Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrell Till
If you are going to address me by name, do try to learn how to spell it. That shouldn't be too difficult for someone who seems to think that he has the answer for everything. <edit>...I am going to reply to this post in order to point out to readers what you are not addressing. If you then fail to respond to my major points, I won't waste any more time on you. <edit>
|
Thank you Farrell but where did you get the idea that I have an answer for everything?
Quote:
Well, I agree with that. It is sort of equivalent to saying that one cannot be stupid and at the same time not be stupid. So what exactly do you think you are rebutting with this comment?
|
It is not a rebuttal but an agreement with you that one cannot be saved and not saved simultaneously. From here we look for the reason that salvation can be lost and if that is not possible we must conclude that the bible contradicts itself. That was the purpose of this tread and my response to this was that there are two kinds of salvation of which one can be lost and the other one cannot be lost. This solution preserves the inerrancy of the NT if it can be shown that these two kinds of salvation exist and to this I introduced John 1:13 where these two kinds of salvation are shown to exist.
Quote:
I have not said that the NT teaches that one can be in a state of "salvation" and simultaneously not be in a state of "salvation." If you intended an analogy here, you simply didn't understand my rebuttal arguments. Take, for example, the case of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8, which we will later see that you refused to address. As I showed in my post, when he also believed what Philip had preached and was baptized, he, according to Jesus in Mark 16:16, put himself into a state of "salvation," but after being in this state, he so conducted himself that he lost that state of "salvation." Hence, I was not saying that Simon was simultaneously both "saved" and not "saved." He was "saved" but later became not "saved."
I think that is clear enough that even you should understand it.
|
Correct but Simon the sorcerer believed and was baptized but was not saved without receiving the HS in good faith. Verse 16 It [the Holy Spirit] had not as yet come down upon any of them since they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (I am not sure where he becomes saved but you will show me that later and if baptism is equal to salvation it would be the carnal kind which is not of God).
Quote:
When did I say that the NT teaches that Christians will be "convicted by the law [of Moses]"? I have said no such thing. I have, however, shown that the NT teaches very clearly that after a person is "saved," he can lose that state of "salvation." If that is not so, then there are numerous NT passages that make no sense at all. The apostle Paul, for example, said that he "buffeted" his body and brought it "into subjection lest by any means after that [he] had preached to others [he himself] might be rejected" (1 Cor. 9:27).
|
You did not say that but I added this to remind you that the laws were given to convict man of sin for "without the law sin is dead." This means that it is impossible to sin without the law and thus freedom from the law also means freedom from sin.
I have no problem with circumcision by natural law to "buffet" the body but that is not done to avoid the conviction of sin. In Paul's case it was also done to avoid misleading others but freedom from the law means freedom in Christ and therefore freedom from the conviction of sin.
Quote:
//
Just for the fun of it, why don't we look at another text by the apostle Paul in which he clearly taught that "salvation" once obtained could afterwards be lost. It followed on the heels of the passage just cited.
If it is doctrinally true that "saved" individuals cannot lose their "salvation," this passage makes no sense at all. Why would Paul have gone to such lengths to issue this warning to the Corinthians Christians if he understood that it was impossible for them to lose the "salvation" that they had attained?
|
Paul knew that it is wrong to enter the race (here called salvation)
from carnal desire while under a cloud, to say that it is wrong to part the waters while under the influence of the HS in effort to enter the promised land. I think Jesus showed us how to walk on water instead.
I would not call the Corinthians "Christians" until they had completed the race and I am not sure if the bible does call them Christians or not.
Quote:
You are now trying to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. Your "argument" is that 1 John 3:9 teaches that once a person is "saved" he is always saved, so Hebrews 6:4-6 must not mean that "salvation" can be lost after it is obtained, because if it does, there is a contradiction in the Bible. It would be just as valid to argue that 1 John 3:9 must not mean that it is impossible for a "saved" person to commit sins, because if it does, it would contradict Hebrews 6:4-6 and various other texts, which teach that Christians can not only sin after being "saved" but can so sin that they will lose their "salvation." One argument would be just as valid as the other.
|
1 Jn.3:9 clearly states that one must be begotten of God and remain in God's stock to be free from sin and that removes all doubt from the passage.
In Hebrews 6:4-6 meat and milk are used to show this failure to remain of God . . . in practice, I must add, wherein direct revelation becomes our teacher and we are responder.
I think it even says that the teachings of Jesus Christ are like milk and we must go beyond milk to actual real life experiences wherein we learn the rest = work out our own salvation = the end of religion and freedom in Christ to complete the race until we become a Christian of our own.
Quote:
This text is saying no more than that people are not "saved" by their own plans of "salvation" but by "God's." Your task now is to show us that those who did everything attributed to them in Hebrews 6:4-6 were somehow not "born of God." Here is what the writer said that they had done.
1. They had repented.
2. They had been enlightened.
3. They had tasted the heavenly gift.
4. They had been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.
5. They had tasted the good word of God.
6. They had tasted the power of the ages to come.
|
It is obvious that they were not born of God if they could not handle meat and needed [more] milk. My suggestion was that their repentance was not complete if it was done to gain eternal life (I suggested that they had had failed to repent the very I that did the repenting). As such were they carnal when they repented (desire is carnal).
Quote:
You are, therefore, claiming that people who repent, become enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, become partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good word of God, and taste the power of the ages to come have somehow failed to be "born of God." That is a position that makes no sense at all, just as it makes no sense to argue that those who have "escaped the defilements of the world through a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ" are somehow not "saved" (2 Peter 2:20), but "Peter" nevertheless said in this passage that those who so escape will be in a worse state than their first one if they become entangled again in the defilements of the world and are overcome by them.
|
I don't know about 2 Peter 2:20 but in America the angel of light becomes a substitute of direct revelation when those who have been saved become hyper active in their religion and church affairs. I just showed you how and why salvation is the end of religion and should never be a boost to religion.
Quote:
Sorry, Chili, but you are ignoring NT passages that clearly teach that there is a constant danger of losing "salvation" after it is obtained.
|
Maybe that is because you are not able to relate to anything else.
Quote:
Well, Chili, is the one who is going to be left out of this if he doesn't start trying to answer my arguments. I am not going to waste time on someone who trolls a forum just to try to divert attention to himself.
|
I never was in it, Farrell. Just showing you a different perspective.
Quote:
Since Chili has presumed to reply to a post that I addressed to Bible John, I will put my question directly to him: what does Chili think that one would have to do beyond those steps listed above to obtain this state of "salvation" that the NT speaks of?
|
It is wrong to repent in effort to gain eternal life. Salvation is a mystery that must unfold itself and there is nothing we can do to help it along.
Remember how I told you that it was like metamorphosis that either comes our way or it does not. In Christendom it is a common occurrence in Catholicism wherefore they make a good catch for a prowling wolf in sheep's clothing (if you know what I mean,
)
Quote:
Ignore this question again, Chili, and I will ignore you.
|
What was the question again?
Quote:
But Galatians 5:4 is not the passage under consideration; 2 Peter 2:20-22 is the proof text that I presented.
|
You did?
Quote:
Now where does this text even hint that "Peter" was referring to those who were "seeking justification in the law after having found favor with Christ"? But even if this was what "Peter" was referring to, it would, nevertheless, be true that he was saying that after escaping from the defilements of the world through a knowledge of Jesus Christ it was possible to become entangled in those defilements again and overcome, a state or condition that he said would be worse than their first state.
|
This is a new passage you just added but it outlines the state of being Peter called "gall of bitterness and the chains wickedness" in Acts 8, I think it was.
It is very common in charismatic and evangelical churches where the HS keeps flying the coupe.
Quote:
//
Notice that "Peter" said that angels sinned and were cast into hell and kept in chains until the judment, so Chili must think that even though angels can fall from grace and lose their blessed state, ordinary humans who attain a state of "salvation" cannot lose that state.
|
People who are saved are no longer human because they cannot sin, remember?
Quote:
//
I suppose everyone noticed that Chili is simply arguing by assertion. He made no attempt to prove that the text was referring to "the repenting [that] was not part of the repented" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). I assume that everyone also noticed that Chili argues by assertions that make no sense and leaves them hanging without any effort on his part to explain what they mean or to prove that the passages in question were saying what he claims. I, on the other hand, have given mountains of evidence that passages like 2 Peter 2:20-22 clearly taught that "salvation" can be lost after it is once obtained.
|
I will look at 2 Peter 2:20-22 when I have some time, if that is OK with you.
Quote:
Can't Chili see that he has made a damaging admission here? If "salvation" is, as he said, "just the beginning of the race" and if only "in completing this race [the] victory is ours," Chili has admitted what I have shown to be the clear meanings of various NT passages: [I]Once a person has attained "salvation," he can lose it if he doesn't complete the race.
Is there any need to continue this discussion?
|
Paul was a religionists who needed to attract converts.
If you think saved people have completed the race why are they still waiting for the second coming? In my view Jesus has come in the life of every saint or they would not be in heaven now which exist only because Christ never left (Jn.21:22).
Quote:
When Chili makes sense, I will try to reply to him, but when he does nothing but post nonsensical assertions for which he offers no supporting evidence, there is no need to dignify the nonsense with serious attempts to rebut that which is not even comprehensible.
|
I never asked you to reply. I am just giving you an alternate point of view that you are welcome to ignore.
Quote:
Well, I can certainly see why Chili doesn't "want to get into [my] take on Acts 8," because it gives a clear example of a person (Simon the Sorcerer) who obtained "salvation" and then lost it. As for his nonsensical comments about "heaven on earth" and "hell on earth," I will gladly comment on them when he offers textual evidence that Peter was referring only to a state of mind known as "hell on earth" when he said that Simon was in "the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness."
Now here is a final word to Chili. <edit>...start making serious attempts to debate or else go waste someone else's time. I have taken a large part of my day to reply to your post, which in many places is pure nonsense, so give me the same consideration or I will let you waste somebody else's time.
|
Why don't you just make shorter posts?
08-13-2006, 10:46 AM
Perseverance of the Saints
