”
With that said, I hope folks will get off the “quote verse and scripture” argument (at least with me), as a tactic to answer a question, or address an issue you may feel the person has no answer to.
In other words, “quote verse and scripture” requests are usually put forth by those who feel that the person they’re asking to show and prove, can’t show and prove, thus-the request for scriptural evidence.
Now mind you, some will ask this type of question/request out of sincerity. Unfortunately, too many will ask this as a rhetorical question/request, and tactic, so as to highlight their “opponent’s” lack of biblical understanding and wherewithal, which can at times be benficial, or a very humbling experience.
Seekerman,
this a direct quote from your first comment;
“I believe that the TRUE biblical view holds that folks can willingly come to salvation, (and can lose their salvation, based on their constant quenching of the spirit,) Parenthesis mine… and lack of sensitivity to the unctions from the Holy Spirit.”
Then in the rebuttal you said quenching the spirit has nothing to do with losing our salvation.
You just contradicted yourself. I am not looking for an argument just clarification on what do you really mean then, considering you just changed on what you originally posted.
We have an advocate in heaven Jesus. The finished work.
With all sincerety, Steven O.
I said in full:
I believe that the TRUE biblical view holds that folks can willingly come to salvation, and can lose their salvation, based on their constant quenching of the spirit, and lack of sensitivity to the unctions from the Holy Spirit.
Everything else is just man made theo-babble.
And I think this is the quote of mine wherein lays the alleged contradiction:
““I never claimed that an act of sin, or sins, will make you lose your salvation (I never said this in the above quote of mine you’re utilizing), but rather a CONSTANT AND PERPETUAL LACK OF SENSITIVITY TO THE UNCTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (this is the neverending crux of my aforementioned argument), to where you begin to sin with impunity, because you no longer care about the things of God, or how God feels on a particular matter, due to justifying your continual wrong, as being right. Or simply put-you just no longer care.”
If you read the words over again, I am basically saying the same thing, but elaborating more fully.
Seekerman,
As you well know, I have committed to staying out of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate for a myriad of reasons. The main reason being that I do not believe that either position brings salvation or prevents salvation. I mean who can tell me which position the Ethiopian eunuch held at the time of his conversion? Are we to believe that Philip said to him either, “You must cooperate with God” or “You can do nothing but sit back an let God save you”? Hardly!
However, I think it disingenuous and even sinful of you to assert your position as the “TRUE biblical view”, only to then call someone requesting biblical information, i.e. scripture references, childish. No matter what you believe on this subject, it is the epitome of arrogance to believe that you should have an audience to whom you can ASSERT your position but not to have your position challenged. This has been your consistent behavior ever since I became aware of you over at “The website who’s name shall not be uttered”.
Why express your view in such a forum as this one if you are tired of being questioned on it? I told you back in ‘06 or ‘07 that you should drop the moniker as a “seekerman” and that was only because I assumed that truth and a better understanding of your faith were what you happen to be seeking. But alas I should have just asked for a clarification on what you were in fact seeking.
I have come to the conclusion that you are seeking a pulpit that is not confined to a building from which you can tell us all what the “TRUE biblical view” is on everything and not be forced to demonstrate it. God bless the internet. It has given those of your ilk just the speakerbox for which they were “seeking”. It gives you a place where you can say “left” and then “right” only to later claim consistency. Unbelievable!
Again, I don’t care where you come out on this debate. I only care that you show the maturity and courtesy to others on this blog. If you are going to involve yourself in these discussions, then be willing to go as far as necessary for all to have a clear understanding of what you believe. ( I find it amazing that someone who is tired of being misrepresented or misunderstood is, at the same time, unwilling to explain himself so that he can be understood.)
This may fall on deaf ears or blind eyes (since you are reading it) but I felt it needed to, at least, be communicated.
P.S. to everyone – Your opponents inability to answer every one of your questions (that is, to your satisfaction which itself is different than not answering) should in no way be construed as validation of your position.
Seekerman-
The Gump/Childish remark was just an attempt to hold the mirror up for you so you can analyze how good you are doing at being sensitive to the unctions of the Holy Spirit in light of your comments.
Arrogance and immaturity are sometimes very hard to discern in ourselves, I just wanted you to be aware that your are probably not nearly as sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit as you seem to think that you are.
You mentioned above that only God alone can know when someone has crossed the line by not being sensitive to the unctions of the Holy Spirit.
But, then you quite confidently state that you have never lost your salvation! Priceless!
Since you do not know where the line is, how do you know. Your opinion of your ability to be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit has already been put on display by your comments to be highly exagerated.
Are you sure by your standard that you have never lost your salvation?
Have you ever come close?
Can you point to someone you know who you are sure they have lost their salvation?
-Seekerman
*Yeah what’s up?
-The Gump/Childish remark was just an attempt to hold the mirror up for you so you can analyze how good you are doing at being sensitive to the unctions of the Holy Spirit in light of your comments.
*That may have been your primary motive, and if it was, it was waaay off base, and highly carnal. My criticism of you, in that you posed childish questions to me, may have been a proper discernment I made about your line of questioning, which is something you yourself don’t want to envision in the mirror, because it hits a little too close to home.
-Arrogance and immaturity are sometimes very hard to discern in ourselves,
*I will admit that, and as I said in other posts, I do fall short. Nonetheless, as arrogance and immaturity is “very hard to discern in ourselves,” it doesn’t mean that you, Hutch, aren’t arrogant, especially evidenced in the light of your childish and undignified questions.
In other words, put aside me being arrogant and immature for one minute- the line of questioning you posed to me was blatantly arrogant and childish, because it presupposes that the person you’re asking the question of, really doesn’t have a response, nor is well read, or well versed in scripture; hence, the person posing the childish and undignified questions (that’s you Hutch) feels like a gleeful cat, playing with a mouse whose about to become dinner.
Don’t assume that your side of the aisle has all of the answers, nor underestimate the opposing views, by again, running to the reformed playbook, in order to formulate questions. The type of questions you put together, and threw at me (along with the “prostitute” question thrown at me from another reformed poster on this site) betrays not only arrogance and immaturity, but someone who thought that this whole thing, or argument, was a wrap.
If you were strongly familiar with my side of the aisle, and the arguments we propose in support of our views, and if you thought more highly of your opponents on that side of the aisle, and properly assessed and discerned the situation, the childish and undignified questions you guys posed, would not have come out of your mouths, even though that’s what you all were thinking.
Instead, you would’ve assumed what I was thinking already, or you would’ve presented your positions, and cogently argued them with supporting texts, and stated that the logical conclusion of my beliefs, are x,y, and z. And within those x, y, and z’s, would’ve encompassed the questions you would’ve inevitably posed, but it would’ve been presented in a respectful manner.
Asking me if I ever lost my salvation, when I’m stuck in traffic; angry with the kids; or asking me (this was from another poster on this site) if I played the “prostitute” by deciding to choose God; or why did I choose God on a Tuesday, instead of a Monday-are all examples of childish, and undignified questions, that can indeed come from, and routinely come from, arrogant, haughty, and prideful reformed types.
So yes my brother, we all need to look in the mirror, which is something I highly promote, which is evident, based on some of the information contained within my posts on this thread, for I am not perfect. On the same token, folks like you, or you yourself, must begin to seriously look in the mirror, at yourselves, and see where you fall short, even in things wherein you view justifiable.
-I just wanted you to be aware that your are probably not nearly as sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit as you seem to think that you are.
*As I said in another post, I do indeed fall short, but the same warning you give to me, strongly applies to you as well. Likewise, even if I’m not as “sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit as” I “seem to think” I am-it still doesn’t nullify or vanquish the truthfulness in my discernment and assessment, of the type of questions you posed.
Remember, God uses imperfect vessels to impart a message, even to those folks who think they have this entire thing figured out.
-You mentioned above that only God alone can know when someone has crossed the line by not being sensitive to the unctions of the Holy Spirit.
*Yep, that’s what I said…
-But, then you quite confidently state that you have never lost your salvation! Priceless!
-Since you do not know where the line is, how do you know.
*I know salvation is priceless.
With that said, of course only God knows when someone has crossed that line, because in the end, it is God who knows everything, and is sovereign. The reason why I know that I am saved, and have never lost my salvation, is because I first of all know that I have been saved by grace through faith. Secondly, I keep in constant communication with God, on a daily basis, through prayer, fasting, and reading his word. Thirdly, I repent of any sins that I may have committed, that I am unaware of.
Having said that, doesn’t mean I’m perfect, and do not make mistakes, but if there were ever a time when I didn’t care about the things of God, and constantly wanted to do things my own way, not worrying at all what God says or thinks, to where I begin to sin with impunity, feeling totally justified in performing wrongdoing, then I am at great risk for becoming a reprobate, and it is up to the sovereign God of the universe, to handle me which ever way he chooses. This handling can come in the form of a tumultuous trial, so as to bring me back to the right path, or cutting me off totally-IT’S TOTALLY UP TO GOD.
The problem with your side of the aisle is, you want us to determine when, and how God works, or doesn’t work, in the lives of believers, and at exactly what moment he imparts, or retracts salvation from someone, which is something we as finite human beings, will never totally know, or really should know. Why? BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOD!
God, like the wind, will move where he wants to, and stay where he desires; it is not up for us to know how, but to believe- based on what has been revealed in scripture.
Then again, if you knew my position on the matter, and if you respected my position, or those on the opposite aisle of your views, you would’ve known that the above response was forthcoming. I know the arguments that your side of the aisle make already, because I’ve studied them, and heard you guys out.
Whereas you have partially listened to my side, and have only engaged in studying your side’s interpretation on what my side of the aisle believes, which is why your arguments fall short, and the questions that you pose are again, tantamount to being childish and undignified, and may I say-ASININE.
-Your opinion of your ability to be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit has already been put on display by your comments to be highly exagerated.
*I know you would like to think that, for ALL THE WRONG REASONS.
-Are you sure by your standard that you have never lost your salvation?
*Likewise, are you sure that you have never looked in the mirror to see your own hypocrisy, as someone being arrogant and childish, which are the same things you accuse me of?
-Have you ever come close?
*Another childish and immature carnal question, that is highly undignified, for it is asked by someone who assumes they’re dealing with a simpleton fool, who doesn’t know why they believe what they believe (this is the type of question a radio talk show host, whose mouthy, would ask), especially in the light of the fact that I have already answered the question affirmatively.
But okay, I’ll play your little game and answer you truthfully by saying boldly: I HAVE NEVER LOST MY SALVATION.
Even though the core intent of this particular line of questioning, had nothing to do with whether I truly lost my salvation, rather, it was posed so that I can question mine own walk with God, hence my salvation.
In the future, you have to do better than that, and not be so transparent.
-Can you point to someone you know who you are sure they have lost their salvation?
*Regardless of if I can, or cannot, what’s really your point? How is such a question augmenting, or enhancing your side of the aisle’s belief. Why don’t you just say what you mean, by producing salient points, instead of relying on childish questions to rule the day?
This line of questioning is equivalent to me saying that people who eat rotten eggs can vomit, only for you to turn around and ask me if I’ve ever vomited, and how do I know for sure that the cause of my vomiting, was based on my consumption of rotten eggs.
In addition, it’s equivalent to you asking me if I’ve ever known anyone to have vomited, from eating rotten eggs, not because you really want to know if someone did indeed vomit by eating rotten eggs, but because you wanted to show up your opposition by having them question their own position-in this case, it’s about vomiting due to eating rotten eggs.
So in closing my brother, I’ve admitted in previous posts, that I do indeed fall short, but with that said, I think it’s time that you look introspectively in the mirror, and take a good look at yourself, as well…
thank you Seekerman,
Though I still don’t agree with your thoughts about losing our salvation, I will respect your opinion.
Steven O
Seekerman-
So anything that questions your position is a childish or carnal question.
Yet you cannot see that your whole method of communication is devoid of the fruit of the Holy Spirit and is decidedly carnal.
Most people who are confident in thei flesh are unable to sin their sin.
Interesting.
Its also more than a little frightening.
Your ability to be blind to and justify your arrogance, lack of humility and glaring evidence contained in your immature name calling that you are not walking in the Spirit is staggering.
Childish is as childish does. F. Gump
Are you sure you have never lost your salvation?
I think by your standard of measure that you must have lost it many times by now.
To Brother Lawrence
Seekerman,
*Yeah what’s up?
-As you well know, I have committed to staying out of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate for a myriad of reasons.
*So you say…
-The main reason being that I do not believe that either position brings salvation or prevents salvation.
*I too have constantly affirmed this.
-I mean who can tell me which position the Ethiopian eunuch held at the time of his conversion? Are we to believe that Philip said to him either, “You must cooperate with God” or “You can do nothing but sit back an let God save you”? Hardly!
*I can agree with this.
-However, I think it disingenuous and even sinful of you to assert your position as the “TRUE biblical view”, only to then call someone requesting biblical information, i.e. scripture references, childish.
- No matter what you believe on this subject, it is the epitome of arrogance to believe that you should have an audience to whom you can ASSERT your position but not to have your position challenged.
*Well first of all Lawrence, I see that from your presently stated views, you have grown in wisdom, and I thank the Lord that you have, seeing as how over on another site, you and I had a disagreement on a biblical matter, where I stated that the issue of speaking in tongues wasn’t a heaven, or hell issue, and that those who do indeed speak in tongues, and believe in the gift of tongues, fall within the pale of orthodoxy, because it doesn’t compromise the essentials of the christian faith.
Well, needless to say, you disagreed with me on that point, and if you’re the same Lawrence that was once a pentecostal, and a frequent visitor over on this one website I have in mind, then you are indeed the person I’m referring to.
Again, you have indeed grown.
With that said, I didn’t say that anyone requesting scripture of me is childish, instead I said concerning my position, and the quoting of scripture:
“I don’t need to quote any scriptures, for it is common sense, to those who are biblically literate, and read the Bible for what it’s worth. There aren’t any scriptures that directly states child molestation as a sin, especially in the New Testament, but there are scriptures that deal with such a sexual perversion, in an all encompassing way-when it discusses sexual immorality- similar to there being scriptures referring to folks losing their salvation.
SOMETIMES IN ARGUMENTS DEALING WITH BIBLICAL MATTERS, PEOPLE WILL TACTICALLY USE THE ‘QUOTE CHAPTER AND VERSE’ ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO STIFLE, DEFLECT, OR MUDDY, AN OBVIOUS BIBLICAL TRUTH(S), BECAUSE IT RUNS COUNTER TO THEIR BELIEFS.
But to be gracious, I will post up a verse from scripture that augments my claim…”
What I called childish, petty and immature was, well-let these quotes of Hutch and of mine, do the talking:
Hutch asked:
“Are you confident that you have been sufficiently sensitive to the unctions from the Holy Spirit today to keep you saved? -OR- DID YOU LOSE YOUR SALVATION TODAY (emphasis mine)?”
Whereas my response was:
“Firstly, your question betrays a lack of knowledge concerning the positions that I hold, which is evident in the questions you pose. They (certain types of questions I’m subjected to) obviously come straight out of the reformed theology playbook; which are quite CHILDISH (CHILDISH in that you guys repeat the same old questions, as if they’re all too penetrating, and not easily answered, which makes the questions annoying, because of the consistency, more so than insurmountable).
It’s also CHILDISH, because in the attempt to shut down my position, or expose my position as being incredulous, your side continues to resort to petty, uneducated questions that are borderline undignified-especially to answer.”
So as you can see, your accusations are just dead wrong, and is coming from someone who’s highly emotional, arrogant, and not rationally stable, as it relates to adequately outlining what I’ve said, why I’ve said it, when I’ve said it, and how I’ve said it.
Simply put, you’ve just bore a false witness against me.
But anyway, let’s move on.
-This has been your consistent behavior ever since I became aware of you over at “The website who’s name shall not be uttered”.
*No it hasn’t. Just because you don’t like what I say, or my beliefs, or have a personal grudge against me, simply because you yourself don’t vibe with me, or don’t like my style, doesn’t mean that your accusations, or what you say of me, are right on and exact, which I have already proven wrong.
In other words, your view of me is not what shapes me, nor is does it mean that in the eyes of God, I am what you say that I am.
-Why express your view in such a forum as this one if you are tired of being questioned on it?
*Again, you do err not reading my entire post, for the gripe that I have, is not folks questioning my beliefs, for if that were the case, I wouldn’t have answered them as thoroughly as I have. In other words, the thoroughness of my responses is evidence that I’m not contrary to engaging in discussions that even question what I believe.
No instead, I’m checking those folks on the other side of the aisle, who read from the reformed playbook, which results in asking the same old tired and childish questions, whereby it produces the same answers to their questions. I’m like, can these folks become more original, as well as not assume that everyone on my side of the aisle are simpleton fools who are really not all that well versed in scripture, therefore approaching them with questions that are irreverent, childish, and “fun” like, can be the rule of the day.
Why? Haven’t you heard-THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT ANYWAY.
This is what I have discerned from these types of questions, which I am a veteran at answering, and ultimately discerning.
So again, you’re dead wrong, concerning what I believe, said, or how I operate.
I can say more on this, but let’s move on…
-I told you back in ‘06 or ‘07 that you should drop the moniker as a “seekerman” and that was only because I assumed that truth and a better understanding of your faith were what you happen to be seeking. But alas I should have just asked for a clarification on what you were in fact seeking.
*First of all, my moniker “seekerman” is the moniker that I’ve chosen for myself, not because I was seeking a new religion, a new faith, or a new way of thinking, rather, I was and am seeking more of the truth that is contained within the word of God, as well as more closeness with God, in my faith walk. If you interpreted it some other way, well then hey-that’s on you.
And “alas” you should’ve asked for more clarification on what I was seeking, instead of arrogantly assuming that I may have been seeking the reformed route. Oh don’t get me wrong, I was indeed seeking, and did indeed discover more nuances about the reformed and cessationist sides, but after discovering it, and digesting it, much of it-I HAD TO SPIT OUT!
Lastly on this one tip, I thank the Lord Jesus Christ that you are not the end all, be all, when it comes to determining who I am, and what moniker I’m allowed to use.
I can say more on this, but let’s move on.
-I have come to the conclusion that you are seeking a pulpit that is not confined to a building from which you can tell us all what the “TRUE biblical view” is on everything and not be forced to demonstrate it.
*Again, you are DEAD WRONG. I’m not seeking a pulpit, no more than what you, or others are seeking. For if I were truly seeking a pulpit, I WOULD GET MY OWN WEBSITE. No instead, I’m just a brother who has strong views, and know why I believe what I believe.
The fact that you don’t like my beliefs, my style, my vibe, or the way I operate, holds no water with the greater scheme of things.
