By: Jub Alabastro CFD-Davao
This my reply to Gerry Soliman's article entitled: Responding to Jubernson Alabastro's Rebuttal on Eternal Security which can be read here:
http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/04/responding-to-jubernson-alabastros.html
Mr. Soliman's words are in red. My words are in black.
Concentrating just on the issues, it won't take a long article to respond to Mr. Alabastro's rebuttal.
In contrast, I want to exchange pleasantries with Mr. Soliman since we have not yet been formally introduced.
At the onset, I really find it intriguing that Mr. Soliman disregarded some first few easiest questions I asked, but answered the difficult objections I said. So I’ll ask again, “can you confirm the first few questions I asked in my previous article?” You can say NO, of course, if that is truly and honestly the case, then no problem with me.
I again extend my hand in introduction, “Hi Gerry, my name is Jub Alabastro. Is it true that you are RODIMUS OF THE BEREANS WHO CROSSED SWORDS WITH FR. ABE AND ATTY. MARWIL LLASOS? WILL YOU EXTEND YOUR HAND THIS TIME TO CONFIRM OR DENY THIS?”
Yup, that's the best he can do. First of all if Mr. Alabastro will use this against what I have presented, will he be willing to admit, as a believer the papacy, that Christ built his church upon Satan?
The outcome that Christ built His church upon Satan, and St. Peter was predestined to hell as a result of this labeling, are in fact the RIGHT CONCLUSIONS! Gee, why didn’t I think of that? Demonic and tragic, as these may seem, these are indeed the dumbest effects if, standing alone, Mr. Soliman’s “name labeling argument” will be taken as a premise and followed down to its conclusion. So those conclusions were the result of his faulty argument. Now, do I agree with this? Is this biblically correct? Definitely not! I never accepted his reasoning in the first place. To recall my previous article, I said “applying Mr. Soliman’s own logic to the other example I gave.” I merely presented the possible logical fruit of the limited premise he provided earlier. So despite being biblically and factually absurd, if the poison that Mr. Soliman earlier planted naturally produces evil fruits, so be it! Let him eat it! He planted it in the first place.
I suppose he should consider what Christ meant when He rebuked Peter. Peter was being a hindrance, an adversary. Yes, Peter was wrong here but does that affect his eternity? We'll deal with this in the succeeding paragraphs.
To answer your question Mr. Soliman, no he didn’t because St. Peter, despite his failures and sins, repented and went back following Christ. Judas despaired and killed himself.
Second, going back to John 6:70-71, I'm pretty sure that Christ said "one of you is a devil" and not "two of you are devils."
The Bible says about Judas, "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Matthew 26:24. Nothing is said about the future of Peter.
So what if Christ didn’t say two of you is a devil in this verse? So what if He only said one of you is a devil in this verse?
- HOW THIS SUPPOSED “NAME CALLING” OF JUDAS WILL DECIDE HIS FATE, AND
- FOR WHAT PURPOSE, WHAT REASON DID CHRIST SAY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT JUDAS IN MAT. 26:24, WHAT CONTRIBUTION WILL THIS STATEMENT BRING TO JUDAS’ FATE,
THESE, MR. SOLIMAN DID NOT GIVE CLEAR ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS. In fact, I asked him questions related to this topic in his website, but as you can see, Mr. Soliman refused to answer them. He said to me that I’ll just have to follow TULIP. Well I am going to do better than that. Rather than giving my own opinion as to how TULIP applies to Judas, I will let MR. SOLIMAN DO THE EXPLAINING. And by his explanation, I hope to hear clear answers to the questions above.
Although, I have one thing in my mind right now, it starts with letter “P.” It’s PPPPPPPPPPPERHAPS.
It just makes me wonder why Mr. Alabastro failed to consider that death, which Paul mentioned, is a result of sin. And demons cause people to sin.
I never met so generous and helpful an apologist as Gerry Soliman! I could not thank him enough for his help in this rebuttal! This, despite of not thanking me for correcting his earlier erroneous scriptural citation of Romans 8:28-29 when the text he cited was Rom. 8:38-39.
It will be recalled that I argued that SIN was not mentioned in Romans 8:38-39, and therefore is NOT AMONG the things that cannot separate us from the love of God. Did Mr. Soliman deny my argument? Definitely, surprisingly, and hilariously, NOT! He even confirmed it!
WHAT CAUSES DEATH? SIN. So death is NOT sin, but the RESULT of sin. By this very logic, if I ask Mr. Soliman if he knows a carpenter, he will give me a chair instead. “Why a chair Gerry?” Gerry will respond, “because a chair is a PRODUCT of a carpenter!”
ACCORDING TO MR. SOLIMAN, WHAT CAUSE PEOPLE TO SIN? DEMONS. So Demons are not SIN, but CAUSE people to sin. By this very logic, if I ask Mr. Soliman, “I’ll have an apple pie for dessert.” He will give me apple seeds instead! “Why apple seeds Gerry?” “Gerry will brilliantly reply, because an apple pie came from apples, and apples came from these seeds! This is to show you that I am truly a Philosopher! I understand completely THE CAUSALITY OF THINGS.”
Yes, we do sin but will it separate us from the love of God? Here is the preceding text:
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Romans 8:28-30
Therefore, God is in control of his elect. We may sin but God will make us realize our mistake and be restored to Him. Now that's what we call sovereign. The same applies to Peter, though he had sinned tremendously God disciplined and preserved him to the end. This text is different from Romans 8. In Romans 8, Paul was talking to the believers. We read earlier that it is God who preserve his elect. Isaiah was speaking about the state of those who rebel against God, which are of course unbelievers.
“WE?” What do you mean “WE?” Are you saying you are ALSO one of the elect by God and therefore predestined to heaven? With Peter, I may read that in the scripture, but with Gerry Soliman, I am soooo interested to know! What makes you think you belong to this category of the elect Gerry and therefore, according to your interpretation, you are absolutely assured of heaven? How did you know you are one of the fortunate?
God indeed fulfills His promises to His elect, but this is also with the elect freely not stopping God’s grace from flowing:
Rom 8:4 so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, WHO LIVE NOT ACCORDING TO THE FLESH BUT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT.
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those WHO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT with the things of the spirit.
SO HOW WILL THESE PROMISES GET FULFILLED IN THE ELECT? By God’s free will and also with the elect freely not stopping God’s grace from flowing to them. The implication of both, taken together, is that MAN IS NOT SEPARATED FROM GOD BECAUSE OF HIS SIN. To say then that Isaiah is different and does not apply to the text is a misreading of the context.
Peter was saved because of God’s providence and Peter’s voluntary response to this grace:
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him IN ROBOT LIKE MANNER, “YOU ALREADY COERCED AND PROGRAMMED ME TO ANSWER THAT MASTER THEREFORE THE RESPOND IS - “POSITIVE.”
Oh I’m sorry, that’s not it. That’s from the CALVWHITURMAN REVISED MORE HERETICAL version. Anyway, here’s the real bible:
Joh 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him, Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him, Feed my lambs.
Lastly, Mr. Alabastro misses the point on freewill:
It is often argued in Romans 8:28-29 that although nothing can really separate us from the love of God, man can choose by his freewill to be separated. That argument is refuted in Romans 9:16.
I completely understand your point. It was you who missed my answer.
Verse 16 was used as the basis for the Gentiles’ call. Why as a basis also for the Gentiles? Because both calls to the membership of the OLD AND NEW people of God were the result of GOD’S FREE CHOICE AND MERCY.
Now here’s the conclusion that Mr. Soliman made out of this text which I am strongly opposing. The following argument he made is very revealing of his fallacy. He said, “That argument is refuted in Romans 9:16.” The “THAT” Mr. Soliman was referring to was the clause “man can choose by his freewill to be separated.” So in effect he is saying that in Rom. 9:16, man can no longer choose by his freewill.
Just because God FREELY CHOOSES TO WHOM HE HAS MERCY, it does not follow that MAN loses his freewill as a RESULT. This is a non-sequitur Mr. Soliman! Rom. 9:16 does not say that man loses his freewill as a result of God’s free choice. That is Mr. Soliman’s own addition.
And how come it does not speak for eternity when it is written in the succeeding chapters:
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. Romans 11:28-29 –
When it is irrevocable by God it cannot be changed as God would secure the eternity of his elect.
Having seen the assumptions taken by Mr. Soliman, how does he propose God will secure the eternity of his elect?
Since God’s covenant is irrevocable, God will revoke the freewill of the elect in order that His covenant will remain irrevocable. This contention is rooted from Mr. Soliman’s earlier assumption of man losing his freewill to choose. AGAIN, this does not follow. AGAIN, the text he cited never says that MAN LOSES HIS FREEWILL as a result of the IRREVOCABLE COVENANT. AGAIN, this is his invention. That said, Mr. Soliman’s contention AGAIN failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment