Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Verbal Pong

I'd like to start by saying hello to Mr. Hafley, who I am guessing is looking on here for information to use. So a big "HI." He's probably curious as to what I think happened last night. Did you hear about the guy who went to a fight and a hockey match broke out? I'm not interested in fighting Mr. Hafley, so I didn't. I have concluded that you want to reveal the truth, but to do the best you can, you have to try to win the debate too. Their moderator announces at the beginning that there isn't a winner or loser, and then they proceed to attempt to win. I think we should give in on points when we can. I know there is a fear that it will be used against us, probably because it will be used against us.

Mr. Hafley was in the affirmative. I was the rebuttal. Strangely enough, he acted like I was in the affirmative. His first affirmation was an attack on my position. That ought to be tell-tale. He quoted a Sam Morris and said that was the position he was debating. I read the quote and thought, "Hmmmmm, that isn't exactly my position, oooops." When someone debating you is actually debating someone else, that someone else is called a straw man. You know, like Wizard of Oz. If you remember too, the strawman didn't have a brain. He's much easier to debate.

I have to say, I enjoyed preaching the truth. I was able to get out some great exposition of Scripture that is actually impossible to defeat by itself. The Word of God stands. Some great passages---John 4:13, 14. Jesus said that the water that He offered was not something to drink and drink and drink, but just to drink one time and she would never thirst, the water would spring up to everlasting life. Pretty good, huh? "Drink" is aorist, so it has nothing to do with works, so that if you stop drinking, you stop getting everlasting life. No pun intended, but I thought I'd give you a little taste of what we did last night. Perhaps I'll give a little more tomorrow night. I don't want to give Mr. Hafley too much to read. Oh, the verbal pong. Remember the first video game. I have never been a video game player, but debating is like watching pong. Think about it. Not too long though.


Anonymous said...

There was reference made to a man named David Baker, a baptist, who was in complete agreement with Sam Morris. In fact, David Baker says this word for word as Hafley had on this slide in the link posted below.

What is it about Morris' statement, and Baker's acceptance of Morris' statement, that Mr. Brandenburg disagrees with? Are there multiple views of "eternal security"?

The audio of David Baker in agreement with Morris' view of "once saved, always saved" is found on this website: http://www.thevirtualbiblestudy.com/ (March 9, 2006).

Another debate similar to the Brandenburg-Hafley debate is one between Gambill-Donahue at this site: http://www.bibleforum.com/Debates/Donahue-Gambill/OSAS/

Debates are profitable, allowing one to identify truth from error. God's word is truth! (John 17:17)

Kent Brandenburg said...

I answered my differences in the debate. A guy that presents eternal security in a way that says that salvation has nothing to do with how one lives is not representing this properly. Mr. Hafley wants to set up a situation in which true believers live in a lifestyle of sin, and the Bible doesn't picture it like that. God saves us from the power of sin, so it does relate to your lifestyle when you are justified. I think it is interesting when a person explains that and then it isn't accepted as an explanation. We are debating the Bible, not Sam Morris or David Baker. Who cares what they say if it is a debate over the Bible? Can you answer that anonymous?

Anonymous said...

It is the position I am most concerned with, not so much Mr. Morris or Mr. Baker individually (but the position in which they agree, and you apparently disagree with their position). But, if the position is "once saved, always saved", then how can you be in disagreement with those 2 baptists?

To say a "lifestyle" of sin vs. what: the occassional sin? I can only assume that is what you mean by that.

The question, as I have always understood it in regard to eternal security, is whether sin separates one from God. If one is "saved", and then chooses to get drunk (for example) every day vs. the one "saved" who gets drunk every weekend or only occassionally, does the frequency of the sin make it less of a sin?

Was not Simon saved (Acts 8:13) when he believed that which Philip preached (Acts 8:5)? He sinned (don't you advocate that the Christian is saved from the power of sin?). Did not Simon, a Christian, sin? He did. He was told to repent of His iniquity (Acts 8:18-24). Was Peter commanding Simon to repent of a "lifestyle" of sin?

Jesus said, "...unless ye repent, ye shall likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). Had Simon not repented, would he have perished spiritually?

So, it is not about Mr. Morris or Mr. Baker individually, but the position they uphold -- which you also uphold (and yet disagree with your fellow baptists). Hmmmm...

Kent Brandenburg said...

It comes down to the definition of salvation. I refuse to be cornered with a wrong definition of salvation. When God saves, we become a new creature, old things passed away, all things become (perfect tense) new. The verb "become" is perfect, so that we cannot ever not be "old" again, will always be "new." Mr. Hafley never refuted that. It can't be refuted.

When a person is justified, he no longer sins as a lifestyle. God has saved him from the power of sin. His relationship to sin has changed, it no longer has dominion over him (Rom. 6:14). All sin is still sin, but saved people have been saved from practicing (present tense) sin (1 John 3:6-9). If they do continue practicing sin, this manifests that they are not a saved, justified person. The frequency of the sin will reveal whether a person is saved or not. People who go on sinning continuously are not saved. I'm only reporting what the text says. The Bible does not condemn a justified person, because he has an advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1).

I answered you Simon question elsewhere.

Again, the Morris, Baker point is completely non-applicable. You can argue with them separately, but if you are going to argue with me, you'll have to argue with me. I realize this might take away your favorite, "Baptists say you can go and murder all you want," propaganda, and I "apologize" for that.