And yes, I do believe that my view, is the “TRUE biblical view,” similar to those folks who believe the way you do. But guess what, just because I believe my view to be the true biblical view, doesn’t mean that I feel that those on the opposite end are going to hell.
I’ve constantly said on this site, as well as on the other site that you and I have referenced, that this issue isn’t a heaven or hell issue, whereas the responses that I’ve mainly received from your side of the aisle, have been either lukewarm (kinda like a “sure kid” type of response), or my view on the ‘heaven or hell’ issue have been mildly challenged, or challenged totally.
Yes, there are folks on your side of the aisle, over on that other site, as well as on other sites, who’ve declared, or implied, that folks who hold the arminian position, or for that matter, the unlimited atonement position (you can believe in unlimited atonement, and still not be arminian), are heretical, with some even implying that we’re not saved, or believe in another Jesus, but yet I am being erroneously accused of such a position, when I’m the one whose fought against such dogmatism.
The fact of the matter is, again-I believe my position to be the “TRUE biblical view,” just like folks on your side of the aisle believe their views to be the “TRUE biblical view,” but speaking for myself-I DON’T BELIEVE THAT IT IS, FOR THE VERY REASONS YOU STATED, A HEAVEN, OR A HELL ISSUE!
Now, if this is what you are trying to accuse me of (believing this to be a heaven or hell issue), then again, you are DEAD WRONG, and speaking entirely from the flesh, which is evident in your constant misreading of my positions, with the net effect of constantly bearing false witness.
Again, I can say more, but let’s move on…
-God bless the internet. It has given those of your ilk just the speakerbox for which they were “seeking”. It gives you a place where you can say “left” and then “right” only to later claim consistency. Unbelievable!
*First of all, there are more folks on your side of the aisle, who’ve set up shop on the internet, than my side. The problem that you have with me, is that I am just as adamant in my beliefs, as those on your side of the aisle are, with their internet websites, hence, you don’t like it all that much, because there are opposing views from the other side.
And mind you, my opposing view isn’t outside of the pale of orthodoxy, nor is it a belief that can compromise one’s salvation, but yet your side doesn’t truly want to hear it, unless those who are propagating what I believe are easily dealt with and shut down. If they’re not easily handled, the way many of you guys arrogantly assume they ought to be handled, then those who oppose your views, while standing strong after the constant childish questions, interrogations and inquiries, from your side-ARE NOW ARROGANT AND SEEK AN INTERNET PULPIT.
Be for real Brother Lawrence and check yourself.
Oh, and just because you, and others say I’ve been inconsistent in my beliefs, whereas the evidence says otherwise-it says more about your understanding, than it does about me effectively articulating, and communicating.
-Again, I don’t care where you come out on this debate.
*I think you’re trying to convince yourself of that, more so than you’re trying to convince me. Then again, it can be equal…
-I only care that you show the maturity and courtesy to others on this blog.
*I have shown plenty of “maturity and courtesy to others on this blog,” and I totally reject your accusations and the premise that suggest otherwise. Just because I put certain one’s feet to the fire, and expose their motives in performing the way they do, which is something they’re not use to, seeing as how they’ve been privileged to have the upper hand on these matters, because of volumes of support, or going up against individuals with opposing beliefs, who aren’t willing to stand in the trenches, and hold their ground-doesn’t mean I’ve been the immature and discourteous one.
I’ve been very respectful in presenting my views, but will call it like I see it, especially if the inquiries, challenges, and questioning, becomes inappropriate and asinine.
-If you are going to involve yourself in these discussions, then be willing to go as far as necessary for all to have a clear understanding of what you believe.
*Again, you are dead wrong, if you assume that I have not been doing this. Just look at how lengthy my previous posts have been, dealing with straight doctrinal issues. Have you been reading those posts, or are you so petty, to where you will ignore the elaborate posts where I deal with biblical issues, just to find and mentally highlight those portions of my posts that you disagree with, so that you can be disagreeable, simply because you don’t like the things I have to say, and the style in which I say it.
I’m sorry if I’m confident (which you confuse for arrogance) in my beliefs, and will stand on them just as strong as those on your side of the aisle will, but hey, no one gave me the blueprints, or manual, on how an arminian should act, or react, to folks on your side of the aisle (remember, you can believe in unlimited atonement, without being arminian).
Again brother Lawrence, regardless of what you say about me, which may be true, or false, I think you really need to assess your own self, by taking proper inventory.
-( I find it amazing that someone who is tired of being misrepresented or misunderstood is, at the same time, unwilling to explain himself so that he can be understood.)
*I’m amazed that someone who calls himself, or considers himself to be a believer, can actually come to that conclusion about me, seeing as how I have a plethora of evidence that contradicts this very false assessment of his. Again, I’ve constantly defended my positions on this site, as well as on the other site (and mind you, on that other site, whole posts of mine were never posted), to where I explained myself so intensely and thoroughly, to where even a basket case couldn’t miss it.
Again, your arrogance, foolish pride, and a host of other inwardly things are leading you to want to believe, what you’re saying. And guess what-just because you constantly repeat something, doesn’t make it true, especially in lieu of the evidence posted by me, which says otherwise.
As I have said before, I’m not put off by the challenge, but by tactics that are childish, immature, petty, haughty and asinine. This is what I’m checking in folks, as oppose to what you’re bellyaching over, and if you still can’t see this, despite the overwhelming evidence, then may God bless you, because I can’t do nothing for you man.
-This may fall on deaf ears or blind eyes (since you are reading it) but I felt it needed to, at least, be communicated.
*I’m glad you did communicate your thoughts, for it allowed me to expose them for what they truly are.
-P.S. to everyone – Your opponents inability to answer every one of your questions (that is, to your satisfaction which itself is different than not answering) should in no way be construed as validation of your position.
*P.S to everyone-1) I have answered every legitimate, and even illegitimate question, that’s been thrown at me; 2) just because a question isn’t answered to the “satisfaction” of the questioner, doesn’t necessarily mean that the question wasn’t answered, rather it could mean that the questioner didn’t like the response for their own personal reasons; 3) just because someone checks the tone, or style of a question, doesn’t mean they’re dodging a question.
Oh and lastly, I can stomach the perseverance of the saints teaching, and have strongly considered it, even though I disagree with it- which is something I’ve admitted to over on another post, on this very site. My biggest gripe is with the limited atonement belief, which I believe is patently unbiblical.
Seekerman-
Asking you if you have lost your salvation is bearing fasle witness against you?
Are you angry about something?
You do not have to answer anyones questions.
I just cannot figure out if you think you are above question, do not wish to answer or do not know the answers.
But let me see if I have this straight:
1. No one can really know if they have lost their salvation because only God can know.
2. You have never lost your salvation although you are not exactly sure when someone actually loses their salvation.
3. You will not answer if you ahev ever come close.
4. You will not answer if you personally know of someone else losing their salvation.
5. Questioning you is bearing false witness against you, is childish and carnal.
All hail Seekerman!
To Hutch
-Seekerman-
*Yeah what’s up?
-So anything that questions your position is a childish or carnal question.
*I didn’t say that, and if that’s what you’ve discerned, or got from what I’ve posted to you, in my previous response which outlined the types of questions I’m referring to, then it says nothing of me, but a lot about you.
Simply put, you lack understanding, but you’re still a child of God.
-Yet you cannot see that your whole method of communication is devoid of the fruit of the Holy Spirit and is decidedly carnal.
*No, my “method of communication” doesn’t denote someone who “is devoid of the fruit of the Holy Spirit and is decidedly carnal,” rather, in your attempts to take me down, you would like to think that my “method of communication is devoid of the fruit of the Holy Spirit and is decidedly carnal,” for then it will justify a host of carnality on your side, to where you won’t feel compelled to look in the mirror and be honest with your own self, via the legitimate criticisms leveled against you.
-Most people who are confident in thei flesh are unable to sin their sin.
*That’s interesting, because I never stated that I was confident in my flesh. I’ve repeatedly stated that it was all about the Spirit of God within, that controls the flesh, and not the other way around. Secondly, I’ve repeatedly said (maybe not enough for your taste) that I’ve fallen short on many occasions.
Now with that said, just because I’ve admitted to falling short on many occasions, doesn’t mean that my assessment, and discernment, of your line of questioning, or some of the types of questions you threw at me, was off base, carnal, or portraying someone “devoid of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.” Many times, this type of accusation is thrown out by fellow christians, regardless on what side of the aisle they fall down on, so as to bully and intimidate other christians into submission, or for whatever nefarious reason.
Again my brother, in all sincerity, really look into the mirror on this one, for I realize you’re not use to this type of critique, nor has anyone ever effectively come at you, the way I am, asking you to do a little introspection, even if it entails taking the beam out of your own eye, before you remove the speck in someone else’s eyes.
-Interesting.
*You got that right.
-Its also more than a little frightening.
*Yes it is, but not for the reasons you purport, or say you believe in, or want others to believe.
-Your ability to be blind to and justify your arrogance, lack of humility and glaring evidence contained in your immature name calling that you are not walking in the Spirit is staggering.
*What is astounding is the fact that the more this discussion continues, the more you seem to comfortably fall into every accusation you level at me, when it comes being blind, arrogant, possessing a lack of humility, which is glaringly evident, which makes me question whether or not you are truly walking in the Spirit.
Again, I’ve already explained, ad infinitum, what I am referring to, when I label a question childish and immature. Now, I realize that your feelings were hurt, you were greatly offended by what I had to say, which was spot on, but telling me that I am devoid of the spirit, am blind and arrogant, still isn’t going to sway my opinion of you, nor will it change the fact that your questions were indeed childish, and immature.
And if I can remember correctly, I never called you childish, or immature, just the questions, or line of questioning.
So again brother, despite my imperfections and flaws, which I have admitted to having, it is you who must get off of your high horse, and humble yourself, and get right.
This isn’t even about doctrine, or opposing views, anymore, but being right before God, and being honest with yourself, and your true motivations. You see, again- your false accusations against me, or just plain accusations against me that were put forth with bad intent, will still not change the reality of how you were discerned, which is apparently struck a chord.
-Childish is as childish does. F. Gump
*Okay…
-Are you sure you have never lost your salvation?
*Yes I’m sure, much to your chagrin…
-I think by your standard of measure that you must have lost it many times by now.
*I think by the standard of scripture, you may not have what you think you have, based on the fruit you are producing, based on the things you’re saying, and the motives behind what you say, especially if you refuse look in the mirror and see the wrongness in your approach.
But then that’s okay. Paul warned us of saved folk like you…
To Hutch
-Seekerman
*Yeah what’s up?
-Asking you if you have lost your salvation is bearing fasle witness against you?
*Where have I said that this particular question is considered bearing false witness against me? Are you so out of it, and so offended by what I’ve said previously, to where you are now blatantly, and without any pretense, accusing me of something I never said?
-Are you angry about something?
*No, nothing in particular, but I do strongly discern anger in you.
-You do not have to answer anyones questions.
*I realize that, but I do, don’t I?
-I just cannot figure out if you think you are above question, do not wish to answer or do not know the answers.
*How can I feel that I’m above being questioned, seeing as how I’ve constantly answered questions? Questions, in and of themselves, aren’t a bother, for the evidence is contained within my lengthy posts. Childish, asinine, and immature questions (e.g. when did I decide to play the prostitute, and come to Jesus; why did I accept Jesus on Monday, and not Tuesday, or vice-versa; do I lose my salvation when I’m stuck in traffic; etc.), which are designed by those who are arrogant, and who just know that they’re about to have some “fun” with another potential “victim”, from the other side of the aisle, who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, hence the irreverent tone, and line of questioning.
And to say I don’t know the answers to the legitimate questions, and have answers and responses to illegitimate childish questions, is quite foolish and patently deceptive, seeing as how again, the evidence contained within my posts, BLAST THOSE ACCUSATIONS OUT OF THE WATER.
I’ve always articulated my views, and have addressed every accusation, and haven’t run from anything.
Oh, I know you would like for me to tuck my tail, and run. And I also realize that by constantly repeating your falsehoods against me, you can convince yourself, and falsely convince others that your assessment of me is right on and exact (i.e. repeat a lie long enough, to where others will be convinced of the lie, including the liar), but it still doesn’t change the reality of what I’ve posted, and what I’ve truly said, and why I believe what I believe.
I’m sorry Hutch, but now you’re acting like a spoiled child, who wants to invoke a reality that’s not there.
What exactly are you searching for, and what is it that you really want me to say?
-But let me see if I have this straight:
*Yeah, let me see too…
-No one can really know if they have lost their salvation because only God can know.
*Why is that impossible to believe? Isn’t God in charge and sovereign? Now with that said, I never said that an individual can never know they lost their salvation (again, you’re making things up as you go along), rather, I’ve always consistently stated that I, NOR YOU, CAN NEVER DETERMINE WHEN SOMEONE HAS LOST THEIR SALVATION TOTALLY, SEEING AS HOW THAT IS IN THE HANDS OF GOD, NOT US MORTAL FINITE BEINGS, WHO ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SINNERS SAVED BY GRACE.
Now of course, the bible says you can tell certain things in the life of a believer, by their FRUIT, and you can deal with them accordingly based on the fruit they’re manifesting, but that doesn’t in any way entail knowing when God strips someone of salvation.
-2. You have never lost your salvation although you are not exactly sure when someone actually loses their salvation.
*Read the above response.
Next.
-3. You will not answer if you ahev ever come close.
*I didn’t answer the question originally because of the motives behind this question being highly carnal, and put forth with bad intentions. This is what I discerned, and you know I’m telling the truth here.
You see, this question in and of itself, is a fair question (one of the few questions you’ve posed to me), however, just because it’s fair, doesn’t mean that, again, the primary motive for the question isn’t carnal, and put forth with bad intentions.
With that said, have I ever come close to losing my salvation (watch this folks): I don’t think so. Now have I ever made mistakes and sinned, while being saved (this is one of the motivations he had in asking this question), yes, but I don’t think I was ever close to losing my salvation, for I knew that whatever sin I was committing, it was wrong, to where it compelled me to repent later.
Whether I was close, or not close to losing my salvation, is something you will have to take up with God, directly, once we get to the other side. As for right now, I know that I am saved, and that God dwells within me, and uses me (despite what your ilk would want to believe, or truly believe), despite me being an imperfect vessel.
-4. You will not answer if you personally know of someone else losing their salvation.
*Well first of all, not every question is worthy of a response. Again, let’s repeat this, so that the slowpokes will hear this-NOT EVERY QUESTION IS WORTHY OF A RESPONSE, JUST BECAUSE IT IS BEING ASKED.
I’m not going to reveal to you, whether or not I know of someone personally who has lost their salvation, not because I don’t have an answer, or that it can’t be answered, but rather, I don’t like the spirit, and the attitude that I discern from the question, or for that matter, the questioner. For right now, with you, it’s not about being right or wrong for the right reasons, but with you, it’s about showing me up as being wrong, or not who I claim to be, because you became personally offended by my discerned outing of you, which again, struck a chord.
Sometimes folks should just allow the “heathen to rage.” Not that you’re a heathen, but you get the gist.
Having said that, whoever I may know, or not know, in a backslidden state, should really be of no concern to you.
Moreover, you should be able to deduce from my answers to you, and from my expressed beliefs, what I probably have witnessed, or considered to have witnessed (especially if you were once arminian), or haven’t witnessed, and even if you can’t, you know of a surety what I believe: folks can indeed lose their salvation.
There are folks that I know that may have lost their salvation; however, they’re in the hands of God, not mines, not yours.
Again, some questions, even if they are legitimate, aren’t worthy of being answered, because of the intent behind the question, and the attitude attached to it, by the questioner.
And truth be told, some folks, whether they are believers or not, or consider themselves believers, aren’t worthy of the best you have, in regards to responding to all of their questions.
Some times these kinds of folks just need to stew…
Oh and by the way, even though I broke down why I don’t believe your question is worthy of a response, I nevertheless did shoot back a response. The response may not have been to your satisfaction, but hey-you can’t please everyone.
-5. Questioning you is bearing false witness against you, is childish and carnal.
*No, again, I never said questioning me is “bearing false witness” against me (do you truly believe what you’re saying, or has Satan truly blinded your eyes, to where you can believe in such a blatant lie, or promote such a lie), but making false accusations against me (e.g. if someone asks me to quote scripture, I accuse them of being childish, which is false; I don’t answer, nor respond to, any questions thrown at me, or the great majority of questions, which is false; the implication that I believe that my way is the only way, in the sense that those on the opposing side will wind up in hell; etc.) is what I referred to as bearing false witness, and you know this.
Again, just because you tell a lie repeatedly, doesn’t make what you say the truth.
-All hail Seekerman!
*Now check your fruit my brother, because not only are you a very carnal Christian, but it appears as if you’re becoming borderline idolatrous. LOL!
And lastly, instead of asking me “questions”, why not tell me what you believe, and where I’m wrong?
Now that’s a novel idea…
Steven said:
thank you Seekerman,
Though I still don’t agree with your thoughts about losing our salvation, I will respect your opinion.
Steven O
*You’re welcome brother…
Seekerman,
I will admit for everyone’s eyes to read. I AM INDEED ARROGANT FOR I THOUGHT TO MYSELF THAT I COULD REASON WITH YOU!
Brother Lawrence, you are arrogant, but not for the reason you give…
Seekerman-
Thanks for setting me straight.
And no it is not to my chagrin that you have never lost your salvation, because 1. I would never wish that on anyone and 2. If you are saved and I am not doubting that you are, you have been sealed unto the day of redemption, are indwelt by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit and are being progressively conformed into the image of Christ.
No, you are wrong, I am not angry, I am amused.
I have found your childish and fleshly responses proof positive and good evidence that if anyone stays saved it is by God’s grace alone and not by being exemplary in following the unctions of the Holy Spirit as put forth from your original assertion.
Your performance in carefully following the unctions of the Holy Spirit has failed you.
Christ will not.
Good day.
Grin.
Seekerman-
Carnal is as carnal does.
Grin.
Do you still not get it?
Seekerman says; And lastly, instead of asking me “questions”, why not tell me what you believe, and where I’m wrong?
I was asking you those questions to determine what you believe not to be childish or caranal as you feel so confident to label others.
Since you have not answered I do not know exactly where you are wrong.
My position has been stated numerous times earleir in the conversation prior to your announcement that your position is the only biblical one.
BTW: Good old Gump’s favorite saying to his rude detractors was Stupid is as stupid does, menaing stupid people should not call others stupid.
Again, childish and carnal is as childish and carnal does.
-Seekerman-
*Yeah what’s up?
