Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Monday’s Guest: Dan Corner

Posted by truthtalklive on June 8, 2007

Visit http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/!

Can a Christian lose their salvation?


 

Advertisements

29 Responses to “Monday’s Guest: Dan Corner”

  1. jwatkins said

    I say no. I don’t look at salvation as something I possess, but more of my standing before God. If my salvation is based on the finished work of Christ on the cross, and my standing before God is based on His acceptance of that sacrifice, then there is nothing to lose. It isn’t something that has been given to me, it something that has been bestowed upon me. Therefore, I can’t lose it nor can I throw it away. Furthermore, if I could do something to have my salvation unbestowed, and God in his infinite wisdom didn’t know that when He bestowed it upon me, I probably wouldn’t want salvation from that kind of god anyway. Fortunately, I serve an all knowing God who even though He knew my future, saved me anyway.

  2. On Corner's Side said

    Stu somehow(?) posted an incorrect website for Dan Corner. His site is http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org GREAT SITE

    No doubt about it, the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation teaches a conditional security for the righteous. There are multitudes of Scriptures and many clear examples of people once possession salvation who afterwards lost that salvation temporarily or permanently. The book, ‘The Believer’s Conditional Security’ is the most complete book available on this subject. Get it on Dan’s site.

  3. Chris said

    To say that you can lose your salvation would take away everything that Christ did on the cross. The work was completed when he was crucified. To say that salvation could be lost makes it conditionally based on the works of your life. Now Christians will do the work of the father and bear fruit, but their work doesn’t save them. Their belief, confession and faith in Christ secures their salvation. I would question whether one is really and truly saved if they make a choice to leave Christ. But what sins would it take to have the father forsake us, when he has promised in his word that nothing can take us out of his hand? I will admit one thing this makes for an interesting debate.

  4. Deloris said

    2 Peter 2 (KJV)

    4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
    5. And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
    6. And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
    7. And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
    8. (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
    9. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
    10. But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
    11. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
    12. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
    13. And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
    14. Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
    15. Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
    16. But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
    17. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
    18. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
    19. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
    20. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
    21. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
    22. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

  5. Jeff said

    While I don’t agree with the guest, I will say my impression of him was tainted when he came out of his corner pretty hostile. Doesn’t seem to show much fruit of the spirit to me.

  6. Deloris said

    Please pay close attention to 2 Peter 2:20-21

    The bible is always right.

    Romans 6 (KJV)

    1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
    2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
    3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
    4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
    5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
    6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
    7. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
    8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
    9. Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
    10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
    11. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
    13. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
    14. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
    15. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
    16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
    17. But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
    18. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
    19. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
    20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
    21. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
    22. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
    23. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  7. Brian Rinehart said

    Dan, I love you as a brother in Christ, but 2 things.

    First, your definition of security of the believer is a huge misconception. I don’t know where you learned that definition.

    Second, your theory doesn’t pass the test of other scripture.
    1 – You said some sins are greater than other. If that were true, and those sins don’t include what Jesus called the two greatest commandments, you’ve just called Jesus a liar.
    2 – We are justified from our sins through Christ. How can we lose our salvation if Christ justified us? You mean Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t enough?

    No, I don’t want your book, but, thank you.

  8. Jeff said

    Please have someone like R.C. Sproul on the show to counter this one and correctly define and defend the biblical doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. The guest on today’s show obviously does not understand this doctrine. It is very easy top set up a straw man and them knock him down.

    No one who has the attitude that they can sin freely and still be saved has an accurate understanding of God’s grace. And anyone who claims to be without sin has misunderstood the seriousness of sin (1 John 1:9; James 2:10). Those who are truly saved will not walk in habitual sin (John 3:4-6, the verbs here are present active, indicating an ongoing habitual lifestyle and not one isolated incident). It is God who begins the work of salvation (Eph. 2:1-10) and He will finish that which He begins (Phil. 1:6; Romans 8:28-30). If anyone is ever truly justified by God, he will be glorified by the same. In the meantime the converted is being conformed into the image of Christ by the Holy Spirit – a lifelong process.

  9. Gene said

    Thanks Dan,

    I love to hear someone who is on fire for God and believes in righteousness. I can’t say whether I agree with Dan or not. It doesn’t really matter to me whether I have ever lost my salvation or not. It only matters to me that I’m saved when I stand before God. So, I try to live like Dan is correct. That seems to be the most prudent thing. My favorite preacher on the subject of sin is Paul Washer. He says that we need to understand that all we ever do is sin. When we compare ourselves to other men, we tend to think highly of ourselves. We need to compare ourselves to God if we ever want to please Him. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. So, I live by faith in the Son of God who died and gave Himself for me. It is His righteousness that I expect to keep me safe when I stand before God. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

    So, whether I sin or not is not the most important question, though it is important. What is important to me is that I know God. For it is only when I look to Him, like the serpent that the children of Israel looked at on a pole, that I am inspired to please God. All other work shall be burned up by fire. But, it doesn’t really even matter that I desire to know God. It only really matters that Jesus knows me. Think on this scripture:

    Matthew 7: 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!’

    So, the ultimate question then seems to be, How do I know that Jesus knows me?

    God bless,

    Gene

  10. This was a very interesting show and an important topic to discuss. It really takes us to the heart of the gospel, is it God’s work, man’s work, or a cooperation of the two? While brother Dan said many good things, and I appreciated his zeal, his assertion that a saved man can lose his salvation goes against the clear teaching of 1 Peter 1:4-5 which says that “an inheritance . . .is reserved in heaven for you who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” As the prophet Jonah said, “Salvation is of the Lord.” From beginning to end, God is the author and finisher of our salvation. He calls, he justifies, he sanctifies, and he keeps all of his elect. None who fall away were ever part of his sheepfold! They may have appeared for a time to be genuine believers, and even participated in the means of grace, but when they go away disbelieving it is because as the Apostle John points out, they went out from us because they were not of us.

    The host pointed this out to Dan, that what he was in effect saying was that it was by his own works of obedience that he was maintaining his salvation. Friends, this kind of thinking will lead you into bondage. Stu has talked about this before and called it “the performance treadmill”. We sin every day, and sometimes great sins (look at the life of David!) but yet our standing is secure in Christ. It is so very important for us to reckon upon the fact that we are united to Christ, and that God is pleased with us in Christ, and that will not change for a true child of God.

    I believe Dan is rightly concerned about those who would say that they are “eternally secure” but then live a life of sin. I share that concern, and I would stress that the answer to lawless living is not to reject the perseverance of the true saints of God. Rather, we need to get back to the heart of the gospel, and challenge those people who live in sin that they should not feel comfortable in that state. David was in great agony of soul when he tried to keep his sin quiet. If someone says they are a Christian, and yet they can sin willfully, then Paul goes on to state that there” remains no more sacrifice for sin”, i.e., they have rejected the only way to have their sins removed and dealt with: through the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ! May we all increase in our knowledge of and enjoyment in HIM!

    For Christ and His Glory,
    Paul Munger

  11. To say that your own works maintain your salvation = salvation by merit. What happened to justification by faith?

    Notice that what Dan Corner does is talk about eternal security, but

    (a) Eternal security is not perseverance of the saints. He constantly conflates these. Of those who believe in eternal security, only 1/3 of the Free Grace people (Zane Hodges/Bob Wilkin, et.al) are admitted by Wilkin to believe you can apostatize and then be considered “saved.” But that’s not the doctrine called “perseverance of the saints,” nor do 2/3 of those who hold to “eternal security” itself hold that position Perseverance and eternity security are not interchangeable concepts. Eternal security is associated with fundamentalism, not Reformed theology or moderate Calvinism or Amyraldianism.. It is antinomian. It confines the grace of God to the objective work of Christ to the exclusion of the subjective work of the Spirit. Every objection to eternal security is, therefore, not an objection to perseverance.

    (b) With all due respect, Mr. Corner is not “on fire for the Lord.” He is on fire for himself. For example, let’s take a look at this:

    http://aomin.org/OSAS.html

    and

    http://aomin.org/OSAS.html

    and

    http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1675

    Might I suggest that TTL get James White to come on to clear the air on this issue? If not James, how about Gene Cook, since he has debated Corner on this subject?

    (c) It should be a clear sign of a problem when people are teaching blatantly false doctrines. Corner is an overly consistent Arminian. In fact, he’s closer to Finney in his Pelagianism than he is any evangelical Arminian. Corner will tell you that his works keep him saved. As an Arminian he denies the sufficiency of grace. Grace does not keep him “saved,” his works do. That’s justification by works by another name. It’s a backdoor way to deny justification by faith alone. In Pauline theology, we are justified by grace, saved by grace, not works. Grace enables us to persevere to the end, but we do not credit our works, for it takes grace to do that. That, folks, is a false gospel, not merely schismatic teaching.

    (d) It should also be a clear sign of a false teacher when they are one hit wonders. This is Corner’s pet subject. Ask him to debate something like the doctrine of election or the atonement or regeneration and he can’t handle it. Again, see the links above.

    (e) Which gets us to his question begging assumptions about libertarian free will. Where is that argument? All arguments for conditional security assume this without warrant, just like they tend to assume particular words always refer to the same things. For example,2 Peter 2:1- The false prophets are denying the Lord who bought them; therefore Jesus died even for unbelievers.
    Really? On close examination that argument is doomed to failure. Where is the argument that “bought” always refers to the atonement?

    The disputant is assuming that “bought” must mean “atoned for sin.” Depending on the way the objection is framed, this is a classic example of either semantic anachronism or semantic inflation.

    Semantic Inflation: The disputant equates the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word. For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.

    Semantic Anachronism occurs when a disputant maps dogmatic usage back onto Biblical usage, then appeals to Biblical usage, thus redefined, to disprove dogmatic usage. For example, some Arminians appeal to Mt 23:37, Lk 7:30, Acts 7:51, Gal 2:21; 5:4, 2 Cor 6:1; & Heb 12:15 to disprove “irresistible grace.” (We will see this repeatedly in the next section).

    In this text, Peter is not using the verb “to buy” as a synonym for penal substitution, which is a theological construct (cf. Isa 53; Rom 5; 2 Cor 5:18,21; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). Rather, his usage is allusive of false OT prophets like Balaam (2:15; cf. Jude 11), as well as the Exodus generation (cf. Deut 32:6; 2 Sam 7:23).

    In the New Testament, “bought” is used both salvifically and non-salvifically. In every case where it is used with reference to the atonement, there are specific indicators, usually referring to a price. None of those indicators are in this text!

    “Master” is never used in a redemptive context. It refers to the rulership of Christ or God as a whole, not the priestly or prophetic works of Christ. The text is paraphrasing Deut. 32:6, where God is called the Creator of the nation. These men are false teachers who are not all genuine believers and who are, by falsely professing Christ and intentionally trying to mislead the Christians, defying their Master (either Christ as their King or God as their creator and king), “(W)ho bought them” is a literary device from the Torah pointing to this text in Deuteronomy. The Jews were “bought” by God in the Exodus. To a Jew/Jewish Christian, “Lord” and “Master” in this context, could refer to God the Father, not Christ. In addition, if his interlocutors were Jewish, then Christ is already their master by virtue of them being part of the Old Covenant. As Jews, they were part of the covenant community to which Deuteronomy refers.

  12. While I’m at it, as I read this:

    Quoting passages on perseverance does not negate the security of the believer. Perseverance of the Saints is the doctrine that genuine believers are those who persevere in their faith. Those who apostatize were not saved from the beginning. Men cannot lose their salvation, but men cannot fail to persevere to some degree. Those who do not are not regenerate. Ergo, quoting 2 Peter, like my dear sister did above, does not negate the security of the believer.

    In fact, in context 2 Peter 2 is about false teachers, not people who are regenerate members of the covenant community. Notice how folks will quote passages like this and then import foreign categories into them to disprove the security of the believer. To do that, you’d have to discuss Peter’s theology of regeneration in 2 Peter, but that category belongs specifically to John and Paul, but not to Peter. Peter uses images from the OT covenant community, but the OT is very clear that those who are ungodly, false teachers and prophets, etc., even if they rise from within the visible covenant community are not part of the true covenant community, which is only the faithful. That’s why they are treated as covenant breakers.

    The text says they have known the way of righteousness, but a false professor can also know the way too. The text does not say that they have believed or been saved. They do not cease to be dogs or sows. They have not been transformed by the way they have known. The word “known” here is not equivalent to being in the covenant. That usage is inferred by way of LXX usage and can be found in 1 Peter 1 and Romans 8, in reference to foreknowing and foreknowledge.

    In salvation that is genuine, people cease being dogs or sows. Therefore, they do not return to the pollutions of this world like dogs returning to their vomit. In fact, text is designed to teach that there is such a thing as false faith by emphasizing the lack of transformation in the lives of these false teachers. The false teachers were not genuine believers from the beginning.

    By way of contrast, the NT teaches the New Covenant is unbreakable (or, in Presbyterian theology, it can be broken because membership is by baptism, not regeneration; in Baptist theology, membership is by regeneration/conversion).

    Which gets us to Hebrews. Notice how Corner will smuggle foreign ideas into the text and refocus the text away from the supremacy and glory of Christ and in a manward direction. There are problems here he never addresses, because he doesn’t do grammatical-historical exegesis.

    The author is writing to everyone in the sense that a letter is a medium of mass communication. That doesn’t mean that everything in the letter is equally relevant to every member of the audience. For example, there’s no reason to assume that every Jewish Christian in Rome was contemplating apostasy. The fact that it’s written to everyone doesn’t mean that it’s for everyone. Unlike a private letter, the author cannot individualize.

    In terms of the trajectory and flow of the argument, the leading theme in Hebrews is not the danger of apostasy, but the supremacy of Christ. The author mounts a spiral argument to show that Christ is superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron. Arminians like Corner end up refocusing the argument away from Christ to the danger of apostasy. These admonitions come within a larger framework, the supremacy of Christ. If Christ, as the high priest of his people, cannot save his people from apostasy, then how is he superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron? What does the high priestly intercession of Christ amount to if he cannot preserve his people from damnation?

    It isn’t enough to say that they tasted of the Holy Spirit. You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration? Is this about the New Birth? Or is it related to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture? Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? (Hebrews’ author speaks of salvation in externals, not the internal realities. Arminian objections conflate external realities with internal realities.)

    Let us also not overemphasize the warnings to the detriment of the assurances, for the writer has a habit of beginning with a stern admonition, but ending on a note of encouragement (3:14; 6:9-12; 10:39; 12:4ff).

    Let’s take a text like Hebrews 6′ famous warning passage.

    What does it mean, then, to the author of Hebrews, to have tasted of the Spirit? It isn’t enough to say that they tasted of the Holy Spirit. You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration? Is this about the New Birth? Or is it related to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture? Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? The text never mentions the psychology of faith, only the externals of believing. To taste of the Spirit is to partake but at the same time to taste, not to imbibe the whole meal internally. The people are resisting the grace of the inspiration of Scripture, the evidences of miracles, and the offer of the gospel to them, not their own internal regeneration and salvation. The author is indexing this text to a specific OT example from Deuteronomy/Joshua, where all the referents are also external, not internal.

    He is also dealing with a specific community, a Jewish community, where they are already viewed as being in a covenant with God. The whole of Hebrews is constructed around the idea that the consistent Jew will accept Christ, because Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, but that covenant, while new is on the one hand dislike and on another alike the Old. It is dislike in that the Old focuses on externals and cannot take away sin. It is like, in that the only way to God is through this covenant. The two are linked because Christ is the Prophet like Moses, the King like David, and the Priest like Melchizedek. He is not only God Incarnate, He is the Second Adam, the Second Joshua, etc. The Jew, unlike the Gentile, who never enjoyed a covenant relationship with God and was outside the covenant community of the OC, is thus coming at the gospel from the perspective of a person already in the covenant community. In order to remain in that community, he must not dilly dally, he must make haste to enter the NC, and he must abide in that covenant (which he will do by grace anyway) or he will apostatize from the covenant. For the Jew then, he is being told, essentially, “persevere in the covenant,” and to do that you must accept the gospel that is being presented to you. For those who have made a profession already, they must not turn back, and that is true not only for the Jewish believer, but the Gentile believer. But a warning not to fall away says nothing about the objective possibility of that occurring.

    The Arminian is, at the core of the objections from Hebrews assuming that the mere presence of a command must mean it is possible for persons to comply with their conditions. Where is the supporting argument?

    In the case of falling away, s/he is assuming these texts only apply to true believers if they can really apostatize. Not only can you not deduce anything from the presence of a command, but it is also possible that a warning can be issued in order to have a salutary effect. A coach may yell at his best players to win the game and threaten them with penalties even in a mismatched game that he knows they cannot lose, not because they might actually fail to play well or win, but because that is the means that will spur them on to victory with the proper attitude.

    In Hebrews 10, what does it mean then, to the author of Hebrews, to “go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth…?” What, to the author of Hebrews, is the nature of “the knowledge of the truth?” Is it knowledge communicated by regeneration, real experience, e.g. salvation, or is it the message itself, its preaching, the new Scriptures being written, the explanation of the way Christ’s sacrifice is once for all, the explanation of Christ’s mediatorial work, the observation of the miracles associated with the message at this time in a manner analogous to the OT miracles, the revelation that the NC has come, etc. and the further knowledge as a result of that content that the proper response for the Jew, who is already under a covenant obligation to God is be confirmed as a member of the NC, which means not turning his back on all of this and to do what a consistent Jew should do: be a Christian and not turn back from his profession. To resist all of this is to trample Christ’s mediatorial, prophetic, priestly, sacrificial role under his feet, thereby denying the revelation of God which is better than that of the prophets, the angels, etc., because the Mediator is God the Son Himself, and to reject the knowledge of that revelation, for the Jew, is equivalent to insulting God’s Spirit and rejecting the covenant. God cut off individuals and whole generations who did that in the OT. How much more negative judgment will the Jew incur now that the shadows have been made clear and the sacrifice that really does propitiate for sin has been made and the clear revelation of the mysteries of the OT and the shadows of the OC have been explained clearly so that he has no excuse!

    (g) The doctrine of perseverance isn’t simply a logical inference from election, or special redemption, or irresistible grace. There are also direct proof texts for this teaching, viz., Jn 10, 17; Rom 8. Corner has repeatedly refused to engage his interlocutors on those topics in the past. Again, that’s a sign of the weakness of his position and, judging from his reactions when challenged, his overgrown ego. He lacks the fruit of the spirit, and is ironically, a poster boy for the very sort of thing that he decries. False teachers have a nasty habit of harping on Scriptures and principles that implicate themselves.

  13. Harlan Daniels said

    My question is for Mr. Dan Horner is: Since coming to faith in Christ, have you ever looked with lust? If you say yes then this is adultery and according to scripture and no adulterer will enter the kingdom of God. Yes you should confess and forsake sin, however, we have not been perfected and are still sinners. Do you believe in sinless perfection? If so then you are calling Jesus a liar. Do you lose your salvation each time that you look with lust? If you say that you have not looked with lust, I find that hard to believe and the Bible says in Rev.21:8 that all liars will have their place in the lake of fire. So there you go losing your salvation again! Your God is not the God of the Bible. He did not pay for anyone’s sins. I pray that you will turn from your works-righteous arminian doctrine and trust Christ alone and not yourself. Your righteous does not come close to Christ righteousness. You don’t want to be justifed by works.

  14. Chris said

    I don’t know about anyone else, but if I am constantly in jeopardy of losing my salvation then I need to be making the altar call at every church service I attend. How can we be free in the liberty of Christ’s saving grace, if we are constantly watching over our shoulder for my salvation to be lost? Does this mean I condone lawless defiance of God’s laws? As Paul said, “May it never be.” Salvation isn’t fire insurance from Hell, but a call to live an obedient life. But there is a process called santification. We stumble and fall, but our heavenly father is there to pick us up, teach us, and in some cases punish us like our earthly fathers would. If we are children of God as Christ told us would our father leave us without hope? Would you as a father leave your own child to certain destruction? The answer to both is obvious.

    I have some perspective into this area. There was a time a few years ago where I was about as backslidden as any man could be. After years of being faithful in my attendance to church and obedient to God’s ways my wife and son were struck with a chronic life threatening illness. For many years I ran from God because he let this thing happen to my family. It was an immature response, but God never gave up on me. He still convicted my heart and he still brought people into my life to love me and show me God’s grace. Was I unsaved when I was disobedient. I don’t believe so, but I most certainly wasn’t building my treasure in heaven. Through the whole process while my wife and son’s condition improved and God ministered to me, I was shown that I needed to lean on God not run from him in the tough times. How are these lessons taught without the hard knocks? My faith today is stronger than it has ever been. Why? Because even during the lowest times of my life my Lord has never left me or forsaken me. All the times I tried to run, he won’t let me because he has purchased me with his blood. I again stress that if you can totally leave the Lord for all sorts of nonsense without the conviction of the Holy Spirit than maybe you haven’t been converted at all. During all my time of walking in reverse there wasn’t one day that I didn’t have the Spirit convict me of the behavior I was exhibiting and constantly trying to draw me back into the fold.

  15. Scott said

    A works based/conditional salvation is very appealing to our flesh and easy to understand. But a salvation that is based on the merits of another, that can’t be taken away even though it should, goes against our natural mind/heart. We by nature are conditional. Conditional love toward others is something we have to battle against that is why we are told “to love our neighbor as our selves.” That is why legalism is very attractive to our flesh. If “I” do this, go here, don’t do this, don’t go there then I can look at myself and say that I am good and have obeyed God. But to look at myself and say that I am good based soley on the merrits of another is difficult to understand and goes against our flesh. “The foolish things to confound the wise” Anyone who believes in a works based/conditional salvation should no longer consider themselves to be protestant or evangelical but rather Roman Catholic. It frightens/saddens me when I think about what we recognize and preach as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  16. Fan of Dan said

    Four Final Comments
    Interview/Debate on Eternal Security

    (Dan Corner VS. Jeff Oliver)

    See http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/breakcovenant.htm for the audio debate

    1. It cannot be an in house debate with eternal security teachers, even from their perspective.

    Jeff said it is an in house debate, meaning both parties in this discussion are real Christians. He later contradicts this by stating people, like myself, who Biblically reject eternal security (ES) are teaching a works salvation. Since no one is saved by a works salvation (Eph. 2:8,9), and that is what he thinks people who reject eternal security (like me) are believing in, then it is impossible for people who reject ES to be saved. Hence, it could not be an in-house debate with us teaching a works salvation and being unsaved! (Please know: In reality, we are not teaching a works salvation. That is nothing more than a false and slanderous accusation by them to discredit a conditional security. We are teaching the same as Paul, who taught grace. See Gal. 6:8,9 cf. Eph. 5:5-7.) They also wrongly claim that their message of eternal security is the gospel, but it is really the devil’s first lie to mankind (Gen 3:4) and a license for immorality (Jude 3,4). True Christians are commanded to contend against such a dangerous counterfeit teaching. See also http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/notinhousedebate.htm

    2. The Scripture which states it is possible to believe for a while and stop believing is Luke 8:13. It says:

    They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

    3. Gal. 5:2-4 shows one can fall from grace, which is the same as Christ being of no benefit to you at all. Were the ones who fell from grace (the Galatians, who were trying to be justified by law) previously saved? Absolutely. Here is the proof:

    They had believed and received the true gospel (3:2; 1:9); were deserting God and turning to a false gospel (1:6); had received the Spirit of God (3:2,5); were initially running a good spiritual race (5:7); etc. Compare this to Acts 14:21-23 which also shows the Galatians became disciples, were in the Christian faith (at that time), and placed their trust in the Lord.

    4. A covenant can be broken. Here is clear Biblical proof:

    Like Adam, they have broken the covenant—they were unfaithful to me there. (Hosea 6:7) (NOTE: Adam broke the covenant through sin.)

    It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. (Heb 8:9)

    I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands,” (Dan 9:4)

    Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. (Gen 17:14)

    He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.” (1 Ki 19:10)

    The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. (Isa 24:5)

    They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. (Jer 11:10)

    “Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: As surely as I live, I will bring down on his head my oath that he despised and my covenant that he broke.” (Ezek 17:19)

  17. Anonymous said

    Four Final Comments

    Interview/Debate on Eternal Security
    (Dan Corner VS. Jeff Oliver)
    Click http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/breakcovenant.htm for the audio debate

    1. It cannot be an in house debate with eternal security teachers, even from their perspective.

    Jeff said it is an in house debate, meaning both parties in this discussion are real Christians. He later contradicts this by stating people, like myself, who Biblically reject eternal security (ES) are teaching a works salvation. Since no one is saved by a works salvation (Eph. 2:8,9), and that is what he thinks people who reject eternal security (like me) are believing in, then it is impossible for people who reject ES to be saved. Hence, it could not be an in-house debate with us teaching a works salvation and being unsaved! (Please know: In reality, we are not teaching a works salvation. That is nothing more than a false and slanderous accusation by them to discredit a conditional security. We are teaching the same as Paul, who taught grace. See Gal. 6:8,9 cf. Eph. 5:5-7.) They also wrongly claim that their message of eternal security is the gospel, but it is really the devil’s first lie to mankind (Gen 3:4) and a license for immorality (Jude 3,4). True Christians are commanded to contend against such a dangerous counterfeit teaching. See also http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/notinhousedebate.htm

    2. The Scripture which states it is possible to believe for a while and stop believing is Luke 8:13. It says:

    They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

    3. Gal. 5:2-4 shows one can fall from grace, which is the same as Christ being of no benefit to you at all. Were the ones who fell from grace (the Galatians, who were trying to be justified by law) previously saved? Absolutely. Here is the proof:

    They had believed and received the true gospel (3:2; 1:9); were deserting God and turning to a false gospel (1:6); had received the Spirit of God (3:2,5); were initially running a good spiritual race (5:7); etc. Compare this to Acts 14:21-23 which also shows the Galatians became disciples, were in the Christian faith (at that time), and placed their trust in the Lord.

    4. A covenant can be broken. Here is clear Biblical proof:

    Like Adam, they have broken the covenant—they were unfaithful to me there. (Hosea 6:7)
    (NOTE: Adam broke the covenant through sin.)

    It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. (Heb 8:9)

    I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands,” (Dan 9:4)

    Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. (Gen 17:14)

    He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.” (1 Ki 19:10)

    The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. (Isa 24:5)

    They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. (Jer 11:10)

    “Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: As surely as I live, I will bring down on his head my oath that he despised and my covenant that he broke.” (Ezek 17:19)

  18. anonymous said

    It is interesting that we really like to have it both ways regarding Calvinism and Arminianism. Most conservative protestants are Calvinist on the back end of salvation, i.e. “once saved always saved.” On the other most are Arminian at the front end. They got saved on the basis of their faith, their decision for Christ. In reality, either God’s grace is resistable or it is not. If it is irresistable then we have double-predestination Calvinism, in which to speak of a decision for Christ is sort of silly. If God’s grace is resistable, then we have the option to either accept or refuse the grace that is offered. At the same time, if it is truly resistable then a believer can deny the faith to his/her own peril.

  19. Scott said

    What sin(s) that I commit will remove me from the love of God? What sin(s) that I commit will cause me to lose my salvation?
    What sin(s) that I commit will nulify the work of Christ on the cross? I need to know this. This is not some topic to take lightly or to debate for pure enjoyment. I truely believe this is walking a very fine line between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and another gospel that Paul speaks about in Galatians.

  20. CWB said

    “What sin can I possibly commit that will alter my eternal destiny?” Any of those which you read throughout the New Testament which result in you not inheriting the kingdom of God. Grace teaches you to deny those sins and to live holy instead (TITUS 2:12); grace never supplies you with a license to get drunk, fornicate, lie, murder, worship an idol, dabble with witchcraft,… (JUDE 3-4). Those who die unre3pentantly in such sins will be thrown into the lake of fire (REV. 21:8, 1COR. 6:9-11). The passage which, for me, silences every form of “eternal security” (including “perseverance of the saints”) has always been MATTHEW 6:14-15 and MATTHEW 18:21-35. Jesus warned children of God (those whose spiritual father is the heavenly Father) that IF they forgive, they will be forgiven, BUT IF they do not forgive, neither will their FATHER forgive them. Notice: Children of God who become unforgiving toward others who sin against them pass from “forgiven” to “unforgiven,” and therefore since Jesus taught the very opposite of “once forgiven, always forgiven,” He also taught the direct opposite of “once saved, always saved.” And for those who look at MAT. 6:15 as a “hypothetical” statement, their argument falls apart because of 6:14, for it is worded the same exact way 6:15 is, and yet they do not call it a “hypothetical statement.” Admit it: MAT. 6:14-15 is a clear example of where children of God are given a choice to make: To forgive others who sin against them, or to refuse to forgive. That choice, according to Jesus, will determine whether such a person remains forgiven or not by THEIR HEAVENLY FATHER (that’s how we know this is directed to children ofo God). Furthermore, those who say, “I can’t imagine a person who gets forgiven by God and afterward refuses to forgive others,” are refuted by Jesus again, not only in MAT. 6:14-15 where He said that it is just as possible for a child of God to choose to forgive as it is for one to choose not to forgive, but especially by MAT. 18:21-35, where Jesus “imagined” such a person! He ended that passage, which He directed to His very own flock (Peter being the one who raised the question which brought the answer), by saying that God the Father will bring any forgiven person back into account for his/her original sin debt if he/she refuses to forgive the debt of another person. The teaching, “perseverance of the saints” re-writes the Bible to eliminate this clear teaching which Jesus, the original grace teacher, gave. A child of God (one who has received forgiveness of sins) can become unforgiven simply by refusing to forgive another. To deny that it could happen is to call Christ’s teaching in MAT. 18:21-35 “a figment of His own imagination which could never really happen to a true believer.” Again, go back to MAT. 6:14-15 and then try to tell me that Christ spoke BOTH of those two back-to-back statements in a hypothetical manner. I have never stumbled upon one proponent of “perseverance of the saints” who can explain MAT. 6:14-15 and 18:21-35. Both are spoken by Jesus to children of God, and both state exactly how to revert from “forgiven” to “unforgiven.” That means from “saved” to “unsaved.” That means from “children of God” to “children of the devil.” “Perseverance of the saints” is what calls Jesus a liar and calls many of His parables (such as the one in MAT. 18:21-35) “figments of Christ’s own imagination which could never really happen to a true saint.” I choose Jesus over any teacher who spreads that heresy, and you would be wise to choose Jesus over such a teacher as well. 2TIMOTHY 6:3 warns us to watch out for those whose teachings do not agree with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ; and among the words of Jesus Christ are that children of God (those who have received forgiveness from God) can be brought back into account for their sins through a refusal to forgive. No “perseverance of the saints” teacher can teach that, and therefore they all must be rejected, along with any other teacher who proclaims a form of “once saved, always saved,” equivalent to “once forgiven, always forgiven.” For a nail on the coffin, re-read HEBREWS 10:26-31 and notice that the condemnation of “the fury of a fire which will consume the enemies” is a threat written directly to those who were once sanctified by Christ’s blood (the ONLY blood of the New Covenant), and have since “counted the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified a common thing.” We are specifically told that such a condemnation CAN ACTUALLY be the inheritance of someone was sanctified by Christ’s blood and has since “spit on that blood” so to say. You “spit of the blood which sanctified you” when you defend teachers who declare that you can die physically in unrepentant drunkeness or unforgiveness, etc., and still end up in the kingdom of God. You also call Jesus a liar, because He told us clearly that such will not happen. So, what version of grace are you going to defend: the true grace, defined in TITUS 2:12 or the Satanic grace defined in JUDE 3-4 which Satan originated back in GEN. 3:1-6??????

  21. Bob said

    Does the Lord God know everything? If this is the case, which we all know to be true, then he has made a way for all of us that are his children. God makes all things work for the good of those who love him. And he knows everything you have done, or will ever do. Some say you should fear our Lord and this is true if you fall into ocasional sin. But those who are his children will not stay in sin for it is the Power of our ALLMIGHTY GOD and SAVIOR CHRIST JESUS that keeps us. As Scott put in #15. Its hard to let go of the flesh which is why we have to die everyday to sin. Praise God and Christ Jesus for saving us for we never could and never will be able to live up his standard in the Flesh.

    Name one, just one human being other than the Lord who can make the claim of being sinless. Are we so blind that we can’t see that God has done it all and all you need to do is Beleive and Trust the only one who has. And he has said if we do this he will in no wise cast us out. Why is this so hard to understand? Again , as Scott noted above, it is pride!!

    I thank the Lord for all he has done in my life and everything he will continue to do. I am his and I know who I have out my trust in and am totally convinced he will not let me fall even unto death.

    GOD BLESS you all, in our our Most High and Precious LORD CHRIS JESUS, AMEN

  22. Joshua Andrade said

    I believe Dan Corner’s only intention is to cause confusion and division in believers. When you ask him where to go to Church that has all these beliefs he side steps the question and only says there is no true Church. The only other thing we can do (if we believe all his teachings )is stop going to Church anywhere. That is very unBiblical according to Heb. 10:25. I don’t think anyone has tried to twist that one, yet. I don’t believe in once saved always saved as he describes it. But I also know that ALL Baptists believe it either. He twists so many passages of the Bible to fit into his views, I’ve never seen anyone go as far has he does. He’s also very big on debating people, but he wants to debate things that are secondary to the what people actualy believe and practice. He wants to debate a Catholic about Mary’s role in salvation based on the Bible. First you would have to debate a Catholic on Sola Scriptura first, then debate Mary. But he will not debate this. He doesn’t know he can win. If he doesn’t know he can win he will not even try. James Smith called his hand on this, Dan challenged him to a debate on OSAS but James Smith said first we must debate what Jesus did when he died on the cross then we can debate. He declined that debate. You should check James Smiths web site.
    I e-mailed him several times but not only will he NOT return them he also will not post any of the e-mails that I sent to him. After I asked him about Heb. 10:25 he asked me what 2 Timothy 3: 16 and 17. I answered that the word profitable does not mean COMPLETE, WHOLE, SOLE AUTHORITY or even all we need. It is PROFITABLE. He seemed to leave out the first part of 2 Tim Chapter 3. The Bible is profitable becasue it holds the Truth because God inspired it. In the first part of the chapter Paul instructs him to keep to the doctrines he has learn from them. And Pauls letter were inspired then and now,but are they complete? I asked Dan about 1 Cor 11:34. Particularly the last sentence. He was teaching on the Last Supper, and then he said he will tell them the rest of the teachings when he arrives in Corinth. In the second letter to the Corinthins Paul never states the rest of the Lord’s Supper. I went there and taught them. I asked Dan if he ever noticed 99% of the letters deal with problems and false teachings. I asked him not to forget that the Apostles went to each city and started Churchs, ORDAINING in every one ELDERS. The Apostles ORDAINED them just as Jesus had ORDAINED them, the people of the Church did not pick the ELDERS the Apostles did. Any way saying that to say this, the Apostles were at these Church’s and they taught the Elders and people the Doctrines of Christ and then left. Why is there no letters about the dozens of doctrines we have. The Trinity, some others OSAS and still others Confesion and Mary? Ever wonder why the Apostles mainly talked about the things the Church’s were doing wrong. Maybe they didn’t need to reteach the things thye were doing and believeing right, the Doctrines they taught by word of mouth. If any of you sent a dozen letters to other Church’s and you never mentioned the Trinity and someone kept those letters for say 2000 years? Would it be true if someone read those letters and said you were a heritic because you never said anyhting about the Trinity? If noone in your Church ever confronted you on the Trinity would you ever have to bring it up in a letter to them? Thye didn’t have copy machines or E-mail back then, everything was hand written and paper was very expensive. We can print of dozens doctrines a minute at home now, it was not that way then. I have to go now. May the Lord keep you may the Lord bless you and give you peace.

    P.S. I’m not Catholic

  23. Mark L. Ammerman said

    (Paul said let no man decive you, be not be decieved ….refearing to 1st Cor 6:9,10 Ephesians 5:5-7)

    Galatians 5:19-21 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 Ephesians 5:5-7 Revelation 21:27 22:15 Revelation 22:19 Luke 8:13 John 15:1-10 Romans 8:13 Romans 11:20-23 Ezekiel 3:20 18:26 33:12,13 Hosea 5:6 9:15 Acts 1:25
    Proverbs 28:13 Hebrews 3:14 5:9 10:26-31 38,39 1st Chronicles 28:9 2nd Chronicles 15:2 Isaiah 1:28 1st Timothy 5:12 6:9,10

    also check out the end results of the unforgiving, unfaithful, unprofitable servants in the parables Jesus told…..what was the end result of them???

