|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/9/2008 3:11:55 PM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
Just like on the Arminian side when I was there over 3 decades. I knew lots of folks that believed in repeated regeneration and professed to having been saved several times in any given week. They spoke in ignorance and, often, from not having experienced true regeneration in the first place. For the denomination where I came from, the doctrine was Once an Apostate, Always an Apostate. However, lots of pew warmers (even a few unlearned preachers) believed in multiple rebirths, but that did not make it the position of the denomination. The church I grew up in believed it was only possible to be saved a few seconds at a time, no matter how sincere you were how much faith you had, etc.
From one evangelist/preacher on a sunday pm:
You can come down here to this altar tonight and get everything right with God. You can get up, grab your coat and cross the street to get into your car, get hit, die and go straight to hell because you committed 20 sins that you know absolutely nothing about before you ever even hit the door.
The next week the pastor quipped that he should have a 6 gun to blow people away while they were still on their knees......
drfuss: WOW!! I used to attend churches that were Wesleyan Arminian and heard some theologically challenged evangelists really go off the deep end on things like you describe, but they were nothing close to what you experienced. If that was a denominational church, the denomination should have kicked him out.
OOPS!! Broke my own rules, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/9/2008 3:44:11 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
This preaching "Security" to a room full of lost folks is what gets my tidy whities all in a knot.
Interestingly, that is similar to the Hyper-Calvinists' fear of evangelism - and what drove them to attack Charles Spurgeon. They didn't want the non-Elect getting the notion they could get saved so they thought it was better to not share the Gospel (after all, they'll get saved if they were Elect, no matter what, right?).
Again, my experience in a Southern Baptist church didn't result in hearing sermons on false assurance. Sermons like "Wheat or Tare" and many others are geared to make church attenders and member examine whether the have ever been born again or if they have just been religious and fooled.
I've seen long-time members, teachers, deacons, and the odd "full-time" minister confess they were as lost as ball-peen hammer and in need of a Savior. I never expected to encounter that because I had some misconceptions about Baptists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/9/2008 4:03:51 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5650
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
This preaching "Security" to a room full of lost folks is what gets my tidy whities all in a knot.
Interestingly, that is similar to the Hyper-Calvinists' fear of evangelism - and what drove them to attack Charles Spurgeon. They didn't want the non-Elect getting the notion they could get saved so they thought it was better to not share the Gospel (after all, they'll get saved if they were Elect, no matter what, right?).
Again, my experience in a Southern Baptist church didn't result in hearing sermons on false assurance. Sermons like "Wheat or Tare" and many others are geared to make church attenders and member examine whether the have ever been born again or if they have just been religious and fooled.
I've seen long-time members, teachers, deacons, and the odd "full-time" minister confess they were as lost as ball-peen hammer and in need of a Savior. I never expected to encounter that because I had some misconceptions about Baptists.
Jimbo, I am glad that you have had the experience that you have had, and I honestly wish that some of the ones I have had; just had not happened.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/9/2008 5:42:31 PM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
drfuss: I still have a question about the Jews during the law. Do Eternal Security Christians believe that eternal security is applicable to the Old Testament Jews during the law?
Also, do Eternal Security Christians have differences on this issue?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/10/2008 9:47:03 AM
|
|
|
IMA_CHRISTIAN
Posts: 1662
Joined: 1/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Anyone who is a true Christian will NOT TURN MUSLIM! All because Jesus promises to keep us by his power until the end of our life ,, we have eternal life NOW while alive, not just after we are dead.
muslims believe in a false religion, and therefore, why would Jesus allow someone to go after Allah or Muhammed? he would not. if one would turn muslim, then that would make Jesus unable or powerless to keep that person, and then that would mean the Bible is not true, which you know cannot be.
A true Christian will endure to the end, not because of what that christian does, but what GOD DOES. jesus does not go around losing stuff.
_____________________________
I'm just one of those Calvinistic robots for the Lord :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 10:21:28 AM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
drfuss: Thank you all for particiipating in this thread. Frankly, we kept on topic and away from debate better than I thought we would.
It appears there are three versions of eternal security:
1. Calvinist - God alone decided we would bdlieve, so we can not decide not to believe.
2. Adrian Rogers - Those who stop believing were not Christains in the first place.
3. Stanley - Those who stop believing will still be saved even though they are not believing when they die.
I still have not found out if eternal security Christians believe the Jews under the law were "Once Saved, Always Saved". But that would probably not be considered a scecific version anyway.
Another side issue is many people, who have little or no exposure to eternal security, believe that Charles Stanley's version of eternal security is the only version.
This thread assumed eternal security is correct. I am considering starting another thread that assumes eternal security is not correct. This would allow us to list the various security of the Believer beliefs that do not accept eternal security. I know of three. This was tried some time ago on another forum, but could not proceed because some rude eternal security Christians kept bombing the thread which would not allow it to proceed. Hopefully, we would not have the same problem on this forum
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 10:39:50 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drfuss
1. Calvinist - God alone decided we would bdlieve, so we can not decide not to believe.
I think the Calvinist view is more along the lines that after you have been regenerated, your new nature will not choose to leave any more than Jesus could have chosen to sin - one's nature (dead in sin or reborn a new creation) determines how one will choose. Both lost and reborn have free will, only the reborn have the ability to choose God's way.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 10:46:21 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1953
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
drfuss… does this sound like those who didn’t believe and obey were saved?
Hebrews 3:9 - 11 (KJV) 9When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 10Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 11So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 11:08:26 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1065
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: online
|
I think we need to understand that just going down an isle. Does not make one saved.
It is by having faith not a pray that makes you saved. We have bought into an ideal. That just say of few words and you are saved. I notice as I was brought up in churches. That seem to forget that Paul and others talk of a jounery and a race to be in a saving faith type ideal.
Now does it start with a humble attitude to God Who you ask for mercy for your crimes you have commited. Yes! I say you must do that. But you must also try to seek him and his plan for how you are to act among others. For if we think that we can please by staying out of night clubs and movie theaters. Miss also what was wrong with the children of Israel, when the prophets spoke to them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 11:13:50 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
I think we need to understand that just going down an isle. Does not make one saved.
It is by having faith not a pray that makes you saved. We have bought into an ideal. That just say of few words and you are saved. I notice as I was brought up in churches. That seem to forget that Paul and others talk of a jounery and a race to be in a saving faith type ideal.
Now does it start with a humble attitude to God Who you ask for mercy for your crimes you have commited. Yes! I say you must do that. But you must also try to seek him and his plan for how you are to act among others. For if we think that we can please by staying out of night clubs and movie theaters. Miss also what was wrong with the children of Israel, when the prophets spoke to them.
I agree! It's the diference between wheat and tares. The first is the real deal, the second just looks like wheat but doesn't bear the fruit of the true wheat.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 11:39:33 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2376
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do Eternal Security Christians believe that eternal security is applicable to the Old Testament Jews during the law?
Of course they do believe that. I never heard of/read about/consider it in any imaginable way possible for ES christian to profess the illogical idea that OSAS came into effect post Cross only, and before cross people could lose their salvation as in sin it away or un-do their new birth and become un-born again.
People before and after cross where saved in the same manner.
Based on your questions /comments ,dear drfuss, it is quite obvious that you clearly deny OSAS, but if you want to debate it you have to go to Salvation issues. Dont start the new thread there are plenty of various ones on the topic already exists. If you really want to show respect to moderators, take you debates to Salvation and Eternal Security- One stop thread
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 5:47:04 PM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: drfuss
1. Calvinist - God alone decided we would bdlieve, so we can not decide not to believe.
I think the Calvinist view is more along the lines that after you have been regenerated, your new nature will not choose to leave any more than Jesus could have chosen to sin - one's nature (dead in sin or reborn a new creation) determines how one will choose. Both lost and reborn have free will, only the reborn have the ability to choose God's way.
drfuss: I tried to keep it short. I suspect it could take paragraphs to describe Calvinists beliefs and pertabations to their beliefs. Yes, I think Calvinists believe that God alone decided who would be regenerated. Once regenerated by God, a Christian would not stop believing.
I believe the main difference between #1 and #2 is man's role in deciding who is regenerated, i.e. since man plays no role in accepting his regeneration (Calvinism), then he could not decide to stop believing. Again , I am trying to keep it short and manageable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 6:06:53 PM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
Do Eternal Security Christians believe that eternal security is applicable to the Old Testament Jews during the law?
Of course they do believe that. I never heard of/read about/consider it in any imaginable way possible for ES christian to profess the illogical idea that OSAS came into effect post Cross only, and before cross people could lose their salvation as in sin it away or un-do their new birth and become un-born again.
People before and after cross where saved in the same manner.
Based on your questions /comments ,dear drfuss, it is quite obvious that you clearly deny OSAS, but if you want to debate it you have to go to Salvation issues. Dont start the new thread there are plenty of various ones on the topic already exists. If you really want to show respect to moderators, take you debates to Salvation and Eternal Security- One stop thread
drfuss: Thank you for answering my question about the Old Testament Jews. I Don't think the question was answered before even though I raised the question several times.
Concerning the question of debating eternal security, I refrained from debating eternal security on this thread and repeatedly asked others not to debate it. I do not want to debate eternal security nor would I want to debate it on the new thread. To me, debating eternal security does not accomplish anything.
The new thread would assume OSAS is not correct and would discuss the various beliefs that do not believe in eternal security. I know of three such beliefs and there could be more.
The purpose of this thread was to list and define (not debate) the various eternal security beliefs. Hopefully it was educational for some.
The prupose of the new thread would be to list and define (not debate) the various beliefs that do not believe in eternal security.
Odeliya, from my questions on the new thread, you may think I believe in eternal security. Does your comments mean you would try to make the new thread a debate?
< Message edited by drfuss -- 9/11/2008 8:03:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/11/2008 9:53:52 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2376
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Thank you for answering my question about the Old Testament Jews. I Don't think the question was answered before even though I raised the question several times.
You are very welcome.
quote:
from my questions on the new thread, you may think I believe in eternal security.
my opinion is not based entirely on your questions - i came to the conclusion you dont believe in ES simply because your understanding/suggested descriptions of the existing ES views are too shallow, vague, and lack serious theological basis be the considered views of a convinced ES christian.
Sorry i can't agree with your proposed definitions - that would make me appear unlearned as well. 
quote:
The prupose of the new thread would be to list and define (not debate) the various beliefs that do not believe in eternal security. ....
you would try to make the new thread a debate?
Sorry, i am not interested in the thread you proposing to create, neither in defining nor debating aspect of it. I tried helping you in this one but that is the extent of my curiosity and desire to participate in this subject.
It was a pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/16/2008 2:31:56 PM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
Thank you for answering my question about the Old Testament Jews. I Don't think the question was answered before even though I raised the question several times.
You are very welcome.
quote:
from my questions on the new thread, you may think I believe in eternal security.
my opinion is not based entirely on your questions - i came to the conclusion you dont believe in ES simply because your understanding/suggested descriptions of the existing ES views are too shallow, vague, and lack serious theological basis be the considered views of a convinced ES christian.
Sorry i can't agree with your proposed definitions - that would make me appear unlearned as well.
quote:
The prupose of the new thread would be to list and define (not debate) the various beliefs that do not believe in eternal security. ....
you would try to make the new thread a debate?
Sorry, i am not interested in the thread you proposing to create, neither in defining nor debating aspect of it. I tried helping you in this one but that is the extent of my curiosity and desire to participate in this subject.
It was a pleasure.
drfuss: Well, I started a new thread to discuss only Non OSAS security beliefs as I promised. It was made clear in the OP that eternal security was not to be discussed. In providing the source of two of the listed Non OSAS beliefs, I also listed the two eternal security beliefs included in the book which presented all four beliefs. There was no discussion of those two eternal security beliefs. However, the moderator closed the thread saying that both sides of eternal security were being discussed, which was not true. The Moderator said to move the discussion to the One Stop Salvation Issues Thread.
So I started the Non OSAS Security Beliefs Thread as promised. Why It was closed, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/16/2008 3:08:13 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2376
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
I cant contribute, my dear friend drfuss, because honestly have no idea what the difference b/n various non osas beliefs are. I can speculate but what good is that?
As for ONEstop thread - you can surely debate the topic there, why not? People that will answer here, will follow you there too. Mods know how the system works and wisely consolidate topics of similar nature. Honestly, being an active participant for alm.2 years now i see practical wisdom in such decision.
quote:
The Moderator said to move the discussion to the One Stop Salvation Issues Thread.
This principle of “owner’s rules” was explained to me by my parents: If I live in their house –I obey their rules. The one who pays …...
I study comp. science and know what it cost to keep a site , maintain security, databases, moderating, work with sponsors, etc.. If given a choice to obey the rules of the site or pay for my own to have my own rules , I (and you, being clearly a man with a lot of common sense  ),gladly chose to obey theirs!
I wish more participants realized that simple fact and dont act bratty.
Amen. Let’s eat.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/16/2008 4:05:31 PM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
I cant contribute, my dear friend drfuss, because honestly have no idea what the difference b/n various non osas beliefs are. I can speculate but what good is that?
As for ONEstop thread - you can surely debate the topic there, why not? People that will answer here, will follow you there too. Mods know how the system works and wisely consolidate topics of similar nature. Honestly, being an active participant for alm.2 years now i see practical wisdom in such decision.
quote:
The Moderator said to move the discussion to the One Stop Salvation Issues Thread.
This principle of “owner’s rules” was explained to me by my parents: If I live in their house –I obey their rules. The one who pays …...
I study comp. science and know what it cost to keep a site , maintain security, databases, moderating, work with sponsors, etc.. If given a choice to obey the rules of the site or pay for my own to have my own rules , I (and you, being clearly a man with a lot of common sense ),gladly chose to obey theirs!
I wish more participants realized that simple fact and dont act bratty.
Amen. Let’s eat.
drfuss: You keep assuming a debate. The thread specifically allowed for "no debate", only Non OSAS discussions. You indicated above that you have no idea what the various Non OSAS believer security beliefs are. Apparently, you don't want to find out either, but others may.
But as you said above, someone else owns the forum. Apparently, they don't want the various Non OSAS believer security beliefs on here either.
Okay, I give up trying to put Non OSAS believer security beliefs on here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/16/2008 4:30:39 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2376
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
You keep assuming a debate. The thread specifically allowed for "no debate", only Non OSAS discussions. You indicated above that you have no idea what the various Non OSAS believer security beliefs are. Apparently, you don't want to find out either, but others may.
But as you said above, someone else owns the forum. Apparently, they don't want the various Non OSAS believer security beliefs on here either.
Okay, I give up trying to put Non OSAS believer security beliefs on here.
drfuss you being a nudnik.
What prevents you from posting your question in ONE stop thread, and specify that "no debate, please " Pay attention/interact with posters that provide feedback in defining sense, and ignore the debates.
It will work.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/16/2008 4:38:06 PM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 187
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
You keep assuming a debate. The thread specifically allowed for "no debate", only Non OSAS discussions. You indicated above that you have no idea what the various Non OSAS believer security beliefs are. Apparently, you don't want to find out either, but others may.
But as you said above, someone else owns the forum. Apparently, they don't want the various Non OSAS believer security beliefs on here either.
Okay, I give up trying to put Non OSAS believer security beliefs on here.
drfuss you being a nudnik.
What prevents you from posting your question in ONE stop thread, and specify that "no debate, please " Pay attention/interact with posters that provide feedback in defining sense, and ignore the debates.
It will work.
drfuss: I guess you don't find it unusal that this thread can allow no debate when eternal security is assumed correct; yet, when Non OSAS is assumed correct under the same rules, that thread is closed. If the moderator closes the Non OSAS thread, then the Moderator should not have allowed this thread to continue either. Or don't you see any inconsistencies?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Charles Stanley' Eternal Security - 9/16/2008 4:46:35 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6614
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
DrFuss, don't be worried over perceived slights, because Eternal Security is the minority view. It's like tithing, so few people believe in Perseverance of the Saints that it's not really worth the effort to fight it. But people will anyway (fight against both against tithing and Eternal Security).
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
