SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Motives behind Conditional/Eternal Security

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 )
PosterThread
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
Simply to see who has EVERLASTING life and who doesn't.

Quote:
I didn't know what most people here believed, but I have a good idea now.

Quote:
I never get tired of labouring to bring EVERLASTING life.


Sorry, but I'm not getting the correlation of you ascertaining who has "everlasting life" by going this route. Everlasting life is understood by faith alone in Christ and not at all contingent on whether a person aheres theologically to conditional or eternal security. For you to have "a good idea" on the "everlastingness" of someone's life in this forum simply by virtue of a thread discussion on theology...well, I think you've overstepped your boundary.
Quote:
This is not a Cal/Arm debate, this is about having EVERLASTING life.


OSAS is in the DNA of this topic, and you know it. This thread is not about everlasting life; its about the motive behind believing in OSAS versus Conditional security, just like your thread title broadcasts. Now, there's nothing wrong with the original intent of discussing motives, but now brethren are beginning to devour one another, and the true color of what this topic represents is rising to the surface.
Quote:
Sometimes gospel work isn't pretty.


This is not true gospel work. This is the putting forth of your own theological persuasion to somehow prove that those who differ do not have "everlasting life". The only part of your quote I agree with is this: "...it is not pretty."

Quote:
There are a bunch here whose beliefs prove they do not know whether they have EVERLASTING life or not, but Christ came that we may KNOW that we HAVE ETERNAL life.


I see what you're getting at, but I think you're going about it wrong. You cannot possibly know who has terminal life and who has everlasting life simply because of their standpoint on Eternal versus Conditional security. By assuming this you totally nullify the blood of Christ and instead relegate a believer's security to what he or she believes theologically. This, in essence, is professing that one's salvation is contingent upon whether or not they are Calvinist or Arminian.
Quote:
The Bible divides us into only two groups, those who have EVERLASTING life and those who do not, is this then not worth the fight?


It's worth the fight all right - only you're punching the wrong man. The two groups are not differing theological camps found within Christianity; the two groups are simply those who have been born again and those who have not. He who hath the [i]Son[/i] hath life; he who hath not the Son hath not life.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2009/1/3 11:40Profile









 Re:

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
Sorry, but I'm not getting the correlation of you ascertaining who has "everlasting life" by going this route. Everlasting life is understood by faith alone in Christ and not at all contingent on whether a person aheres theologically to conditional or eternal security. For you to have "a good idea" on the "everlastingness" of someone's life in this forum simply by virtue of a thread discussion on theology...well, I think you've overstepped your boundary.



If something is terminal it is not everlasting.

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
OSAS is in the DNA of this topic, and you know it. This thread is not about everlasting life; its about the motive behind believing in OSAS versus Conditional security, just like your thread title broadcasts. Now, there's nothing wrong with the original intent of discussing motives, but now brethren are beginning to devour one another, and the true color of what this topic represents is rising to the surface.


The thread was about the motives of those who hold to each position, and they have been made very clear. The key motive for the perseverance of those who hold to conditional security is to hold on to or obtain salvation, either way it is for their own preservation. You cannot argue with that, it has been displayed over and over again.

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
This is not true gospel work.


How are you able to determine that?

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
This is the putting forth of your own theological persuasion to somehow prove that those who differ do not have "everlasting life". The only part of your quote I agree with is this: "...it is not pretty."


If what someone has isn't everlasting, it certainly isn't everlasting life. If they don't believe they have it, why should I believe they do?

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
I see what you're getting at, but I think you're going about it wrong. You cannot possibly know who has terminal life and who has everlasting life simply because of their standpoint on Eternal versus Conditional security.


If someone believes that salvation can end, they must by nature believe that it is possible for THEIR salvation to end. Sure they might feel OK today, or tomorrow or a couple years, but sooner or later their fear comes, and when it does come it comes very hard. It comes hard because they themselves do not believe they can have a life that is EVERLASTING.

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
By assuming this you totally nullify the blood of Christ and instead relegate a believer's security to what he or she believes theologically. This, in essence, is professing that one's salvation is contingent upon whether or not they are Calvinist or Arminian.



We are saved by the work of who we believe in. If you believe there is a return policy on your redemption, you believe not in the redemption of Christ which is an "eternal redemption". [b]If you couldn't pay the price to procure your own salvation, how on earth will you be able to return the payment?[/b]

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
It's worth the fight all right - only you're punching the wrong man. The two groups are not differing theological camps found within Christianity; the two groups are simply those who have been born again and those who have not. He who hath the [i]Son[/i] hath life; he who hath not the Son hath not life.



I spend lots of time with the cults and false religions. The common theme with ALL of them is that they do not know whether they [i]have[/i] EVERLASTING life or not. Ask a Muslim, a JW, a CoC, etc. none of them have any assurance of salvation, let alone the full assurance of salvation that the Bible proclaims.


Old Joe

 2009/1/3 12:27
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
I spend lots of time with the cults and false religions. The common theme with ALL of them is that they do not know whether they have EVERLASTING life or not. Ask a Muslim, a JW, a CoC, etc. none of them have any assurance of salvation, let alone the full assurance of salvation that the Bible proclaims


No doubt, but this goes back to exactly what I'm saying. The groups you are aiming at are of the unregenerate, not your theologically-deflected brethren in these forums. Take your proof texts and arguements to the JW's and Muslims, but you should leave your insinuations of who has everlasting life and who hasn't (within our own ranks) out the door. I believe that both Wesley [i]and[/i] Whitfield had eternal life - though according to what you are bringing here, one did and one didn't. This is not really "gospel work" at all you're engaging in here, it's more assumption and scripture wresting to custom fit your theology.
Quote:
If you believe there is a return policy on your redemption, you believe not in the redemption of Christ which is an "eternal redemption".


Not necessarily; you simply believe eternal life is conditional, and certain verses make a pretty good case of it. It's not my type of theology in light of all the verses in Paul's epistles as a whole, but I will never insinuate that those who eschew reformed theology do not believe in, or have everlasting life.

I'm not going to get sucked into this implacable debate; I will only say that I regard everlasting life as a catalyst: the concept of it alone may influence others' perceptions of it, though it itself remains uneffected and unassailable. God is also big enough - and the blood of Christ strong enough - to not banish a believer from it simply because of a supposed "lack of light" in the grasping of its veracity.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2009/1/3 12:46Profile









 Re:

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
No doubt, but this goes back to exactly what I'm saying. The groups you are aiming at are of the unregenerate, not your theologically-deflected brethren in these forums. Take your proof texts and arguements to the JW's and Muslims, but you should leave your insinuations of who has everlasting life and who hasn't (within our own ranks) out the door. I believe that both Wesley [i]and[/i] Whitfield had eternal life - though according to what you are bringing here, one did and one didn't. This is not really "gospel work" at all you're engaging in here, it's more assumption and scripture wresting to custom fit your theology.



This is not a reformed position, with the reformed the emphasisis must be on the LIFE part. With you the emphasis must be on the EVERLASTING part.

If you believe those here are actually regenerated, why do you believe they can become unregenerated? If you believe they can't become unregenerated again, then they already have everlasting life. If it were possible for them to become unregenerated again, then they simply don't have everlasting life.

One simple question will answer this:

Do you have everlasting life? Yes or No

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
Quote:
If you believe there is a return policy on your redemption, you believe not in the redemption of Christ which is an "eternal redemption".


Not necessarily; you simply believe eternal life is conditional, and certain verses make a pretty good case of it. It's not my type of theology in light of all the verses in Paul's epistles as a whole, but I will never insinuate that those who eschew reformed theology do not believe in, or have everlasting life.

I'm not going to get sucked into this implacable debate; I will only say that I regard everlasting life as a catalyst: the concept of it alone may influence others' perceptions of it, though it itself remains uneffected and unassailable. God is also big enough - and the blood of Christ strong enough - to not banish a believer from it simply because of a supposed "lack of light" in the grasping of its veracity.



Everlasting life is conditional to the new birth, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Once you have been made new in Christ you have everlasting life.

Old Joe

 2009/1/3 15:35
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
Eternal security on the other hand can only have the glory of God as the motive for perseverance. The believer recognizes: 1) That they already possess everlasting life, 2) That the new birth ensures they will persevere to the end, and 3)That with this life they are to use it to glorify God. Their reason for persevering in righteousness and practical holiness has nothing to do with self-preservation, but rather that the name of God be not blasphemed.


This is taken from your very first post. Let's steer this conversation back to where it belongs. Could the hypothesis above not be taken as an egregious affront to a believer who is not inclined to accept reformed theology? What you've done here is set the stage for a battle that will inevitably turn back to a variation of the ancient gangland war of Cal vs. Arm. This is the crux of the issue, Old Joe, and we've let it go and run its course...but now I'm beginning to see the manifestations of the old disease surface in this thread. I note that it was there all along, poised since your initial post, but it just needed time to flare up.

I would ask you again to consider your "motive" for bringing these types of topics to the forum.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2009/1/3 15:59Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Old_Joe,

You said,


Quote:
The key motive for the perseverance of those who hold to conditional security is to [b]hold on to[/b] or obtain salvation, either way it is for their own preservation.

(emphasis added)



The Apostle Paul wrote,


"But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses."

- 1Timothy 6:11-12(KJV)



I asked you sometime before in this thread why I should believe anything that you say. I also had been insisting on comapring your words with what the scripture says.


Soon after, and after I also did not answer a question that you kept asking(I mean I did not appearantly answer it as you wanted because I did answer it), right after that you began to accuse me and to attempt to condemn me.


I asked you then, to provide qoutations from me that would testify to your accusations. I have seen none. Since then you further accused me and made a similar attempt to condemn me.


In your words,

"You cannot argue with that, it has been displayed over and over again."



Shall we judge you by your fruit?


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2009/1/3 16:14Profile









 Re:

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
Quote:
Eternal security on the other hand can only have the glory of God as the motive for perseverance. The believer recognizes: 1) That they already possess everlasting life, 2) That the new birth ensures they will persevere to the end, and 3)That with this life they are to use it to glorify God. Their reason for persevering in righteousness and practical holiness has nothing to do with self-preservation, but rather that the name of God be not blasphemed.


This is taken from your very first post. Let's steer this conversation back to where it belongs. Could the hypothesis above not be taken as an egregious affront to a believer who is not inclined to accept reformed theology? What you've done here is set the stage for a battle that will inevitably turn back to a variation of the ancient gangland war of Cal vs. Arm. This is the crux of the issue, Old Joe, and we've let it go and run its course...but now I'm beginning to see the manifestations of the old disease surface in this thread. I note that it was there all along, poised since your initial post, but it just needed time to flare up.

I would ask you again to consider your "motive" for bringing these types of topics to the forum.



Paul

Considering all that has been posted, one simple question will answer this:

Do you have everlasting life? Yes or No


Old Joe

 2009/1/3 20:08
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
Considering all that has been posted, one simple question will answer this:

Quote:
Do you have everlasting life? Yes or No


Yes.

And now the thread will be locked. The one simple question has been answered, which, according to you, covers all that has been posted up to this point. Case closed. Couldn't you have just asked this question without all the polarizing insinuations?


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2009/1/3 20:30Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy