FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 16 Oct 2019, 05:04

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Extra Smileys: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/misc.p ... _Editor_QR

Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots, stalkers and anti-semites will be banned without notice. Else, POLICE YOURSELF.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 12:31 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
So we have three groups:
#1 the most common group are those who say you can lose salvation and it must be maintained (either by works or you chanting "Jesus is the Lord of my life"). Or they'll scream "grace grace grace" and claim they're not doing works for salvation when they are.
#2 the next (and subsequently next most common) group are those who say you can't lose salvation, but you also must forever "be a christian". So your salvation is dependent on you being a Christian and not necessarily your belief--despite what they may say otherwise.
#3 the final (least common) and correct group is that salvation is exclusively by belief and cannot be lost even if you "stop being a Christian". So salvation is not DEPENDENT on whether or not you're a Christian, but whether or not you have believed.

To aid us we'll review Edward's video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoFQSZOFVgo

Edward wrote:
In this video I address the lie of those who claim that a Christian can lose their salvation.
A Christian has two natures and the inner man, the new man, remains sinless even though the body is sinning.

To support the theory that a Christian cannot lose salvation, he says once you're a Christian you're always a Christian: so as a result you're always saved. Therefore refuting any notions of works salvation...

THE PROBLEM here is that he has now made salvation DEPENDENT on the fact "you're a christian" and NOT the fact whether you have believed or not. You can "be a Christian" and not believe, and vice versa. So the whole ridiculous thing falls to pieces; if you had to (stay) a "Christian" to be saved (and "Christian" is rather vague since it doesn't imply belief specifically), that is works salvation in and of itself. So it does absolutely nothing to resolve the issue of works salvation.

I'm not sure what he means by two natures... so you have a sinless nature and a non-sinless nature? If that was the case then Christ wouldn't have had to die on the cross since he could just remove the sinful nature and be done with it. Now THAT problem is because Edward relies exclusively on translations and has no choice but to interpret translation.

Edward wrote:
No believer can ever become an unbeliever, certainly in the church age: because the issue of the two natures, and this is what they reject (lordship salvationists)

What???
Quote:
Luke 8:13 They on the rock are they which when they hear, receive the Word with joy; and these have no root which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

What about the FOUR TYPES that Christ identifies?

Quote:
Luke 8:12 (Type 1) Those by the road side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the Word out of their hearts, in case they should believe and be saved.
Luke 8:13 (Type 2) They on the rock are they which when they hear, receive the Word with joy; and these have no root which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
Luke 8:14 (Type 3) And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
Luke 8:15 (Type 4) But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
Type 1: These individuals HEAR the Word, but they decide that they don't wish to believe. Not saved.
Type 2: These individuals HEAR the Word, but after awhile STOP believing (i.e. they no longer believe in Christ). Permanently saved.
Type 3: These individuals HEAR the word, and continue on to believing, but never mature in the Bible. Permanently saved.
Type 4: These individuals HEAR the word, continue on to believing, AND mature. Permanently saved.


To reject the notion that a believer can become an unbeliever is a STUPID compromise to argue against works salvation. The whole dichotomy of the spiritual and unspiritual is simply outlining BEING re-filled or un-filled. There's no magical two natures with one being sinless and the other being sinful.
Quote:
1 Corinthians 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of demons.


Edward then goes on to use this verse to say we're 'not corruptible' (and he makes a note to repeat it twice "IN THAT WHICH IS NOT CORRUPTIBLE, IN THAT WHICH IS NOT CORRUPTIBLE"):
Quote:
KJV 1 Peter 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
NIV 1 Peter 3:4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.
BGT 1 Peter 3:4 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πραέως καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ πολυτελές.


Both the NIV and KJV (in my opinion) do a rather poor rendition of that verse. But Edward is forgetting context and is cherry picking. First let's see what the PREVIOUS verse is:
Quote:
KJV 1 Peter 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
NIV 1 Peter 3:3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.
BGT 1 Peter 3:3 ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος


The whole purpose with "hidden mind" is that the wives' focus shouldn't exclusively be on external beauty, but Bible Doctrine in your mind which is "hidden" since obviously IT'S NOT PHYSICAL. Now, what about "IN THAT WHICH IS NOT CORRUPTIBLE"-- which is actually a single greek word afthartos:
Quote:
KJV 1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
NIV 1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
BGT 1 Timothy 1:17 Τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ, τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.

Here it's used for immortality, so, the SOUL is immortal. It has nothing to do with "incorruptibility" regard *sin* specifically. If it did, then that would cause a contradiction in the Bible.

Edward then continues to quote this verse from Dan Corner (of which Dan Corner is trying to say we all need to do works for salvation and that we can lose the Holy Spirit etc etc etc):
Quote:
KJV 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
NIV 1 John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
BGT 1 John 3:9 Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται.

Edward's response is that it can't refer to the flesh so it refers to this mysterious "inner man". Quite wrong. You have the potential capacity not to sin when you're re-filled, there will be brief moments in your life when you won't sin while being re-filled. BUT THIS DOES *NOT* MEAN you will indefinitely 'not sin'. While the flesh can temporarily be in periods without sin, the flesh inevitably will always continue sin:
Quote:
KJV 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
NIV 1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
BGT 1 John 1:8 ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

WHY IS IT SO HARD for people to grasp the fact that those concepts can coexist? It should not be that difficult to understand. Yet Christians are always tripping and falling over a basic system. Any time they see "don't sin" it IMMEDIATELY becomes an agenda where you have to stop sinning in your life--even though ALL humans are incapable of it, sans brief moments WITH GOD AND ONLY GOD'S ASSISTANCE. When you're clocking in time with 1 John 1:9 that's technically in a period of where you're 'not sinning'. And if you do, it's 1 John 1:9 over again. So sin is never the issue. Why? BECAUSE *JESUS CHRIST* died on the cross. The issue is learning the Bible so you don't make RIDICULOUS claims and have to BARK at others "don't sin, don't sin" (which is a sin in and of itself since you're violating the privacy of others).

Well I can't watch through the rest of the video so I'm leaving that here. Edward can't respond properly so ends up making weirder 'answers' to Dan Corner's weird statements (which aren't really answers but endless circles) adding to the confusion.

To conclude, a someone who believes *can* become an unbeliever due to the very principle of being able to THINK for yourself. To say you can never 'stop' being a Christian is calvinism.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 23:02 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Well, you gotta remember that Edward gets his ideas from Peter Ruckman: who after all deems the Anti-Christ to be a 10-foot tall guy with black lips who arrives in a UFO (from Ruckman's Mark of the Beast book which you can see live on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xor0GPaFSHI


So when Ed tries to talk about real Bible, his notions are confused. He parrots well; yet when actually trying to explain a doctrine in his own understanding, can't do it. 'Tis a good thing he can parrot, for at least he can state the Gospel as BELIEVE and can state that salvation is PERMANENT, can't lose it. :aquarium:

He pretends to be a Thieme student, claims to have been at Berachah during the years I was physically there, yet He doesn't even know what case endings are, and the first time I encountered him during the 9/72 KJVOB video (my first in the series, chronologically).. he mistook my female voice for Bobby's!

So he's not clear on the doctrines. He probably is trying to make the distinction between the human spirit you get at salvation which is just the CPU, so never in a state of sin, and the soul which of course has will and YES sins. So he doesn't understand trichotomy, mistaking soul for body like the atheist does.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 14:09 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
brainout wrote:
Well, you gotta remember that Edward gets his ideas from Peter Ruckman: who after all deems the Anti-Christ to be a 10-foot tall guy with black lips who arrives in a UFO (from Ruckman's Mark of the Beast book which you can see live on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xor0GPaFSHI


So when Ed tries to talk about real Bible, his notions are confused. He parrots well; yet when actually trying to explain a doctrine in his own understanding, can't do it. 'Tis a good thing he can parrot, for at least he can state the Gospel as BELIEVE and can state that salvation is PERMANENT, can't lose it. :aquarium:

He pretends to be a Thieme student, claims to have been at Berachah during the years I was physically there, yet He doesn't even know what case endings are, and the first time I encountered him during the 9/72 KJVOB video (my first in the series, chronologically).. he mistook my female voice for Bobby's!

So he's not clear on the doctrines. He probably is trying to make the distinction between the human spirit you get at salvation which is just the CPU, so never in a state of sin, and the soul which of course has will and YES sins. So he doesn't understand trichotomy, mistaking soul for body like the atheist does.


Peter Ruckman is actually a racist (and I mean a pretty extreme one), so... nobody should take what he says seriously:
Quote:
If you notice that no matter how much integration is carried out, the IQ of blacks is ALWAYS lower than whites (Ruckman, Peter. Discrimination: The Key to Sanity. 1994, p. 15)

Seriously?
And this is why I hate white old men who make money off of selling "christian" books while they talk about the antichrist coming down on a flying saucer with a throng of grey aliens and reptilians. What the heck! Peter Ruckman is insane and is in it just for the money, he obviously spits on the Bible and does injustice to anyone who is a Christian and of another race. Shame on him.

Also Edward has no excuse to be spitting works salvation, I noticed KJV-onlyists of late have been getting closer and closer to it.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 14:39 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Gotta tell ya, back in the 1960's most Americans talked like that, even Thieme. Makes me cringe when I hear him in those old classes. But he grew out of that. Ruckman never got with doctrine, always remained fixated on Thieme (as so many of that time were), Ed thinks he's being loyal to do the same. So the racism didn't get eradicated by spiritual growth.

hupostasis wrote:
Peter Ruckman is actually a racist (and I mean a pretty extreme one), so... nobody should take what he says seriously:
Quote:
If you notice that no matter how much integration is carried out, the IQ of blacks is ALWAYS lower than whites (Ruckman, Peter. Discrimination: The Key to Sanity. 1994, p. 15)

Seriously?
And this is why I hate white old men who make money off of selling "christian" books while they talk about the antichrist coming down on a flying saucer with a throng of grey aliens and reptilians. What the heck! Peter Ruckman is insane and is in it just for the money, he obviously spits on the Bible and does injustice to anyone who is a Christian and of another race. Shame on him.

Also Edward has no excuse to be spitting works salvation, I noticed KJV-onlyists of late have been getting closer and closer to it.


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 17:22 
User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 13:11
Posts: 383
brainout wrote:
Gotta tell ya, back in the 1960's most Americans talked like that, even Thieme. Makes me cringe when I hear him in those old classes. But he grew out of that. Ruckman never got with doctrine, always remained fixated on Thieme (as so many of that time were), Ed thinks he's being loyal to do the same. So the racism didn't get eradicated by spiritual growth.


Ruckman said that in *1992*, apparently. Sure Americans had a weird thing going on in the 1960's (ultra ultra conservative). But Ruckman put that comment in a book published in the 90's:
http://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Dr ... B002WCF0WM

From what I can tell it was made in the 1990's and not the 1960's. I want to know how that even got published, I guess nobody read it! So my statement of him being a racist rich old white man still applies. Ruckman is in his late 80's now...


Report this post
Top
   
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 17:52 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Oh yeah, I wasn't disputing that. I meant that by the 1990's, Ruckman still hadn't grown out of the racism talk. So didn't mature. By contrast, Thieme (who never strongly talked like that to start with), grew out of it. So Bible doctrine does work. :bookread: :cheese:


Report this post
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited