Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Heir of Salvation

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Heir of Salvation

  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. 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.
  11. I disagree. As a whole, they are. Of course these are generalizations and everywhere there is Godlessness. But I think it is pietism and humility (good traits for sure) but not fact that makes you want to say that. From a strictly statistical standpoint for instance, There are far more people in those nations, indeed in the Western World as a whole who embrace the Messiah than there are in Israel. It's getting worse here of course, but Israel is more secular than those countries and there are far fewer Christians in Israel than in the U.S. U.K. Australia et al. There is not even a lot of Orthodox practitioners of Judaism in Israel. It's a very humanistic country. Thanks be to God, it won't be forever, but it is for now.
  12. I am not even close to an adherent of Replacement Theology................I abhor Replacement Theology. "Neo-Nazi"????? Really?? Can you quote for me the "Neo-Nazi" part of the post? There's no Scriptural argument to even make!.....the question was if your nation was attacked without warrant should you defend it? The answer is obvious.....of course you defend your country. Do I take it that if an Israeli bomber were dropping ordnance on your house you wouldn't fire back? You wouldn't defend your wife and children? You would let an Israeli murder your family? This thread is beyond the pale of absurd. Jordan shouldn't even have to ask the question, the answer is self-evident. He's just over-thinking it. It's understandable, he's a curious learning young man trying to make sense of complex ideas, sometimes young people over-think things and confuse the complex with the simple. That's all. I have zilch hostility towards Israel.....Zilch. I know that the Nation of Israel however, does not have Carte-Blanche to attack other countries without recourse. I also know that they wouldn't. They are a friend and ally of the United States. And I support them 100%. But the Nation of Israel is not the synonymous with the Jewish people as a whole. There are Jews throughout the world. And, yes, the Nation of Israel as a whole is extremely secular and as a people group they have rejected their Messiah. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's a fact. Paul also says that the Natural Olive branch (the Jews) will be grafted back in again. Unfortunately, that won't happen until after the time of Jacob's trouble. I wish it weren't so, but, it is so and that's the Scriptural testimony on the matter. Paul's argument in Romans 11 tell the story..... I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. These are the times of the gentiles according to the Scripture, until the fullness of the gentiles has come in, the Jews remain as a whole in unbelief. Replacement Theology doesn't understand that the natural Olive branch will be grafted BACK IN AGAIN. There are two possible errors that are made: The first is to fail to understand that the Jews have been put aside FOR A TIME. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off The second is to fail to realize that the Natural branch (the Jews) will be grafted back in........that's what Replacement Theology fails to recognize, and that's why I absolutely am NOT an adherent of it and I loathe it. Paul expressly warns against it right here: Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. But we can't fail to recognize the first point either that for now, these are the times of the gentiles and God is provoking them to jealousy, and it will take the Tribulation to bring them back in again. It's because I don't fail to recognize the unfortunate reality of point 1 that you accuse me of abhorrent Replacement Theology and Nazism............ (absurd). Make neither of the two errors. Your accusations of "Neo-Nazi" and "Replacement Theology" are absurd, insulting and unwarranted.
  13. NO.........It isn't. This is absolutely not an anti-Israel Nation. You don't know where to look.........Israel as a Nation, and as a People, have still rejected their Messiah, they will continue to do so until the Tribulation. Only in the time of Jacob's trouble will the remnant of Israel understand and embrace their Messiah. Rom 9:6 ΒΆ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: The Gentiles do NOT reject the Messiah.... We are the "Wild Olive branch" that has been grafted into the promises.. That's only Australia..... The Western World is simply so extremely pro-gospel, you aren't looking in the right places. Our LEADERS are often evil...........but that's not who we are. Israel is a secular and Godless Nation. The penultimate expression of righteousness is still expressed in Western Gentile Christianity.....don't be fooled by heretics like Obama into thinking otherwise. God knows where HIS people are.......and he knows which Nations still honor him. That's the Risen Messiah being honored thousands of miles away. In the event you don't internalize this...........this is the Royal Albert Hall in London. It's the Premier cultural venue for musicals, concerts and culture....It defines them culturally. And so the good Ol' U...S...of A, isn't ignored... Let's see Israel do this:
  14. I'm not trying to be snarky....but, there's absolutely nothing to "explain". If someone attacks your home, your land, your wife, your livelihood....you respond with deadly force. You expose them to a WORLD of hurt, like nothing they've ever conceived of. Swift, sure, deadly, painful... Oprimere, Velocitas, Violentia Operandi. There's no question to be answered here. Men protect their women, their homes, their property, their livelihood. That's how you end a confrontation quickly....If you end confrontations quickly...you save lives. The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagosaki saved lives in the millions or projectedly...at least hundreds of thousands. It was the most humanitarian thing ever done. When at war....you END the war. It's done by overwhelming infliction of pain. Have the fortitude to do it....and lives are saved.
  15. Yes, you defend yourself. No, God would not punish you for responding.
  16. Indeed!....Congrats to all now freer Britons!
  17. http://www.memraonline.com/allcourses.html I don't like his Hebrew course (even though that's his specialty) For that, any course which uses Gary Pratico and Miles V. Van pelts' textbooks are what I'd recommend. https://www.amazon.com/Basics-Biblical-Hebrew-Grammar-Second/dp/0310270200 But these courses are very inexpensive, and if you can absorb a lot from a textbook this is an option. I tend to like lectures and consider them almost critical for language studies, so, It won't be easy. If the textbook creator has supplemental DvD lectures, I'd get them.
  18. Oh, and BTW....I was in let's say a rare form the other day....overly stressed by a myriad of things....I was short with you Dave. I do apologize brother, please forgive me. I was rude and short with you. Please forgive me.
  19. In no sane Universe were those "accusations". They were harsh words, challenging perhaps, not conducive to good conversation.......perhaps they were confrontational, or even contentious......... That would be true.....but they weren't "accusations". If it were an "accusation" you could explain what it is, exactly I accused him of.....like say........theft, tax evasion, grand larceny, racketeering, imprudence, or simply being a bi-ped......(I do accuse him of being a biped actually)...maybe he'll admit to it. I asked You WHAT exactly I accused him of..........and you don't know....you have no idea.......because I didn't level any "accusations" on him. If I've "accused" someone....you can name what accusation I've leveled (other than his status as a biped) and you can't. You have, for instance, leveled an "accusation" against me, and that would be that you are accusing me of leveling unfair or unnecessary or false "accusations" against Dave. But, although challenged to explain what those are........you don't know. You won't tell me. I know why....that's because I haven't "accused" him of anything. You may be as much a moderator as the day is long, but you are also either a false accuser of the brethren or someone who simply doesn't know what the word "accuse" means.....If I've "accused" him, you can tell me what I've "accused" him of. You fail to do so. They are accusations and you did write them. I wrote them.....I don't deny that. But, they aren't "accusations" and, I think you know it. The little "do tell" that you inserted in your reply to me is dripping with sarcasm. No, it was dripping with contempt....not sarcasm....You should get a better command of the English language. Contempt for perjury, Contempt for lies, it was "dripping"....with contempt....not sarcasm. It's apparent that you don't understand two English words......"accuse" and "sarcasm".....(hence my "contempt"). That' wasn't a "sarcastic" statement it was a direct challenge for you to stop being a false accuser of the brethren and tell me precisely which crime you accuse me of.....namely, which accusation I leveled against Dave....again...DO TELL Truth is, I've "accused" him of nothing and you have falsely accused me repeatedly, and you won't even show me where I'm guilty of what you allege.....admittedly, I have "contempt" for that. But, there's no "sarcasm". I'm couching my feelings for your perjury and false accusations in no uncertain terms....no need for sarcasm. IFB's rarely understand sarcasm when it slaps them in the face, there's no doubt I'd not bother even trying to nuance anything with you. Perhaps I'm quite quilty of some things: I was harsh on Dave......rude perhaps......unnecessarily contentious.....judgemental.......my words were perhaps seasoned with not salt but rather cayenne pepper mixed with vinegar......perhaps I indeed owe Dave an apology. I don't deny it. I owe Dave my sincerest apologies for some shortness, rudeness, contentiousness.....I deny none of that and I'm guilty of all of it......but I didn't "accuse" him of anything.....that's a falsehood Jim, and it remains a falsehood even if moderators on this site considered themselves Papist gods and their word as the laws of the Medes and the Persians....or the Pope..... It's still false. I accused him of NOTHING...you claim I did, and that's NOT TRUE. You see, that would be fair, I'll admit to that. I wasn't particularly uplifting or Christian towards Dave, and I should have been more edifying. Instead I was short and rude. You could have said: "HOS, you are being:" 1.) Overly contentious 2.) Unedifying 3.) Short 4.) Rude 5.) Your words are not seasoned with salt and Dave is a brother who deserves more respectful treatment..... That would all be true......... Dave deserves an apology from me. I sincerely hope he knows how guilty I feel for how I've been short with him. But I "accused" him of nothing. Absolutely nothing. That's not true no matter what you say. You can't show me where, because I haven't. I accuse YOU <-----(of something specific that I can name unlike you) of bearing false witness ...... inasmuch as you are alleging that I leveled "accusations" that I have not and you refuse to show precisely which "accusations" I leveled against him.....again, Jim, "DO TELL". This isn't "sarcasm"....Jim. It's me saying I don't "accuse" Dave of anything....I "accuse" you of something specific...."bearing false witness against the brethren"... That's "accusation"........in short, I say, you accuse me of falsely accusing a brother.... and I say.........HABEUS CORPUS... Show me the body JIM..... I will show where you have accused me of Perjury...and I will demonstrate that you have YET to show anyone where I've "accused" Dave of anything.... I "accuse" Dave of nothing. I accuse you of bearing false witness.
  20. ^^^^^It's something like that^^^^^^^^^^^ From what I've personally observed, Jordan has a pretty good overall understanding of this topic. He's pretty solid here. Those words were used (at least at the time) essentially interchangeably in English, and, as Ezekiel demonstrates, the "passover" refers to an entire week of celebration The gospel of John also uses "passover" to refer to an entire week of celebration that can't be pinned to a specific day..........that's what I was driving at Dave, We can get into more specifics later.
  21. Gotcha'..........and no I didn't miss it. I've gotta feed my ducks, but that Leviticus argument isn't the whole story, I'll be right with you.
  22. No one is being "sarcastic".............. Sarcasm from me would play right into your hands, and I'm not falling for it. You said that I made "accusations" against Dave........(your words) I'm simply asking you to state precisely what "accusations" I've made against him. That isn't "sarcasm" Jim, that's me asking you to show me where exactly I've "accused" Dave (your word) of anything. What did I "accuse" him of? Am I now being accused by a moderator of accusing people?????? I'll repent..........publically, and unreservedly as soon as you show mere where I've erred in falsely "accusing" (your word) my brother. False accusations are unacceptable and they can't stand. No one should be permitted them. If I've accused Dave falsely, show me where, please, so that I might refute, retract and apologize for that grievous error. I know not where I've accused him, but if I have I'd love to know where, so, please show me that I may repent.
×
×
  • Create New...