Search results

Well, the conundrum needed to be worked out (for me)--and I'm still not saying I do have it worked out lol I take it differently.

If you say "Paul 'went out from among' John in fulfillment of 1 John 2:18,19", you most certainly are calling him an antichrist--if you are offended by your calling Paul an antichrist, then don't call him an antichrist lol

Thanks

I meant that Christ says He will lose none, yet branches get cut off and thrown in the fire, so the solution to this conundrum might be that Christ (the Word) loses none who keep the Word (Christ).

Well, I'm saying that if Christ says He will lose none, but, also, that some branches get cut off and thrown in the fire for their own fault of not abiding in Him, then maybe the correct understanding is that those who keep the Word will be kept by the Word that they keep (as.Rev 3 says). I...

There aren't many clear conclusions I can arrive at at all (with respect to this question), because one place says this, and another says that.

You may not be intentionally doing it, but, if you look at the context, you're actually calling Paul an antichrist. 1 John 2:18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour...

I'm not 100% sure, but maybe I got the answer while I was answering one of the previous replies. It is hard to "believe" when every word stated has another word that dissolves the previous word you were supposed to believe.

@Davy In other words, as Revelation 3:10 says, "Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you..." : the Word keeps those who keep the Word.

So, with respect to the verses I was asking about, when Christ says He will lose none, but, also, branches (disciples) can be cut off, how would you approach those? How can I believe that Christ will lose none when He also says branches can be cut off if THEY don't abide. This sounds more like...

John teaches "if they were of us, they would have continued with us", which someone could argue necessarily follows from, "I will lose none, but will raise them up on the last day", but, also, Jesus says disciples who do not abide (by faith in the Name of God's Son and by walking in love 1 John...

It is unwarranted, and I will thank you to remain on topic.

Thanks for sharing. I guess you're laying the groundwork for Monergism?

It really is my thread (in the sense that I started it, and did so for my purposes), and I am Synergist, but I am not sure I should be, or how that ultimately is worked out, and I don't want arguing about WHETHER OR NOT Monergism is true (there are UNLIMITED threads where that is the topic being...

I didn't even realize you were involved, I just saw endless fights about the subject by this-and-that user, and I remembered I really just wanted to talk about the topic with people who are acquainted with it, not argue about it with people who didn't believe in it (I already know the arguments...

Guys, I said I didn't want another thread where there were arguments about Monergism, that I just wanted to speak about it with people who were acquainted with it and be edified.

I already know the other side. I don't need convincing about it.

No, I'm interested in Calvinism because I think it has benefit to it.

I find it hard to believe, given how much I have argued against Monergism, anyone would have to ask me that.

Why would I want to debate it when I already know the other side? I want to learn about the Monergistic side.