Calvinism...."he cannot sin, because he is born of God"

[frumanchu]

Becuase I know this man personally.
His ''conversion'' was fake from the beginning as he never had ANY intent on changing.

It was when he found out that he his life HAD to change that it it became apparent that he was not ''really'' a christian.

Not the same at all from one who perseveres and DOES walk the walk for years then apostates.

I'm sorry. Show me again where there's a distinction in the definition you provided. There was none. Apostasy is by definition an abandonment of a profession of faith. Whether or not true faith is actually present does not determine whether or not it is apostasy.

What you are doing is redefining the Biblical concept of apostasy and filtering your prooftexts through that definition.

These NEVER became believers and thus were NOT true apostates.
They NEVER converted at all.

Again, show me where conversion was a part of the original definition. It was not.

Theyre little conversion game is apparent because they never really change or show any fruit....they desert before they could even bear fruit.

What of those in 1 John 2:19? They were among them and had the appearance of being "with them," but were never "of them." Their apostasy is what ultimately made manifest the fact that they were never saved to begin with ("they departed that it might be made manifest that they were never of us").

These were the true converts...These are the ones who apostate.

This is you drawing more out of the parable than was intended. The point of the parable was to instruct the disciples on what types of reactions they could expect from their sowing the seed of the Gospel. Attempting to force this parable into disproving the eternal security of the saints is doing violence to the text.

Hebrews speaks to those who WERE sanctified partakers of the Holy Spirit and purposefully walked away to avoid persecution.

Hebrews speaks to a mixed audience. The author is confident of better things in his audience than were in Israel coming out of Egypt. Nevertheless, the warnings against apostasy are given to engender repentance in those who may be mere professers at that point, to stand as further condemnation upon those hypocrites who will eventually apostasize, and to mix with faith in true believers to instruct and edify them and preserve them in their faith.

Israel as a nation and covenant people was sanctified, yet it is clear that not all Israel were saved.

Wrong, he is a textbook fake. He NEVER intended on changing. That is what exposed him as a fake

He meets the plain definition of an apostate, egghead. Redefining the term won't change that.

Once justified, surely glorified.

 

[Egghead]

I'm sorry. Show me again where there's a distinction in the definition you provided. There was none. Apostasy is by definition an abandonment of a profession of faith. Whether or not true faith is actually present does not determine whether or not it is apostasy.

The definition must assume that someone is a LEGITIMATE CONVERT to a religion.
It is foolish to say otherwise.

if not, I can play off like I am a muslim then ''apostate''....and trust me, Id NEVER be a true convert.

What you are doing is redefining the Biblical concept of apostasy and filtering your prooftexts through that definition.

you are the one redefining by adding the idea that this person was NOT a TRUE convert.
a NON-covert is NOT a convert at all.....they are fakers.

Again, show me where conversion was a part of the original definition. It was not.

I dont need to, it as assumed.

What of those in 1 John 2:19? They were among them and had the appearance of being "with them," but were never "of them." Their apostasy is what ultimately made manifest the fact that they were never saved to begin with ("they departed that it might be made manifest that they were never of us").

What of them?
Why do you have to make EVERY case the same?

This is you drawing more out of the parable than was intended.

you have got to be kidding.
Ive seen calvinists do a acrobatic shows with scripture the last week, complete with food and beverage....Im merely distinguishing who was legitmately ''converted'' in the parable and who was not.

The point of the parable was to instruct the disciples on what types of reactions they could expect from their sowing the seed of the Gospel. Attempting to force this parable into disproving the eternal security of the saints is doing violence to the text.

I used it to show who had TRULY converted and who had not.
Nothing more.

Hebrews speaks to a mixed audience.

obviously
those who were willing to die for their faith and those who renounced, who withdrew to destruction.

The author is confident of better things in his audience than were in Israel coming out of Egypt.

Yep.
The writer was good at pep talks.
makes me think it was surely Paul.

Nevertheless, the warnings against apostasy are given to engender repentance in those who may be mere professers at that point, to stand as further condemnation upon those hypocrites who will eventually apostasize, and to mix with faith in true believers to instruct and edify them and preserve them in their faith.

false warnings to those who CANNOT be saved arent warnings.....they are lies.

Israel as a nation and covenant people was sanctified, yet it is clear that not all Israel were saved.

thats right.
Israel was Gods elect..

Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

..even the elect can fall.

He meets the plain definition of an apostate, egghead. Redefining the term won't change that.

I didnt redefine it......YOU twisted it to say that those involved werent legitimately involved with the faith.

Who said they werent REAL converts?
It is to be assumed.
YOu dont 'fall away' from something you never really were.

 

[frumanchu]

The definition must assume that someone is a LEGITIMATE CONVERT to a religion. It is foolish to say otherwise.

No, YOU must assume it in order to maintain your position.

if not, I can play off like I am a muslim then ''apostate''....and trust me, Id NEVER be a true convert.

You very well could, and by definition having professed the Muslim faith and then departing from it you would be an apostate.

you are the one redefining by adding the idea that this person was NOT a TRUE convert. a NON-covert is NOT a convert at all.....they are fakers.

I've never said that the definition of apostasy exludes the possibility of true conversion, only that true conversion in the case of Christianity is not necessary to the definition of apostasy (except by your redefinition of the term).

I dont need to, it as assumed.

Assumed by you, hence your error.

What of them? Why do you have to make EVERY case the same?

Oh, but according to you they MUST NECESSARILY have been true believers or they COULDN'T POSSIBLY be apostates since your definition ONLY applies to true believers.

I'm not the one trying to make every case the same, egghead. You are!

you have got to be kidding. Ive seen calvinists do a acrobatic shows with scripture the last week, complete with food and beverage....Im merely distinguishing who was legitmately ''converted'' in the parable and who was not.

No, you're assuming they were truly converted prior to their apostasy because your definition (and your theology) require it.

I used it to show who had TRULY converted and who had not.
Nothing more.

And that was going beyond what the parable says and was clearly intended to convey.

Yep.The writer was good at pep talks.makes me think it was surely Paul.

I see. So his expression of confidence was really just wishful thinking designed to hopefully "pep up" his audience and keep them from apostasizing.

false warnings to those who CANNOT be saved arent warnings.....they are lies.

They are not false warnings. IF they are not heeded, THEN the people would suffer the consequences. HOWEVER, the Holy Spirit stirs up faith in those who are His and preserves them in their salvation by leading them to heed the warnings.

The notion that they are "lies" is simply fallacious and inconsistent.

thats right. Israel was Gods elect....even the elect can fall.

They are not all Israel who are called Israel, just like they are not all of the Church who are in the church.

And who was it that preserved a faithful remnant among the covenant people?

I didnt redefine it......YOU twisted it to say that those involved werent legitimately involved with the faith.

Wrong.

Who said they werent REAL converts?It is to be assumed.

That's right...it has to be assumed, otherwise your theological presupposition falls apart around you.

YOu dont 'fall away' from something you never really were.

That's why one must necessarily profess faith before they can abandon that profession.

Once justified, surely glorified.

 

[Egghead]

No, YOU must assume it in order to maintain your position.

Guy, you MUST be kidding.....no really.
Anyone would ASSUME that the definition is ASSUMING a LEGITIMATE convert.
Your seeming denial of this betrays your motivation here....to prove your doctrine at all costs.

You very well could, and by definition having professed the Muslim faith and then departing from it you would be an apostate.

wrong.
A false brethren is just that.....FALSE......NOT a brethren at all.
Just like in the parable of the sower, many were fakes, not real, false converts.
If I said I was a convert to Islam, Id be lying out my ears.
I could play the game for a bit, as my coworker did, but my fruits would betray me.

Not so for some.
They genuinely repent, live the life, then apostate for some reason later.

I've never said that the definition of apostasy exludes the possibility of true conversion, only that true conversion in the case of Christianity is not necessary to the definition of apostasy (except by your redefinition of the term).

odd, I definitely got the impression you were saying just that....that all calvinists and OSASers were saying just that.

Assumed by you, hence your error.

no, as usual a calvinist is changing the simple message of what is said and adding their own thoughts.
Adding that this person was NOT a true convert when the context of the definition would show that he is........OTHERWISE the definition would state something about this person being a FALSE follower of the their faith.
Since they dont, we assume they are speaking of true followers who turn away.

Oh, but according to you they MUST NECESSARILY have been true believers or they COULDN'T POSSIBLY be apostates since your definition ONLY applies to true believers.

fakes arent apostates.
They never were legitimate members of the faith.
Apostates are those who validly turn away from the faith.
Such as those Hebrews who were turning back to Judaism to keep from being persecuted.

I'm not the one trying to make every case the same, egghead. You are!

Am I?
I allow for ''make-believers'' AND legitimate believers apostating.

No, you're assuming they were truly converted prior to their apostasy because your definition (and your theology) require it.

not in the parable of the sower Im not.

In Hebrews though, TRUE followers......sanctified partakers of the Holy Spirit.....falling away.
THAT is apostacy.

And that was going beyond what the parable says and was clearly intended to convey.

As I said, Ive seen so much of this out of calvinists the last week that Im having hard time believing youd take the time to accuse me of this.

Im going to absolutely make it a point to return the favor when I see some of you taking that one verse and writing a 10 page essay on it to ''explain'' it for us from here on out.

But I did nothing but use the parable as it was meant.
to show that some hear the word and NEVER REALLY are part of us.

I see. So his expression of confidence was really just wishful thinking designed to hopefully "pep up" his audience and keep them from apostasizing.

yep.
Read it without your doctrinal glasses on.
He is cheering them on to perseverance.
Which fits perfectly with what was going on there with the Jews who were rejecting Christ AFTER accepting because of persecution.
They were ceasing to fellowship together as shown here

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

They are not false warnings.

youre right, theyre not.
They mean precisely what they state....dont fall away.

IF they are not heeded, THEN the people would suffer the consequences. HOWEVER, the Holy Spirit stirs up faith in those who are His and preserves them in their salvation by leading them to heed the warnings.

The elect cannot be lost.....the UNelect cannot be saved.....FALSE warnings

They are not all Israel who are called Israel, just like they are not all of the Church who are in the church.

You got that right.
Isreal was His ''elect'' as I have presented with scripture.
And we KNOW not all those who were of the elect nation of Israel are going to be with him.....many fell.
Even the "elect'' can fall.

And who was it that preserved a faithful remnant among the covenant people?

the ''faithful'' remnant you say?

Wrong.

sure you did.
You added the idea that these were ''false'' converts who apostated in the definition, not genuine converts.
False converts arent converts at all, they are fakes.

That's right...it has to be assumed, otherwise your theological presupposition falls apart around you.

It is ASSUMED because the definition doesnt say ''FALSE converts who apostate'', does it?
Nor does it imply it.
It assume legitimate followers....as it should.

That's why one must necessarily profess faith before they can abandon that profession.

I see.

So if I say ''Im democrat'' then by YOUR method I AM democrat just because I say I am?
preposterous.

 

[frumanchu]

Egghead, it just occurred to me after reading through several of your posts that your writing style is very familiar. Have we had this conversation before?

 

[frumanchu]

Guy, you MUST be kidding.....no really. Anyone would ASSUME that the definition is ASSUMING a LEGITIMATE convert. Your seeming denial of this betrays your motivation here....to prove your doctrine at all costs.

OR...I'm representing the historical, Biblical view of apostasy and you're simply rejecting it in favor of that which supports your position.

wrong. A false brethren is just that.....FALSE......NOT a brethren at all. Just like in the parable of the sower, many were fakes, not real, false converts. If I said I was a convert to Islam, Id be lying out my ears.
I could play the game for a bit, as my coworker did, but my fruits would betray me.

You've set up an interesting dichotomy here. Either they are blatant, willful fakers or true believers...no middle ground (even though you admitted that men can deceive themselves into thinking they are saved without actually being saved).

no, as usual a calvinist is changing the simple message of what is said and adding their own thoughts. Adding that this person was NOT a true convert when the context of the definition would show that he is........OTHERWISE the definition would state something about this person being a FALSE follower of the their faith. Since they dont, we assume they are speaking of true followers who turn away.

Argument from silence, egghead. The whole point of apostasy is in the manifestation of unbelief by renunciation of that which they once professed.

fakes arent apostates. They never were legitimate members of the faith.

See, now you're arguing from your own conception of what it means to be a "legitimate" member of a faith, continuing to adjust in order to stay on both feet.

Apostates are those who validly turn away from the faith. Such as those Hebrews who were turning back to Judaism to keep from being persecuted.

But you do not give any possibility to the fact that those who are turning back never truly believed unto salvation in the first place. Why? Because it doesn't fit with your definition of apostasy or your fallacious understanding of the role of warnings in Scripture.

Am I? I allow for ''make-believers'' AND legitimate believers apostating.

No, you're making every apostate a true believer.

Im going to absolutely make it a point to return the favor when I see some of you taking that one verse and writing a 10 page essay on it to ''explain'' it for us from here on out.

I suggest you be sure you're on sound hermeneutical footing before you try, egghead. Otherwise you'll quite likely make a fool of yourself.

yep. Read it without your doctrinal glasses on. He is cheering them on to perseverance. Which fits perfectly with what was going on there with the Jews who were rejecting Christ AFTER accepting because of persecution.
They were ceasing to fellowship together as shown here

Like I said, his confidence was just wishful thinking with no real substance behind it. He might even have had his fingers crossed for luck when he said it.

sure you did. You added the idea that these were ''false'' converts who apostated in the definition, not genuine converts. False converts arent converts at all, they are fakes.

So do you admit that you can give no specific example of an apostate? After all, you don't know anyone's heart so you cannot possibly know with any certainty whether or not someone is a true believer or a mere professer. In fact, for you to declare anybody apostate would be gross and arrogant presumption on your part since you really have no clue if they were really apostate or "just faking it."

It is ASSUMED because the definition doesnt say ''FALSE converts who apostate'', does it?

Argument from silence.

How about this one: I ASSUME because the definition doesn't say "TRUE converts.

Nor does it imply it. It assume legitimate followers....as it should.

You do. It doesn't.

I see. So if I say ''Im democrat'' then by YOUR method I AM democrat just because I say I am? preposterous.

I may believe that you're lying, but I wouldn't know for certain. But your public profession of being a democrat is your word on the matter, and to later renounce that profession would by definition make you an apostate (although the term ordinarily applies to religion, not politics or philosophy).

If you understood the Biblical concept of a covenant you would see this much more clearly.

 

[CCWoody]

looking to my own strength?
No

*I* am able

It does appear that you contradict yourself in 2 sentences.

That one is scary.
Of course we repent and move on if we err, but I cannot fathom the mind that does not feel ''guilt'' for its sin.

Well, Egghead, you don't have to worry about not having any guilt before God. You simply need to worry about yourself and whether or not you will chose to remain with God or turn and spit in his face as you have claimed.

I can safely say with Paul: "I know nothing against myself."

BTW, feeling guilt for sin is not what I meant nor even said. The power of Christ in my life is that I have no guilt in this life.

Its the ''my flesh sins, not my spirit, so Im good to go even if I maim and torture a 1000 times a day'' that makes me nervous.

Well, it doesn't make me nervous. I know the power of Christ in me. Such a thing is beyond my ability to do.

 

[CCWoody]

Egghead, it just occurred to me after reading through several of your posts that your writing style is very familiar. Have we had this conversation before?

Do you think we've ben here before?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Lets take a closer look at this passage...

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
(1Jo 3:9 KJV)

Calvinists...
Based on that passage....

1. Do we still have our sin nature when we are born of God?
2. Can we still ''sin''?

John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I really like the New Living Translation:
John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth.

 

[frumanchu]

Do you think we've ben here before?

If one is not a close follower of these threads, one might need a helpy little helper to figure it out.

 

[Beoga]

If one is not a close follower of these threads, one might need a helpy little helper to figure it out.

Golly, I wish I wasnt so ignorant on matters like these

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
(1Jo 3:9 KJV)

[qutoe=Egghead]
Calvinists...
Based on that passage....

1. Do we still have our sin nature when we are born of God?
2. Can we still ''sin''?

John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I really like the New Living Translation:
John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth.[/QUOTE]

Where many get confused on those two passages is that in the first one, 1 John 3:9, John is speaking of the continual, habitual practice of sin, whereby sin holds dominion over the believer, which cannot be, as Paul points out in Romans 7. For indeed, the genuine regenerated believer, when they do sin, are convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess their sin as John says in 1 John 1, seeks forgiveness and repents.

There is a substantial difference between the regenerated soul that sins, hates his sin but does not have sin holding dominion over him/her.

For the unregenerate, they have no struggle with sin, they love their sin, they love darkness because their deeds are wicked(John 3:18-21).

 

[edie19]

Where many get confused on those two passages is that in the first one, 1 John 3:9, John is speaking of the continual, habitual practice of sin, whereby sin holds dominion over the believer, which cannot be, as Paul points out in Romans 7. For indeed, the genuine regenerated believer, when they do sin, are convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess their sin as John says in 1 John 1, seeks forgiveness and repents.

There is a substantial difference between the regenerated soul that sins, hates his sin but does not have sin holding dominion over him/her.

For the unregenerate, they have no struggle with sin, they love their sin, they love darkness because their deeds are wicked(John 3:18-21).

This is the perfect explanation - thank you for putting it into words.

 

[greeker57married]

Egghead

I agree.....we cannot ''lose'' salvation.
losing it isnt what Hebrews 6 or 10 is refering to

You seem to double talk, do you believe a Christian can lose their salvation? If you don't believe a Christian can be lost again. Then what do you think Hebrews 6 and 10 are talking about when these Hebrew Christians do not go on to maturity. Clearly in the context of Hebrews 5:11-14. and Hebrews 6:1 These Christians were not going own to maturity. In Hebrews 6: 4-8, we see the examples of those who do not go on to maturity. they do not keep their covenant with God. In Hebrew 6:6 the verb "to fall away" is parapipto " it means to fall beside, in many of the papyri manuscripts, it was used in koine Greek to refer to breaking an agreement or contract. Moulton and Milligan in there Greek vocabulary give it this meaning. Which means these Hebrew Christians did not keep there agreement or convenant with God to go on to maturity.

If you donot believe a Christian can belost again, with which I agree, then when it says it is imposssible to renew them to repentance what type of consequences do you think it refers to the Christian encountering?

God Bless
John

 

[greeker57married]

Augustine_was_Calvinist

John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I really like the New Living Translation:
John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth.

Where many get confused on those two passages is that in the first one, 1 John 3:9, John is speaking of the continual, habitual practice of sin, whereby sin holds dominion over the believer, which cannot be, as Paul points out in Romans 7. For indeed, the genuine regenerated believer, when they do sin, are convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess their sin as John says in 1 John 1, seeks forgiveness and repents.

There is a substantial difference between the regenerated soul that sins, hates his sin but does not have sin holding dominion over him/her.

I agree with what you say. Alot of people get hung up on the KJV and other translations that do not fully translate the meaning of the present tense in 1John 3:9. But if you read it in the context of 1John 1:8-10. It is clear it is not saying a Christian cannot sin.

God Bless
John

 

[Godzchild]

It is a false dichotomy because the truth is that the warnings serve as the means by which true believers are preserved in their faith. The warnings are only fully effective when mixed with faith in believers (Heb 4:2). To those without true faith they literally fall on deaf ears. They may be heeded in a superficial manner, but it profits them little with respect to their eternal destiny.

Wow! I agree with this. Good point

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

This is the perfect explanation - thank you for putting it into words.

It's not that difficult, once one understands each passage of Scripture within the context of the whole.

Even an "egghead" should be able to grasps that.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

This is the perfect explanation - thank you for putting it into words.

By the way, welcome to CF. May your stay here be enlightening, long and profitable.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I really like the New Living Translation:
John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth.

in the first one, 1 John 3:9, John is speaking of the continual, habitual practice of sin, whereby sin holds dominion over the believer. For indeed, the genuine regenerated believer, when they do sin, are convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess their sin as John says in 1 John 1, seeks forgiveness and repents.

There is a substantial difference between the regenerated soul that sins, hates his sin but does not have sin holding dominion over him/her.

For the unregenerate, they have no struggle with sin, they love their sin, they love darkness because their deeds are wicked(John 3:18-21).

Great reconciliation (pun intended) of the two verses. So often people simple ignore the one they don't agree with. This is excellent. We are in total agreement.

 

[Egghead]

Egghead

[/size][/font]

You seem to double talk, do you believe a Christian can lose their salvation?

*I* seem to double talk ?

You mean double talk like ''its my FLESH that sins, not my SPIRIT.....so I can go to heaven even if I rape and murder 1000 times a day".....THAT kind of double talk?

No.....a christian cannot LOSE their salvation.
"LOSE" implies that it is against ones will.
They CAN toss it back in Gods face purposefully.