Do You Believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved"

[apothanein kerdos]

He is NOT saying that at all.

Oh, so he didn't say:

"The only way we can be without offence till the day of Christ is to be without sin"?

You're the one who is not exegetical (using extended study) and relying on prima facie(face value).

What is this, kindergarten? I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had moved to the playground and the ole' "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" defense was legitimate.

How am I not using exegetical studies? Do you even know what that word means? I used Greek, historical context, etc...all of which consist of exegetical studies (though these are not the only ones). I even said that we can't rely on a prima facie view of scripture...so how am I violating my own criteria?

He did give reasons....you are just to arrogant to even cinsider them and you are too blind to see that we must put precept upon precept and line upon line, comparing scripture with scripture, to gain the whole picture.

No, because it becomes loaded at that point. If I wanted to, based on the same interpretational values that you are supporting, I could prove that we could see God in all His majesty face to face. I could prove to you that Jesus wasn't God. I could do all of this by using scripture after scripture. Instead, comparing scripture to scripture only works when one has dealt with what each individual scripture means. He has not done this - for if he did, his belief would fall apart.

You are the one not giving any reasons, and just accusing others of not being exegetical. I take that back....you did give reasons. you said that you know Greek, and that you must take Phillipeans six for face value and not consider the rest of the bible.

Look mate, I gave plenty of reasons as to why we should look at the Philippians passage first and foremost. Also, by using Greek, and by your acknowledgment of me using Greek, it then becomes literally impossible for me to use a prima facie value of reading.

Look, if you don't understand something (which it's obvious you don't), then ask questions. Don't come on here accusing me of things you don't even understand.

[apothanein kerdos]

Oh, I did not jump over the Phil. verse. Half of that post was giving the exegesis of it.

Really? Where was the Greek? The context? The historical background?

Invalidating one interpretation of scripture by appealing to other scriptures is actually an exegetical fallacy because it pits scripture against scripture.

[apothanein kerdos]

He is NOT saying that at all.

Oh, so he didn't say:

"The only way we can be without offence till the day of Christ is to be without sin"?

I didn't say that, God did. I just repeated it.

That scripture is a mindset that we need to develop. If I have that in the front of my mind that I need to be without offence till the day of Christ then that will be a motivator for repentance.

Then, as I stated earlier, you have to be without sin completely. You contradict yourself. You say that there will be sins we forget about, or miss. If that's the case, then we are not without sin and are therefore going to hell.

[TomPJr]

He is NOT saying that at all.

Oh, so he didn't say:

"The only way we can be without offence till the day of Christ is to be without sin"?

You're the one who is not exegetical (using extended study) and relying on prima facie(face value).

What is this, kindergarten? I'm sorry, I didn't realize we had moved to the playground and the ole' "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" defense was legitimate.

How am I not using exegetical studies? Do you even know what that word means? I used Greek, historical context, etc...all of which consist of exegetical studies (though these are not the only ones). I even said that we can't rely on a prima facie view of scripture...so how am I violating my own criteria?

He did give reasons....you are just to arrogant to even cinsider them and you are too blind to see that we must put precept upon precept and line upon line, comparing scripture with scripture, to gain the whole picture.

No, because it becomes loaded at that point. If I wanted to, based on the same interpretational values that you are supporting, I could prove that we could see God in all His majesty face to face. I could prove to you that Jesus wasn't God. I could do all of this by using scripture after scripture. Instead, comparing scripture to scripture only works when one has dealt with what each individual scripture means. He has not done this - for if he did, his belief would fall apart.

You are the one not giving any reasons, and just accusing others of not being exegetical. I take that back....you did give reasons. you said that you know Greek, and that you must take Phillipeans six for face value and not consider the rest of the bible.

Look mate, I gave plenty of reasons as to why we should look at the Philippians passage first and foremost. Also, by using Greek, and by your acknowledgment of me using Greek, it then becomes literally impossible for me to use a prima facie value of reading.

Look, if you don't understand something (which it's obvious you don't), then ask questions. Don't come on here accusing me of things you don't even understand.

you said it right above..."your criteria"...and your criteria consists of circular reasoning and a skewed logic. You keep runnin back to Phillipeans when that was already dealt with. I already said before that we disagree about that verse. Can't we agree to disagree about that and move on to other points that back up our beliefs. I, as well as Cardcaptor, pointed out many other points that you just ignore, and point back to your single point of Phillipeans. You can't convince me of what you are saying by repeating the same one line passage over and over. I understand what you believe it is saying. Give me scriptural proof, other than Phillipeans 6.

that point you tried to make about the rubber and glue does not make sense. I just stated the fact that you are projecting your own fallacies on others.

A.K. - I really would like to quit arguing with you...It's not getting anywhere.

please back up your ideas that God takes away our free will to walk away, with scripture.

Phillipeans 1:6 cannot be used to convince me.

To understand that passage we must understand what his work is. He started a good work in us and he will complete his good work. What is his good work?

If a sales mans job is to sell you something and he goes to your house and gives his salespitch in it's entirety and you still decide that you don't want to buy what he is selling, did he not do his work.

His work was completed, and he did all he could do, but the ultimate choice is up to you.

[Ovedya]

Question: What are some of the means by which a Christian can lose his salvation and perish in the lake of fire?

[apothanein kerdos]

Tom,

It's worthless to debate you. You keep rambling on about useless things when you never addressed the verse in PHILIPPIANS, nor the covenants with Abraham, Hosea, or Israel and how they were forced to stay with them.

The fact is, I could bring up a plethora of scriptures with a paragraph of explanation to each one, showing how you are wrong. You wouldn't listen to it because your mind is already made up and you refuse to learn.

No, it is like Tom said when we add line upon line and precept upon precept. What you are seeing being done is using many scriptures to support the same idea rather than basing a belief system just off of one or two scriptures.

No, when you use a prima facie reading of all the scriptures, compounding them only provides for compounded mistakes and does not create truth by any stretch of the imagination.

Your search for "the Greek? The context? The historical background?" has been your biggest stumbling block to understanding what is being said. God has never required for us to use such tactics to understanding his word.

These scriptures are not as complex as you think they are. I could go deeper than I did, but I think that would take away from their simplicity.

The scriptures are simple? Mind telling that to Peter, who said they are hard to understand?

[Ovedya]

Your search for "the Greek? The context? The historical background?" has been your biggest stumbling block to understanding what is being said. God has never required for us to use such tactics to understanding his word.

Which is exactly why God chose men who knew both Greek and Hebrew fluently, and who knew the history of God's people intimately to compose 75% of the New Testament.

[apothanein kerdos]

Your search for "the Greek? The context? The historical background?" has been your biggest stumbling block to understanding what is being said. God has never required for us to use such tactics to understanding his word.

Which is exactly why God chose men who knew both Greek and Hebrew fluently, and who knew the history of God's people intimately to compose 75% of the New Testament.

[Floatingaxe]

Matthew 11:25...

At that time Jesus prayed this prayer:

[apothanein kerdos]

Matthew 11:25...

At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: