The Eternal Security Debate With Independent Baptist Debater Kent Brandenburg, Part 7

  Brandenburg launched his final volley on September 1, 2007:

I'LL GO BACK TO CAPS TO DIFFERENTIATE. AGAIN, I'M NOT SCREAMING. BEFORE I ANSWER, LET ME SAY THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO CUT AND PASTE BELOW ONTO YOUR WEBSITE, YOU WOULD BE MISREPRESENTING OUR CONVERSATION. YOU LEAVE OUT QUITE A BIT THAT I SAY AND THEN WRITE AS THOUGH YOU WERE ANSWERING WHAT I SAID. YOU EITHER DID THAT IGNORANTLY, ACCIDENTALLY, OR DISENGENUOUSLY. BUT YOU DID IT. I SAID ONLY COMPLETELY.

Dear Kent,

"Idiom? He said it "is thine"---present tense. We must take our doctrine from Scripture, not from what we want it to mean so that it fits our view. He said "it is thine.""

Yes, contextually it is an idiom for the reason I listed, for the brother's statements make no sense if he was the head of the house; he possessed it as inheritance. The same type of idiom I cited before from 2 Corinthians 6:10

"As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and [yet] possessing all things."

I CAN SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. IT IS AN IDIOM WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONCLUSION. YOUR EXAMPLE DOES NOT PARALLEL WITH WHAT WE READ IN 2 CORINTHIANS 6:10.

"You actually prove the point by using this verse. The people that have will keep getting, but the people that have not will lose everything. It doesn't hint one bit that the person who has could possibly lose. Only those who have not will lose."

The fact that it doesn't state it's possible does not negate its possibility. That's an unsubstantiated inference.

IT ISN'T EVEN INFERRED, BUT EXPLICIT WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHAT HE IS CONTRASTING WITH IT. PEOPLE THAT HAVE EQUALS ABUNDANCE, BUT PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE WILL HAVE IT TAKEN AWAY.

"Scripture is clear that no Christian will sin as a lifestyle. I mentioned this, gave passages to back it up, and you never answered it."

Do you mean the stuff from 1 John? I did answer that if you recall, which I continue below.

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER 1 JOHN 2:3, 4 AND 1 JOHN 3:6-10---CHRISTIANS WILL NOT SIN AS A LIFESTYLE. THEY DON'T. THIS IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE BELIEVER. THIS DOES AWAY WITH REVELATION 22:19 FOR YOU, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SPOKEN OF THERE COULD NOT BE BELIEVERS, BASED ON THE TEACHING IN 1 JOHN.

"To show that someone "has the inheritance" as you claim, and then loses it, you would have to show someone who actually had it. This never says that. You say it implies it, but that is your opinion based upon your doctrine."

That's obvious fact based on a proper contextual reading. If the penalty for tampering with the word of God is forfeiture of a place in His kingdom, then it can only apply to those who have a part in it. Only true Christians have a part, non-Christians do not, therefore warnings such as Revelation 22:19 are addressed especially to (and are therefore applicable to) believers.

THE TEACHING OF REVELATION 22:17 TEACHES THE POTENTIALITY OF SOMEONE HEARING THE WORDS OF THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST AND BEING SAVED. WHAT IS FREELY OFFERED IS POTENTIALLY THEIRS IF THEY RECEIVE THOSE WORDS, BUT IF THEY WOULD ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM THEM, THAT POTENTIAL PART WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. ONE INTERESTING POINT ON THIS IS THAT YOU WOULD SAY THAT FOR BELIEVERS THAT PART IS ONLY POTENTIAL, BECAUSE THEY COULD LOSE IT. EVERY HUMAN BEING (2 PET. 3:9) HAS THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING HIS NAME IN AND ENTERING THE HOLY CITY, BUT THOSE WHO WOULD CHARACTERISTICALLY SIN WILL HAVE THEIR POTENTIAL PART TAKEN AWAY. YOU SAY THAT POSSESSION OF SOMETHING IS INFERRED AND YOU ARE TAKING A MAJOR DOCTRINE FROM AN INFFERENCE, AND YET, ABOVE YOU SAY IT IS AN UNSUBSTANTIATED INFERRENCE. IN THE CONTEXT OF REVELATION 22:19 IS V. 17, WHICH SAYS THAT A PERSON CAN SECURE LIVING WATER AT A POINT IN TIME.

THIS REMINDS ME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE WOMAN AT THE WELL IN JOHN 4:13, 14, WHERE JESUS GUARANTEES THAT SOMEONE WHO DRINKS OF THE WATER THAT HE OFFERS WILL NEVER THIRST AGAIN. THE PERSON WHO DRINKS PHYSICAL WATER WILL THIRST AGAIN, BUT THE ONE WHO DRINKS OF HIS WATER WILL NEVER EVER THIRST AGAIN, IN THE STRONGEST OF TERMS. HE PURPOSEFULLY TEACHES TO HER ETERNAL SECURITY, UNEQUIVOCALLY IN THOSE TWO VERSES. HOWEVER, UNTIL SOMEONE DRINKS, THAT PART IS ONLY POTENTIAL. ANSWER JOHN 4:13, 14.

I SAY TO YOU AGAIN, WHICH YOU DID NOT ANSWER, THAT THE REASON FOR THE DOUBLE USAGE OF "TAKE AWAY" IS AS A PLAY ON WORDS. THIS IS AN OBVIOUS PLAY ON WORDS, SO IT IS IDIOMATIC, UNLIKE YOUR EXAMPLE ABOVE. YOU ATTEMPT TO HAVE A WHOLE DOCTRINE MADE OUT OF AN INFERENCE AND A PLAY ON WORDS.

"Anyone who sins as a lifestyle hath not seen him or known him. That means that anyone who goes into sin was never saved in the first place. Are you saying that people who are saved and then lose their salvation have not seen him nor known him? Are you? How can someone be saved unless they see Him and know Him? This devastates your view."

No, an apostate has known Him at one time, but does no longer.

YOU HAVE A PROBLEM IN 1 JOHN 3:6, SO YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH THIS. NOWHERE IS SOMEONE THAT IS THE APOSTATE SAID TO HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM. THE APOSTATE DOES SEE HIM AND REJECT HIM. A PERSON WHO SINS AS A LIFESTYLE HAS NEVER BEEN SAVED. YOU SAY THAT THIS PERSON HAS LOST HIS SALVATION, BUT HERE IS A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE PERSON WHO IS SINNING AS A LIFESTYLE HAS NEVER EVEN SEEN HIM. YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THIS.

statement is a simple separation between the believing and the unbelieving, and is not touching on the issue of apostasy, but rather the basic differences between one who has been truly saved and one who has not. But if you are so determined to stretch 1 John from its contextual scope to exclude the possibility of apostates, then you are stuck between 1 John 4 and Matthew 24, for whoever loves is born of God, yet Christ predicts that the love of many will grow cold.

THIS IS NO ANSWER AT ALL. AGAIN. 1 JOHN 4 USES LOVETH, THE PRESENT TENSE, SOMEONE WHO CONTINUOUSLY LOVES HIM. THAT IS A SAVED PERSON WHO IS BORN OF GOD, PERFECT TENSE. WHEN LOVE FOR GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS GROWS COLD, IT MANIFESTS UNBELIEF. THEY ARE NOT CONVERTED. THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE CONTINUOUS LOVE OF THE BELIEVER. THESE ARE NOT PARALLEL BECAUSE IN ONE WE HAVE AN UNBELIEVER, HIS LOVE GROWS COLD, AND THE LOVE OF A BELIEVER, WHICH IS CONTINUOUS.

Another difficulty arises with many of the Galatian believers who had been known by God, yet were actively rebelling against Him in turning back to the precepts of the Mosaic law (Galatians 4:9).

THIS AGAIN CRUSHES YOUR ARGUMENT. BOTH USAGES OF "KNOW" (GINOSKO) ARE AORIST, POINT ACTION. THEY DID NOT HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. THAT IS OBVIOUS TO THOSE HEARING THIS IN THAT DAY.

Your retort about not being able to be unborn is stretching the parallel, an apostate is not 'unborn,' but 'twice dead' (Jude 12).

THE VERSE EXPLAINS TWICE DEAD---FRUITLESS AND THEN PLUCKED UP BY THE ROOTS. IT WAS AN EXPRESSION FROM THAT TIME. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE TREE DIED TWICE. EVERY UNBELIEVER DIES TWICE---DEAD IN THIS LIFETIME AND THEN DEAD IN THE NEXT. YOU IGNORE THE CONTEXT TO USE IT FOR YOUR "LOSING SALVATION" TEACHING.>

"Once someone is born of God, he is permanently born of God. If you deny this, you are simply and rebelliously denying God's Word."

HERE IS WHERE YOU LEAVE OUT WHAT I WROTE. "BORN OF GOD" IS PERFECT. A PERSON WHO IS BORN CANNOT BE UNBORN. I GAVE THE REFERENCE BUT YOU MUST HAVE GOTTEN RID OF IT WHEN YOU CUT AND PASTED. THE SEED REMAINS IN SOMEONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD (1 JOHN 3:9). ONCE A PERSON IS BORN, HE CANNOT BE UNBORN. SO SOMEONE BORN KEEPS BEING BORN. ONCE HE IS BORN AT A POINT IN TIME WITH THE RESULTS ONGOING, THEN HE PRACTICES HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS. SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT PRACTICE HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS WAS NOT BORN OF GOD.

Uh, yeah...reference please?

"Hebrews 3 is warning those who are not saved. Hebrews was written to Hebrews, Jews, and it was a mixed multitude."

Let's see, to whom was he speaking to specifically in this passage?

"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." Hebrews 3:1

WOW!!!!! WHAT A TWIST YOU'VE MADE HERE. WHAT AN AMAZING TWIST. YOU GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO V. 1 AND CALL IT THE CONTEXT FOR V. 13. HE DIFFERENTIATES THE AUDIENCE FROM VV. 1-11 FROM THOSE AFTER V. 12. YES, HE SPEAKS TO HOLY BRETHREN BEGINNING IN V. 1, BUT HE SHOWS THAT HE HAS CHANGED AUDIENCES WHEN HE DOESN'T SAY "HOLY BRETHREN," BUT JUST "BRETHREN" IN V. 12. WHY DIDN'T YOU USE V. 12 FOR YOUR "CONTEXT"? HE DOES THIS SAME THING IN HEBREWS 6, WHEN IN CHAPTER 6 HE'S TALKING TO UNBELIEVERS UNTIL IN V. 9, WHERE HE SAYS, BUT "BELOVED," SHOWING THE CONTRAST IN AUDIENCE "BUT BELOVED." "BRETHREN" IS NOT A WORD THAT IS A BASIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS CHRISTIAN OR NOT, BECAUSE THE HUMAN AUTHOR WAS A JEW. LOOK AT ACTS 2:29, WHERE PETER CALLS THAT AUDIENCE OF UNBLIEVERS "BRETHREN," BECAUSE THEY WERE FELLOW JEWS. "BRETHREN" IS DIFFERENT THAN "HOLY BRETHREN."

"I don't believe it is a work, which is why they will remain if they are saved. Since faith comes from God, it is not possible that they would stop believing."

I also believe that faith comes from God, though I don't believe that this excludes men from rejecting it when offered (as the Calvinists would argue) or after receiving it.

"Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck" (1 Timothy 1:19)

PEOPLE WHO ARE SAVED, KEEP BELIEVING AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT, STOP BELIEVING. THE DEVILS BELIEVE---JAMES 2:19---WILL THEY BE IN HEAVEN?

"But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith." (1 Timothy 5:11-12)

SAME AS ABOVE.

"Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:18)

YES, THERE ARE THOSE THAT STOP BELIEVING. THEY DON'T POSSESS SAVING FAITH. MATTHEW 13 TALKS ABOUT THE ROCKY SOIL. THEY ARE THOSE WHO HAVE A FAITH THAT DOES NOT SAVE.

"Here ironically you add to Scripture. It doesn't say that they had a part of an inheritance. It does not say that they possessed anything. It just says that they lose something. You believe it implies that they had it, so again, you make a major doctrine based upon an inference, an inference that you should deny because of the passages that teach eternal security."

A logical inference isn't adding to anything, it is making a deduction from the facts given, and if you have a problem with inferences from scriptural fact constituting sound doctrine, I might suggest you do a Bible word search for 'Trinity.'

YOU CAN'T TAKE DOCTRINE FROM AN INFERENCE UNLESS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PASSAGES. SO YOU CAN'T TAKE YOUR DOCTRINE FROM REVELATION 22:19. YOU USE IT AS A PROOF TEXT. AND THEN WHEN WE SHOW SOMETHING AS EASY AS, IT DOESN'T SAY THEY POSSESSED ANYTHING, YOU BRING OUT THE PRODIGAL SON, WHERE THE FATHER SAYS, "IT IS THINE." AND THEN YOU SAY IT IS AN IDIOM AND REFERENCE SOME PASSAGE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

For something to be taken away, something must be possessed, otherwise it cannot be taken. There are no passages that teach that it's impossible for a Christian to fall away, but rather numerous warnings against doing so.

HERE YOU ARE WAY OFF. THE TRINITY IS TAUGHT EXPLICITLY IN SCRIPTURE. THE WORD ISN'T IN THERE, BUT THE DOCTRINE IS IN THERE. THIS IS NOT EVEN A VALID EXAMPLE. THE TERM HYPOSTATIC UNION ISN'T IN THERE EITHER. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT JESUS ISN'T 100% GOD AND 100% MAN.

"No thing was actually taken away, but a part was taken away."

A part is a thing.

SOMEONE'S NAME SEEMS TO BE WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE BOOK OF LIFE. DID HE HAVE A PART OF A NAME IN THERE? AND IN THE HOLY CITY, WHAT PART OF THAT DID HE HAVE? OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS NOT A THING IN THIS CASE, BUT A POTENTIAL.

"And again, it is something in prospect, because no one is presently in the holy city."

None need be as of yet present as it is possessed as a reserved inheritance.

"I should have mentioned this before, but 1 Peter 1:4 obliterates your view. "Reserved," a participle, is in the perfect tense. The inheritance that is "reserved" for a believer cannot be taken away, because the reserving is completed in the past with the results ongoing. The reservation for a believer cannot be lost or taken away, based upon this verse."

A perfect participle does often indicate that the results are presently ongoing, but does not guarantee that such a result will inevitably continue. Paul uses the perfect participle of the Greek verb that denotes the 'present' or ongoing 'evil age' in Galatians 1:4; while the age has been made evil, it will not continue forever, for it will end and its evil be destroyed. Current ongoing results of a past action do not mean that the effect achieved by the action cannot be interrupted or stopped altogether.

SINCE THE PERFECT TENSE IS USED LESS FREQUENTLY THAN OTHER TENSES, IT IS EXEGETICALLY MORE SIGNIFICANT. WHEN IT DOES OCCUR, THERE IS USUALLY A DEFINITE AND DELIBERATE REASON IT WAS CHOSEN BY THE WRITER. THE PERFECT TENSE REFERS TO ACTION OR AN EVENT WHICH, COMPLETED IN THE PAST, HAS RESULTS EXISTING IN THE PRESENT TIME (I.E., IN RELATION TO THE TIME OF THE SPEAKER). OK, J. T. IN RELATIONS TO THE SPEAKER IN GALATIANS 1:4, WAS THE EVIL DAY ONGOING? OF COURSE. DID THAT MEAN THAT IT WAS ONGOING IN THE SPEAKER'S LIFETIME? YES. WOULD THE RESERVING END WHEN PETER WROTE 1 PETER? NO. THE RESERVING WOULD BE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ANYONE TO WHOM PETER IS SPEAKING TO. GOD RESERVED IN THE PAST (WE KNOW BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD (EPH. 1:4)) AND THAT RESERVING CONTINUES UP UNTIL PETER SPEAKS HERE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT LOSING YOUR SALVATION STOPS AFTER PETER STOPS WRITING. OF COURSE NOT. YOU RIP UP THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PERFECT TENSE JUST TO KEEP A DOCTRINE THAT SOMEONE CAN LOSE HIS SALVATION. THE VERY NEXT VERSE SAYS WHY THAT THE RESERVING WON'T STOP, BECAUSE WE ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD. THE POWER OF GOD. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT A RESERVATION THAT CAN BE BROKEN? ARE WE MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD, J.T.? YOU SEEM TO THINK SO.

AND LOOK AT WHAT ELSE HE SAYS. THESE THAT HE KEEPS WILL BE KEPT TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME. THEY COULDN'T LOSE IT IF THEY WERE NOW DESTINED TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME.

"Your casual approach to 1 John 2:19 is interesting. If they had been of them, THEY NO DOUBT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED. Did you catch that?"

Yes, I caught it. If they had been genuine believers, they would have stayed in the church. Hence, when they went out from the church, it showed the world that they were not truly of the body.

"People that do not continue, do not continue because they were never of them in the first place. People who are saved, no doubt continue. Come on, J.T. These are clear statements in Scripture."

The fact that those who are saved remain in fellowship with the body has no bearing on if it is possible to fall away.

YOU IGNORE THE WORDING OF 1 JOHN 2:19. IF THEY WERE OF THE CHURCH, THEY WOULD NOT DOUBT HAVE CONTINUED WITH. THAT THEY DID NOT CONTINUE WITH MANIFESTED THAT THEY WERE NOT OF. IF SOMEONE IS "OF," THEY WILL STAY "WITH." THOSE WHO DO NOT STAY "WITH" ARE NOT "OF." THEY DIDN'T LOSE THEIR SALVATION. THEY NEVER HAD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"You are resting a particular position on a conditional sentence (v. 22). Believers will continue (see 1 John 2:19)."

Yes I am. If it were so 'clear' that true believers always and without fail continue in Christ, then why would Paul even state such a conditional clause at all? If the fulfillment of the stated condition is to be read as a given, then the both the warning and its consequence are of no effect.

YOU ARE WRONG HERE. A LACK OF ENDURANCE OR CONTINUATION MANIFESTS THE CONDITION. THIS IS HOW THAT WE KNOW THAT WE KNOW HIM---WE ABIDE, WE LIVE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. THAT WE DON'T LIVE AS THIS MANIFESTS THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN HIM NOR KNOWN HIM, I.E., WE WERE NEVER SAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux

IN CHRIST FOREVER,
KENT BRANDENBURG
P.S. DON'T PUBLISH THIS UNLESS YOU PLAN ON SHOWING THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING.

Which should be the least of his concerns. I wrote back on September 3, 2007:

Dear Kent,

BEFORE I ANSWER, LET ME SAY THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO CUT AND PASTE BELOW ONTO YOUR WEBSITE, YOU WOULD BE MISREPRESENTING OUR CONVERSATION. YOU LEAVE OUT QUITE A BIT THAT I SAY AND THEN WRITE AS THOUGH YOU WERE ANSWERING WHAT I SAID. YOU EITHER DID THAT IGNORANTLY, ACCIDENTALLY, OR DISENGENUOUSLY. BUT YOU DID IT. I SAID ONLY COMPLETELY.

If I publish a letter, I do so in its entirety along with my replies in entirety. I usually paste portions of text to respond to in summary form; I also generally don't address things I address elsewhere or I already agree with.

"Idiom? He said it "is thine"---present tense. We must take our doctrine from Scripture, not from what we want it to mean so that it fits our view. He said "it is thine.""

Yes, contextually it is an idiom for the reason I listed, for the brother's statements make no sense if he was the head of the house; he possessed it as inheritance. The same type of idiom I cited before from 2 Corinthians 6:10

"As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and [yet] possessing all things."

I CAN SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. IT IS AN IDIOM WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONCLUSION. YOUR EXAMPLE DOES NOT PARALLEL WITH WHAT WE READ IN 2 CORINTHIANS 6:10.

No, I understood that it was an idiom before I ever even started studying on this subject, it was merely an example of how a person can possess a thing as an inheritance, just as 2 Cor 6:10 is.

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER 1 JOHN 2:3, 4

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

Not sure how this would pose a problem for my beliefs.

AND 1 JOHN 3:6-10---CHRISTIANS WILL NOT SIN AS A LIFESTYLE. THEY DON'T. THIS IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE BELIEVER. THIS DOES AWAY WITH REVELATION 22:19 FOR YOU, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SPOKEN OF THERE COULD NOT BE BELIEVERS, BASED ON THE TEACHING IN 1 JOHN.

Which I did address employing Matthew 24 and Galatians.

"To show that someone "has the inheritance" as you claim, and then loses it, you would have to show someone who actually had it. This never says that. You say it implies it, but that is your opinion based upon your doctrine."

That's obvious fact based on a proper contextual reading. If the penalty for tampering with the word of God is forfeiture of a place in His kingdom, then it can only apply to those who have a part in it. Only true Christians have a part, non-Christians do not, therefore warnings such as Revelation 22:19 are addressed especially to (and are therefore applicable to) believers.

THE TEACHING OF REVELATION 22:17 TEACHES THE POTENTIALITY OF SOMEONE HEARING THE WORDS OF THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST AND BEING SAVED. WHAT IS FREELY OFFERED IS POTENTIALLY THEIRS IF THEY RECEIVE THOSE WORDS, BUT IF THEY WOULD ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM THEM, THAT POTENTIAL PART WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. ONE INTERESTING POINT ON THIS IS THAT YOU WOULD SAY THAT FOR BELIEVERS THAT PART IS ONLY POTENTIAL, BECAUSE THEY COULD LOSE IT. EVERY HUMAN BEING (2 PET. 3:9) HAS THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING HIS NAME IN AND ENTERING THE HOLY CITY, BUT THOSE WHO WOULD CHARACTERISTICALLY SIN WILL HAVE THEIR POTENTIAL PART TAKEN AWAY. YOU SAY THAT POSSESSION OF SOMETHING IS INFERRED AND YOU ARE TAKING A MAJOR DOCTRINE FROM AN INFFERENCE, AND YET, ABOVE YOU SAY IT IS AN UNSUBSTANTIATED INFERRENCE. IN THE CONTEXT OF REVELATION 22:19 IS V. 17, WHICH SAYS THAT A PERSON CAN SECURE LIVING WATER AT A POINT IN TIME.

I never said the inference of Revelation 22 was unsubstantiated, I was referring to your treatment of Matthew 13. Rev 22:19 does not say 'potential,' it says 'part.' You can assert that it's potential all you like, but assertion does not amount to proof. A part being taken away indicates that the part is possessed.

THIS REMINDS ME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE WOMAN AT THE WELL IN JOHN 4:13, 14, WHERE JESUS GUARANTEES THAT SOMEONE WHO DRINKS OF THE WATER THAT HE OFFERS WILL NEVER THIRST AGAIN. THE PERSON WHO DRINKS PHYSICAL WATER WILL THIRST AGAIN, BUT THE ONE WHO DRINKS OF HIS WATER WILL NEVER EVER THIRST AGAIN, IN THE STRONGEST OF TERMS. HE PURPOSEFULLY TEACHES TO HER ETERNAL SECURITY, UNEQUIVOCALLY IN THOSE TWO VERSES. HOWEVER, UNTIL SOMEONE DRINKS, THAT PART IS ONLY POTENTIAL. ANSWER JOHN 4:13, 14.

The promise that a person who drinks of Him will never thirst again is with the unstated yet understood condition that the person who drinks remains in Him. For it's also written,

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness." 1 Corinthians 10:4-5

I SAY TO YOU AGAIN, WHICH YOU DID NOT ANSWER, THAT THE REASON FOR THE DOUBLE USAGE OF "TAKE AWAY" IS AS A PLAY ON WORDS. THIS IS AN OBVIOUS PLAY ON WORDS, SO IT IS IDIOMATIC, UNLIKE YOUR EXAMPLE ABOVE.

Eh, not really. Such usage of language is common in biblical writing, and by default there's nothing to really indicate that they're idiom.

"Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." Matthew 5:7

"If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], He also will deny us:" 1 Timothy 2:12

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matthew 6:14=15

YOU ATTEMPT TO HAVE A WHOLE DOCTRINE MADE OUT OF AN INFERENCE AND A PLAY ON WORDS.

It's off of more than just that one passage, though that is one of the most obvious.

But if you are so determined to stretch 1 John from its contextual scope to exclude the possibility of apostates, then you are stuck between 1 John 4 and Matthew 24, for whoever loves is born of God, yet Christ predicts that the love of many will grow cold.

THIS IS NO ANSWER AT ALL. AGAIN. 1 JOHN 4 USES LOVETH, THE PRESENT TENSE, SOMEONE WHO CONTINUOUSLY LOVES HIM. THAT IS A SAVED PERSON WHO IS BORN OF GOD, PERFECT TENSE. WHEN LOVE FOR GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS GROWS COLD, IT MANIFESTS UNBELIEF. THEY ARE NOT CONVERTED. THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE CONTINUOUS LOVE OF THE BELIEVER. THESE ARE NOT PARALLEL BECAUSE IN ONE WE HAVE AN UNBELIEVER, HIS LOVE GROWS COLD, AND THE LOVE OF A BELIEVER, WHICH IS CONTINUOUS.

It says that everyone who loves is born of God, anyone who has ever loved God has loved Him in present tense (for everything that has occurred was presently happening at one time). So if everyone who loves is born of God, and some love but afterwards grow cold, he is then fallen from God and knows Him no longer. Another difficulty arises with many of the Galatian believers who had been known by God, yet were actively rebelling against Him in turning back to the precepts of the Mosaic law (Galatians 4:9).

THIS AGAIN CRUSHES YOUR ARGUMENT. BOTH USAGES OF "KNOW" (GINOSKO) ARE AORIST, POINT ACTION. THEY DID NOT HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. THAT IS OBVIOUS TO THOSE HEARING THIS IN THAT DAY.

They knew God (God knew them specifically). That is what it says. Hence any arguments that 1 John 3 indicates that no one anywhere who lives a lifestyle of sin has ever seen or known God (to the exclusion of apostates) run into the context of scripture.

Your retort about not being able to be unborn is stretching the parallel, an apostate is not 'unborn,' but 'twice dead' (Jude 12).

THE VERSE EXPLAINS TWICE DEAD---FRUITLESS AND THEN PLUCKED UP BY THE ROOTS. IT WAS AN EXPRESSION FROM THAT TIME. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE TREE DIED TWICE. EVERY UNBELIEVER DIES TWICE---DEAD IN THIS LIFETIME AND THEN DEAD IN THE NEXT. YOU IGNORE THE CONTEXT TO USE IT FOR YOUR "LOSING SALVATION" TEACHING.

The context was that he was speaking of people who were actually alive.

"Once someone is born of God, he is permanently born of God. If you deny this, you are simply and rebelliously denying God's Word.

"HERE IS WHERE YOU LEAVE OUT WHAT I WROTE. "BORN OF GOD" IS PERFECT. A PERSON WHO IS BORN CANNOT BE UNBORN. I GAVE THE REFERENCE BUT YOU MUST HAVE GOTTEN RID OF IT WHEN YOU CUT AND PASTED. THE SEED REMAINS IN SOMEONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD (1 JOHN 3:9). ONCE A PERSON IS BORN, HE CANNOT BE UNBORN. SO SOMEONE BORN KEEPS BEING BORN. ONCE HE IS BORN AT A POINT IN TIME WITH THE RESULTS ONGOING, THEN HE PRACTICES HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS. SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT PRACTICE HABITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS WAS NOT BORN OF GOD.

I left it out because I addressed it elsewhere.

"Hebrews 3 is warning those who are not saved. Hebrews was written to Hebrews, Jews, and it was a mixed multitude."

Let's see, to whom was he speaking to specifically in this passage?

"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." Hebrews 3:1

WOW!!!!! WHAT A TWIST YOU'VE MADE HERE. WHAT AN AMAZING TWIST. YOU GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO V. 1 AND CALL IT THE CONTEXT FOR V. 13. HE DIFFERENTIATES THE AUDIENCE FROM VV. 1-11 FROM THOSE AFTER V. 12. YES, HE SPEAKS TO HOLY BRETHREN BEGINNING IN V. 1, BUT HE SHOWS THAT HE HAS CHANGED AUDIENCES WHEN HE DOESN'T SAY "HOLY BRETHREN," BUT JUST "BRETHREN" IN V. 12. WHY DIDN'T YOU USE V. 12 FOR YOUR "CONTEXT"?

Because holy brethren are brethren too. It's also hard for an unbeliever to depart from the living God (vs 12). He also notes, "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end" in vs 14, indicating that they did believe and have hope in Christ.

HE DOES THIS SAME THING IN HEBREWS 6, WHEN IN CHAPTER 6 HE'S TALKING TO UNBELIEVERS UNTIL IN V. 9, WHERE HE SAYS, BUT "BELOVED," SHOWING THE CONTRAST IN AUDIENCE "BUT BELOVED."

No, he's speaking to believers concerning those who fall away all the way up through and past vs 10.

"BRETHREN" IS NOT A WORD THAT IS A BASIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS CHRISTIAN OR NOT, BECAUSE THE HUMAN AUTHOR WAS A JEW. LOOK AT ACTS 2:29, WHERE PETER CALLS THAT AUDIENCE OF UNBLIEVERS "BRETHREN," BECAUSE THEY WERE FELLOW JEWS. "BRETHREN" IS DIFFERENT THAN "HOLY BRETHREN."

Yeah, brethren can be used either way, the context indicates that he's still speaking to the holy ones.

PEOPLE WHO ARE SAVED, KEEP BELIEVING AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT, STOP BELIEVING.

A begged question, but we were discussing faith, and how since it came from God if it could cease or not.

THE DEVILS BELIEVE---JAMES 2:19---WILL THEY BE IN HEAVEN?

No.

"Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:18)

YES, THERE ARE THOSE THAT STOP BELIEVING. THEY DON'T POSSESS SAVING FAITH. MATTHEW 13 TALKS ABOUT THE ROCKY SOIL. THEY ARE THOSE WHO HAVE A FAITH THAT DOES NOT SAVE.

Then why would people overthrowing it even be of relevance? Oh, and you seem to have missed the reference about faith being shipwrecked in 1 Timothy 1:19. Why would Paul tell Timothy to hold fast to it if it were not saving faith?

"Here ironically you add to Scripture. It doesn't say that they had a part of an inheritance. It does not say that they possessed anything. It just says that they lose something. You believe it implies that they had it, so again, you make a major doctrine based upon an inference, an inference that you should deny because of the passages that teach eternal security."

A logical inference isn't adding to anything, it is making a deduction from the facts given, and if you have a problem with inferences from scriptural fact constituting sound doctrine, I might suggest you do a Bible word search for 'Trinity.'

YOU CAN'T TAKE DOCTRINE FROM AN INFERENCE UNLESS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PASSAGES. SO YOU CAN'T TAKE YOUR DOCTRINE FROM REVELATION 22:19. YOU USE IT AS A PROOF TEXT. AND THEN WHEN WE SHOW SOMETHING AS EASY AS, IT DOESN'T SAY THEY POSSESSED ANYTHING,

Yeah, it doesn't add: "Oh by the way, this is written to someone who actually possesses it." The fact that it will be taken away (given a condition) indicates that it is possessed. Unbelievers, as pointed out previously, have nothing to take away, and the means for them to acquire any potential inheritance is not in 'not sinning,' but believing.

HERE YOU ARE WAY OFF. THE TRINITY IS TAUGHT EXPLICITLY IN SCRIPTURE. THE WORD ISN'T IN THERE, BUT THE DOCTRINE IS IN THERE. THIS IS NOT EVEN A VALID EXAMPLE. THE TERM HYPOSTATIC UNION ISN'T IN THERE EITHER. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT JESUS ISN'T 100% GOD AND 100% MAN.

That was my point. While there isn't a verse that says, "God reveals Himself in three divine persons," this is a very obvious and valid inference.

"No thing was actually taken away, but a part was taken away."

A part is a thing.

SOMEONE'S NAME SEEMS TO BE WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE BOOK OF LIFE. DID HE HAVE A PART OF A NAME IN THERE?

What are you talking about? If a believer's part in the book of life is taken, it would include his name.

AND IN THE HOLY CITY, WHAT PART OF THAT DID HE HAVE? OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS NOT A THING IN THIS CASE, BUT A POTENTIAL.

The part God has reserved for those who believe.

"And again, it is something in prospect, because no one is presently in the holy city."

None need be as of yet present as it is possessed as a reserved inheritance.

"I should have mentioned this before, but 1 Peter 1:4 obliterates your view. "Reserved," a participle, is in the perfect tense. The inheritance that is "reserved" for a believer cannot be taken away, because the reserving is completed in the past with the results ongoing. The reservation for a believer cannot be lost or taken away, based upon this verse."

A perfect participle does often indicate that the results are presently ongoing, but does not guarantee that such a result will inevitably continue. Paul uses the perfect participle of the Greek verb that denotes the 'present' or ongoing 'evil age' in Galatians 1:4; while the age has been made evil, it will not continue forever, for it will end and its evil be destroyed. Current ongoing results of a past action do not mean that the effect achieved by the action cannot be interrupted or stopped altogether.

SINCE THE PERFECT TENSE IS USED LESS FREQUENTLY THAN OTHER TENSES, IT IS EXEGETICALLY MORE SIGNIFICANT. WHEN IT DOES OCCUR, THERE IS USUALLY A DEFINITE AND DELIBERATE REASON IT WAS CHOSEN BY THE WRITER. THE PERFECT TENSE REFERS TO ACTION OR AN EVENT WHICH, COMPLETED IN THE PAST, HAS RESULTS EXISTING IN THE PRESENT TIME (I.E., IN RELATION TO THE TIME OF THE SPEAKER). OK, J. T. IN RELATIONS TO THE SPEAKER IN GALATIANS 1:4, WAS THE EVIL DAY ONGOING? OF COURSE. DID THAT MEAN THAT IT WAS ONGOING IN THE SPEAKER'S LIFETIME? YES. WOULD THE RESERVING END WHEN PETER WROTE 1 PETER? NO. THE RESERVING WOULD BE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ANYONE TO WHOM PETER IS SPEAKING TO. GOD RESERVED IN THE PAST (WE KNOW BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD (EPH. 1:4)) AND THAT RESERVING CONTINUES UP UNTIL PETER SPEAKS HERE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT LOSING YOUR SALVATION STOPS AFTER PETER STOPS WRITING. OF COURSE NOT. YOU RIP UP THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PERFECT TENSE JUST TO KEEP A DOCTRINE THAT SOMEONE CAN LOSE HIS SALVATION.

I never argued that the results weren't ongoing, simply, "Current ongoing results of a past action do not mean that the effect achieved by the action cannot be interrupted or stopped altogether." How is that "ripping up" the perfect tense?

THE VERY NEXT VERSE SAYS WHY THAT THE RESERVING WON'T STOP, BECAUSE WE ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD. THE POWER OF GOD. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT A RESERVATION THAT CAN BE BROKEN? ARE WE MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD, J.T.? YOU SEEM TO THINK SO.

God is the one who reserves, and God is the one who cuts off as Romans 11 indicates. It does not follow then that conditional security makes men stronger than God.

AND LOOK AT WHAT ELSE HE SAYS. THESE THAT HE KEEPS WILL BE KEPT TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME. THEY COULDN'T LOSE IT IF THEY WERE NOW DESTINED TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME.

We are kept by the power of God through faith, no one is arguing that. The problem for eternal security is that it is possible to cast off one's faith.

"Your casual approach to 1 John 2:19 is interesting. If they had been of them, THEY NO DOUBT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED. Did you catch that?"

Yes, I caught it. If they had been genuine believers, they would have stayed in the church. Hence, when they went out from the church, it showed the world that they were not truly of the body.

"People that do not continue, do not continue because they were never of them in the first place. People who are saved, no doubt continue. Come on, J.T. These are clear statements in Scripture."

The fact that those who are saved remain in fellowship with the body has no bearing on if it is possible to fall away.

YOU IGNORE THE WORDING OF 1 JOHN 2:19. IF THEY WERE OF THE CHURCH, THEY WOULD NOT DOUBT HAVE CONTINUED WITH. THAT THEY DID NOT CONTINUE WITH MANIFESTED THAT THEY WERE NOT OF. IF SOMEONE IS "OF," THEY WILL STAY "WITH."

Their staying being contingent on their identity (being "of"), I get it. I'm saying that it is possible for someone who is a real Christian to be severed from the body (no longer be "of"), which this says nothing for or against.

THOSE WHO DO NOT STAY "WITH" ARE NOT "OF." THEY DIDN'T LOSE THEIR SALVATION. THEY NEVER HAD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Your problem is that this is a specific set of examples; some wannabees turned antichrist in the first century do not prove that everyone who leaves the body was never really a part of it.

"You are resting a particular position on a conditional sentence (v. 22). Believers will continue (see 1 John 2:19)."

Yes I am. If it were so 'clear' that true believers always and without fail continue in Christ, then why would Paul even state such a conditional clause at all? If the fulfillment of the stated condition is to be read as a given, then the both the > warning and its consequence are of no effect.

YOU ARE WRONG HERE. A LACK OF ENDURANCE OR CONTINUATION MANIFESTS THE CONDITION. THIS IS HOW THAT WE KNOW THAT WE KNOW HIM---WE ABIDE, WE LIVE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. THAT WE DON'T LIVE AS THIS MANIFESTS THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN HIM NOR KNOWN HIM, I.E., WE WERE NEVER SAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

No, for he is speaking to those who are grafted in. If it is indeed severe doctrinal error or, as you put it: "simply and rebelliously denying God's Word" to doubt eternal security, then why would Paul even mention the ingrafted branches being cut off? Such an untruth (were it untruth) should never even enter the conversation except in the negative, yet Paul warns the ingrafted via conditional clause against that very thing.


In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux



<< Part 6

Anyways, there's our debate. Sorry about re-pasting things in it repeatedly, but showing the entirety of the conversation was his stipulation. If you managed to read this far and still aren't trying to scramble up the walls, let me know what you think of our exchange.

Home
Debate
Brandenburg 7<<

Articles
Debates
Humor
FAQs, etc.

Printer Friendly Version

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.