-Thanks for setting me straight.
*Such childishness…
Then again, I guess I should say- you’re welcome?
-And no it is not to my chagrin that you have never lost your salvation,
*So you say…
-because 1. I would never wish that on anyone and
*That’s a gracious position to hold…
– 2. If you are saved and I am not doubting that you are, you have been sealed unto the day of redemption, are indwelt by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit and are being progressively conformed into the image of Christ.
*I can live with that, and?
With that said, I have a different interpretation on the matter, but I find this position more palatable, than let’s say-the limited atonement position which I feel is patently unbiblical.
-No, you are wrong, I am not angry, I am amused.
*You’re not as amused as you claim to be, and if you are, then that’s very childish and immature on your part.
-I have found your childish and fleshly responses proof positive and good evidence that if anyone stays saved it is by God’s grace alone and not by being exemplary in following the unctions of the Holy Spirit as put forth from your original assertion.
*Oh wow, you’ve really told me, seeing as how I’ve never claimed, nor have anyone claimed on my side of the aisle, that those who do believe in conditional security are perfect, and don’t depend on God’s grace to keep them saved.
For you to come to this conclusion, about what I believe, just let’s me know that you really don’t know what you’re talking about, nor can you accurately teach on what I believe, even if you oppose my side, seeing as how you can’t properly get a grip on what I, or we, believe.
In addition, from the childish, fleshly, arrogant and haughty responses I’m getting from you in the form of immature questions, and false accusations- I KNOW IT’S NOTHING BUT THE GRACE OF GOD THAT IS KEEPING YOU SAVED.
A person such as yourself, and others I can think of, who are so against removing the beam from their own eye, will only make it to heaven by the skins of their teeth.
-Your performance in carefully following the unctions of the Holy Spirit has failed you.
*No, it hasn’t failed me, but illuminated me enough to know how to handle the likes of folks like you.
-Christ will not.
*I know that Christ will not sanctify what you’ve said, nor your actions.
-Good day.
*Ditto…
-Grin.
*That’s good you’re grinning-I guess…
Bro. Hutch,
Notice that he won’t even allow me to admit I’m arrogant?! He even goes as far as to deny the reason I gave without offering one of his own! WOW, LOL!!!!!
I said in response to a post by Hutch:
“And lastly, instead of asking me “questions”, why not tell me what you believe, and where I’m wrong?”
Whereas Hutch has said:
I was asking you those questions to determine what you believe not to be childish or caranal as you feel so confident to label others.
*No, you were asking those childish and carnal questions, that you didn’t consider childish, but rudimentary in handling someone on my side of the aisle. Again, your line of tired worn questions, which I’ve heard repeatedly coming from your side, ad-nauseam-are taken from the reformed playbook that you guys use so often, you may have forgotten how juvenile they sound, because you assume, or presume the other side to be automatically wrong, which precludes them from having the ability to present a legitimate case for why they believe, what they believe.
-Since you have not answered I do not know exactly where you are wrong.
*Again, another false witness. I have answered your questions, even the one question that I said wasn’t worthy of a response, yet you want to try and devilishly convince me, others, as well as yourself, that I am not all that forthcoming, and not being led of the Holy Spirit?
Yeah, you’re right, THANK GOD THE GRACE OF GOD IS KEEPING YOU SAVED-because your false witness accusations, motives and intents, aren’t actions emanating from exemplary child of God/believer.
-My position has been stated numerous times earleir in the conversation prior to your announcement that your position is the only biblical one.
*It doesn’t matter, for 1) it still doesn’t take away from the fact that your questions were childish; 2) it still doesn’t negate the fact that you bore false witness against me, by claiming that I haven’t answered your questions at all, or that I’m claiming false witnesses being made against me, by virtue of the fact that folks are asking me questions- which is an outright falsehood; 3) even though I believe my position to be “the only biblical one,” just know that you yourself feel that your own position is the only biblical one; 4) you still haven’t proven your point in a cogent fashion.
-BTW: Good old Gump’s favorite saying to his rude detractors was Stupid is as stupid does, menaing stupid people should not call others stupid.
*I never called you stupid, but have referred to your questions as being childish, and as this discussion continues between the two of us, I’m beginning to refer to you not only as a harbinger of childish questions, but a carnal Christian, full of foolish pride, who’s childish.
-Again, childish and carnal is as childish and carnal does.
*I guess you would know about this, and characters like Forrest Gump…
Bro. Lawrence D said:
Bro. Hutch,
Notice that he won’t even allow me to admit I’m arrogant?! He even goes as far as to deny the reason I gave without offering one of his own! WOW, LOL!!!!!
*Why should I “allow” you to “admit” to your arrogance, when the premise for your admission is wrong, especially as it concerns me?
Secondly, I don’t need to give a reason why I feel that you’re arrogant, outside of what was said, because anyone with understanding can discern where I’m coming from in context…
Not to beat a dead horse, but the reason why I responded and assessed Hutch the way I did in my first post, and subsequent posts addressed to him, was because of this last paragraph from his original post, addressed to me:
“Are you confident that you have been sufficiently sensitive to the unctions from the Holy Spirit today to keep you saved? -or- did you lose your salvation today?”
Did I lose my salvation today? What type of smart alecky, holier than thou arrogant question is that? Oh sure, it sounds innocent enough, but there’s a lot childish arrogance wrapped up in this mocking type question, that was highly disrespectful.
Are folks going to honestly tell me that this type of question wasn’t put forth in a mocking way?
If folks reading my words feel that this wasn’t a mocking type of question, then they really need to do some soul searching, concerning their approaches.
Know who you are dealing with, before you ask such an asinine question, or statement. And don’t assume that you’re going to have “fun” with the person whom you disagree with, simply because you feel you have all of the answers, and you know whatever they say, it will be wrong.
In other words, underestimating can be a deleterious method to adopt, because in the end, even though you may be right, you may also get humbled in the process, with your feet being put to the fire.
If you must mock, do it to those who are unbelievers, or children, but not someone with a strong personality, and is well versed in the scripture, and their positions.
Lastly, know about the other side’s position in full. Read their literature, know their arguments through and through, or as best as you can. Know why they believe what they believe, so that way in a debate with them, you can avoid certain entanglements and traps. You will know what question to ask, and not ask.
Moreover, limit the amount of questions that you ask, but rather respond to what they’re saying.
And again, avoid asking childish and simpleton questions to someone who is highly educated, or skilled in scripture, especially with the view that the questions you ask, will never be answered, for you may just be surprised, and again-humbled.
It’s all about being humble, not insulting, and trying to get a read on your opposition, for your opposition may know more than what you think.
Seekerman,
I hear what you are saying. The problem is you used a statement “a constant quenching of the Spirit” to defend and define how one can “lose” their salvation. So to me it sounded like you were saying that a certain amount of sin can keep you out of heaven, even after trusting in Christ. Were you not saying that? If not can you please define what you meant when you said that? I don’t think the questions were mocking. Cornering maybe, mocking, I don’t think so, especially after he said he was not mocking you. So can you please clearly define what you meant? Thanks.
Seekerman,
I hear what you are saying. The problem is you used a statement “a constant quenching of the Spirit” to defend and define how one can “lose” their salvation. So to me it sounded like you were saying that a certain amount of sin can keep you out of heaven, even after trusting in Christ. Were you not saying that?
*Of course I was saying that, however, that doesn’t mean I know the amount of sin one would have to commit in order to lose their salvation. Why that’s between God and the individual, and not for me to determine, judge, or gauge.
(It’s kinda like in the Gospel of John, where Jesus relays to Peter, the type of death he will experience as a martyr, only for Peter to inquire about the fate of the Apostle John, ONLY for Jesus to tell Peter in essence: “Don’t worry about how I will deal with this man, you just follow me…)
Our job is to be righteous fruit inspectors, not the big boss man in the big house, sealing folks eventual fate.
And even though I made this position of mine quite clear a number of times on this very thread, it appeared as if certain ones wanted to extract something else from me that wasn’t there. How so? BY ASKING ME MOCKING TYPE QUESTIONS, RELATING TO ME KNOWING WHEN SOMEONE LOSES THEIR SALVATION, and some sundry others.
(True enough, your present question wasn’t in a mocking, or cornering tone, but in all fairness, everything I’m saying now, in regards to your question, I’ve said before, again-on this very thread.)
How can I determine that, when I’m not God (I’ve even said this before, on this very thread.). Look at this question from the perspective of my side of the aisle for a minute.
Asking me to tell you when a person loses their salvation is like asking me to explain the trinity, outside of what is revealed in scripture, for much of it’s a mystery that I must apprehend, even if I don’t totally comprehend it, but yet can defend it.
Again, to ask me a question that is only between God and the believer, especially as it relates to me supposedly knowing the exact time a person loses their salvation, or how much sin it takes for that someone to lose their salvation (how can anyone, in all fairness, know the answer to this question, seeing as how each person’s case is different, and again, NO ONE BUT GOD REALLY KNOWS), after I explained my take on the matter, over and over again, can make one weary, and come to certain conclusions about the questioner.
And another thing, for folks to continue to probe and ask the same questions, over and over again, after they received responses they may not like, or disagree with, doesn’t mean that the questions being asked over and over again, weren’t answered.
Sometimes folks have a tendency of accusing others of not answering their questions, when in reality their questions were cogently answered- just because they didn’t like, or appreciate the responses.
To me, this is a poor and childish tactic.