  24. Zech said

    Alright! I love talking about this subject being that I was raised as the belief that you can lose your salvation at the drop of bucket. They used to scare the … out of me and tell me that if I didn’t repent right then that I was going to bust hell wide open. Good Lord! Spare me. Now! through many many years of study and being around different types of denomination’s, I came to the conclusion that if you could lose your salvation, it would be a place of totally rejecting Christ. It would be a place of telling Christ that you don’t want anything to do with this salvation that I have recieved. Personally, I don’t have an exact answer being that I am still studying scripture. I lean more towards eternal security. Now! here is my two cents of sarcasm and laughter. Could you imagine God in judgement looking at a believer who was once born again through true repentance and telling him, “Son or daughter, you did know me at one time but you backslid here, but wait! you got born again again here. Waith a minute! you backslid here. We’ll son or daughter, you forgot to get baptized, so you didn’t really get truly born again again again that time. Wait a minute. Here you got born again again again and again and you got truly baptized but, wait a minute. You didn’t go completely under water. I know son, I don’t live under that old nasty water. We’ll you backslid again again again again and again. Wait a minute! Ok I think you got my point. You see how even theologian can be so ignorant concerning scripture. I’ve got good minister friends that I play music with and even fellowship with. They don’t believe in eternal security but we still fellowship with one another. I have a question. If one truly walks in holiness, purity, wins souls, bears fruit etc etc. and they believe in eternal security are they really born again. I would surely think so…I’ve talked to countless people on my secular job years ago, and when I asked them if they have ever gotten born again, they tell me, “we’ll I’ve been sprinkled when I was a baby, or I have been baptized. Thats the best one! I’ve been baptized. Then they start telling me how much sin is in there life at no remorse at all. They believe that great immoral things are ok, and then I give them a foundation of true repentance unto salvation. Here is what I’m trying to say. It wouldn’t matter if one believed in eternal security or didn’t. Are they bearing fruit. Are they making Jesus attractive. If one believes in eternal security as a liscence to sin, then I question there salvation. It wouldn’t matter if they believed it or not. The bottom line is that when God breathes his life in us, we have a seed in us that CANNOT fade away according to 1 Peter 1:23. I looked it up. If a seed can fade away, then why did it say that a seed cannot fade away. It says that we have been born again of incorruptible seed that cannot cannot cannot fade away. However, that seed will cause us to have a hunger for the word. It will bring us crawling back to the Father’s arms when we mess up. One more thing. I have many friends that don’t believe in eternal security, and many friends that do. Most of the one’s that don’t believe in eternal security are judgemental, careless, and yes! prideful. I asked the Lord why great theologians and very smart ministers believe that you can lose your salvation at a drop of a bucket and it seemed like the Lord told me that it is really just pride. I’m not saying that there not born again, because my Father whom has passed away pastored 4 churches and he believed that you could possibly lose it. I’m just saying, My God! let’s bind together and do the work of Christ, bear fruit, advance God’s kingdom and be the bride of Christ in love instead of trying to prove one’s point.
    God bless you,
    Zech

  25. Zech – Thanks for posting. Just an FYI…we are now located at http://www.truthtalklive.com. This site is used mainly for reference.

    – Moderator

  26. John Shouldiers said

    I am attempting to become a religious expert of all religions,to know how we think, even those thoughts by which I’ve seen not agree. However I beg of you not to jump to the typical pep talks and lectures.

    I am a Wiccan myself, but I have a deep passion for seeking the truth. I will not mourn the thought of death merely because I want to know… I want to know the truth behind all of the man-made thoughts.
    I intend on writing and publishing an article and/or book regarding the thought process and full view of beliefs. The point of such a document is to show people the truth and to put out the views of all religious aspects. I do intend to put in my personal views in a different section, but I will put only what I can get from the general public and from religious heads such as Lucy Summers and Dan Corner. I want this published and copywrighted work to be one of debates, I want to show people how the standards of life and how we live it were created and what type of “philosophers” of sorts are actually out there. Anyone who feels like they can make a difference should contact me(I am creating an email strictly for this purpose, it will be listed at the bottom of my article); but I shall not stand for ignorance, I will not listen to incompetant rambling about why a religion is right and all others are insignificant. Religion is history, we believe certain parts of history and add our own according to the religion we base ourselves within. Yes, I do it myself, I believe that the Greeks and Romans were on the right track when they spoke of higher beings, I do believe that Christianity was only created by the Catholic church in order to create a moral standard(though it could have been done differently), the catholic heads were the only ones in that time who could make copys of the bible, so whos rightfully going to argue that the priests and such were not consumed by tyranny, they controlled the thoughts of the people in the ir land, the puritans left in order to seek religious freedom from a religion which was controlled by corrupt men. The general public looks at “witches” as corrupt heretics doing their devils work. Yes, there are corrupt witches who attempt to bring in this world, and Satanists whom teach that every person is a god, but these have nothing to do with the true witches, a witch is taught to respect nature in all forms, the covens of witches are merely to help one accheive their desire in “power”. A witch does not harms others, only tries to enjoy the world as it should be, a witch sees the beauty in the natural world and how the Goddess created such beauty in all things. I was raised as a Christian for 16 years until I questioned, that is the key to our lives… to question exhistence, that is what the Christians did when the thought arose was it not? Humans were given a gift… Intellegence… I hope to use that gift to find out why we are here and to find out the truth of our history and where it started.

    I expect alot of christians to get mad, if you are, then please, by any means neccessary and possible prove me wrong. Present me with information that is a believed fact and I will give you my opinion after considering yours. (Just to clear this up) No, I do not know for a fact that I am right in my religion(hence the point of my book), but I know what I’ve seen and what I’ve read of the history of our exhistence, so do not criticize my point of view completely. Unlike many, I am open minded and you may present my with any information you wish and I will not throw it out due to my religious aspect, I will debate with you and if you still stand your ground on your beliefs, then so that be your will.

    I wish for anyone with true intelligence to come forth and debate with me and allow me to broadcast all of our thoughts in union, and rid the world of its stubborn, close-minded views. Contact me at JohnShouldiers777@yahoo.com

  27. Hey John – Thanks for that awesome post. Please visit our new site at http://www.truthtalklive.com. We keep this site up for reference only now. This post was put up in June of 2007. You can find Wiccans, Mormons, Christians, Catholics, Atheists and others debating intelligently and respectfully on http://www.truthtalklive.com.

    Moderator

  28. τεχνητά νύχια…

    […]Monday’s Guest: Dan Corner « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  29. Logo Design Galaxy…

    […]Monday’s Guest: Dan Corner « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: