Calvinism and Freewill

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

He is saying exactly what I said he was.  He is claiming that anyone that rejects unconditional eternal security is not saved.  

Nope, never said that.

[angels4u]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

He is saying exactly what I said he was.  He is claiming that anyone that rejects unconditional eternal security is not saved.  

He's not saying that ,he is saying that anybody who doesn't trust God for Salvation and is trying to get there though works is not saved ,unbelievers who are trying to get to heaven by only believing in God without trusting Jesus for salvation.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

What is your belief on it?  Is anyone saved that rejects unconditional eternal security, yes or no?

I know lots of people who think that you can lose salvation and they are Christians and are as saved as I am .   But if someone is actively trusting in trying to live right on the grounds that they must either earn or keep themselves saved, they are believing a false Gospel and are not trusting in Jesus.   Only those who trust in Jesus and Jesus alone for salvation are saved.  It is Jesus + 0.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

That is why I am asking him directly now.  If Shiloh goes on the record and states that people that reject unconditional eternal security can be saved, I will accept it and admit there was a misunderstanding, but even now, all he is doing is saying he never said it.  He isn't saying he doesn't believe it.  

You totally misrepresented what I said in your zeal to "defeat" me.   You need to actually read what I said rather than assigning false values to what I said.

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, Butero said:

You were responding to a question I asked, and you answered it in such a subtle way, you kept plausible deniability.  That is why I showed my question as well as your answer.  If a person believes they can lose salvation because they go back into sin, are they saved?

I answered the question unambiguously and clearly at least twice now.   You have my answer already just a few minutes ago.    You misrepresented what I said up in the soap box because you were too quick to react and didn't pay attention to what was actually written.  

[Guest shiloh357]

6 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Why not produce a clear quote of Shiloh saying that? Or are you going on conjecture?

He quoted me from the soap box, but my soap box didn't really say what he claimed I said.  That has been pointed out to him.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Yowm said:

So it is conjecture on his part?

Pretty much, yeah. But it's not like my words aren't right there in front of him.  

[Steve_S]

This topic is so far off from what the OP actually asked at this point as to be unrecognizable. Locked.