Grace-Haters are incapable of honestly admitting what the (P) in Calvinism really means.

[Cooper]

I have ceased to respond to you personally, since you have failed to do so for me. I gave you the specific Scriptures on two separate occasions, that I wanted an answer from in order to have a two-sided exchange. You refuse. I am not a sounding board.

You can continue with your mantra, and if I see anything I want to respond to, then I will do so in an open post. Until, you do me the same courtesy as I have for you, this is my last personal interchange with you.

"Five hundred years ago, after being expelled from Geneva, Calvin spawned his doctrines of providence and predestination." This is not Christianity and instead of following the doctrines of Calvin and Martin Bucer, Christians need to follow the teachings of the Master himself Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world. Calvinism, gets its name from Calvin who cannot save the sinner, its adherents by definition are Calvinists, not Christians and I worry about their salvation, the debilitating effect it has on the Christian Church and whether, because they believe they were 'predestined' if they really are saved, because born as we are, sinners in the flesh, all are predestined to hell unless they ACCEPT Christ as their saviour, Lord and master, which was always Gods plan of salvation from the foundation of the earth. Satan believes and shudders in fear instead of repenting his evil ways before a Just and forgiving God. We need to be careful to walk in the master's footsteps, following Jesus every step of the way.
.

 

[atpollard]

First, I will respond to everything in your post … I am just responding “section by section” to avoid generating a wall of text that is impossible for you to respond back to in any sort of meaningful conversation. So keep these two things in mind with my responses … I READ ALL of your post and I am IGNORING none of it. If I seem to have skipped over something, “I will get to it.”

My premise: There are those who once knew God, believed Jesus, confessed unto salvation, who have and can turn from God to such a point where God no longer draws them back to Him, nor even remembers their name, which He has blotted out of His book of Life and of the Lamb.

I do not know what to say to your premise in the general except that “I acknowledge that you believe this” (and are not alone in that belief) and “I disagree.” Most of what I might add would just be a pointless argument of opposing OPINIONS that has nothing to do with why I created this topic in the first place. I did not create this topic to convince ANYONE that the Doctrines of Grace (T.U.L.I.P.) are correct. I created it to get people to at least HATE “Perseverance of the Saints” for what it claims rather than the many false claims being made about what it says (and what I believe).

As an ongoing discussion on the TRUTH and SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for either ‘Loss of Salvation’ or ‘Eternal Security’, a new discussion on a new topic created for that specific purpose would be a better venue. After 300 posts on “What does (P) really mean”, the best response for me to give to your “premise” is a simple “I disagree”.

If you want a real talk about the scriptural nuts and bolts, I would be happy to show up at YOUR topic to discuss whatever YOU wanted to. Early in this topic, I “liked” posts of your’s that I disagreed with because you were at least articulating your view from scripture. You seemed someone that I could disagree strongly with and still respect that you had “done your own homework” to reach your position.

 

[atpollard]

We can only come to the Son if the Father draws us: reprobation is such a state where God has gevin up on us, and no longer draws us to the cross, and so impossible to confess and repent our sins.

A comment on “the view from 10 thousand feet” (ie. big picture, broad brush, overview of topic):

I agree that scripture clearly teaches that we can only come to Jesus if God the Father draws us to Him. There are those that believe God draws everyone, but I do not believe that the CONTEXT in which Jesus spoke of these things allows for that interpretation since Jesus was typically in the middle of rebuking someone’s unbelief and literally telling them that God had NOT drawn (or given in John 10) them to Him.

I agree with the definition of “reprobation” as the state where God has abandoned men to sin … designating them ‘vessels for destruction’ to borrow from Romans 9. I disagree that this state is ever applied to someone that has “eternal life” or is a possibility for someone “born from above” and “sealed with the Holy Spirit” and “foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified” (Romans 8). Reprobation is a state for unbelievers.

You will obviously disagree. The goal is not to convince you of anything, but merely to articulate my beliefs as clearly as you have articulated yours.

 

[atpollard]

These are just a few Scriptures speaking of them that were saved and turned from God, and their latter end is worse than before Salvation:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened...Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. (Rom 1)

They knew God, God gave them up to uncleanness, they then changed the truth of God into a lie: wresting Scripture from what is written, and so served themselves and their own minds, not wanting to retain the truth, and finally God give up on them altogether to a reprobate mind.

First a nit to pick: “wresting Scripture from what is written” is not really stated or implied in Romans 1 and feels (I could be mistaken) a bit like a cheap shot implying those who interpret the Word of God different from you are not being faithful to the Word … a shade of grey on the road to painting anyone that disagrees as a “heretic”.

“Them that were saved and turned from God”: Romans 1 is not speaking about “them that were saved” … EVER … so “turning from God” is a non-issue.

Romans 1 - Easy To Read Translation (NLT)

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

• Just “people”, not “saved people”.
• This is a condemnation of those that have not heard the word of God.

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

• This is a description of the working of the pagan world.
• God condemn all man made “gods”.
• This is condemns the non Judeo-Christian world … nothing about the “saved”.

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

• This describes the spiral God allowed unsaved men that chose to ignore God’s self-evident invisible qualities.
• The recipients of this letter living in Rome would have had no confusion or difficulty recognizing Roman Culture being described with its temple orgies to Venus and Apollo.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

• I agree with you that this is the ultimate Biblical description of the REPROBATE state to which men can fall in this life.
• I see nothing in Romans 1 to suggest that this applied to anyone that was EVER saved.
• Romans 2 begins a multi-chapter thought process where Paul describes how the Gentiles are under a curse and need a savior (Romans 1) and the Jews are under a curse and need a savior (Romans 2) and EVERYONE is under a curse and needs a savior (Romans 3).
• People without the Law fail to honor God, people with the Law fail to honor God, everyone fails to honor God …
• It is not about the saved falling from grace. It is about all people needing saving Grace.

 

[atpollard]

(Heb 6:4-8) They tasted of the heavenly gift. They crucified Christ afresh. They are rejected and burned as thorns, even as Jesus prophesied of branches that abide not in Him. (John 15) They so turn from God, that it is become impossible for them to repent and are only awaiting a certain fearful judgment to come. (Heb 10:27)

I am going to do what no “good debater” would ever do. I am going to actually admit that there are some verses of scripture that I have more trouble fitting together with the BIG PICTURE than others. One place is the “in your face” statement from Paul that Abraham was not justified by works (Rom 4) and the statement from James that Abraham was justified by works (James 2) … [please, nobody explain it to me, I understand]. One is just required to work harder to understand these verses. Sometimes that involves waiting for the Holy Spirit to show you what you need to see. There are verses that relate to “falling away” that I struggle to fit together with the BIG PICTURE. Often they come as part of parables and one must wonder I’d the parable is being pushed too far (all parables break if you try to read too much into them). Often they are clearly speaking of Jews returning to Judaism, which leaves one wondering the extent to which they are applicable to “born again” Christians rather than just to unsaved people “raised in the church”. However, I am not OMNISCIENT, so I am careful to remain open to the possibility that they DO apply to Christians and the ARE speaking about the saved. Since there are many, far clearer, verses that are rendered problematic by that interpretation, I do not accept that as the default without an examination of the contrary verses that now need to be radically reinterpreted. For me, personally, the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE leans towards “Eternal Security” so it is the “loss of salvation” verses that I mark with an asterisk to (APPROACH WITH CAUTION).

I mention all this because I really am not out to “win an argument” or change anyone’s mind. I felt that it was important to admit personal uncertainty before I presented my “best understanding” of a difficult area.

 

[robert derrick]

A comment on “the view from 10 thousand feet” (ie. big picture, broad brush, overview of topic):

I agree that scripture clearly teaches that we can only come to Jesus if God the Father draws us to Him. There are those that believe God draws everyone, but I do not believe that the CONTEXT in which Jesus spoke of these things allows for that interpretation since Jesus was typically in the middle of rebuking someone’s unbelief and literally telling them that God had NOT drawn (or given in John 10) them to Him.

I agree with the definition of “reprobation” as the state where God has abandoned men to sin … designating them ‘vessels for destruction’ to borrow from Romans 9. I disagree that this state is ever applied to someone that has “eternal life” or is a possibility for someone “born from above” and “sealed with the Holy Spirit” and “foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified” (Romans 8). Reprobation is a state for unbelievers.

You will obviously disagree. The goal is not to convince you of anything, but merely to articulate my beliefs as clearly as you have articulated yours.

In two ways you are lying:

Lie #1. The goal is not to convince you of anything, but merely to articulate my beliefs

I.e. you want to pretend that you are merely being a sounding board of your ideas, without intent of supporting your beliefs against Scriptures offered to oppose them. But your first words were: BEGIN FORMAL DEBATE

You began a debate, and have left the debating, because your ideas are your own, not God's, and so Scripture has formally proven you false.

Lie #2. Your original post was nothing about 'what Grace is', but how eternal unconditional security by grace should be called 'preservation'.

You are a dishonest child playing games in an area you have no business in. False doctrine I can deal with, but an insult to adult intelligence I do not abide.

 

[robert derrick]

The Scriptures directly oppose the basis of the false idea, that once a person is saved by grace, they will be 'preserved in salvation' by grace unconditionally forever.

These Scriptures show conclusively that once a person has tasted of the heavenly gift and known God, by grace through faith, if he turn from the faith to fall away from the righteousness and truth of God back to corruption and unrighteousness of the world, that it is possible to become impossible to renew repentance again, because he has openly and without shame crucified Christ afresh.

This teaching of unconditionally preserved by grace is the kind of idolatry of a special and superior 'Grace' as the pagans worshipped her. She would bestow her favor upon whom she would as an unconditional fate, so that the gods themselves could not defy her, and her recipients were called Fortunes' Favorites. Likewise the power of this idolized Goddess injected in the faith of Christ is above God and His commandment, so that even Jesus Himself cannot counter her eternal unconditional hold on a soul.

This kind of idolatry can lead directly to the uncleanness and unbridled lust that the children of Israel gave themselves to at the mount, and the Lord slew thousands for it, and ended up destroying all of that generation in the wilderness, save Moses, Joshua, and Caleb.

The Scriptural conclusion was that such idolatry had ended in unbelief. They who had believed with the blood upon the door posts and were saved and delivered from Egypt, became without any faith in God and perished. I know of one particular person to whom this happened, all because he gave into temptation of fornication without any regard to the faith and commandment of Jesus, because he was convinced of this false doctrine and foolish hope: that he would still go to heaven.

 

[atpollard]

(Heb 6:4-8) They tasted of the heavenly gift. They crucified Christ afresh. They are rejected and burned as thorns, even as Jesus prophesied of branches that abide not in Him. (John 15) They so turn from God, that it is become impossible for them to repent and are only awaiting a certain fearful judgment to come. (Heb 10:27)

Hebrews 6:1-8 (NASB)

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and produces vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.​

“It is impossible” (other translations say “IF”) …

• This seems to be describing a “hypothetical” rather than a “reality”. It seems to be saying “You CAN’T walk away because there would be no second savior to bring you back” … as a warning not a statement of fact.
• It seems to be talking about Jewish Christians going back from Christ back to the OT Law. It does not seem to have in mind any Christians returning to living in lawlessness.
  
• Hebrews 6:9 “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things regarding you, and things that accompany salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” … The very next verse claims that this warning (fallen condition) DOES NOT apply to the Saints reading the letter! The ‘better things’ accompany salvation, so the ‘warning things’ must be for those that do not have “salvation”.

John 15 … Vine and branches are a parable with a long OT tradition of the “vine” representing “Israel”. So the parable likely refers to the pruning of “national Israel” and the creation of the spiritual “Kingdom of God” Israel (which includes Gentiles and Jews). There is a strong possibility that applying the cutting and grafting to post-salvation individuals is pushing the analogy further than intended and to the point of breaking. The claim requires the proof.


Hebrews 10:27 … the context for the verse is a terrible warning for the Jews that the Law put a man to death on the testimony of two or three witness. Now that Jews had received GREATER WITNESSES that Jesus is the Christ, how will they escape judgement if they reject the Savior. That is not “backsliding” or “falling from grace”. That is an unsaved person, being given the complete testimony of God and rejecting the savior. That is a lateral move from “unsaved” to “son of perdition”.

 

[atpollard]

(2 Peter 2:18-22) Peter warning of false teachers who turn believers from the Lord, who had clean escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of the Lord, and returned once again to their old life of sin, with a latter end worse than before they were saved, and it is better for such in the judgment of God, that they had never believed in the first place.

I cannot fully explain all of the subtly in 1 Peter 2, however it is hard to imagine “false teachers” as described by Peter having been saved and then lost … they sound more like wolves in sheep clothing seeking to devour the flock.

“20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.”​

This just requires a subtlety and depth of study to tease out nuance of meaning that I have not previously done and am too tired to do at this point. The grammar and sentence structure is complex. To treat it as “simple and obvious” is to do it injustice.

 

[atpollard]

In two ways you are lying:

So much for discussion.
Now it is not unintentional … Kiss my grits.

 

[atpollard]

The Scriptures directly oppose the basis of the false idea, that once a person is saved by grace, they will be 'preserved in salvation' by grace unconditionally forever.

These Scriptures show conclusively that once a person has tasted of the heavenly gift and known God, by grace through faith, if he turn from the faith to fall away from the righteousness and truth of God back to corruption and unrighteousness of the world, that it is possible to become impossible to renew repentance again, because he has openly and without shame crucified Christ afresh.

This teaching of unconditionally preserved by grace is the kind of idolatry of a special and superior 'Grace' as the pagans worshipped her. She would bestow her favor upon whom she would as an unconditional fate, so that the gods themselves could not defy her, and her recipients were called Fortunes' Favorites. Likewise the power of this idolized Goddess injected in the faith of Christ is above God and His commandment, so that even Jesus Himself cannot counter her eternal unconditional hold on a soul.

This kind of idolatry can lead directly to the uncleanness and unbridled lust that the children of Israel gave themselves to at the mount, and the Lord slew thousands for it, and ended up destroying all of that generation in the wilderness, save Moses, Joshua, and Caleb.

The Scriptural conclusion was that such idolatry had ended in unbelief. They who had believed with the blood upon the door posts and were saved and delivered from Egypt, became without any faith in God and perished. I know of one particular person to whom this happened, all because he gave into temptation of fornication without any regard to the faith and commandment of Jesus, because he was convinced of this false doctrine and foolish hope: that he would still go to heaven.

The troll has spoken, and as usual … tells lies. :cool:

John 10:25-29 [NASB]

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.​

 

[Cooper]

The troll has spoken, and as usual … tells lies. :cool:

John 10:25-29 [NASB]

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.​

Make sure you always hear his voice, and you follow Him all the days of your life. That is what it says.

Otherwise it is the abattoir.
.

 

[robert derrick]

Hebrews 6:1-8 (NASB)

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and produces vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.​

“It is impossible” (other translations say “IF”) …

• This seems to be describing a “hypothetical” rather than a “reality”. It seems to be saying “You CAN’T walk away because there would be no second savior to bring you back” … as a warning not a statement of fact.
• It seems to be talking about Jewish Christians going back from Christ back to the OT Law. It does not seem to have in mind any Christians returning to living in lawlessness.
  
• Hebrews 6:9 “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things regarding you, and things that accompany salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” … The very next verse claims that this warning (fallen condition) DOES NOT apply to the Saints reading the letter! The ‘better things’ accompany salvation, so the ‘warning things’ must be for those that do not have “salvation”.

John 15 … Vine and branches are a parable with a long OT tradition of the “vine” representing “Israel”. So the parable likely refers to the pruning of “national Israel” and the creation of the spiritual “Kingdom of God” Israel (which includes Gentiles and Jews). There is a strong possibility that applying the cutting and grafting to post-salvation individuals is pushing the analogy further than intended and to the point of breaking. The claim requires the proof.


Hebrews 10:27 … the context for the verse is a terrible warning for the Jews that the Law put a man to death on the testimony of two or three witness. Now that Jews had received GREATER WITNESSES that Jesus is the Christ, how will they escape judgement if they reject the Savior. That is not “backsliding” or “falling from grace”. That is an unsaved person, being given the complete testimony of God and rejecting the savior. That is a lateral move from “unsaved” to “son of perdition”.

When someone has to 'go to the Greek' to explain another meaning to a first principle of Christ, they demonstrate they are looking for something else, than what is plainly said in their own language:

It is impossible...if they who tasted fall away...to renew them again unto repentance: They tasted, they fell away, it is impossible for them to repent and be renewed again to the heavenly taste: Judas is prime example. (Don't even bother trying to say a personally chosen apostle of Jesus was a devil from the beginning. God does not choose devils for His apostleship and ministry. They may turn devilish, but God does not choose them in their devilishness.)

Grace is unconditionally always available, but salvations by grace is always conditioned on faith, and continuing in the faith, and so continuing in the grace.

'Seeming' to be a hypothetical that cannot happen is a useless warning against such. God does not waste words on paper that cannot possible be true.

The Vine is Christ, and the branches are them that believe. Period. Like 'going to the Greek', running to a 'national Israel' in order to avoid a warning to us, is foolish.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins...

We is not Jews under the law of the Old Covenant. We is us that believe Christ. It is another variation and repeat of Heb 6.

That is a lateral move from “unsaved” to “son of perdition”

Such a lateral move may be so named for the unsaved, but not for the saved, which is called a fall from grace and falling away: Judas only laterally moved from unsaved to son of perdition, after he vertically fell from his apostleship of Christ, even as his body fell headlong from the tree.

That is not “backsliding” or “falling from grace”.

Correct, that is an invention of men. Falling from grace is falling from grace is falling from grace.

The doctrine of unconditionally secure 'preservation' in Christ requires sliding concepts of men, such as lateral moves to hell, in order to separate such 'believers' from the Scriptures of Christ that we are bound to believe, heed, and obey, if we will continue in His grace.

The only thing Scriptural about this false doctrine is that coming up with 'lateral moves' is a really great sleight of hand. (Eph 4:14)

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies...

 

[robert derrick]

So much for discussion.
Now it is not unintentional … Kiss my grits.

I didn't start the lying. But I certainly have taken away the your vail of 'discussion'.

This is better. No more pretense and posing with flowery words that mean nothing.

 

[TEXBOW]

I still cannot get past all the warnings in the New Testament directly aimed at Christians (Believers). Deceptions, False Teachers, False Prophets. If one repented, confessed his sins and as a new Believer were given eternal security why all the warnings? It's like being given waterproof boots but told to be careful walking in the water. I also believe exactly as the scriptures tell us. That God so loved the WORLD. That God desires all men to be saved. We are saved by faith alone by God's Grace. A gift, a gift that you can keep or throw away or never accept.

 

[robert derrick]

The troll has spoken, and as usual … tells lies. :cool:

John 10:25-29 [NASB]

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.​

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

This is the single Scripture that comes closest to the idea of unconditional security, but it is not a proof Scripture:

No believer shall never perish by being plucked out of God's hand, and not by man. Judas was not plucked by man, but fell away to the devil. He had been drawing back from the faith, even as the children of Israel before the mount (Ex 20), and so was becoming a thief and false accuser (John 12:5-6), and finally fell away completely, when he allowed Satan to enter his heart during the last supper.

As Scripture says, it had been better for him to simply turn back and walk no more with Jesus, as others (John 6), rather than continue with Him under false hypocrisy to become vertically the son of perdition: which is to perish. And to say Judas was never with Jesus by faith, is to say Jesus chooses devils to be His apostles, rather than to acknowledge one of His chosen apostles became a devil. And Jesus called him a devil after others turned back, and he chose to stay with the Lord in hypocrisy. (6:70)

Even as God does not save us against our will, nor does the devil devour us against our will. We do not fall from grace by accident, and though false teachers can seduce us from the truth, we still must answer for our own falling away.

Unconditionally secured preservation teaches we must believe to be saved by grace, but then the Goddess of Grace keeps us preserved, even against our own will, because we no longer have a choice in life, neither decisions to make: we are just jelly in a sealed jar preserved forever, so much mindless goo in the minds of foolish men.

And so fallen from grace is still fallen from grace, because Scripture calls it fallen from grace. That's vertically, not laterally.

This lateral move to hell is going to be a classic, I think. Like the christ-creators who say the Word was not actually God, but was only really really like God and close to God, even as God's words out of His mouth represent Him really well.

 

[robert derrick]

it is hard to imagine
Back to how if someone just can't imagine it, so it can't be.

Come full circle only worse:

This just requires a subtlety and depth of study to tease out nuance of meaning that I have not previously done and am too tired to do at this point. The grammar and sentence structure is complex. To treat it as “simple and obvious” is to do it injustice.

I.e. we can't take simple and obvious Scripture simply and obviously. because that is to do injustice to, who? To God? No, but to men of reprobate minds who must turn to all manner of subtlety and depth of study to tease out something different.

And so, the real reader and student and teacher of Scripture is subtle as the serpent and deep as the depth of Satan.

And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant.

There comes a point, that some people do not even wait to think about what they are saying, because the abundance of the heart cannot be held back and hidden anymore. No more subtlety of twisting of Scripture, just come right out and say it: I am a subtle servant of the serpent, and by teased nuance I make complex what is simple, and to make obscure what is obvious.

The hallmark of liberalism is to make complicated what is simple: the idolized grace that is not of God, but is a liberal Goddess of falsehood and confusion.

Truly, truly the Scripture well says: it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

It had been better for them not to have taught the Scriptures at all, than to have knowingly turned from the Scriptures to teach absolute vomit and mire. Will not the Lord therefore spew them out for their reward?

 

[atpollard]

I didn't start the lying. But I certainly have taken away the your vail of 'discussion'.

A troll complains that you will not answer their questions, and then immediately responds to your answer by calling you a liar from 300 posts earlier.

[Luke 6:44] "For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.

 

[TheslightestID]

A gift, a gift that you can keep or throw away or never accept.

And contrary to what some think, accept, then throw away.

 

[atpollard]

or learn of Christ from the cults.

Ad hominem:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
- Merriam Webster Dictionary

Ad hominem (Attacking the person):
This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
- Texas State University Department of Philosophy