Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
P.S. As to Hebrews, I really do not know what to say to someone who thinks someone can be bought by the blood, sanctifed, but still be unsaved.
you could say it's another view , not that unlikely seeing as Israel were not all saved but still "redeemed" ....... I prefer Gill's interpretation but I am open to others .
Your bias is preventing you from seeing both sides. Where were you when Cygnus was posting his ludicrous flame thread implying that theology at odds with his OSAS was behind a headcase murdering his family?
it may have escaped you but i didn't own up to OSAS but OTSAS , a big difference .... but i guess you want to read into things , yes it can be brought down to semantics in which case you also accept OSAS as Mikey proved !
wrong on several points , 4 very short quotes from ECF'S is hardly flooding the boards , and one cut from a kjv only site which is excellent ...all showing you made statements that are false POS didn't begin with Calvin , not to waste too much time with this other things to do
yes for a guy who is concerned about the dangers of doctrinal debate ya sure spend a lot of time in here ....
So you're saying Paul can't even mention his change of subject until the end of his statement on apostasy?I read through your reply and it`s like a game of patty cake, repeating verse 22 while ignoring the obvious exegesis presented in the last five and context of Chapter 10 that immediately follows, ...
The letter's read out by its reader to the church. "We" -- as Paul has already pointed out -- is Paul's ministry group. Check out 1 Cor 9:4. Does everyone have a right to mooch off the church when traveling?still expecting me to believe that Paul is racing for and concerned about not getting an incorruptible preaching crown. Makes me wonder what kind of crown his audience would get as he applied the race and crown to them by saying "we." Maybe they were all preachers...
Funny, that's what I think of your response. Your response is essentially a method of parallelizing the meanings of words because they were "in context of" another subject.That standard method to try and dismiss these verses was handled in all my posts from the start and your last reply does little more then just tell me I`m wrong, and to say that the many parallel verses backing up the obvious interpretation don`t count because they were written in books dated after 1 Corinthians, whatever that means. If you want to go back and give it another shot I`d be glad to take another look. At this point there is little to reply to.
Hm. Well you could investigate the more-developed Covenant Theology to find out how to answer. O.P. Robertson, maybe? N.T. Wright, maybe? Or there's Paul.P.S. As to Hebrews, I really do not know what to say to someone who thinks someone can be bought by the blood, sanctifed, but still be unsaved.
So you're saying Paul can't even mention his change of subject until the end of his statement on apostasy?
That's a horrible way to get his point across. Paul's not that bad a preacher.
It's the subject. it sounds like pattycake because you never addressed the issue in the first place. You just called the response by pejorative names.
You can't do that and arrive at truth. Linguistics rails at such inane interpretation.
Hm. Well you could investigate the more-developed Covenant Theology to find out how to answer. O.P. Robertson, maybe? N.T. Wright, maybe? Or there's Paul.
(Lord of whom?
Of course it was throwing you back at the issue you didn't address.It was patty cake. You tried to obvuscate the clear meaning, dismiss the valid parallels to "imperishible crown" and "race," and the obvious implication of "adokimos" and context of the next breath out of Paul mouth which was made Chapter 10.
Only when you do.Sheesh you are getting rather strident...
Aside, your attempt to imply motives is offensive to this forum and to me. If you can't say something good about someone, say nothing at all. Don't believe you can get inside someone's head by implying motives to words. It often just reflects the bias of the poster. In this case from my point of view, you don't seem to be able to retract from your beloved inferences either. Then ... why would pot call kettle black?I could care less what seminary term you import or what N. T. Wright a Calvinist theoligian claims. The intent of Paul`s words are crystal clear and not only contradict OSAS but the notion that cooperation with grace for salvation is unnecessary. His focus is forward, like much of the N.T. You know there are difficult verses for any theology, and I`ve met many Calvinists that approach these verses and just say "I don`t know." You however, choose rather to wrest the scriptures to maintain your theology. Disappointing...
LOL! This is the height of desperation. Do these verses say anything about Paul striving to obtain a crown? This is a common N.T. theme for the reward for final salvation. And the below verses are fully consistent with the idea of Christian discipline found in 1 Corinthians 9-23-27.Of course it was throwing you back at the issue you didn't address.
The parallels are equally parallelled against your view.For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? 1 Th 2:19Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends! Pp 4:1 .The fact is, Paul uses this analogy elsewhere. And it's not for salvation. It's for Paul's beloved churches. .
Aside, your attempt to imply motives is offensive to this forum and to me. If you can't say something good about someone, say nothing at all. .
The intent of Paul's words are quite clear, and don't contradict perseverance, and remain on the table defying this attempt to press them into submission as some kind of proof. .
Paul says what he's talking about directly in the passage: "when I have preached to others". .
But whatever. The facts have rarely impressed people who can't use them for their cause.
Like I said before: you're reduced to all blustering and labeling.
Requiring striving in context is a vacuous challenge, as you've only a couple of verses where it's actually present. You're throwing out your baby with the bathwater.
But just so you know that striving's right there: For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. For you know how, like a father with his children, 12we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. 1 Th 2:9-11
The reality is that it answers your attack, and with nothing left, only the bluster remains.
I've no reason to do more. There's nothing further to your argument.LOL! This is pure posturing. The exegesis of the verses have been presented and soundly and you have no answer. Nope, he isn`t talking about getting disqualifed for some "imperishible" preaching crown, parallels are clear, context in Chapter 10 to follow as well. This is a real easy one. But at least you gave it a shot and I thank you for that.
OSAS didn't begin with Calvin anymore than Predestination began with Sproul.... and the label OSAS is only semantically correct , it is plain wrong to ignore what some think of that phrase and why others prefer a stronger more informed expression. OTSAS = Once TRULY saved always saved. or better still , the Perseverance Of The Saints !
but we are not going to agree , because evidence is being ignored ........ the quote I already gave of Augustine demonstrates the nonsense of the arguement.
Augustine taught the perseverance of the elect, but this was mediated through the gift of perseverance. Regeneration and justification he believed possible without attaining the gift of perseverence. It was Calvin who first articulated the connection, regeneration = elect = guaranteed perseverance.
based on only one quote yes , based upon further quotes , no !
cherry picking quotes may pass most people but Augustines doctrine evolved.
one could quote me and say I was a 4 point Calvinist , but that would be untrue.
Sounds good Bro. I`m basing my conclusions on quotes I`ve read of the later Augustine and an article on the history of the doctrine of perseverance by John Jefferson Davis, a Calvinist theologian and prof of systematic theology at Gordon Conwell Theo Seminary. It was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. That`s where I`ll hang my hat for now amigo...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?