You wrote: "Now the last time I checked I am of this world and any powers I use here (including my will) are used here in this world, but since as YOU SAY no power on earth may drag me away, thus once saved how could I ever be lost, since NO POWER on earth can drag me away???? Your own argument defeats you."
Incorrect. Since the definition of "force" is "To produce with effort and against one's will." Your own will can't drag you against your own will; that's just playing word games.
You wrote: "So now you have God changing His mind, changing our names, changing our eternal state, changing His elective plans which are perfect and which were there before the foundation of the world. You know you DENY so many of God’s attributes it is no wonder you deny Him as Lord as well, for how could you believe in a God that apparently in your theology is constantly unable to make a decision that will stick……"
If you have such trouble with God recanting a previous decision, then I suggest you read Exodus 32. If God chooses to punish an apostate by removing his name from His book after the fact and not before, I have nothing to say against Him. I do not make God out to be a puppet any more than you make Him a roulette wheel that saves and damns people in a seemingly chaotic fashion.
In response to: "Now to ease your understanding look back over what I said. If you THINK this verse has reference to the SAVED then look at Dabney’s illustration I gave in the other post (which of course you failed to understand, as John 3 say you will not see until.), but if you think it is to the UNSAVED then they "never had a part in the first place." This last statement was to show you that the verse in question could NOT be speaking about lost people (as you seemed to see from your own analysis of it). Thus, since it CANNOT be in reference to the lost person, but the saved alone, and since the saved can not be lost, Dabney’s explanation is clear as it gets. Sorry I did not make this clearer for you in the original post."
Yes, it is quite correct that the verse in question could only be referring to either the saved or the unsaved elect, for no one else's name is in the book of life (Revelation 13:8), and therefore no one else has a part in the holy city (Revelation 21:27). But your while your conclusion is based on a valid argument, its one of the premises is false. You reason:
1. it CANNOT be in reference to the lost person, but the saved alone 2. the saved can not be lost
Therefore Dabney's exlanation (that this is a warning against an event which can not occur, it is simply to persuade a believer to persevere) must be correct.
But the second premise is incorrect. There is no part in scripture that states that a man who is saved can never become lost again. There are in fact, several passages that make reference to that possibility, and some that speak of it as alredy having happened (such as Hebrews 6).
You also wrote: "And again you exalt one of God’s attributes above another, for God is also a judge. Josh GOD IS MORE THAN LOVE! He is more than the sum total of all His attributes. He is the I AM! He does not change and will not change. He will not exalt one attribute of His above another though at times we may see one attribute more fully than at other times."
The only fear that God teaches is a healthy fear of Him (which all men should), and fear of damnation to the wicked. God is a judge as well. Okay. Why does that make Him teach fear all of a sudden? God does not teach fear of damnation to those that believe (though He does warn us), for His love casts out fear (1 John 4:18). To say otherwise is not emphasizing another attribute, but denying what His love does.
But consider this, if God's purpose in speaking this passage was to make believers fear that they would possibly lose their salvation so that they would endure, then am I not enforcing God's purpose by trying to persuade Christians that this warning applies to them and they should take it seriously lest they fall? Conversely, are you not going against God's purpose by sayihg that believers can be assured that this could not actually happen to them? Just a thought.
