Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	abraham_n	promise_n	seed_n	2,290	5	8.4156	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36522	Klētoi tetērēmēnoi, or, The Saints perseverance asserted in its positive grounds and vindicated from all material exceptions against it occasioned by a late immodest account of two conferences upon that point, between Tho. Danson and Mr. Jer. Ives, published by the said Mr. Ives, which account is also herein rectified, and its falshood detected to the just shame of the publisher / by Tho. Danson.	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1672 (1672)	Wing D214; ESTC R24868	39,229	95

Arminians think to get off by pretending that the things ascribed to the Believers are said to be better not in nature but event ver 9. will afford a confutation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things that have salvation in them i. e. no more separable from Salvation then Salvation from it self And ver 10. suggests another Those things which God should be unrighteous in not rewarding were better than those which God should not be unrighteous in not rewarding But the things ascribed to true Believers were such as God should be unrighteous in not rewarding Ergo they were better then those which God should not be unrighteous in not rewarding viz. the things ascribed to them that fell away ver 5 6. After a long rambling Discourse I urged to Mr. Ives That if some true Believers might fall away totally and finally from Grace then all might But all could not according to his own grant Ergo not some I proved the Consequence because Paribus paria conveniunt He denied that though there be the like reason for the falling away of all that there is for some that therefore it followed That if some might then all might Which being so grosly absurd I appealed to the Judgment of the intelligent Hearers and so left it I called upon him to hear Christs own Argument à pari from David's eating of the Shewbread lawful onely ordinarily to the Priests to the Disciples plucking of the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath for the supply of a present necessity Matth. 12.3 4. But being an enemy to vain janglings I desisted as I did often to prosecute something else viz. the first main Argument from 1 John 3.8 Arg. 1. They that cannot sin as wicked men do cannot fail away totally and finally from Grace But true Believers cannot sin as wicked men do Ergo true Believers cannot fall away c. Mr. Ives asked what I meant by cannot sin I answered Not as to the acts of sin but the manner which Mr. Ives leaves out and makes my Answer non-sense of sinning After many superfluous words he said That if by cannot I meant neither for the present nor future fall from that state and sin as the wicked do then he denied my minor Mr. Ives's additional Notes about the acception of the word cannot p. 100. are rendred insignificant by the proof of my minor and therefore I omit them To prove my minor I quoted 1 Joh. 3.9 Whosoever is born of God cannot commit sin c. Mr. Ives presently replied That this proved no body could sin at all I answered That either was meant that they could not sin at all or not as wicked men do Not the former for proof I quoted chap. 1.8.10 Jam. 3.2 Ergo the latter for I knew no tertium And so I formed my Argument thus Whosoever is born of God cannot sin as wicked men do But all true Believers are born of God Ergo true Believers cannot sin as wicked men do Which Argument Mr. Ives hath omitted Yet he continued his Cavil That if the not sinning was meant not at present nor future he denied it And I proved it thus The reason here assigned of the Believers or born of God their not sinning as wicked men do is of equal force to exclude his future as his present not sinning as wicked men do viz. because the seed of God remains in him ver 9. Whence I argued thus They in whom the seed of God remains cannot sin as wicked men do But in those who are born of God the seed of God remains Ergo Whosoever is born of God cannot sin as wicked men do Mr. Ives cavilled much about the term remain which I urged as plainly excluding a ceasing or losing of Grace totally And he pretended that my Argument was but like this They that come into this House remain in it Ergo They cannot cease from remaining in it To which I answered That it was fallacia compositionis and divisionis as we say in Logick to say Believers whilst Believers cannot cease to be Believers for they cannot be both as to state at the same time But the Question is Whether they that are such may become Unbelievers And as to his Instance if applied to our Question the meaning is not Whether he that is now in the House may be out of it at the same time but Whether he that is in it can afterwards go out which by force or other impediment may become to him impossible though possible in it self Here he cavilling about the word seed of God I asked him how he understood the Phrase because I thought it so plain as that I supposed he took it in the same sense I did and as 't was commonly understood viz. for a Principle of Grace Which Mr. Ives understood not but at length he said he understood by it the Word of God and quoted 1 Pet. 1.23 24. To which I replied That in that place the Word is not called the Seed of God but Believers are said to be born of incorruptible Seed by the Word But suppose it had yet the sense is the same viz. That the impressions of the Word remain in a true Believer in which sense 't is said The Word abides for ever 1 Pet. 1.23 25. At last I proved That the Seed of God cannot but remain in a true Believer from the Promise Those to whom God hath made a Promise that in them the Seed or Principle of Grace shall remain in them it cannot but remain But to all true Believers God hath made such a Promise Ergo The Seed cannot but remain in them He denying the major I proved it thus If the Seed of God remain not in them to whom God hath promised then the Promises of God are untrue But they are not untrue Ergo The Seed of God shall remain c. Note That here it was that Mr. Lueff admonished Mr. Ives of his ignorance in the terms of Art he denying the major when he should have said the Sequel or Consequence and not in the former Syllogism which was Categorical as Mr. Ives suggests pag. 118. of his Book like himself i. e. a man that makes no conscience of lying to slur his Adversary Mr. Ives gave instance in the Promise of God to Abraham That the Land of Canaan should be to his seed an everlasting Possession and yet that he would scatter them among the Heathen c. Which Promise he pretended had no Condition either where it is found or elsewhere in Scripture though he boldly denies his Assertion pag. 120. I offered to prove that that Promise was true notwithstanding the non-performance of it as it might seem but was hindred by his Clamors I shall give an account of what I would have said and began to speak for instance wherein a godly man cannot sin as the wicked do but could not be heard for the rudeness of my Antagonist 1. That the course of sin is interrupted by sincere repentance in a godly