Am I a bad person because I don't believe in eternal hell?

[Oldmantook]

Up to a point see Romans 1:28.

I asked you to clarify by answering me some simple questions, yet you respond by writing "up to a point." What point might that be? I don't wish to assume anything about your beliefs so could you be more specific?

I'm not much interested in what you can/cannot accept. In some sense the father believed his son to be dead. He said his son was dead, twice.

I pointed out to you why I can't accept it but you avoided addressing my rationale. The father's disposition and attitude toward his lost son as described in the parable, certainly does not fit your assumptions about rejecting his son and considering him "dead to me." Care to address that?

That may or may not be true but many have prayed and believe they are guided by the holy spirit.

Indeed; may or may not be true and that is why an appeal to scholarship is not always the logical route.

Of course, Paul chose his audience but in 1st Corinthians Paul addresses them as brethren 28 times but also wrote this to them.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. That does not sound very brotherly to me.

It sounds perfectly brotherly to me. Sin for the believer has potentially dire consequences. If Paul ignored it or minimized it in addressing the brethren, he would be neglecting his responsibility as an Apostle to the churches. Thus Paul's use of straight forward language. The apostle James stated the same thing in Js 5:19-20 as we have the responsibility to warn and correct our fellow brethren if we see them straying from the truth in order to save their soul from death. In modern parlance, this is called "tough love" - very brotherly indeed!

 

[Der Alte]

I asked you to clarify by answering me some simple questions, yet you respond by writing "up to a point." What point might that be? I don't wish to assume anything about your beliefs so could you be more specific?

Rom 1 indicates that God will tolerate disobedience for some period time then He will give them over to their sinfulness.

I pointed out to you why I can't accept it but you avoided addressing my rationale. The father's disposition and attitude toward his lost son as described in the parable, certainly does not fit your assumptions about rejecting his son and considering him "dead to me." Care to address that?

Excuse me can you show me where I said the father considered his son "dead to me?"The father must have considered his son dead in some sense. He did say "your brother was dead," and "my son was dead." I believe you said the wayward son was "spiritually dead."

Indeed; may or may not be true and that is why an appeal to scholarship is not always the logical route.

Depends on what one considers scholarship. If one thinks some "scholar" with initials after his name opining on a subject equals scholarship, I would say no But if someone is quoting standard reference works such as grammars, lexicons etc. or historical works e.g. the ECF, that would be relevant scholarship.

It sounds perfectly brotherly to me. Sin for the believer has potentially dire consequences. If Paul ignored it or minimized it in addressing the brethren, he would be neglecting his responsibility as an Apostle to the churches. Thus Paul's use of straight forward language. The apostle James stated the same thing in Js 5:19-20 as we have the responsibility to warn and correct our fellow brethren if we see them straying from the truth in order to save their soul from death. In modern parlance, this is called "tough love" - very brotherly indeed!

I don't think a member of the Corinthian church chambering with his father's wife is walking in the spirit see Romans 8:8-9.

 

[Oldmantook]

Rom 1 indicates that God will tolerate disobedience for some period time then He will give them over to their sinfulness.

So exactly what does that mean? I ask you again. "Give them over to their sinfulness"...what does that mean. So because of their sinfulness, do genuine regenerate believers lose or forfeit the salvation? Yes or No? Simple question should be simple to answer.

Excuse me can you show me where I said the father considered his son "dead to me?"The father must have considered his son dead in some sense. He did say "your brother was dead," and "my son was dead." I believe you said the wayward son was "spiritually dead."

In some sense? What sense is that? I made it clear that I believe the prodigal was spiritually dead hence no longer spiritually alive and separated from God. You allude to some type of "deadness" but evade any elaboration on your part. I also specifically pointed out to you that rejection of the son by the father in terms of "dead to me" does not at all fit with the description of the father's attitude toward his son. So what is left der alter? Care to explain further or remain obtuse?

Depends on what one considers scholarship. If one thinks some "scholar" with initials after his name opining on a subject equals scholarship, I would say no But if someone is quoting standard reference works such as grammars, lexicons etc. or historical works e.g. the ECF, that would be relevant scholarship.

Of course some scholarship has more relevance and credibility than other scholarship. It is up to each individual to evaluate such scholarship for themselves. There is no automatic pass.

I don't think a member of the Corinthian church chambering with his father's wife is walking in the spirit see Romans 8:8-9.

Of course not, thus incurring Paul's harsh condemnation/rebuke. Would you expect anything less from the Apostle Paul?

 

[Der Alte]

So exactly what does that mean? I ask you again. "Give them over to their sinfulness"...what does that mean. So because of their sinfulness, do genuine regenerate believers lose or forfeit the salvation? Yes or No? Simple question should be simple to answer.

If you had read the scripture I referenced you might have your answer as much as I do. Rom 1 specifically,

Romans 1:21-28
(21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:24
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

This appears that God permitted a certain group to sin up to a point then He "gave them up/over" three times. That can't be good.

In some sense? What sense is that? I made it clear that I believe the prodigal was spiritually dead hence no longer spiritually alive and separated from God. You allude to some type of "deadness" but evade any elaboration on your part. I also specifically pointed out to you that rejection of the son by the father in terms of "dead to me" does not at all fit with the description of the father's attitude toward his son. So what is left der alter? Care to explain further or remain obtuse?

I think you are the one who is being deliberately obtuse and a few other pejorative terms.
I don't know what was in Jesus' mind or what might have been in the parabolic father's mind when Jesus quoted the father as saying, "my son was dead,""your brother was dead."And I'm sure you don't either.
I know the son was not physically dead. The story does not list any sins which might have caused the son to be spiritually dead. He only left home with his inheritance. squandered it and returned home.

Of course some scholarship has more relevance and credibility than other scholarship. It is up to each individual to evaluate such scholarship for themselves. There is no automatic pass.

I'm glad we agree on this. You appeared to be cavalierly dismissing all scholarship. I'm not a fan of "This scholar said this, that scholar said that and another scholar said something else," type of "scholarship" without documentation.

Of course not, thus incurring Paul's harsh condemnation/rebuke. Would you expect anything less from the Apostle Paul?

But Paul did tell the churches to avoid some "brethren."

1Co 5:1-2
(1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
(2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.​

 

[Oldmantook]

That can't be good.

I concur that it can't be good. However you need to define your terms. "Can't be good" in terms of losing forfeiting one's salvation? I've asked you this question several times now and you refuse to provide me with a simple yes or no answer. If not loss of salvation, then what exactly do you mean? If you're not sure, simply say so.

I think you are the one who is being deliberately obtuse and a few other pejorative terms.
I don't know what was in Jesus' mind or what might have been in the parabolic father's mind when Jesus quoted the father as saying, "my son was dead,""your brother was dead."And I'm sure you don't either.
I know the son was not physically dead. The story does not list any sins which might have caused the son to be spiritually dead. He only left home with his inheritance. squandered it and returned home.

Why is such a specific list necessary? As you may be aware, parables don't often go into details. If is wholly sufficient that the parable describes the prodigal as living a life of sin. Suffice to say a lifestyle of sin. Habitual sin/chronic sin, unrepented of leads to spiritual death. Do you agree that unrepentant chronic sin for the believer leads to spiritual death? Yes or no? And if only squandered his financial inheritance, how did he become dead? How did he become alive again? Your replies leave more questions than answers.

But Paul did tell the churches to avoid some "brethren."
1Co 5:1-2
(1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
(2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Of course he did. We are to put away the leaven in our lives including distancing ourselves from brethren who have hardened their hearts and refuse to repent despite attempts to correct them.