once saved always saved?

[Bible Highlighter]

There is a lot to address in what you have said. For me there is a tenseness in in understanding what you personally believe and then putting it down in black and white. So much goes into writing, and so much can be misunderstood as to the writer's actual intent and meaning of their words. If for instance, if I say I am a Baptist, what comes to your mind? There are more than 60 different kinds of Baptist. So which flavor am I? When I narrow it down and say I am an evangelical conservative Baptist you have in your mind something more. Now if I say I have pastored a Southern Baptist Church, a Conservative Baptist Church, and an American Baptist Church has that got your opinion off track? Well I hope it says I take serious when the Bible says "whosoever will may come". I am dogmatic that it is not for me to judge who is saved and who is not, I share Christ under the power of the Holy Spirit, and the rest is between the person and the Holy Spirit plea with that person. Sometimes I plow ground, sometimes I spread seeds, sometimes I water and other times I put sticks in the ground to hold up a new plant, once and a while I am able to harvest someone else's work.

While misunderstandings can happen, I am not off on my understanding on Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved. For one, I have discussed this topic with many different people on different Christian forums for a long time now. Second, there are just certain things you know to your core as a believer in Jesus Christ as being true (By studying God's Word, looking at real life, and knowing a basic concept of morality that is written upon all our hearts). One of those things for me is that God is love and that God is good. If you were to take these two truths and hold onto them, they cannot steer you wrong in any particular subject of theology that you partake upon.

Anyways, there are several different versions of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) or Eternal Security.

OSAS Type #1:
Classic OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) says you can practice unrepentant sin that leads unto death (Such as lying, murder, hate, fornication, etc.) and yet you can somehow still be saved. In other words, with this version of OSAS no amount of sin can separate a believer from God (or Christ) even if they were living in a lot of horrible unrepentant sins like lying, adultery, hate, etc.; Sin is merely loss of rewards and not salvation.

OSAS Type #2:
Mid Range OSAS says that you cannot practice sin otherwise you do not know God. However, abiding in an occasional or small unrepentant sin and then dying in that sin does not necessarily mean a believer will be sent to Hell. But the problem with this belief is that it is a justiifcation of a little bit of sin vs. (versus) a lot of sin. This is still a compromise on God's goodness or morality (Which is wrong).

OSAS Type #3:
OSAS Lite teaches that if you practice or continually abide in unrepentant sin then you were never saved to begin with. Meaning that a true believer is characterized by them living righteously. So falling away from the faith would be impossible (Despite the many verses that talk about such a thing). While this version of Eternal Security attempts to uphold a standard of morality, it does so at the cost of ignoring the prodigal son type believer. In other words, the believer who says they honestly lived for the Lord (and knew they were saved) and then fell away into a life of sin for a time and came back to the faith thru repentance (to be saved again) is either lying or self deceived according to the perspective of those people who hold to this version of Eternal Security. This means, that this type of Eternal Security Proponent is basically saying that the prodigal son believer's trust in Christ in the beginning of their life was a lie (even though they would strongly disagree with them that such is not the case).

Does your view of Eternal Security or OSAS match up with any of the ones above?
Or is your view of Eternal Security different?
If so, please explain.
Also, when you tell people that they are saved by what Jesus did and it is in nothing that they do (and you stop there in your message - telling them nothing about how they are supposed to live holy), then they are going to think they have a license to sin.

Romans 9 brings challenges to my heart and my Theology. This Scripture makes it clear God calls some to be saved, and He shows Mercy and compassion to some, but not all. In fact God hardens the hearts of some, verse 18.

Whenever a person is confused (or has a wrong interpretation) on a verse or chapter in the Bible, all they need to do is put Jesus in it and it becomes clear.

In other words, when you read Romans 9:1-13, you have to read it in terms of how Paul is talking to the Jews (Romans 9:3-6) and not all individuals and how he is trying to tell them that the purpose of Election of the Promises is thru the line of the Messiah with Jacob's line and not Esau's line. Romans 9:13 is not saying God literally loved Jacob and literally hated Esau as individuals (cf. Luke 14:26). Paul is using them as examples of how God was all powerful enough to know which family line to use so as to bring the Promised Messiah (i.e. Jesus). That is what "Election" here is talking about in Romans 9. It is not talking about individual "Election" but it is talking about the "Election of the Promise" or the genealogical line that Jesus would come thru. The Jews were claiming that they were saved based on being of the seed of Abraham and in keeping God's Laws. But they rejected their Messiah. God does not have to conform to old Jewish ways of thinking just because they rejected their Messiah. He will have mercy on whom He will's in the manner He will's with the Messiah that He has chosen (Which was Jesus Christ).

Now, when you read Romans 9:14-16: Well, you have to realize that it is talking about God's plan of salvation with Jesus Christ being their Messiah of whom the Jews rejected. God is saying He will have mercy in the WAY God wants to do things and not according to Jewish thoughts or beliefs (Which one of their ways they considered a person to be right with God was thru circumcision - See Romans 3:1).

And when you read Romans 9:17-18: Well, you have to realize it is making a parallel. For there is a parallel being made of how God is Sovereign and just in setting up the Promised Line of the Messiah (i.e. by having mercy on whom He wills) versus raising up Pharaoh into power to show God's power. How was God's power shown in the life of the Pharoah? By God making the Pharoah wealthy? Not exactly. God allowed Pharoah to be raised up so that God's power was shown in the life of God's miracles being displayed such as the Ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. This is why Paraoah was raised up. It was so that God's power (or miracles) could be displayed (and proclaimed to all the Earth). Just as God had chosen the line of the Messiah so as to display His power (and proclaim such a thing to all the Earth). So this was not some kind of point to prove individual election but to prove the Election of the Promised Line of the Messiah (Who is Jesus Christ). For Jesus is the greatest miracle (of the best form of Election) that there is.

Anyways, when you read on down to verse 24 (Romans 9:24), the point is clear what Paul is really talking about.

But in John 3:16 it says everyone who believes in Him will not perish. So those who are the "everyone" must also be the "called" ones.

Please re-read John 3:16. It uses the word "should" next to the words "not perish." For the word "should" is not a guarantee.
That would be like me saying, "I should be over your house --- but I have other things I have to do."

Besides, within the Scriptures, Jesus also says,
"He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

So it is not just in receiving Jesus whereby we will not be judged but it is also in receiving Jesus's words, too. For the word (by which Jesus has spoken) can judge anyone on the last day; And Jesus says if anyone even looks upon a woman in lust, their entire body could be cast into hell fire (Matthew 5:28-30).

Likewise in John 10;27-30 Those who are held eternally secure in the Fathers hand are also those who are shown mercy, compassion, and "called" thus are those one's "saved".

Verse 27 tells us the type of sheep who cannot be snatched out of the Lord's hand. Verse 27 says these are sheep that FOLLOW Jesus. So these are not sheep that are lazy or who are being dragged about by their necks on leashes here. Now, if you are not in disagreement that these type of sheep are defined as living righteously and as following Jesus, but yet you are saying that God specifically designs or makes them to be saved (while choosing not to save others - when He could have saved them) then you are saying that God is a respecter of persons. Meaning, that God creates some to be saved and God specifically designs certain men to not be saved. As if God wants people to not be saved. Why would God wish destruction upon anyone? Is not God good? Is not God loving? Why would God not choose to have everyone be saved if He has the power to make everyone saved? Surely that would be the case if God was the One who was deciding the fate of people's salvation. For no good God would want to see even one person be lost (if He had the power or capacity to save them). For did not Jesus leave the 99 sheep to go after the one sheep who went astray?

Romans 1:19,29 say He has made His attributes has been shown to all of us, we are without excuse for not knowing who God is. John 1:9 says the true Light has been given to everyone. Even people who have never heard of Jesus Christ have had some "light" that they are accountable for. Only God is able to judge who is secure in His hands, this includes those who are unable due to circumstances of age or ability.

This is simply not true. The apostle John was able to know (by his judgment) that they were in fact saved (See 1 John 5:13). Jesus says judge not by outward appearance but judge righteously. 2 Timothy 3:16 says we can correct others according to the Word of God. Paul says do not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (judge) them (Ephesians 5:11). The unfruitful works of darkness is talking about any kind of sin.

Anyways, I will continue to reply to the rest of what you had written in another post (otherwise this post will be waaaaaay too long to read).

May God bless you.
And please be well.

...

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, you must have misunderstood what I said. I can assure you, I am still very strongly against Once Saved Always Saved or Eternal Security and always will be. For me it is an attack on morality itself and in the lighter version of Eternal Security I believe it is an attack on the assurance that one can be saved by simply believing

Yet, Paul's answer to the jailer was exactly that:

jailer: He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what MUST I DO to be saved?”

Paul: They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

 

[FreeGrace2]

While misunderstandings can happen, I am not off on my understanding on Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved. For one, I have discussed this topic with many different people on different Christian forums for a long time now. Second, there are just certain things you know to your core as a believer in Jesus Christ as being true (By studying God's Word, looking at real life, and knowing a basic concept of morality that is written upon all our hearts).

Do you think you're the only one who does this? That those who disagree with you haven't ever done this? Seems rather self serving.

I know to my own core, from my own studying the Word over decades that one's salvation is secure because of the promises of God.

The problem with your views is your confused view of morality.

One of those things for me is that God is love and that God is good.

This very much sounds as though those who disagree with you don't think that God is love or that God is good. It appears that you possess an "exalted view" of yourself.

Not really any different that the old "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude.

If you were to take these two truths and hold onto them, they cannot steer you wrong in any particular subject of theology that you partake upon.

And these 2 truths will NEVER lead anyone to the false teaching that salvation can be lost for any reason.

What is missing from your 2 truths is another truth about God. He is grace. Which your view knows nothing about.

Anyways, there are several different versions of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) or Eternal Security.

OSAS Type #1:
Classic OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) says you can practice unrepentant sin that leads unto death (Such as lying, murder, hate, fornication, etc.) and yet you can somehow still be saved.

The error here is the word "somehow". It's not a mystery. The Bible is very clear. We are saved by GRACE through faith. And since Christ died for ALL sins, there cannot be any sin that can separate us from Him. Rom 8:38,39 is about eternal security.

In other words, with this version of OSAS no amount of sin can separate a believer from God (or Christ) even if they were living in a lot of horrible unrepentant sins like lying, adultery, hate, etc.; Sin is merely loss of rewards and not salvation.

While that obviously offends your sensibilities, all our sins HAVE BEEN paid for by Christ.

Maybe you still don't really understand what His sacrifice accomplished on the cross.

Why does "amount of sin" have such sway in your views? Yes, God is perfect, holy, and good. And He is also GRACE, the missing ingredient in your view.

None of us deserved to have all of our sins paid for, yet Christ did it anyway, out of love. And none of us earned the forgiveness that comes with faith in Christ, or the gift of eternal life. That is grace.

OSAS Type #2:
Mid Range OSAS says that you cannot practice sin otherwise you do not know God. However, abiding in an occasional or small unrepentant sin and then dying in that sin does not necessarily mean a believer will be sent to Hell. But the problem with this belief is that it is a justiifcation of a little bit of sin vs. (versus) a lot of sin. This is still a compromise on God's goodness or morality (Which is wrong).

The problem with your views about OSAS is your insistence that any view of eternal security "justifies" sin. Since Jesus Christ PAID IN FULL all of our sins, sin cannot be an issue in salvation. Simply can't be. But you strongly resist that truth. That's the problem.

OSAS Type #3:
OSAS Lite teaches that if you practice or continually abide in unrepentant sin then you were never saved to begin with. Meaning that a true believer is characterized by them living righteously. So falling away from the faith would be impossible (Despite the many verses that talk about such a thing). While this version of Eternal Security attempts to uphold a standard of morality, it does so at the cost of ignoring the prodigal son type believer. In other words, the believer who says they honestly lived for the Lord (and knew they were saved) and then fell away into a life of sin for a time and came back to the faith thru repentance (to be saved again) is either lying or self deceived according to the perspective of those people who hold to this version of Eternal Security. This means, that this type of Eternal Security Proponent is basically saying that the prodigal son believer's trust in Christ in the beginning of their life was a lie (even though they would strongly disagree with them that such is not the case).

This comes from strongly Calvinistic approach. Yet the Bible is very clear that believers can depart the faith.

Also, when you tell people that they are saved by what Jesus did and it is in nothing that they do (and you stop there in your message - telling them nothing about how they are supposed to live holy), then they are going to think they have a license to sin.

Why would anyone knowledgeable about the Bible "stop there"? As I've said before, no one needs a "license to sin". As long a we live in our mortal (and fallen) bodies, we will sin. You yourself have acknowledged that you haven't achieved sinless perfection, although you think it's possible.

Just read about Paul's struggle against the sin nature in Rom 7 and Gal 5. The struggle will last until we leave these mortal bodies.

Whenever a person is confused (or has a wrong interpretation) on a verse or chapter in the Bible, all they need to do is put Jesus in it and it becomes clear.

Then why do your views remain so confused and unbiblical.

Please re-read John 3:16. It uses the word "should" next to the words "not perish." For the word "should" is not a guarantee.

Please don't blend together the Greek and English. They aren't even close.

The Greek uses the subjunctive mood, which means potential. iow, Jn 3:16 actually says "that everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have life eternal".

iow, IF one believes, they will not perish. That's the meaning. The emphasis is on the action that leads to the result.
IF believes, then will not perish.

Verse 27 tells us the type of sheep who cannot be snatched out of the Lord's hand. Verse 27 says these are sheep that FOLLOW Jesus. So these are not sheep that are lazy or who are being dragged about by their necks on leashes here.

This is just a case of very lazy non-scholarly study. The sheep that Jesus calls "My sheep" begins back in v.9. That's where we learn who His sheep are.
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

Jesus uses a metaphor of a gate. So entering through Him (the gate) is tantamount to believing in Him. So those He calls "My sheep" are those who entered through Him, and are saved.

 

[Amorphous]

Do you think you're the only one who does this? That those who disagree with you haven't ever done this? Seems rather self serving.

I know to my own core, from my own studying the Word over decades that one's salvation is secure because of the promises of God.

The problem with your views is your confused view of morality.


This very much sounds as though those who disagree with you don't think that God is love or that God is good. It appears that you possess an "exalted view" of yourself.

Not really any different that the old "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude.


And these 2 truths will NEVER lead anyone to the false teaching that salvation can be lost for any reason.

What is missing from your 2 truths is another truth about God. He is grace. Which your view knows nothing about.


The error here is the word "somehow". It's not a mystery. The Bible is very clear. We are saved by GRACE through faith. And since Christ died for ALL sins, there cannot be any sin that can separate us from Him. Rom 8:38,39 is about eternal security.


While that obviously offends your sensibilities, all our sins HAVE BEEN paid for by Christ.

Maybe you still don't really understand what His sacrifice accomplished on the cross.

Why does "amount of sin" have such sway in your views? Yes, God is perfect, holy, and good. And He is also GRACE, the missing ingredient in your view.

None of us deserved to have all of our sins paid for, yet Christ did it anyway, out of love. And none of us earned the forgiveness that comes with faith in Christ, or the gift of eternal life. That is grace.


The problem with your views about OSAS is your insistence that any view of eternal security "justifies" sin. Since Jesus Christ PAID IN FULL all of our sins, sin cannot be an issue in salvation. Simply can't be. But you strongly resist that truth. That's the problem.


This comes from strongly Calvinistic approach. Yet the Bible is very clear that believers can depart the faith.


Why would anyone knowledgeable about the Bible "stop there"? As I've said before, no one needs a "license to sin". As long a we live in our mortal (and fallen) bodies, we will sin. You yourself have acknowledged that you haven't achieved sinless perfection, although you think it's possible.

Just read about Paul's struggle against the sin nature in Rom 7 and Gal 5. The struggle will last until we leave these mortal bodies.


Then why do your views remain so confused and unbiblical.


Please don't blend together the Greek and English. They aren't even close.

The Greek uses the subjunctive mood, which means potential. iow, Jn 3:16 actually says "that everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have life eternal".

iow, IF one believes, they will not perish. That's the meaning. The emphasis is on the action that leads to the result.
IF believes, then will not perish.


This is just a case of very lazy non-scholarly study. The sheep that Jesus calls "My sheep" begins back in v.9. That's where we learn who His sheep are.
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

Jesus uses a metaphor of a gate. So entering through Him (the gate) is tantamount to believing in Him. So those He calls "My sheep" are those who entered through Him, and are saved.

"license to sin" isn't even in the Bible. The verse says "turning grace into laciciousness,". The word for turning in greek means to trade something in place of another. So if you replace the Gospel which is grace, you remove the power that teaches us daily to deny ungodliness. Also the people that trade grace for sin are those who "crept in" and "deny Jesus". So they didn't accept the free grace gospel. So they rejected grace and put ungodliness in its place.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ToBeLoved]

While misunderstandings can happen, I am not off on my understanding on Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved. For one, I have discussed this topic with many different people on different Christian forums for a long time now. Second, there are just certain things you know to your core as a believer in Jesus Christ as being true (By studying God's Word, looking at real life, and knowing a basic concept of morality that is written upon all our hearts). One of those things for me is that God is love and that God is good. If you were to take these two truths and hold onto them, they cannot steer you wrong in any particular subject of theology that you partake upon.

Anyways, there are several different versions of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) or Eternal Security.

OSAS Type #1:
Classic OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) says you can practice unrepentant sin that leads unto death (Such as lying, murder, hate, fornication, etc.) and yet you can somehow still be saved. In other words, with this version of OSAS no amount of sin can separate a believer from God (or Christ) even if they were living in a lot of horrible unrepentant sins like lying, adultery, hate, etc.; Sin is merely loss of rewards and not salvation.

OSAS Type #2:
Mid Range OSAS says that you cannot practice sin otherwise you do not know God. However, abiding in an occasional or small unrepentant sin and then dying in that sin does not necessarily mean a believer will be sent to Hell. But the problem with this belief is that it is a justiifcation of a little bit of sin vs. (versus) a lot of sin. This is still a compromise on God's goodness or morality (Which is wrong).

OSAS Type #3:
OSAS Lite teaches that if you practice or continually abide in unrepentant sin then you were never saved to begin with. Meaning that a true believer is characterized by them living righteously. So falling away from the faith would be impossible (Despite the many verses that talk about such a thing). While this version of Eternal Security attempts to uphold a standard of morality, it does so at the cost of ignoring the prodigal son type believer. In other words, the believer who says they honestly lived for the Lord (and knew they were saved) and then fell away into a life of sin for a time and came back to the faith thru repentance (to be saved again) is either lying or self deceived according to the perspective of those people who hold to this version of Eternal Security. This means, that this type of Eternal Security Proponent is basically saying that the prodigal son believer's trust in Christ in the beginning of their life was a lie (even though they would strongly disagree with them that such is not the case).

Does your view of Eternal Security or OSAS match up with any of the ones above?
Or is your view of Eternal Security different?
If so, please explain.
Also, when you tell people that they are saved by what Jesus did and it is in nothing that they do (and you stop there in your message - telling them nothing about how they are supposed to live holy), then they are going to think they have a license to sin.



Whenever a person is confused (or has a wrong interpretation) on a verse or chapter in the Bible, all they need to do is put Jesus in it and it becomes clear.

In other words, when you read Romans 9:1-13, you have to read it in terms of how Paul is talking to the Jews (Romans 9:3-6) and not all individuals and how he is trying to tell them that the purpose of Election of the Promises is thru the line of the Messiah with Jacob's line and not Esau's line. Romans 9:13 is not saying God literally loved Jacob and literally hated Esau as individuals (cf. Luke 14:26). Paul is using them as examples of how God was all powerful enough to know which family line to use so as to bring the Promised Messiah (i.e. Jesus). That is what "Election" here is talking about in Romans 9. It is not talking about individual "Election" but it is talking about the "Election of the Promise" or the genealogical line that Jesus would come thru. The Jews were claiming that they were saved based on being of the seed of Abraham and in keeping God's Laws. But they rejected their Messiah. God does not have to conform to old Jewish ways of thinking just because they rejected their Messiah. He will have mercy on whom He will's in the manner He will's with the Messiah that He has chosen (Which was Jesus Christ).

Now, when you read Romans 9:14-16: Well, you have to realize that it is talking about God's plan of salvation with Jesus Christ being their Messiah of whom the Jews rejected. God is saying He will have mercy in the WAY God wants to do things and not according to Jewish thoughts or beliefs (Which one of their ways they considered a person to be right with God was thru circumcision - See Romans 3:1).

And when you read Romans 9:17-18: Well, you have to realize it is making a parallel. For there is a parallel being made of how God is Sovereign and just in setting up the Promised Line of the Messiah (i.e. by having mercy on whom He wills) versus raising up Pharaoh into power to show God's power. How was God's power shown in the life of the Pharoah? By God making the Pharoah wealthy? Not exactly. God allowed Pharoah to be raised up so that God's power was shown in the life of God's miracles being displayed such as the Ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. This is why Paraoah was raised up. It was so that God's power (or miracles) could be displayed (and proclaimed to all the Earth). Just as God had chosen the line of the Messiah so as to display His power (and proclaim such a thing to all the Earth). So this was not some kind of point to prove individual election but to prove the Election of the Promised Line of the Messiah (Who is Jesus Christ). For Jesus is the greatest miracle (of the best form of Election) that there is.

Anyways, when you read on down to verse 24 (Romans 9:24), the point is clear what Paul is really talking about.



Please re-read John 3:16. It uses the word "should" next to the words "not perish." For the word "should" is not a guarantee.
That would be like me saying, "I should be over your house --- but I have other things I have to do."

Besides, within the Scriptures, Jesus also says,
"He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

So it is not just in receiving Jesus whereby we will not be judged but it is also in receiving Jesus's words, too. For the word (by which Jesus has spoken) can judge anyone on the last day; And Jesus says if anyone even looks upon a woman in lust, their entire body could be cast into hell fire (Matthew 5:28-30).



Verse 27 tells us the type of sheep who cannot be snatched out of the Lord's hand. Verse 27 says these are sheep that FOLLOW Jesus. So these are not sheep that are lazy or who are being dragged about by their necks on leashes here. Now, if you are not in disagreement that these type of sheep are defined as living righteously and as following Jesus, but yet you are saying that God specifically designs or makes them to be saved (while choosing not to save others - when He could have saved them) then you are saying that God is a respecter of persons. Meaning, that God creates some to be saved and God specifically designs certain men to not be saved. As if God wants people to not be saved. Why would God wish destruction upon anyone? Is not God good? Is not God loving? Why would God not choose to have everyone be saved if He has the power to make everyone saved? Surely that would be the case if God was the One who was deciding the fate of people's salvation. For no good God would want to see even one person be lost (if He had the power or capacity to save them). For did not Jesus leave the 99 sheep to go after the one sheep who went astray?



This is simply not true. The apostle John was able to know (by his judgment) that they were in fact saved (See 1 John 5:13). Jesus says judge not by outward appearance but judge righteously. 2 Timothy 3:16 says we can correct others according to the Word of God. Paul says do not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (judge) them (Ephesians 5:11). The unfruitful works of darkness is talking about any kind of sin.

Anyways, I will continue to reply to the rest of what you had written in another post (otherwise this post will be waaaaaay too long to read).

May God bless you.
And please be well.

...

The urge to label Christians is strong with you. Or is that judgement?

Nothing brings less humility to a believer than thinking they are always right. Try humbleness.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Belief in God (and making Him your Lord) is always followed by proper action in what God wants us to do; Otherwise, one is not truly believing or trusting in God and His Word. For God desires us to obey Him. If we do not obey Him, we are not really believing in Him. For example: Peter failed to walk on the water (which was an action) because of his unbelief. In other words, people do not do what God says because of unbelief. This is why Jesus says, why do you call me Lord, Lord if you do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46). Also, Jesus says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).

What is the will of the Father or the will of God?

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification" (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

"God's will is for you to be holy" (1 Thessalonians 4:3 NLT).

In fact, a reading of Hebrews 11 should tell you that proper actions (or works) always follows faith.
James says that we are justified by works (i.e. Christ directed works done thru the believer) and not by faith only (James 2:24, cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5, 1 John 2:4).

But what about Ephesians 2 and Romans 4?

Well, as for Ephesians 2:8-9: This is talking about initial salvation and it is referencing the word: "works" in relation to the Pharisee religion. For they obeyed the Law of Moses and turned everything into a system of works to be saved with no grace or Savior. So the word "works" in Ephesians 2:8-9 is in reference to obeying the Law of Moses and Man Directed Works Alone Salvationism.

Yet, in Ephesians 2:10, the word "works" is talking about the good works of Jesus done thru you. For Jesus said without Him, you can do nothing (John 15:5).

As for Romans 4: Again, this is dealing with Man Directed Works Alone Salvationism and the Law of Moses (as an attack against the false Pharisee religion). Yet, again, we learn even Romans 4 is in support of proper action (as a result of having Christ living in you) as the fruition of having a true belief in Jesus. For it says Abraham was able to perform as the result of his belief (Romans 4:21).



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In other words, if a person truly trusts Jesus their belief in Him will help them to walk and do the work that He requires of them.
For this is what 1 Timothy 4:10 says. "Trust." It also says we labor because we "trust" in the living God, too. The two go hand in hand. Labor and trust. Belief and action. Let me give you an example:

If God told Rick to sit in his old porch chair that he knew from before was a weak chair and it would easily break under his weight and yet God told Rick to sit in the chair and to not worry what was going to happen, and yet he refused to do so, would Rick be trusting in God? Surely not.

This is why Jesus says if you love me, keep my Commandments (John 14:15).
Jesus says we are his friends if we keep his Commandments (John 15:14).

Are not those you love and those who are your friends the types you can trust?

Do you think people who do not love Jesus and who are not his friends will enter the Kingdom of God?

Surely not.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As for believer's judging:

Well, Jesus says we are not to judge by outward appearance, but we are to judge righteously. Paul corrects the Corinthians in the fact that they are keeping a fornicator amongst them. He tells them not to keep company with fornicators and tells them to kick him out of their fellowship (unless of course he repents). Paul says do not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 2 Timothy 3:16 says we can correct others according to the Word of God.

...

 

[ToBeLoved]

As for believer's judging:

Well, Jesus says we are not to judge by outward appearance, but we are to judge righteously. Paul corrects the Corinthians in the fact that they are keeping a fornicator amongst them. He tells them not to keep company with fornicators and tells them to kick him out of their fellowship (unless of course he repents). Paul says do not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 2 Timothy 3:16 says we can correct others according to the Word of God.

...

It's not just sinners Jason. Maybe you forgot that most sinners repent.

This is specifically addressing an unrepentant, habitual fornificator. This was an issue addressed by the church over and over. This was a last resort for the church after trying to bring this person back to good church standing.

So let's not put all sinners in a big bucket so they can be judged unrighteously. We all are in the sinner bucket, so let's include pertinent information if your going to tell people to judge their fellow saints.

Also, I've never met a human being whoever judged righteously. Only Jesus is the righteous judge, so I'm not sure why you even stated that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Believers are told to repent in the Bible, too. Peter told Simon to repent of his wickedness and to pray that God would forgive him. If it was forbidden for a believer to judge another believer, then Peter could not have said this to Simon (who by all rights was a believer because he accepted the gospel message).


...

 

[ToBeLoved]

Believers are told to repent in the Bible, too. Peter told Simon to repent of his wickedness and to pray that God would forgive him. If it was forbidden for a believer to judge another believer, then Peter could not have said this to Simon (who by all rights was a believer because he accepted the gospel message).


...

Maybe God gave the Apostles extra discernment since they were tasked with starting all the early churches and getting Christianity on it's feet. Discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Some have this gift, some obviously do not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Scripture is clear there is no second chance to change a persons mind after death Hebrews 9:27 informs us that after death comes the judgment. There is a place for those who were genuine followers of Jesus Christ, to be in the midst of The Father and Son. So there is a place for those who rejects Jesus as being the One and Only Son Of God. The place especially for those who have rejected Jesus Christ is eternal torment, punishment.

Well, I am not in disagreement that there are no second chances after death (if a person stays dead). However, what I am in disagreement with what you said within the portion of your post is your position on Eternal Conscious Torment. I believe it is morally wrong and it is not Biblical in any way.

Now, at one time, I used to believe in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment), but I do not believe that way anymore (after a long time of intense study and prayer over the Scriptures). Currently I believe the Scriptures teach that hell (the place of torments) is more like a really bad prison and it is not a place whereby the wicked are burned in any actual flames. I also believe the Scriptures teach that the Lake of Fire is a place whereby the wicked will be destroyed or erased from existence, too.

As for hell being a bad prison (and not a torture chamber of flames):

Well, in Luke 16:19-31: What folks fail to understand is that when the Rich-man went to Torments (Hell or Hades), he was not actually being burned by any flames. In Luke 16:24, when the Rich-man said to Abraham, "I am tormented in this flame," he was referring to the fact about how he was tormented in the flame that was in front of him that was in the gulf that was between him and Abraham (Sort of like if I said, "I am happy in this car" --- yet the car is in front of me). (Similar language like this can be found with the words from Adam in Genesis; For he said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman," - Genesis 2:23). Adam was not referring to his own flesh, with the word "this", but he was referring to Eve who was in front of him. In other words, it was the heat of the flame in front of the rich-man that made him uncomfortable or tormented. For although I am open to understanding otherwise according to Scripture, I currently do not believe he was in extreme physical pain or torture. For if the rich-man was engulfed by entire flames --- he wouldn't be asking for a little water to cool his tongue, he would be asking for a giant barrel of water or lots of buckets of water to lower the flame or to put it out. Also, if a person was being engulfed by flames today in the real world, how likely are they to carry on a conversation with you?

As for the wicked being annihiated in the Lake of Fire:

Jesus said, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28). The word "hell" here is translated as "geenna", which is another name for what we call the "Lake of Fire."

For the punishment has eternal consequences where the soul and spirit body are eventually destroyed or put to ruin. For it is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46) --- Not everlasting punishing.

Now, many who believe in Eternal Conscious Torment will quote: Revelation 14:11 at this point. However, when they quote this verse, they are not quoting it in light of the rest of Scripture, though. Okay, so lets take a look at the verse. Revelation 14:11 says,

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:11).

What is this smoke of torment that goes up forever and ever? Well, the Bible tells us that it is a metaphorical phrase because Isaiah 34:10 says that the smoke of Edom went up forever and ever. Yet, is Edom (the place) burning today? No. So we then realize that this phrase is speaking metaphorically.

Also, ECT (Eternal Concious Torment) Proponents love to throw out Conditional Immortality based on the use of the word "forever" in relation to the fate of the wicked.

However, we see the word "forever" clearly used in a temporal sense in Philemon 1:15. For it says,

"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;"
(Philemon 1:15 KJV).​

This is talking about Onesimus. Here is what it says in the New Living Translation,

15 "It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever.
16 He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord."
(Philemon 1:15-16 NLT).​

In other words, Onesimus did not return to his master for all eternity here upon this Earth. Onesimus is not still alive. He is not an immortal or anything of that nature. He was mortal and he died. So to assume that the word "forever" and it's related words always means forever does not work. Meaning, one has to re-examine what they believe the word "forever" means in relation to the Greek word "Gehenna", i.e. the Lake of Fire (Which is translated in the English as "hell").

For the word "forever" (and it's related words) does not always mean forever in the Bible. “Forever” can be talking about "forever" here on this Earth (as long as someone lives) or in having a sense of "completeness" or "totality" for a specific thing). For what does one make of the following verses below that say that "forever" (or it's related words) is not forever?

• In Genesis 13:15 the land of Canaan is given to Israel “forever”.

• The Law is to be a statute “forever” (Exodus 12:24; Exodus 27:21; Exodus 28:43).

• Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 1:7) until -- God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" (Ezekiel 16:53-55).

• Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jeremiah 30:12) until -- the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jeremiah 30:17).

• The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Micah 1:9) until -- Lord "will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria." (Ezekiel 16:53).

• Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zephaniah 2:9, Jeremiah 25:27until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jeremiah 49:6).

• An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever" until -- the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3):

• Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting" until -- they "were shattered" Habakkuk3:6).

• The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Exodus 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

• Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), until -- the Temple was destroyed.

• The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until -- Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:8-9).

• The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11-13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

• The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual" until -- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins.
Hell. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Leviticus 6:12-13,Hebrews 8:6-13).

• God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever" until--the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6-10; Jonah 1:17); Egypt and Elam will "rise no more" (Jeremiah 25:27) until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Egypt" (Ezekiel 29:14) and "restore the fortunes of Elam" (Jeremiah 49:39).

• "Moab is destroyed" (Jeremiah 48:4, Jeremiah 48:42) until--the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Moab" (Jeremiah 48:47).

• Israel's judgment lasts "forever" until -- the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isaiah 32:13-15).

• The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells us that a bond slave was to serve his master "forever" (Exodus 21:6), until -- his death.

• “Eternal” (Greek aionia, αιονια) is sometimes used of a limited (not endless) period of time. But the most common use is illustrated in 2 Corinthians 4:18 where it is contrasted with “temporal” and in Philemon 1:15 where it is contrasted with “for a while.”​

As for the moral issue of believing in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment):

Well, surely no good Christian today (in their right mind) would not agree with any dictator who tortures people for their crimes for the entirety of their lives no matter how holy or good this dictator might have lived. One would see such a dictator as cruel and evil. So why would folks subscribe this type of behavior towards God (who is love and who is good) in being that way? It's because of church tradition. Just because the majority of Protestant churches teach it, they must accept it (Despite what their moral heart might say and despite what the Scriptures say).


...

 

[farout]

Well, I am not in disagreement that there are no second chances after death (if a person stays dead). However, what I am in disagreement with what you said within the portion of your post is your position on Eternal Conscious Torment. I believe it is morally wrong and it is not Biblical in any way.

Now, at one time, I used to believe in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment), but I do not believe that way anymore (after a long time of intense study and prayer over the Scriptures). Currently I believe the Scriptures teach that hell (the place of torments) is more like a really bad prison and it is not a place whereby the wicked are burned in any actual flames. I also believe the Scriptures teach that the Lake of Fire is a place whereby the wicked will be destroyed or erased from existence, too.

As for hell being a bad prison (and not a torture chamber of flames):

Well, in Luke 16:19-31: What folks fail to understand is that when the Rich-man went to Torments (Hell or Hades), he was not actually being burned by any flames. In Luke 16:24, when the Rich-man said to Abraham, "I am tormented in this flame," he was referring to the fact about how he was tormented in the flame that was in front of him that was in the gulf that was between him and Abraham (Sort of like if I said, "I am happy in this car" --- yet the car is in front of me). (Similar language like this can be found with the words from Adam in Genesis; For he said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman," - Genesis 2:23). Adam was not referring to his own flesh, with the word "this", but he was referring to Eve who was in front of him. In other words, it was the heat of the flame in front of the rich-man that made him uncomfortable or tormented. For although I am open to understanding otherwise according to Scripture, I currently do not believe he was in extreme physical pain or torture. For if the rich-man was engulfed by entire flames --- he wouldn't be asking for a little water to cool his tongue, he would be asking for a giant barrel of water or lots of buckets of water to lower the flame or to put it out. Also, if a person was being engulfed by flames today in the real world, how likely are they to carry on a conversation with you?

As for the wicked being annihiated in the Lake of Fire:

Jesus said, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28). The word "hell" here is translated as "geenna", which is another name for what we call the "Lake of Fire."

For the punishment has eternal consequences where the soul and spirit body are eventually destroyed or put to ruin. For it is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46) --- Not everlasting punishing.

Now, many who believe in Eternal Conscious Torment will quote: Revelation 14:11 at this point. However, when they quote this verse, they are not quoting it in light of the rest of Scripture, though. Okay, so lets take a look at the verse. Revelation 14:11 says,

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:11).

What is this smoke of torment that goes up forever and ever? Well, the Bible tells us that it is a metaphorical phrase because Isaiah 34:10 says that the smoke of Edom went up forever and ever. Yet, is Edom (the place) burning today? No. So we then realize that this phrase is speaking metaphorically.

Also, ECT (Eternal Concious Torment) Proponents love to throw out Conditional Immortality based on the use of the word "forever" in relation to the fate of the wicked.

However, we see the word "forever" clearly used in a temporal sense in Philemon 1:15. For it says,

"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;"
(Philemon 1:15 KJV).​

This is talking about Onesimus. Here is what it says in the New Living Translation,

15 "It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever.
16 He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord."
(Philemon 1:15-16 NLT).​

In other words, Onesimus did not return to his master for all eternity here upon this Earth. Onesimus is not still alive. He is not an immortal or anything of that nature. He was mortal and he died. So to assume that the word "forever" and it's related words always means forever does not work. Meaning, one has to re-examine what they believe the word "forever" means in relation to the Greek word "Gehenna", i.e. the Lake of Fire (Which is translated in the English as "hell").

For the word "forever" (and it's related words) does not always mean forever in the Bible. “Forever” can be talking about "forever" here on this Earth (as long as someone lives) or in having a sense of "completeness" or "totality" for a specific thing). For what does one make of the following verses below that say that "forever" (or it's related words) is not forever?

• In Genesis 13:15 the land of Canaan is given to Israel “forever”.

• The Law is to be a statute “forever” (Exodus 12:24; Exodus 27:21; Exodus 28:43).

• Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 1:7) until -- God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" (Ezekiel 16:53-55).

• Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jeremiah 30:12) until -- the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jeremiah 30:17).

• The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Micah 1:9) until -- Lord "will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria." (Ezekiel 16:53).

• Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zephaniah 2:9, Jeremiah 25:27until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jeremiah 49:6).

• An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever" until -- the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3):

• Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting" until -- they "were shattered" Habakkuk3:6).

• The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Exodus 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

• Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), until -- the Temple was destroyed.

• The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until -- Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:8-9).

• The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11-13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

• The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual" until -- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins.
Hell. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Leviticus 6:12-13,Hebrews 8:6-13).

• God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever" until--the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6-10; Jonah 1:17); Egypt and Elam will "rise no more" (Jeremiah 25:27) until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Egypt" (Ezekiel 29:14) and "restore the fortunes of Elam" (Jeremiah 49:39).

• "Moab is destroyed" (Jeremiah 48:4, Jeremiah 48:42) until--the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Moab" (Jeremiah 48:47).

• Israel's judgment lasts "forever" until -- the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isaiah 32:13-15).

• The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells us that a bond slave was to serve his master "forever" (Exodus 21:6), until -- his death.

• “Eternal” (Greek aionia, αιονια) is sometimes used of a limited (not endless) period of time. But the most common use is illustrated in 2 Corinthians 4:18 where it is contrasted with “temporal” and in Philemon 1:15 where it is contrasted with “for a while.”​

As for the moral issue of believing in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment):

Well, surely no good Christian today (in their right mind) would not agree with any dictator who tortures people for their crimes for the entirety of their lives no matter how holy or good this dictator might have lived. One would see such a dictator as cruel and evil. So why would folks subscribe this type of behavior towards God (who is love and who is good) in being that way? It's because of church tradition. Just because the majority of Protestant churches teach it, they must accept it (Despite what their moral heart might say and despite what the Scriptures say).


...

I know what Jesus said in Matthew 25:46 and there he states they will go away into "eternal punishment". I fell very sure if Jesus was trying to convey that people would eventually just be done away with, He was more that able to state that.

The word Jesus used according to Vines means endless, never forgiving, is not temporary.

There are a number of denominations that believe that after some period of time that souls in "eternal punishment" will just cease to exist. I wish that were so. But no matter how each of us "Followers of Christ" or "saved souls" here alive on Earth today believe this place of punishment to be, we do agree that those souls there will not be in heaven. Wicch gives us all the more reason to encourage others to become Followers of Christ too.

 

[farout]

Well, I am not in disagreement that there are no second chances after death (if a person stays dead). However, what I am in disagreement with what you said within the portion of your post is your position on Eternal Conscious Torment. I believe it is morally wrong and it is not Biblical in any way.

Now, at one time, I used to believe in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment), but I do not believe that way anymore (after a long time of intense study and prayer over the Scriptures). Currently I believe the Scriptures teach that hell (the place of torments) is more like a really bad prison and it is not a place whereby the wicked are burned in any actual flames. I also believe the Scriptures teach that the Lake of Fire is a place whereby the wicked will be destroyed or erased from existence, too.

As for hell being a bad prison (and not a torture chamber of flames):

Well, in Luke 16:19-31: What folks fail to understand is that when the Rich-man went to Torments (Hell or Hades), he was not actually being burned by any flames. In Luke 16:24, when the Rich-man said to Abraham, "I am tormented in this flame," he was referring to the fact about how he was tormented in the flame that was in front of him that was in the gulf that was between him and Abraham (Sort of like if I said, "I am happy in this car" --- yet the car is in front of me). (Similar language like this can be found with the words from Adam in Genesis; For he said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman," - Genesis 2:23). Adam was not referring to his own flesh, with the word "this", but he was referring to Eve who was in front of him. In other words, it was the heat of the flame in front of the rich-man that made him uncomfortable or tormented. For although I am open to understanding otherwise according to Scripture, I currently do not believe he was in extreme physical pain or torture. For if the rich-man was engulfed by entire flames --- he wouldn't be asking for a little water to cool his tongue, he would be asking for a giant barrel of water or lots of buckets of water to lower the flame or to put it out. Also, if a person was being engulfed by flames today in the real world, how likely are they to carry on a conversation with you?

As for the wicked being annihiated in the Lake of Fire:

Jesus said, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28). The word "hell" here is translated as "geenna", which is another name for what we call the "Lake of Fire."

For the punishment has eternal consequences where the soul and spirit body are eventually destroyed or put to ruin. For it is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46) --- Not everlasting punishing.

Now, many who believe in Eternal Conscious Torment will quote: Revelation 14:11 at this point. However, when they quote this verse, they are not quoting it in light of the rest of Scripture, though. Okay, so lets take a look at the verse. Revelation 14:11 says,

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:11).

What is this smoke of torment that goes up forever and ever? Well, the Bible tells us that it is a metaphorical phrase because Isaiah 34:10 says that the smoke of Edom went up forever and ever. Yet, is Edom (the place) burning today? No. So we then realize that this phrase is speaking metaphorically.

Also, ECT (Eternal Concious Torment) Proponents love to throw out Conditional Immortality based on the use of the word "forever" in relation to the fate of the wicked.

However, we see the word "forever" clearly used in a temporal sense in Philemon 1:15. For it says,

"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;"
(Philemon 1:15 KJV).​

This is talking about Onesimus. Here is what it says in the New Living Translation,

15 "It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever.
16 He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord."
(Philemon 1:15-16 NLT).​

In other words, Onesimus did not return to his master for all eternity here upon this Earth. Onesimus is not still alive. He is not an immortal or anything of that nature. He was mortal and he died. So to assume that the word "forever" and it's related words always means forever does not work. Meaning, one has to re-examine what they believe the word "forever" means in relation to the Greek word "Gehenna", i.e. the Lake of Fire (Which is translated in the English as "hell").

For the word "forever" (and it's related words) does not always mean forever in the Bible. “Forever” can be talking about "forever" here on this Earth (as long as someone lives) or in having a sense of "completeness" or "totality" for a specific thing). For what does one make of the following verses below that say that "forever" (or it's related words) is not forever?

• In Genesis 13:15 the land of Canaan is given to Israel “forever”.

• The Law is to be a statute “forever” (Exodus 12:24; Exodus 27:21; Exodus 28:43).

• Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 1:7) until -- God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" (Ezekiel 16:53-55).

• Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jeremiah 30:12) until -- the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jeremiah 30:17).

• The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Micah 1:9) until -- Lord "will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria." (Ezekiel 16:53).

• Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zephaniah 2:9, Jeremiah 25:27until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jeremiah 49:6).

• An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever" until -- the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3):

• Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting" until -- they "were shattered" Habakkuk3:6).

• The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Exodus 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

• Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), until -- the Temple was destroyed.

• The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until -- Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:8-9).

• The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11-13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

• The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual" until -- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins.
Hell. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Leviticus 6:12-13,Hebrews 8:6-13).

• God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever" until--the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6-10; Jonah 1:17); Egypt and Elam will "rise no more" (Jeremiah 25:27) until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Egypt" (Ezekiel 29:14) and "restore the fortunes of Elam" (Jeremiah 49:39).

• "Moab is destroyed" (Jeremiah 48:4, Jeremiah 48:42) until--the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Moab" (Jeremiah 48:47).

• Israel's judgment lasts "forever" until -- the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isaiah 32:13-15).

• The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells us that a bond slave was to serve his master "forever" (Exodus 21:6), until -- his death.

• “Eternal” (Greek aionia, αιονια) is sometimes used of a limited (not endless) period of time. But the most common use is illustrated in 2 Corinthians 4:18 where it is contrasted with “temporal” and in Philemon 1:15 where it is contrasted with “for a while.”​

As for the moral issue of believing in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment):

Well, surely no good Christian today (in their right mind) would not agree with any dictator who tortures people for their crimes for the entirety of their lives no matter how holy or good this dictator might have lived. One would see such a dictator as cruel and evil. So why would folks subscribe this type of behavior towards God (who is love and who is good) in being that way? It's because of church tradition. Just because the majority of Protestant churches teach it, they must accept it (Despite what their moral heart might say and despite what the Scriptures say).


...

When you insult me by saying I am not a good Christian and not in my right mind you have gone too far! If you believe taking pot shots like this represents what Christ taught, you are sadly mistaken. I believe that Jesus gave a Command in John 13:34,35. take note that I care enough to bring this to your attention.

We are at opposite ends in the Doctrine of Once saved always Saved. As an Pastor I asked the Lord to make my words sweet and tender, as someday I just might have to eat them. One day we both will stand before the Holy Father. Just what if you are wrong on the OSAS issue? The strong words you have used are wrong? What If I am wrong?

I will state my position clearly. If a person is unwilling to be disciple, or wants to put off being baptized, those are indicators or red flags they are not close to being a follower of Christ. If a person does not grow in the faith with prayer, loving to learn of Christ in reading Scripture, becoming involved with a Bible Believing Church or there has been no change in their life they are not a Follower of Christ. A follower can fail, but not fall. Peter failed Christ. Some call this backsliding, and some call it carnality, but a Born Again Follower will not stay in this position. If a person who says they were once a Follower but are not, they never were a Follower at all. Faith that falters, never was true Faith.

Now if you do not feel you were wrong in what you said in your last paragraph so be it. Then I part ways with you. If you honestly feel you went to far, we can walk the same threads.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

When you insult me by saying I am not a good Christian and not in my right mind you have gone too far! If you believe taking pot shots like this represents what Christ taught, you are sadly mistaken.

Well, first, not everyone preaches the same Jesus. Second, the Scriptures say we can correct other believers in the Word of God. Three, if you were to read carefully what I had written, you will note that I presented three versions of Eternal Security. I then asked you which version of Eternal Security you believe in. OSAS Type #3 is the only one in my view that does not justify sin on some level. In fact, there is a brother of mine who who I would call a close friend who believes in this version of Eternal Security. But that does not mean there are not problems with even this belief (All be it, I do not think it is a salvation issue). Anyways, I asked if you believe in a different version of Eternal Security then the ones the I described, then please explain it. Meaning, please explain how your version of Eternal Security differs from the ones I provided and how it lines up with morality.

In any event, I have to run.
I will try and address the rest of what you had written later.

May God bless you.
And please be well.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I know what Jesus said in Matthew 25:46 and there he states they will go away into "eternal punishment". I fell very sure if Jesus was trying to convey that people would eventually just be done away with, He was more that able to state that.

The word Jesus used according to Vines means endless, never forgiving, is not temporary.

There are a number of denominations that believe that after some period of time that souls in "eternal punishment" will just cease to exist. I wish that were so. But no matter how each of us "Followers of Christ" or "saved souls" here alive on Earth today believe this place of punishment to be, we do agree that those souls there will not be in heaven. Wicch gives us all the more reason to encourage others to become Followers of Christ too.

It's called everlasting punishment ---- Not everlasting punishing. Meaning, the consequence or punishment have an everlasting effect because one is destroyed or erased from existence for all time.


...

 

[farout]

It's called everlasting punishment ---- Not everlasting punishing. Meaning, the consequence or punishment have an everlasting effect because one is destroyed or erased from existence for all time.


...

I guess you feel John 13:34,35 does not apply to you?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I guess you feel John 13:34,35 does not apply to you?

Stop while you still have your sanity. He'll never change.

 

[farout]

Stop while you still have your sanity. He'll never change.

None the less if he is even to be a true evangelist he must learn how to be respectful.

 

[farout]

It's called everlasting punishment ---- Not everlasting punishing. Meaning, the consequence or punishment have an everlasting effect because one is destroyed or erased from existence for all time.


...

I gave you an opportunity to admit you were offensive, and restore some fellowship. You need to show respect and kindness. Don't you see that others are witnessing how you respond when you are made aware of your error? You are not beings a very good testimony as an evangelist.