The Eternal Security Debate With Independent Baptist Debater Kent Brandenburg, Part 2
Well, I thought the issue was dead and gone, but it turns out that Kent was only just getting warmed up. He sent me this email on August 21, 2007 (cites from scriptures and previous emails are in italics):
You're obviously a lot of bluster and bells and whistles. Believe me, you weren't knocking on my door to get an answer, but you had the time to get this page up. I would have gladly answered you, but obviously I forgot about you or didn't see you. You say I split hairs over "hair" and "part." Anyone reading it can see that you don't even answer the question...at all. No answer. Zero. zilch. Your answer is at best a red herring. You didn't even answer my argument. You didn't study the term "part" out and how it is used in the NT.
You write: "His whole argument was based on splitting hairs about the terms 'name' and 'part,' after which he tries to confuse the issue by claiming that being able to apostize (SIC) on earth means that one is not fully secure once they (SIC) reach New Jerusalem. Such a non-answer was easily blown cleanly out of the water." "Tries to confuse the issue"? What? You are so off base, it's incredible.
I responded on August 22, 2007:
Hey Kent,
"You say I split hairs over "hair" and "part." Anyone reading it can see that
you don't even answer the question...at all. No answer. Zero. zilch."
Actually, the answer given to the question "Do you believe then that someone who
is in the Holy City, in the New Jerusalem, can be kicked out?" was implicitly
answered as a 'no' in my response:
"It does not follow that the possibility that one could do a thing on earth in a
state beset by temptation and a sinful nature, thereby forfeiting his eternal
reward in heaven necessitates the possibility of transgression in like manner
with like consequence after being made as Christ is (1 John 3:2)."
"You didn't even answer my argument. You didn't study the term "part" out and
how it is used in the NT."
I simply rendered the argument moot, for it doesn't matter what distinctions you attempt to draw between the terms, if one's part in the holy city is taken, then his name is clearly not in the book of life.
'"Tries to confuse the issue"? What? You are so off base, it's incredible.'
Yes, you are plainly trying to confuse the issue in claiming that belief in the possibility of apostasy in this present life must also necessitate the belief that it is possible to fall away after one attains final salvation with no explanation as to why exactly.
In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux
<< Part 1
Part 3 >>
Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.