-If not can you please define what you meant when you said that?
*Read the above…
-I don’t think the questions were mocking.
*Did I play the prostitute and decide to come to God? Why did I choose God on Tuesday, instead of Monday? Have I lost my salvation today? Are you sure you are saved?
Bruh, do I need to go further?
-Cornering maybe, mocking, I don’t think so, especially after he said he was not mocking you.
*Now, concerning Hutch, even if his question wasn’t intended to be “mocking” but cornering, you and I well know that what someone intends, is not necessarily how it comes out.
Furthermore, trying to corner someone with an inappropriate question, can be a way of mocking that person’s belief.
-So can you please clearly define what you meant? Thanks.
*I’ve done so already.
With that said, I’m through. Go in peace, in Jesus’ name.
Bro. Lionel,
Before I got carried away in my arrogance, by trying to reason with the unreasonable, I had a question about a true believer deciding to walk away due to an unwillingness to pay the cost of discipleship.
For the past year or so, you have been teaching and admonishing us that the new heart, given to the new man, under the new covenant, produces something beyond positional justification. It also produces regeneration, which leads to sanctification.
For instance, you have demonstrated to us the folly of believing that Romans 7 is describing a normative Christian experience. You ground all of this, and rightly so, in the truth of what is provided for us in the new covenant (described in part in Romans 6). Namely the new heart.
So that leads me to ask how you might reconcile the idea of a truly regenerate person with a new heart that “loves God’s commandments” (which would seem to include being willing to pay the price of discipleship), with the idea of said person walking away.
I may be asking a question which is similar to asking how one reconciles election with free will but I don’t mean to be. Therefore, if you are still working this out, saying so would suffice so far as an answer is concerned.
Seekerman-
Thanks for confirming my speculatiuons.
BLD,
Here is my answer:
9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. 10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Though the warning is genuine all who are of the New Covenant will see the promise. Because unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant has better promises and is not inargurated with the blood of “bulls and goats”. It is inagurated with the blood of the Son of God. Thus our salvation doesn’t rest on our faithfulness but the faitfulness of the one who initiates the Covenant. Just as God passed through the animals cut in half by Abraham in Genesis 15. God the Son enters into a unilateral covenant with all who are born of the Spirit. The only way we fail is if He fails. We have an intercessor who acts as our perpetual: High Priest, Intercessor, Sacrficial Lamb, Scape Goat, and Inscence!
Bro. Lionel,
Thanks bro! I’m in agreement.
Seekerman,
Amen! Amen! and Amen! to the responses that you have given Hutch, BLD, and Lionel on this thread.
This arrogance has been manifested in the many post directed at me as well. I’m glad someone else was honest and bold enough to state the obvious. You guys claim that I am not a believer although it has been you guys who have consistently been the ones manifesting bad fruits (pride, name calling, decieving, bearing false witness, etc.). Yet I and Seekerman have addressed most if not all of your questions in a loving and gentle way.
You guys act (sometimes) as if you should be counted as some of the modern day Pharisees.
Jon,
Please demonstrate where and when and IN WHAT CONTEXT, I, Lionel, or Hutch has called you names, deceived you or bore false witness against you. I’m sure each of us is prepared to apologize if we are guilty of such.
However, please be advised, disagreeing with YOU is not prideful. Labeling you a false teacher is not name calling or bearing of false witness, it is descriptive of what your behavior signifies. And the charge of deceit has got to be explained by you because I have no idea what that is refering to.
BLD,
The proof is in the pudding!
Check out many of the previous discussions that we have had. SOME of the things that I mentioned may not apply to you in particular.
Jon,
Then please tell me specifically those things of which I am, in particular (to use your phraiseology) guilty. Even in my vigor, passion and zeal to stand for the gospel, I recognize that God has laid out rules for how I am to govern my tongue (including my fingers as I type). Therefore, if I truly am in need of repentance, then by all means confront me with the evidence. I will not just take your word for it.
Brother Lawrence D-
My favorite is that finding Mr. Seekerman amusing is chilidish and immature.
But he really is very amusing.
Hutch, you are a very prideful, arrogant and un-christ like type of individual, who will resort to unsavory tactics and false accusations, in order to besmirch, denigrate, and take down your opposition, all in the name of doing the Lord’s work. This is greatly manifested when someone puts your feet to the fire, and call you on your mess.
You really need to repent, and look in the mirror, which is something you accuse me of needing to do.
Need I elaborate more?
Seekerman-
Coming from you, I just consider the source.
Arrogant is as arrogant does.
You still cannot see.
I’m still amused you seem very tightly wound.
Jon-
Calling you a false teacher because you teach universal salvation is being very kind in light of the terminology Paul used for false teachers.
We derive no joy from it and I ahev ven told you many times that it is not to late for you to repent and turn from your error.
The fact is I love you and do not wish anyone to receive the wrath of God.
We have not been rude to you, just direct that your beliefs are doctrines of demons.
Even though Seekerman is very arrogant, immature and childish, I do not think he agrees with your universalism.
-Just as God passed through the animals cut in half by Abraham in Genesis 15. God the Son enters into a unilateral covenant with all who are born of the Spirit.
*I agree…
-The only way we fail is if He fails.
*I hear what you’re saying, but the reality is, the only way we fail in our faith walk, is if-WE FAIL. God promises to keep us until the end, even by the skins of our teeth, if we are faithful to him, by not straying from the righteous path, and being seduced by doctrines of demons.
It’s like me telling my adopted children that if they carry my last name, and abide by my rules, they will always have a home and be safe, whereas if they don’t-everything that falls down on them, will be their own fault. However, if they decided to ever come back to me, after languishing in the pig pens of the desert, I, like a loving father, will embrace them, and welcome them back.
-We have an intercessor who acts as our perpetual: High Priest, Intercessor, Sacrficial Lamb, Scape Goat, and Inscence!
*I agree. As opposed to the Old Covenant, God the Word (Jesus) is now all of those things you mentioned, but not only to a particular group of people, or a nation, but to all of humanity. One of the key features in this, lie in the fact that we don’t have to depend on any earthly objects or creations, to be our “High Priest, Intercessor, Sacrficial Lamb, Scape Goat,” or even “Inscence,” for we can rely totally on Jesus, and come boldly before the throne of grace, without all of the earthly intercessors and obstacle.
All of this is, is what the New Covenant entails.
Hutch,
You stated:
“Even though Seekerman is very arrogant, immature and childish, I do not think he agrees with your universalism.”
What does this have to do with the issue at hand. I never said that Seekerman agrees with my view on what the final judgment (“hell”) is about.
Hutch, it is your type of rude, arrogant, and immature comments that should be banned from legitimate Christian blog sites like this one (I think). You have so far done a horrible job at being Christ like in many of your postings.
But yet you are still blind to or simply reject this obvious fact.
-Seekerman
*Yeah what’s up?
-Coming from you, I just consider the source.
*I know, the Holy Spirit-which has allowed me to discern you as being prideful, arrogant, and may I add childish, as well as a false accuser.
-Arrogant is as arrogant does.
*I’m sure you would be greatly familiar with this.
-You still cannot see.
*You would like to think that I can’t see, so as to shield yourself from how you truly are.
-I’m still amused you seem very tightly woun
*To the contrary. You’re not as amused as you claim to be, and if you are, it is a mere self-defense mechanism, for mental self preservation.
Speaking of being “tightly woun”-you’re as “tightly woun” as a false accusing pharisee…
BLD,
Humility says:
“Jon, since you obviously feel that I have wronged you in some way, will you please accept my humble apology and forgive me for any offenses that I may have done to you.”
Is that too hard for you? Your pride is still being manifested with your last comment to me.
Seekerman-
It never ceases to amaze me how people can live in denial.
Lets recap the historical order and chronology of this humorous and enlightening exchange.
1. You made a bold proclamation as to your opinion of what the only biblical position is in regards to Lionels post.
2. I asked you a series of questions.
3. You did not like the questions and dismissed them as childish and proceeded to participate in name calling.
4. I told you childish is as childish does meaning that since you are the man who started the name calling it is clear that you are the immature one who is childish.
5. And no you are still in error, I have never been angry during this whole fascinating conversation, I have always been amused.
Again, your actions betray the fact that you overestimate your performance and ability to be obedient to the concept that you stated will keep you saved being obedient to unctions of the Holy Spirit. If you think your actions are Christlike and are an example of walking in the Spirit your more blind than I thought are in more trouble than I ever realized.
I am just wondering how long you will keep it up.
You strike me as a guy who needs to have the last word, no matter how silly it makes you look.
Jon said:
“Hutch, it is your type of rude, arrogant, and immature comments that should be banned from legitimate Christian blog sites like this one (I think). You have so far done a horrible job at being Christ like in many of your postings.
But yet you are still blind to or simply reject this obvious fact.”
My response:
You’re right, I don’t believe in universalism (is that what they call it?), but you are right in your assessment of Hutch…
Remember, reformed types believe that everything that occurs that is good, or bad (slavery or the holocaust, for instance), was due to the sovereign will of God, right? Well on the same token, everything that’s being said about Hutch, on this site, within the last coupla days, whether it be good or bad, is the sovereign will of God.
It’s like the song in the movie “The Color Purple”: GOD’S TRYNA’ TELL YOU SOMETHIN’!
Jon-
I guess Seekerman and I should both be banned then since he is the one who initiated the name calling.
On the other hand, I am confident that your falee gospel message of the universal salvation of mankind should be banned from a legitimate Christian blog. That protects the unsuspecting from being led astray by your evil doctrines.
Since Seekerman was the baby that started the name calling, then by your standard we should both be banned.
The chronloogy has not been manipulated.
Check it out, I know you can do it.
BTW, I never said that those who feel they can lose their salvation are outside of orthodox Christianity.
I still do not know the answer to my questions posed to Seekerman.
My other brothers and sisters in Christ who believe they can lose their salvation will usually interact with me over the issue instead of resorting to name calling and childish behavior such as Seekerman initiated.
I’m still waiting to see how many times and way Seekerman will continue to call me names to my amusement.
Grin.
-Seekerman-
*Yeah what’s up?
-It never ceases to amaze me how people can live in denial.
*Then why kid yourself?
-Lets recap the historical order and chronology of this humorous and enlightening exchange.
*Please, let’s proceed.
-1. You made a bold proclamation as to your opinion of what the only biblical position is in regards to Lionels post.
*Do you have a problem with that? You yourself believe that your position is “the only biblical position,” right? I mean, I’ve heard plenty of folks on your side of the aisle, boldly affirm this, on this site, as well as on other sites, but yet, I detect that you may have a problem with me saying this, seeing as how I’m on the other side of the aisle.
-I asked you a series of questions.
*True enough. Some of them were fair questions, despite the repetitive nature of the questions, whereas others were asinine, childish, and mocking questions, and?
-3. You did not like the questions and dismissed them as childish and proceeded to participate in name calling.
*WRONG. I specifically called this question of yours childish (and I only dismissed one question, before I answered; furthermore, I answered every question, and response you threw at me, so what possesses you to lie, and pretend I hadn’t?):
“Are you confident that you have been sufficiently sensitive to the unctions from the Holy Spirit today to keep you saved? -or- DID YOU LOSE YOUR SALVATION TODAY?”
This friend is a childish question. And remember, I never personally labeled you as childish, just this question. You see, I realize that human beings aren’t perfect, and are capable of making mistakes, therefore at times, even though their constitution may not be perpetually childish, which would then make them childish-they at times can do some childish things. Hence, AGAIN, I referred to your statements, and not to you, as being childish.
HOWEVER, you yourself referred to me FIRST as being childish, simply because I labeled your question as being childish, and again, here your quote which proves my assertion:
“If you cannot answer a question without being childish by calling anothers legitimate question childish, maybe you are the one who is childish?”
So as you can see, it was you who first engaged in name calling, or implying that someone’s childish, not me, which again makes you a false accuser.
I can say more, but let’s proceed.
-. I told you childish is as childish does meaning that since you are the man who started the name calling it is clear that you are the immature one who is childish.
*Again, read the above posting where I introduced the word “childish.” I never called you childish, but rather, AGAIN-I called a particular line of questioning from you, as being CHILDISH. The evidence is so apparent in the very words I used on this thread, and in this post.
It’s like someone calling a particular question, by a particular party – “stupid.” It doesn’t mean that the person who labeled the question as “stupid”, feels the person who made the “stupid” question, is essentially stupid, but that the question in and of itself, was “stupid.”
Obviously, your feelings got hurt, due to feeling highly insulted over me calling a reformed tactical question by your side “stupid.” You see, in your reformed arrogance, you’re so used to being right, and God constantly being on your side, whereas other folks are but dung (those who are unsaved, as well as those who are saved, but with “bad doctrine”), to where your pride thought that anything that came out of your mouth, in a biblical discussion, that was taken from the reformed playbook, would always be right on, and exact, and never properly challenged for the foolishness some of it is.
Again, your pride and ego was taken down a notch or two, because what I threw back at you (discernment of the question, and subsequently, your character) was never in your study guides, dvd lessons, or reformed playbook manual, when it came to dealing with an arminian. Your stubbornness, egotistical, haughtiness and foolish pride, precludes you from seeing this about yourself, and your reactions, because you my brother, are the one who’s truly not being led of the Spirit, but by your dogma, and flesh.
Need I elaborate more?
-And no you are still in error, I have never been angry during this whole fascinating conversation, I have always been amused.
*I don’t believe you. Your words say one thing, but I detect something else…
-Again, your actions betray the fact that you
overestimate your performance
*No, I don’t “overestimate” my “performance,” but I do know that you initially underestimated me and my resolve, as a “dumb” arminian who would be easily handled and taken down…
-and ability to be obedient to the concept that you stated will keep you saved being obedient to unctions of the Holy Spirit.
*As I said in a previous post-I’m not perfect, and I do fall short (which is something that certain reformed types like you, in a discussion with an arminian, hate to admit to). And regardless of what you say, I am being obedient to the unction of the Holy Spirit in dealing with you, and in living my life.
Oh sure, prideful reformed types like you would like to criticize someone like myself, who’s not a cessationist, as it concerns my walk, and belief in God, seeing as how many of your own actions (like what I’m seeing presently manifested by you) aren’t Spirit led, but carnally minded.
You are like the Devil (I’m not calling you the devil; I’m just saying you are like the Devil), who is a false accuser of the brethren. One of the tactics of the Devil is to try and convince a saved person, that they’re truly not saved, and are not Spirit led. This is what a reformed pharisee like yourself, who shuts up the Kingdom of Heaven against certain ones, and believes that the Gifts of the Spirit have ceased, will propagate to those on the other side of the aisle, who not only disagree with their doctrinal positions, but expose some of them for what they truly are-REFORMED WHITED SEPULCHRES, FULL OF DOCTRINE, AND DEAD MEN’S BONES WITHIN.
So no my friend, I understand your tactic, your motivations and bad intentions, which nullifies, and evaporates any type of criticisms you throw my way, in regards to my salvation, and the Holy Spirit leading me.
You are headed down a dark path once you enter into that territory.
-If you think your actions are Christlike and are an example of walking in the Spirit your more blind than I thought are in more trouble than I ever realized.
*If you think that you are spewing Godly admonitions, then you are more blinded by your own ego, ambition, cold-heartedness, arrogance and pride, than I thought you were.
-I am just wondering how long you will keep it up.
*As long as the Spirit leads me.
-You strike me as a guy who needs to have the last word, no matter how silly it makes you look.
*No, I don’t need the last word, unlike yourself, whereas I am now detecting a little frustration on your part. Remember, you are the one giving me the ammunition, to gradually expose you for the type of person you truly are, by every response, false accusation, and sophist ramblings you throw at me.
In other words, I’m playing defense, whereas you are unrighteously on the offense.
Again, I go where the Spirit leads me-nuff said.
Seeker,
You said:
“Oh sure, prideful reformed types like you would like to criticize someone like myself, who’s not a cessationist, as it concerns my walk, and belief in God, seeing as how many of your own actions (like what I’m seeing presently manifested by you) aren’t Spirit led, but carnally minded.”
I have two questions for you.
1. Who in this dialogue is a cessasionist?
2. How does being Spirit led have anything to do with cessationism?
I think you have misdiagnosed the individuals you are conversating with and you have mistaken the definition of cessionism. Or at least “these reformed types”.
Hutch said:
I still do not know the answer to my questions posed to Seekerman.
My other brothers and sisters in Christ who believe they can lose their salvation will usually interact with me over the issue instead of resorting to name calling and childish behavior such as Seekerman initiated.
My response:
Any person on this site, who will honestly say that I haven’t answered Hutch’s questions, and others questions on this site, more specifically this thread, are self-deluding themselves, and have drunk to much of Hutch’s kool-aid.
I’ve answered repeatedly, his specific questions, WHICH HE, NOR ANYONE ELSE ON HIS SIDE OF THE AISLE, HAS CHALLENGED.
Again, he, Hutch, is being deceptive and self-delusional, and is engaging in false accusations in order to not really prove who’s right, or wrong, per se-but to win an argument, and gain supporters on his side.
So before folks begin to feel sorry for poor old Hutch, and will instantly agree with him, because he shares their doctrinal beliefs, without thoroughly going over all of the posts where he and I engaged in these polemical discussions where you will find that 1) I did answer all of his questions (sometimes repeatedly); and 2) he was the first to engage in name calling, as well as question my faith walk; all I have to say to you is-WAKE UP.
I know how human beings can operate, even those who are saved, in that they will cling to the side of someone in an argument, even if the overwhelning amount of evidence shows that person to be dead wrong.
Just yesterday, someone on his side of the aisle (Lionel) claimed that I never answered a particular question, whereas I checked my older posts on this thread, and guess what I discovered-I MOST CERTAINLY DID! But again, it was about group think, and sticking with your ideological tribe, with the presumption that because someone agrees with your side of the aisle, on doctrinal matters, then their assessment of a person on the opposite side of the aisle, or what that person said, or did, must be spot on, which isn’t the case at all, at all times.
With that said, to invoke those folks on my side of the aisle, by saying that they, unlike myself, will answer your questions, again, is a devilish like, wily tactic. Here you are, a person who is very dismissive of arminian beliefs, to where you may even think they’re heretical, trying to ingratiate yourself with folks on my side of the aisle, whom you enjoy vanquishing in debates, only because this one arminian here, is taking you to task, not only for your doctrinal beliefs, but apparently for your character as a person, and your lack of Christian like behavior, as well.
It is hard for you to kick against the pricks…
-I’m still waiting to see how many times and way Seekerman will continue to call me names to my amusement.
*I’m not calling you names, per se, unlike yourself, but more so-I am calling it, like I see it.
And you’re as amused as a heart diseased patient on a roller coaster.
Lionel said:
Seeker,
You said:
“Oh sure, prideful reformed types like you would like to criticize someone like myself, who’s not a cessationist, as it concerns my walk, and belief in God, seeing as how many of your own actions (like what I’m seeing presently manifested by you) aren’t Spirit led, but carnally minded.”
My response:
Yes I did say this.
-I have two questions for you.
1. Who in this dialogue is a cessasionist?
*I’m assuming Hutch may be, as well as others on this thread. Then again, they can speak for themselves, right?
Now mind you, I’ve never accused you of being a cessationist, for I read a post of yours, where you stated that you were not a cessationist. However, with that said, can you honestly say that there aren’t folks on this thread who aren’t cessationists, or the folks that I dialogued with who aren’t cessationists?
I don’t know for sure, but you and I know that most reformed types are cessationists, and/or they don’t believe in the Gift of Tongues, prophecy and the like.
Now if you’re sitting on information that I don’t know, please elucidate.
Lionel asked:
2. How does being Spirit led have anything to do with cessationism?
*I never said it did. I just accused Hutch of not being Spirit led, similar to how he’s accusing me of not being Spirit led.
I’m also saying that folks who are cessationist in thinking, are so full of the word, and their own specific interpretation of how that word ought to speak, and operate, to where their dogma will lead them into actions that aren’t spirit led (e.g. the John Calvin and Servetus affair; my back and forth with Hutch; etc.)
-I think you have misdiagnosed the individuals you are conversating with and you have mistaken the definition of cessionism.
*Okay, I know that you are not a cessationist. Name me some others on this thread who are not; in particular, those I’ve been responding to, besides yourself.
Likewise, I will admit that I don’t know everything, so you tell me what is your definition of cessionism.
-Or at least “these reformed types”.
*No, I have a handle on traditional reformed types, and many of them are cessationists, or believe that certain Gifts of the Spirit (e.g. tongues, prophecy, etc.) have ceased. Now mind you, you do have some that feel that certain Gifts are operable to today, that were evidenced in the 1st century church, but not all, which makes them cessationist in those areas.
So again, educate me. I mean, I’m always being asked questions, and answering questions, and being told how I am, well-when is someone going to explain to me what they believe, and where I’m wrong?
So again, I’m going to sit back and read your words, dealing with cessionism, and how it relates to certain folks who follow reformed theology.
Seeker,
Here are some posts:
http://blackandreformedministries.com/2008/10/24/a-historical-case-against-cessationist-still-waiting-for-the-perfect/
http://blackandreformedministries.com/2008/03/11/tongues-a-sign-for-non-believing-jews/
http://blackandreformedministries.com/2008/07/02/prophecy-prayer-women-and-teaching/
Let me know what you think.
Lionel,
Yeah I will check out those links. Thanks.
To folks who still wonder about the amount of sin one has to commit, in order to lose their salvation, just remember that God is a patient and longsuffering God, who is not willing that any should perish, especially those who he had redeemed. So telling folks, or asking folks on my side of the aisle, how much is enough with God, well-only God can determine that because in the end, he’s sovereign.
Simply put, he, and he alone, knows his breaking point-we are just commanded to obey and follow him.
Would a loving parent with 10 kids, immediately dismiss one of their own children, because they’ve been disobedient? Of course not. They will try to work with that child, patiently love that child, in a longsuffering way, so that the child will get back on the right path.
It may come in the form of intense discipline, or mild correction-DEPENDING ON THE CHILD AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
If the child continues to rebel, then 1) the child will leave on his own free accord, being delivered to the Prince and the Power of the Air; and or 2) the Parent will have to count their losses and cut the child off, for the survival, safety and well-being, of the other children residing in the house, for as the saying goes: “One rotten apple, can spoil the whole bunch,” or like what scripture says: “A little leaven, leavens the whole lump.”
Whether the rebellious child leaves, or is cut off from the parent, or somewhere in between, it really doesn’t matter, for it all comes down to-IT WAS THE REBELLIOUS CHILD’S FAULT, FOR WHATEVER END RESULT THAT MAY OCCUR.
This is, in a nutshell, the basic arminian position on conditional security, as well as my stated beliefs on this very thread.
Hopefully this has enlightened folks, to not necessarily convert to my side, but fully understand my side, for future discussions.
Jon typed:
“BLD,
Humility says:
“Jon, since you obviously feel that I have wronged you in some way, will you please accept my humble apology and forgive me for any offenses that I may have done to you.”
Is that too hard for you? Your pride is still being manifested with your last comment to me.”
(BLD) Jon, let’s answer your question first. Yes, this is too hard for me. Why? Because that in fact would be a false humility. (I’m seeing a pattern of false definitions used by you to promote false conclusions. Hmmm.) I don’t know what I have said that was sinful that then has offended you. I have asked for the evidence of it (which should be easy to provide), so that I may consider it and proceed accordingly. You have, so far, refused this request. Therefore, we are at an impasse.
Imagine me in a court of law, before a grand jury being indicted for murder. The procecution stands before the jury and says, “We are here today to charge Lawrence D. with murder. We have no body, no murder weapon, no DNA and no motive. However, we FEEL Lawrence has done the crime.” A member of the grand jury stands and asked, “Well, why do you feel he is guilty?”. To the surprise of everyone, the prosecutor begins to answer the question by saying, “Lawrence professes to be a Christian. Humility states that he should just plead guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.” Everyone, burst into laughter. They can’t believe that humility is being defined this way and that the prosecutor has a straight face when he says this. Another juror stands and says, “Which is worse Mr. Prosecutor, for Lawrence to lie and admit guilt where there is none? Or for you to accuse him without evidence? Because of this, and I think I speak for the entire jury, I move that we dismiss this case until you have actual evidence.” The judge agrees and Lawrence D. is set free. All to the chagrin of the prosecutor.
Jon. let me be clear. In your case, I do not feel I have been sinful in anyway. I have told you that you were wrong, biblically. I have told you that what you teach is inconsistent and false. I have not insulted your intelligence. I have not called you names. I have not mocked or made fun of you except to say that you were “grabbing at straws”. And this due to the fact that you have attempted to turn 9 out of 10 post into a discussion of your false teaching. Now if you are offended at any of this, then so be it. But I remain unconvinced that an apology is in order.
Call me prideful, arrogant or anything else. But given that you have constantly and consistently shown an inability to correctly define almost anything else, I will take my chances that you are wrong on this one as well.
Bro. Lawrence D.,
You previously stated to me personally:
“I already know that you want to defend and not learn (as you suggest and yes I’m calling you a liar). ”
Would you not consider this to be NAME CALLING!
I rest my case.
Jon,
To answer your question, no I don’t consider it name calling to label someone who is lying a liar. That is a categorization of that individual’s behavior. Anyone who lies is a liar. Anyone who murders is a murderer. Anyone who rapes….I hope you get the point. Jon you were lying. Go back and look at every post where you attempted to begin a discussion on “Universal Reconciliation” and tell me if you can say honestly that it fit within the subject of each thread. You can’t! Therefore, you were lying when you said that you were not here to defend/teach “Universal Reconciliation” but that you were open to learning if you were wrong.
So tell me Jon, what should I call someone who is lying? Jon Paden?
And trust me, I’m not the least bit sorry for exposing your true motives, which blew your cover. (Which itself wasn’t very covert seeing as how EVERYONE picked up on it!)
Our impasse remains.
BLD,
You stated:
“Go back and look at every post where you attempted to begin a discussion on “Universal Reconciliation” and tell me if you can say honestly that it fit within the subject of each thread. You can’t! Therefore, you were lying when you said that you were not here to defend/teach “Universal Reconciliation” but that you were open to learning if you were wrong.”
My response:
If you go back to the majority of the threads that have 30 or more comments in them, you will find that very rarely do all of the comments posted fit within the subject of each thread. This thread is no different. You also will find that the few threads that I did make any mention of universal reconciliation, most of my comments were simply responses to Hutch’s, Alan Knox’s, Lionel’s, StevenO’s, Servant of the King’s, Aussiejohn’s, Mike’s, and your many questions and false assumptions of me. You, on the other hand, seem to avoid problamatic questions about your current theology. No matter what verses I give you, you will find away around it or better yet avoid the troublesome scriptures to begin with. I have asked all of you many questions concerning the apparent contradicitons in your view of “hell” yet hardly any of you provide any respones.
Am I to be persuaded by your view simply because you gave me your opinions on the subject?
Is it wrong for me to expect some type of biblical defense of your views on “hell”?
Could it be that you cannot provide any adequate scriptural support to defend your so called “biblical views”?
How can you have proven me wrong when you want even allow any thorogh discussion on the subject to begin with?
How can you have proven me wrong when you lack scriptural support for your defense?
I still stand to be corrected on this subject (if needed) but so far none of you guys have come close to providing any reasonable explanation to the many problems that I have brought to light.
BLD you again so arrogantly stated:
“So tell me Jon, what should I call someone who is lying? Jon Paden?
And trust me, I’m not the least bit sorry for exposing your true motives, which blew your cover.”
My response:
The more you comment the more you seem to expose some of those bad fruits that I mentioned before (name calling, bearing false witness, arrogance, etc.).
But I do forgive you in your ignorance.
Good post brother. Came at in a little different on my blog but I agree with what you said here and look forward to checking out your site and learning some more.