Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Heir of Salvation

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,808 profile views

Heir of Salvation's Achievements

  1. Definitely Pratico and Van Pelt....for Hebrew. That's practically non-negotiable IMO. Every quality Institution I know uses their material...and Van Pelt is a good instructor.
  2. I enjoyed sharpening iron with you... God bless you brother :)
  3. I don't think your assessment is very far off... I said before that I am "skeptical" about OSAS, not that I'm dyed-in-the-wool against it. I'm being treated by some as though I am....but that's another matter. John provides us the answer though, I think in vs. 22 and I think my initial assessment is correct: He identifies those "anti-Christs" those who (were not of us)...in vs. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. I am not yet convinced that those who can walk away are those who were never truly believers.... That argument is dangerously close to a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I don't think all OSAS believers who use that verse are guilty of it, because they believe in an a-priori impossibility of falling away (such as yourself I would guess). But, I think the context is, frankly....the entire book, not just a few preceding verses...and those spoken of who are "anti-Christ"...who never were "of us"...are, and always were, genuine non-believers....wolves in sheep's clothing...not those who may have genuinely believed and have abandoned the faith. The non-OSAS position (the only reasonable one) provides that a person who may have GENUINELY believed at some point can walk away....I think John is indeed speaking of those who CLEARLY never did... And he's warning us against wolves who never believed... Frankly, I believe he's warning against Docetism which already infected the faith by then. See I John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: I think that's a better way to understand the passage. Thank you for your insight :)
  4. Maybe... But preface it with vs. 17 only two verses earlier................. and it could take on a whole new meaning: 1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. That could help to preface vs. 19............since it provides context. It creates a condition....for who Christ's sheep are... and mind you John is warning us about heretics who deny Christ...they, I would argue are those who are spoken of. Genuine "anti-Christs" who deny Christ has come in the flesh.
  5. You seriously just accused me of "double-talk"???? Really? Because I presented fair arguments....and even conceded numerous points in favour of the OSAS position? Points I didn't HAVE to concede. Such as explaining that while it's indeed true (and it is) that the ancient Fathers don't seem to support an OSAS position....that that should not be of significant concern to Roselove and that the Scriptures themselves should be consulted........ Let's see.... Please see if you can explain in any real detail and without sounding preposterous how I engaged in "double-talk"... You are acting like precisely what Roselove is complaining about........ Someone genuinely asking questions...and seeking to hear contrary arguments held up with Scripture... And you just condemn and insult and falsely accuse and scream "heresy". I may be mistaken. OSAS may be true... But I've not engaged in "double-talk". I presented my argument as fairly and reasonably as possible with my KJV verses quoted: You responded as you did because..... Your arguments simply aren't as good as mine......so you defaulted to insult and false accusation. And you know it. By the way "double-speak"....is preferable to "double-talk"...if that's what you want to accuse me of...just sayin'
  6. No one can "pluck" them from the father's hand.... But, who would describe an errant sheep who willingly "leaves" the fold and walks away as having been "plucked"???? You "pluck" an apple off of a tree. If it's over-ripe, and falls to the ground (of it's own accord). You do not describe it as having been "plucked". No one can "pluck" Christ's sheep from the fold........... That says nothing about whether a sheep can walk away. And that action cannot reasonably be described as "having been 'plucked' ". I don't think that verse proves your point....especially in context: Consider the preceding verse: Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: That is a CONDITION for being a sheep....his sheep "follow" him. (Or that is at least a faithful and fair way to understand the passage). Conceivably, those who do NOT continue to follow him...are no longer classified as "sheep". Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. If OSAS is true (and it may very well be) this passage doesn't, I think, prove the point.
  7. It can be both "everlasting" but also conditional. It can be "eternal" but receipt of it can be conditional. No one "opposes" "eternal" life.... They oppose non-conditionality. Even you don't believe eternal life is granted unconditionally. You believe that faith in Christ is necessary for receiving that gift to begin with. The difference is that you view it as a Once-only proposition. Those who disagree would contend that those who do not continue in the faith will not receive life eternal.... "Eternality" is not even the issue........it's conditionality that is at issue. The point of the opposing argument is that "eternal" life is granted upon certain conditions. This "simple point" must be answered by those who oppose "eternal" eternal life. They don't oppose "Eternal" life... they oppose a one-time-walk forward during the fifteenth verse of "Just as I am"- then live like the Devil-and believe whatever you want-and discontinue in belief at all-and still be a recipient of Eternal Life- even if you fall away from belief and begin practicing Buddhism.........................kind of Conditionality................. Every verse in the Bible assures BELIEVERS of Eternal Life....No verse assures the "I once believed but have abandoned the Faith". That's the question....Whether those who genuinely once believed can fall away into disbelief: Luke8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
  8. I get it. I know what the eternal means, what was confusing to me, though, was for instance, like in John 3:16, they were saying that in the Greek for believeth, was implying a continuance of beleiving, which they were trying to say meant that if you stopped believing, you would not inherit wternal life, after death. That's a legitimate understanding of that verse. I'm much more open-minded to osas, now. I have been given information that makes sense to me. I was just needing some mentoring, on this matter. That's why i find it quite saddening, that people were accusing me of not believing the Bible, Welcome to O.B.... Not toeing the company line will often automatically get you branded a Christ-hater, sinner, non-believer, and heretic in the minds of some. Don't let that discourage you... Continue in the Word, listen to the arguments presented, and most importantly read the Scripture with prayer. i felt like they were saying I was trying to be a heretic or something. That's because some posters were sayinig that. Welcome to Christianity where no one is perfect and some are odious, contentious, proud and unrelentingly intransigent. I was just trying to get help. There are knowledgeable and good posters here who can help you and present reasoned arguments...... Scott Markle is definitely one of them. He's wise, and knowledgeable. He'll land on the OSAS side of the argument. Good. I'm not sure I'd agree with him..............................but, he's definitely worth hearing and considering. He can patiently and lovingly expound what he knows of Scripture and present an argument well thought-out and reasoned. Some are just going to call you a "heretic" because you don't agree on every minor point of Doctrine, or even preference. Welcome to the Family. Ignore those who are unhelpful and learn from those who are. Like this Quote
  9. It is true that there appears to be no KNOWN affirmation of a doctrine of "Eternal Security" in the early Church writings. (Here I would restrict it to the Ante-Nicene pre-4th Century). But, there are doubtless countless writings we no longer have access to. To this I would say several things: The early Church had much larger fish to fry quite frankly. It was busy fleshing out doctrines such as the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Humanity of Jesus Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the personhood of the Spirit, the Nature of the Trinity, the incarnation etc... I would argue that genuine saved believers had some pretty strange ideas we would consider all but heretical in this day and age. And we can expect too much from them sometimes. We are the beneficiaries of 2,000 years of Christian thought. They were often the beneficiaries of a few books of the New Testament perhaps a gospel or two and some letters of Paul. It was not really until Chalcedon (if I remember correctly) that everyone even agreed upon the Scriptural Cannon. The early Church Fathers had no such benefits........and they were dealing with much "bigger" issues. That being said, when they do make round-about mention of it.....they indeed do not seem to support any such thing as "Once-saved always saved" or "Eternal Security" etc.... This is not surprising really. Such an idea would be foreign to the world they inhabited at the time. Christianity would be the only faith that had such a doctrine (and still is). It's very counter-intuitive. And yes, there are numerous Scriptures which demand a "faithfulness to the end" to ensure salvation. But, the specific historical and social context of such writings is informative....They were under persecution in a way that we are not. They were likely referring to holding fast and not denying their faith in the face of persecution as much as saying "don't lose your Salvation". To be clear, I am Skeptical about Eternal Security myself. And I do think that Early Church writing is of value on any Doctrinal topic......Yes, I do care what they said and what they taught. But, I would be cautious about allowing what we have on that specific issue to inform your decision making much. I use an informal sort of sliding scale of how much weight I place on the Church Fathers on different topics. I am likely to have more faith in their take on say.....the Incarnation or the Trinity than I would on their precise Soteriology. Here.....it really is best to search the Scriptures with diligence and much prayer for your answers.
  10. Darrel Castle is actually on the ballot in my State....... I'll probably fill his name in.
  11. Don't bother. You could post a video of yourself burning Calvin in effigy and it wouldn't be good enough for some people. Let it go. B.T.W........we treated you just fine at Baptist Symposium..........just sayin......... And yes, it was Beza more than Calvin himself. You're right about that. It's also irrelevant on this board.
  12. http://www.dailywire.com/news/9925/liberty-university-students-reject-hank-berrien More power to them IMO.
  13. Who's to say whether the 70% are "in the right" and the 30% are "wrong"?.......... It's tatamount to impossible to really "know" with any measure of certainty. It's just as likely that the 30% are on a better track than the rest of the members and half the church may be mere pew-warmers. There's a reason Pastors are often chosen "democratically". Even if for imperfect reasons. I'm not sure any system is perfect, but, personally......I've rejected calls to churches where the split was 70-30...(exactly that actually). Unless strongly urged by the Spirit (and only with counsel of Godly men) otherwise......I wouldn't (and haven't) answered a Church call of 70-30....It takes a very WISE and experienced man to navigate such a scenario. Some (usually older and more experienced men I've found) can accept such a call...........but at my age and level of experience.....not happening. Churches without pastors have a tendency to get "desperate" sometimes if it's been a long time. They often either rush to hire the first "qualified" man to come along or they are often merely intransigent and chase away perfectly good candidates who don't have some things on paper that they want......Often that 70% if it's a Church without a pastor for say 4 years.....is "wrong" and the 30% are more patient and wise and willing to wait. It often takes an unusually wise, prudent and Godly man to navigate such a scenario. Often it's an erstwhile retired pastor of many decades' experience and therefore the appropriate wisdom to right the ship and subsequently steer such a church in the right direction. Quite often it's on an interim status. It's an amazing task such men accomplish. Get a 70-30 split on some young 32-year old cat fresh out of seminary with a wife and two kids and $100,000 of debt to pay.......and a 70/30 split is often really bad news for him. That congregation will beat him into submission like a rented mule.....................or worse...................they'll follow him blindly into whatever fancy new-fangled doctrines he espouses. BOTH are errors. It depends on the maturity of the Church you are speaking of.
  14. I don't know what pietism is, Root word "piety".....an obsession with remaining "pious" or monastically humble. I was saying that you were erring on the side of caution because you said that those Nations so mentioned were "No less secular" than Israel. You are (I think) Canadian....but you don't want to think too highly of yourself and you wish to remain humble in God's sight....That's what I mean. "Pietism" CAN MEAN something like someone who is disingenuously pious. But that wasn't what I meant there..... I was suggesting that your natural bent towards humility that every Christian should have balks (quite naturally) at what I'm saying. That's a good trait, but, I think it gets in the way of what I'm arguing here. and I can't be humble cause none of those countries is mine. Sure you can. You are a humble person.....almost to a fault. But no country in this world is godly. True. Which is to say, Ultimately...........as far as the lives of the individual inhabitants....no country is properly truly full of "Godly" persons but, at the same time I think that the "veneer" as you call it is actually important...even if we are whited sepulchres on the inside. Some had a veneer of it for a time, I think the "veneer" of it matters actually. It suggests something about the inside of the people. The people may sin, they may be hypocrites, they may sin when they think they are in darkness................but they aren't "painted whores"....they don't yet have a "whore's forhead". Jer 3:3 Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. There's a different level of wickedness when you are shamelessly ungodly. A desire to at least hide one's shame bespeaks a conscientiousness of Godliness not always shared by others. The idea is that you no longer even blush when you are shamelessly ungodly: Those Western nations at least pretend to blush....just a little. but even that is long gone on this continent. Not entirely... Mostly, but not entirely. It NEVER existed with the Nation of Israel though. These nations do not honor God. Yes they do. What I just posted was at least Britain and Australia putting a National face on Christianity. Of course, on the inside, in the aggregate, the people are often lost......the nation itself doesn't dishonor God. It at least pretends to. David Hobson's song was an uberly Christian (even Dispensational) view of Christian Christian ethic. Granted, they aren't perfect. and granted, they are probably (as individuals) as lost as anyone.....but the Nation isn't "Godless" not like Israel is. This is actually my "shout-out" to pretentiousness....to faux Christianity....to being a "whited sepulchre"....to complete and utter hypocrisy. A nation completely devoid of Godliness which at least PRETENDS towards Godliness is in better shape than one which doesn't honor God even in the abstract....that's what I'm contending. Oh, and as for 'western gentile Christianity'? Don't forget that 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek', Not "In Christ" as you correctly state......but in the Nation....there is the "Christian" and the "Jew"...at least in the national contiousness. I actually contend that that matters. and the western church is generally complacent and lukewarm compared to the eastern church that is currently under persecution. Probably true. The Eastern Church would be equally complacent under the same circumstances: Christianity is embedded in Western Culture though. That's not easily dismissed. I think you have a romantic view of our nations and our churches that does not reflect reality. I don't think so. I'm not contending that we are over-run with Godly people desperate to reach the world with the gospel. This isn't about the PERSONAL state of any nation's inhabitants. I'm not arguing the personal life of a Western Christian vs. the Israeli or Eastern Christian....I'm arguing something more abstract like the "NATIONAL" concsciousness. Britain at least PRETENDS to honor God....as The concert at the Royal Albert Hall suggests........that's downtown London. Kings and Queens go to the Royal Albert Hall. They are married and they are crowned by the Bishop of Canterbury...it's in their National blood. There's a difference between being unrighteous (but only secretly) and shamefacedly shaking your fist at God. Britain, Australia, U.S....etc...they at least have enough FEAR of God that they pretend to care about righteousness (even though they don't really as you rightly say). I think you are a whole lot better off if you at least PRETEND towards righteousness whilst committing every sin known to man than if you shake your fist at God in the process: Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever Those Western Nations aren't really righteous............... but they fear God enough to pretend to be. Israel does not. That makes a difference.
  • Create New...