Here’s the No. 1 fallacy on eternal security

[Clare73]

State the obvious then. My point hasn't changed from the beggining-while, since then, I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

See post #123.

 

[fhansen]

See post #123.

I did. Just not seeing what you're meaning to say with it.

 

[Hentenza]

You have to understand what justification means. Again, it's not some get-out-of-hell-free-card as long as I recite some truths, perhaps passing a divine litmus test of professed beliefs. Justification involves the repentance you've cited above. It's a turning away from sin/the world and a turning to God and His values. If justification only means forgiveness of sin, then why do I even need to confess and be purifed of unrighteousness? Grace means God's life in us as we're now directly connected to the Vine. It's a life, a state of being, not just a legal status. If we turn away from that life, from that grace, from that "gift of righteousness", from God the Spirit indwelling us, then we've failed to remain in Him, and that metanoia, that change of heart/mind, must take place again with repentance forthcoming.

You have a lot of words here but no scriptural evidence. You are just parroting what your church erroneously teaches. You seem to think that justification is NOT a one time event but all of scripture discussing justification, like the verses I posted and you did not addressed (again), teach as such.

Justifcation is the making just/righteous of the ungodly, the unjust.

One time not multiple times.

Then we must continue to walk in that justice, that righteousness, possible only by virtue of being with Him. That "with Him" is the difference. "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). If I return to the flesh, if I become engaged in wanton, persistent grave sin, I'm not with Him.

In other words, am justified today, not justified today, justified today, not justified today, and so it goes ad nauseum.

How does John 15:5 correlate to John 10 below. Does Jesus loose His sheep? Your interpretation of John 15:5 is obviously incorrect.

“Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.””
‭‭John‬ ‭10‬:‭25‬-‭30‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep listen to My v | New American Standard Bible - NAS

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep listen to My v

bible.com

 

[Clare73]

I did. Just not seeing what you're meaning to say with it.

1) Your mitigation of Ro 8:16.

2) Your meaning of "duplicitous" makes God duplicitous with Pharaoh.

 

[fhansen]

Your mitigation of Ro 8:16.

Your meaning of "duplicitous" makes God duplicitous with Pharaoh.

Post #124. Do you think God didn't want His people to be freed?

God was not duplicitous with either Adam, or Pharaoh.

 

[fhansen]

You have a lot of words here but no scriptural evidence. You are just parroting what your church erroneously teaches.

I know the gospel for myself so I can relate it in my own words. I don't mind that the church Christ established along with the preponderance of early fathers happen to agree with me. I certainly don't parrot some novel gospel.

I'll put things in another way here. If a person thinks that being just in the eyes of God such that they will be able to see Him, they will be able to enter heaven, has nothing to do with actually becoming just/righteous themselves and living acccordingly, then they've adopted a twisted gospel.

 

[Hentenza]

I know the gospel for myself so I can relate it in my own words. I don't mind that the church Christ established along with the preponderance of early fathers happen to agree with me. I certainly don't parrot some novel gospel.

I'll put things in another way here. If a person thinks that being just in the eyes of God such that they will be able to see Him, they will be able to enter heaven, has nothing to do with actually becoming just/righteous themselves and living acccordingly, then they've adopted a twisted gospel.

But your opinion doesn’t count. I see that you once again ignored the verses I posted. That is the problem with your church’s teachings. Tradition trumps the Holy Scriptures. Human opinion trumps the word of God. You need to have someone teach you the elementary principles of the actual words of God so that you can move from milk to solid food.

“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the actual words of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to distinguish between good and evil.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭5‬:‭12‬-‭14‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the actual words of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. | New American Standard Bible - N

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the actual words of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

bible.com

Be blessed.

 

[fhansen]

It’s a bit clearer than that. It’s all about God’s promises.

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭28‬-‭30‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Love is a choice, or it cannot and will not be love. A gift of grace and a choice- to accept and live it, as is the case with faith and hope.

 

[fhansen]

But your opinion doesn’t count.

I never said that was just my opinion; I said those were my words, while expressing the basics of the Christian faith in the only way it's ever been known. Yours. OTOH, is private interpretation based on the private intepretations of Reformers who preceded you and, BTW, didn't necessarily agree on the meaning of Scripture even as they all adopted it as their primary if not sole authority, as I once did. and who departed from the truth, some further from, some closer to, but all departing in some manner or another, to one degree or another.

I see that you once again ignored the verses I posted.

Sure I did, and you ignored the verses I quoted. Check out posts 25, 28, 30, 38, 39, 45. Either way, I've been where you are. It takes time and an uncompromising openess to truth whereever it may lead in order to come out from under some of these half-truths and falsehoods.

 

[Hentenza]

Love is a choice, or it cannot and will not be love. A gift of grace and a choice- to accept and live it, as is the case with faith and hope.

Blah blah. No scripture. You went back to my post 49 so you wouldn’t have to address my last post. That’s rich.

 

[Hentenza]

I never said that was just my opinion; I said those were my words, while expressing the basics of the Christian faith in the only way it's ever been known. Yours. OTOH, is private interpretation based on the private intepretations of Reformers who preceded you and, BTW, didn't necessarily agree on the meaning of Scripture even as they all adopted it as their primary if not sole authority, as I once did. and who departed from the truth, some further from, some closer to, but all departing in some manner or another, to one degree or another.

Your words are the regurgitation of Catholic teachings which relies more on traditions and extra biblical nonsense rather than the Holy Scriptures. You talk a lot but only present your opinion.

Sure I did, and you ignored the verses I quoted. Check out posts 25, 28, 30, 38, 39, 45. Either way, I've been where you are. It takes time and an uncompromising openess to truth whereever it may lead in order to come out from under some of these half-truths and falsehoods.

Tell you what. I’ve been chasing your posts for a while why don’t you chase mine for a while. I’m not going back to your posts. If you want to put a defense of your argument then do it here. We are now over post 150 and you are yet to actually address scripture objectively instead of subjectively. You have no idea what exegesis means and how to apply it. Read Hebrews 5 again and find teachers that can teach the word of God not some uninspired saints of antiquity.

 

[fhansen]

Your words are the regurgitation of Catholic teachings

Your words are the regurgitation of tired reformed teachings. Catholicism, on the basics of justification are the same as the EO and the early fathers.

 

[fhansen]

Tell you what. I’ve been chasing your posts for a while why don’t you chase mine for a while. I’m not going back to your posts. If you want to put a defense of your argument then do it here. We are now over post 150 and you are yet to actually address scripture objectively instead of subjectively. You have no idea what exegesis means and how to apply it. Read Hebrews 5 again and find teachers that can teach the word of God not some uninspired saints of antiquity.

You haven't done any great exegesis here, especially considering that you ignore Scripture that conflicts with your view. And exegesis isn't the answer anyway. You can take two equally erudite and sincere, educated, bible scholars, theolgians, bible language experts, etc, etc and have them diametrically opposed on major Christian tenets, each with plausible arguments based on the same bible. Until you learn and acknowledge that simple truth you're dealing in speculation and best-guess theology at best. Keep seeking.

 

[Hentenza]

You haven't done any great exegesis here, especially considering that you ignore Scripture that conflicts with your view. And exegesis isn't the answer anyway. You can take two equally erudite and sincere, educated, bible scholars, theolgians, bible language experts, etc, etc and have them diametrically opposed on major Christian tenets, each with plausible arguments based on the same bible. Until you learn and acknowledge that simple truth you're dealing in speculation and best-guess theology at best. Keep seeking.

Tell you what, since you accuse me of not addressing scripture that you have posted (which is small) let’s take one of the last ones that you posted. You posted John 15:5 out of context and I countered with John 10:25-30 and asked you to consolidate the interpretations (exegesis) and you ignored it. Exegess these two passages to prove your misguided assertions. You either can or you can’t and I lean towards you can’t. I don’t think you can separate your opinion from valid literary criticism.

 

[Hentenza]

Your words are the regurgitation of tired reformed teachings. Catholicism, on the basics of justification are the same as the EO and the early fathers.

In your opinion of course.

 

[fhansen]

In your opinion of course.

Finding out for on oneself, by researching Christian history along with Scripture, requires some due diligence. Then it will become your opinion as well.

 

[Hentenza]

Finding out for on oneself, by researching Christian history along with Scripture, requires some due diligence. Then it will become your opinion as well.

I have a PhD. In History. It has not changed my opinion yet.

 

[fhansen]

Tell you what, since you accuse me of not addressing scripture that you have posted (which is small) let’s take one of the last ones that you posted. You posted John 15:5 out of context and I countered with John 10:25-30 and asked you to consolidate the interpretations (exegesis) and you ignored it. Exegess these two passages to prove your misguided assertions. You either can or you can’t and I lean towards you can’t. I don’t think you can separate your opinion from valid literary criticism.

Well, the two compliment each other nicely as well as both being consistent with other parts of the bible. His sheep are those who remain in Him, who don't visit for awhile and then stray, or who return if they do stray. They're the ones who will persevere to the end, proving to be good soil. They also produce good fruit such as those sheep in Matt 25 who did for "the least of these", meaning that they love, as John tells us they must in his letters, and that they overcome sin by the power of the Spirit as John also tells us tells us they must as well as Paul in Rom 8, as love and sin are mutually exclusive.

 

[fhansen]

I have a PhD. In History. It has not changed my opinion yet.

Well, good for you, that's quite an accomplishment. And if in the process you've studied such things as the writings of the early fathers, church councils, church histories, the wealth of theologizing that as transpired during the last 2 millenia, then you'll have a good or better idea of the true flavor of the Christian faith.

 

[Clare73]

Post #124. Do you think God didn't want His people to be freed?

God was not duplicitous with either Adam, or Pharaoh.

According to your meaning of "duplicitous" he was.