Unsettler
Member
Would you call yourself a plot-twist cessationist?
The Plot by Bob Enyart
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Would you call yourself a plot-twist cessationist?
Meaning?
Unsettler
Member
A plot-twist cessationist is 100% sure there won't be anymore plot twists coming up.
Bob (and I) both would agree. Prophecy of impending doom is first and foremost a warning. Jonah's prophesy about Nineveh is a prime example.
Given this agreement, I'd submit that the dogmatism that you detect is an errant perception on your part.
There is no way to establish this doctrine without the use of the Old Testament, the gospels and the circumcision epistles.
Volition or no, if you're ever saved and then fail to arrive safely to the Day of Redemption, God forfeits His earnest payment, which is Himself.
Where did I ever say there wouldn't be any more plot twists?
I simply stated that God has predetermined some things to come to pass. How He goes about making them happen is up to Him. But they will, in fact, happen.
You have yet to provide any evidence that shows that they won't, in fact, happen.
Unsettler
Member
Maybe.
I am not sure what you mean here.
Can you give me a hypothetical example scenario to make this more clear?
Last edited:
Unsettler
Member
If they don't happen, will you be mad?
You want me to provide evidence for an upcoming surprise plot twist? I can't do it, because that would ruin the surprise.
I mean that if you attempt to establish the idea that you can lose your salvation, you will not be able to do so without using passages that were written to/about Israel. Put another way, you would be forced to NOT rightly divide the word of truth.
That's sort of close to being the primary point of The Plot.
Out of time for now. I'll address this later.
Unsettler
Member
Can you reconcile your doctrine with the literal [Moderator edit: profanity removed; please read the rules.] (and his fellow Christians who admired his confidence in not being under any law) from 1 Cor 5, without resorting to a no true scotsman fallacy?
Unsettler
Member
Did the Christian [Moderator edit: profanity removed; please read the rules.] retain his salvation if he stayed a [Moderator edit: profanity removed; please read the rules.]?Umm... what?
The debate about whether one can lose their salvation is centuries old. If you were undecided about the issue and wanted to educate yourself on it in an attempt to figure out who is right and who is wrong, what you'd likely do, as a first step, is go to get a book or two or three on the subject from various authors on both sides of the issue to see if you could determine who makes the better argument. What you would find is the authors from either side have certain passages that they quote to support their side of the issue. One author's proof texts are another author's problem texts and that all the books, more or less, follow the same pattern where they spend most of their time emphasizing their proof texts and spent a little bit of time explaining how their problem texts don't teach what they seem to teach by a plain reading of the text.
Those who argue that we can lose our salvation quote passages from any and every book of the bible aside from those written by Paul and insist that they mean what they say while any passages taken from Paul's epistles are either removed from their context or are explained away by some other means..
Those who argue that we cannot lose our salvation use passages from the Pauline Epistles and all passages elsewhere in the bible are either removed from their context or are explained away by some other means.
It is only those of us who rightly divide the word of truth and understand that Jesus, Peter, James and John all taught the gospel of the Kingdom exclusively to Israel and that it is Paul who taught the gospel of Grace to the whole world after Israel was cut off, who can take all of the passages that both sides of the debate use as proof texts and understand that THEY ALL mean what they say! It is perfectly understandable to see Peter teaching that people can lose their salvation because his was a gospel of law. It would be a problem for us Mid-Acts Dispensationalists if Peter didn't teach that and thus, all of what were problem texts for the Baptist or Calvinist are proof texts for us. We have no problem texts! The whole bible teaches pretty much just exactly what it seems to be teaching when you just read it. The trick is simply to understand that when you are reading an epistle written by Peter, James or John, that you're reading someone else's mail.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here.
Paul teaches us that the Holy Spirit has been given to us as earnest. If you've ever bought a house before, you understand how earnest payments work. You pay earnest in order to assure the other party that you aren't wasting their time by getting involved in an expensive and complex transaction that you don't intend to follow through with. If the transaction goes through as planned, the earnest is applied toward the transaction but but if you do not follow through with the transaction, you forfeit the earnest payment.
Earnest payments worked the same way in Paul's day. If the paying party failed to follow through, the earnest payment is forfeit. It is what is put up as a guarantee. In fact, "earnest" and "guarantee" are synonymous in this context.
King James:
- 2 Corinthians 1:22 who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
- 2 Corinthians 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
- Ephesians 1:13b in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
- 2 Corinthians 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
- Corinthians 5:5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
- Ephesians 1:13b in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Clete
Last edited:
[Moderator edit: profanity removed; please read the rules.]?
Yes!
That is, he will be delivered safely to the Day of Redemption.
What happens after that point is an open question. It depends on the individual. What we know for certain is that no one will enter Heaven against their own will.
By the way, I knew what the term meant, I just couldn't bring myself to believe that's what you meant to type. Can we use the term "incest" or "incestuous" from this point forward?
Unsettler
Member
Got it, so salvation may be lost by volition, but you will not fail to be safely delivered to the day of redemption (which is judgement day, correct?)
Right Divider
Body part
Just to be clear, that does not mean that the woman was his mother.
Unsettler
Member
Step mom, possibly?
Reminder to all that neither profanity nor implied profanity (such as abbreviations) are permitted on TOL, according to our rules.
Not in the way you mean it.
To be SUPER clear here...
There is NOT a single solitary thing you can do to escape the Holy Spirit's seal nor do you have the power to pluck anyone, including yourself, from God's hand. You didn't earn your salvation and you cannot give it back this side of staring God in the face with eyes that reside within your brand new glorified body. I sort of doubt that there be very many who take that route. It's more of a theoretical possibility than anything else. There will, I'm sure, be some lunatic that tells God, "Thanks, but no thanks.", but my bet is that they are very few and far between.
I'm not actually super clear on whether its actually judgement day or not. That's a good question. At the very least, its on or near judgement day and so for the purposes of this particular discussion, it may as well be, whether it actually is or not.
Clete
Last edited:
@Unsettler,
So, I was reading back through some of this thread this morning and realized that I sort of failed to make the point in the above quoted post. I made it, just not as well as I could have. I was way too rushed at the time.
What is said there about those who believe that you can lose your salvation would be forced to use passages written to/about Israel was fine but the real point that I wanted to communicate was that any verses that someone might use to argue against my position would be using one of MY proof texts. They would be arguing against themselves without even knowing that they're doing it because it is my position that beleivers in the previous dispensation (and in the dispensation to come) could lose their salvation and that it is only we in the body of Christ that are sealed unto the Day of Redemption and who's standing before God is not predicated upon what we do or don't do but on what Christ has done for us.
If that position is correct then there should be two sets of verses in the bible. One set that teaches things consistent with being secure in Christ and another set that teaches that salvation can be lost. The former being taught by Paul, the later by Moses, Jesus, Peter, James, John, et. al.
Thus any argument against me will do one or both of two things.
1. They will quote from anything and everything but the Pauline epistles.
2. "Interpret" Paul writings. (i.e. They'll find some way to explain how Paul didn't mean what he seems to have meant or remove what he did say from its context.)
So long as anyone debating against my position stays within that format, he is arguing MY position and not his own. In such a debate I am the only one with zero problem texts. Everyone of the following passages (and several more) argue MY doctrine....
Ezekiel 18: 24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
2 Corinthians 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
2 Corinthians 5:5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
Ephesians 1:13b in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
James 5:19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.
Every verse I read/quote says what it means and means just what it says. All that is necessary is to keep the context* in mind, read the passage and take it to mean just precisely what it seems to be saying.When in comes to losing a debate, what greater defeat can there be than to be arguing your opponent's side without even knowing that you're doing it? Such is the power of having understood "The Plot" of the bible.
Clete
* Contexts includes: Who is speaking, who is being spoken to, what is being talked about as well as when and why it is being said. This may include cultural issues as well as idiomatic expressions and/or other figures of speech, etc. And while most passages are easily understood by simply reading them, there are some that require more effort. The bible was not, after all, written in 17th or even 20th century English.
Last edited: