If I am wrong about my beliefs - there is NO RISK for me

[BobRyan]

Realizing first of all - that there are saved saints in all Christian denominations:

As a Seventh-day Adventist -- if I am wrong about my beliefs – there is still no risk to me.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

2. IF I am wrong about rejecting the secret rapture and millennial kingdom on Earth (when I say that in the future the saints are raptured at Christ's Rev 19 appearing according to Matt 24 - and the saints spend the millennium with Christ in heaven, while earth is desolate for that period of time) – there is no risk to me. I get raptured anyway and learn about the details in heaven.

3. IF I am wrong about rejecting OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

4. IF I am wrong about the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment being the 2 Cor 5:10 judgment also in Rom 2:6-16, and so then those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me.

5. IF I am wrong about the 7th day Sabbath of Ex 20, and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me – let each one observe the day as he is persuaded Rom 14.

6. IF I am wrong about God’s health message and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me. The Adventist church has one of the 5 “blue zones” in the world, and live 5-7 years longer on average.

7. If I am wrong about Rev 14 (three Angel's messages) being the final warning to mankind before the tribulation-plagues of Rev 16 and the Rev 19 appearing of Christ, and those who ignore it are right, then still there is no risk to me for reading the warning as it is scripture and so is not a problem to share it "anyway".

8. IF I am wrong about rejecting "communion with the dead" (958) and those who choose to commune with the dead are right - there is no risk to me.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective. "
​

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them.

 

[BobRyan]

The argument that we make in example #1 above is that the atheist has nothing to lose by choosing belief in Christ and everything to gain by it.

And that is true in the big picture of "eternal life vs hole-in-ground". Rev 20 shows that the alternative to eternal life for the saints - is the lake of fire. A big big "risk"

But at a much smaller scope the atheist could argue "you miss out on the freedom to ignore all the rules for good behavior. You won't have false joy about a future in heaven that you will never get." In essence they have "you miss the fun of living like the world". But even they cannot deny that many Christians including scientists, doctors, statesmen, teachers , artists etc are living life "content" with their hope of eternal life.

Bottom line: you can only "lose BIG" one way on this.

For those who wish to have this discussion outside of an SDA subforum area - I have this topic in General Theology - Jan 3, 2022 #1

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Realizing first of all - that there saved saints in all Christian denominations:

As a Seventh-day Adventist -- if I am wrong about my beliefs – there is still no risk to me.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

2. IF I am wrong about the secret rapture and millennial kingdom – there is no risk to me. I get raptured anyway and learn about the details in heaven.

3. IF I am wrong about OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

4. IF I am wrong about the Dan 7 pr-advent judgment and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me.

5. IF I am wrong about the 7th day Sabbath of Ex 20, and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me – let each one observe the day as he is persuaded Rom 14.

6. IF I am wrong about God’s health message and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me. The Adventist church has one of the 5 “blue zones” in the world, and live 5 years longer on average.

7. IF I am wrong about rejecting "communion with the dead" (958) and those who choose to commune with the dead are right - there is no risk to me.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective. "​

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely “some risk” might exist for them.

You should post this in the denomination forum.

 

[BobRyan]

You should post this in the denomination forum.

Good point - I may do that but I want to see how well it ages here for short while first.

 

[sandman]

Personally, it was much more difficult when I was an Atheist, than when I turned to Christianity..."Difficult" as in.... it took greater believing in certain things.... and explaining thing to myself ....and I was never at peace.

Not saying that is true of all atheist..... that was just me.

 

[BobRyan]

Risks for OSAS:

For 4 point Calvinist style of OSAS where "perseverance of the saints" is denied… the risk is that Rom 11 is true and the person will in fact be “cut off” if they do not “continue” in their firm faith even though their own belief claims that whether they persevere or not – does not matter. They may not realize their danger if they do fall.

For 3 and 5 point Calvinist forms of OSAS where perseverance of the saints is not “optional” – they know that living like the devil won’t work even if they were born again 10 years ago. They simply retro-delete their assurance from 10 years back if they fall away. But there is RISK even in that case since the one who falls away – retro-deletes his former assurance as having never existed… and then comes back to the faith , ends up with a huge conundrum. His renewed

 

[BobRyan]

Personally, it was much more difficult when I was an Atheist, than when I turned to Christianity..."Difficult" as in.... it took greater believing in certain things.... and explaining thing to myself ....and I was never at peace.

Not saying that is true of all atheist..... that was just me.

That is a very good point. The intellectual effort to believe that "dust, gas and rocks" will over time come up with a rabbit, a horse or a human brain is incredibly challenging.

So in addition to it having the risk of loss of eternal life - and incurring the Rev 20 lake of fire ending - there is that aspect of claiming that "computers have no designer/maker/manufacturer" in the context of cell biology having vastly more programming complexity than a computer.

 

[BobRyan]

One could argue the risk for OSAS (Once saved always saved) this way

1. For 4 point Calvinist style of OSAS where perseverance of the saints is denied… the risk is that Rom 11 is true and the person will in fact be “cut off” if they do not “continue” in their firm faith even though their own belief claims that whether they persevere or not – does not matter. They may not realize their danger if they do fall.

2. For 3 and 5 point Calvinist forms of OSAS where perseverance of the saints is not “optional” – they know that living like the devil won’t work even if they were born again 10 years ago. They simply retro-delete their assurance from 10 years back if they fall away. But there is RISK even in that case since the one who falls away – retro-deletes his former assurance as having ever existed. So what happens when he/she then comes back to the faith ? They have a huge conundrum. His renewed faith looks a lot like his first faith early on before he fell away and he has already declared that to be retro-deleted-as-fake. … so now what???

That’s a huge problem for assurance.

 

[DavidPT]

Realizing first of all - that there are saved saints in all Christian denominations:

As a Seventh-day Adventist -- if I am wrong about my beliefs – there is still no risk to me.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

2. IF I am wrong about rejecting the secret rapture and millennial kingdom on Earth (when I say that in the future the saints are raptured at Christ's Rev 19 appearing according to Matt 24 - and the saints spend the millennium with Christ in heaven, while earth is desolate for that period of time) – there is no risk to me. I get raptured anyway and learn about the details in heaven.

3. IF I am wrong about OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

4. IF I am wrong about the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment being the 2 Cor 5:10 judgment also in Rom 2:6-16, and so then those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me.

5. IF I am wrong about the 7th day Sabbath of Ex 20, and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me – let each one observe the day as he is persuaded Rom 14.

6. IF I am wrong about God’s health message and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me. The Adventist church has one of the 5 “blue zones” in the world, and live 5-7 years longer on average.

7. IF I am wrong about rejecting "communion with the dead" (958) and those who choose to commune with the dead are right - there is no risk to me.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective. "​

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them.

If it wasn't for that New Threads column to the right, I wouldn't have been aware of this post. I see that it is posted in a section of the board I have never participated in before though, since I'm not an SDA. But I do fully agree with the OP. 1 and 3 in particular, in your list though, from your perspective I fully agree, but what if it was from the perspective of those taking an opposite stance? Would the same ending be true for them that it is for you, that there is no risk for them either?

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

That is from your perspective. What if it was from this perspective instead?

If I am wrong to be an atheist and instead Christians have the right belief - could it still be said there is no risk to me?

3. IF I am wrong about OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

That is from your perspective. What if it was from this perspective instead?

IF I am wrong about NOSAS (not once saved always saved) and the NOSAS groups are right – could it still be said there is no risk to me or to anyone who I taught wrong in regards to this?

 

[BobRyan]

If it wasn't for that New Threads column to the right, I wouldn't have been aware of this post. I see that it is posted in a section of the board I have never participated in before though, since I'm not an SDA. But I do fully agree with the OP. 1 and 3 in particular, in your list though, from your perspective I fully agree, but what if it was from the perspective of those taking an opposite stance? Would the same ending be true for them that it is for you, that there is no risk for them either?

I am adding posts to address the point you make for each one above since at the end of my OP I do say there is "some risk" in all of the counter-views to the ones I post.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

That is from your perspective. What if it was from this perspective instead?

If I am wrong to be an atheist and instead Christians have the right belief - could it still be said there is no risk to me?

There is great risk for the atheist in that case - because the Rev 20 lake of fire is for unbelievers.

3. IF I am wrong about OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

That is from your perspective. What if it was from this perspective instead?
IF I am wrong about NOSAS (not once saved always saved) and the NOSAS groups are right – could it still be said there is no risk to me or to anyone who I taught wrong in regards to this?

Good questions and welcome to this forum area. I may start this thread in a more open forum if there is enough interest in it.

I actually am taking the NOSAS position in the OP and showing that it has no risk. By rejecting OSAS one does not change the rule that to go to heaven one must accept the Gospel and be born again. Merely 'not knowing' that you have no risk of falling, so no risk of "being severed from Christ ... falling from Grace" (even though Gal 5:4 that such a thing is very real) -- means I believe Gal 5:4 as if it were real as a Christian. And even those who believe OSAS do not claim that to believe Gal 5:4 is to prove you were never saved. So still - no risk to me even if I am wrong.


I try to show in a later post here how OSAS positions do incur at least some risk. I will try to edit and make this more clear.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Realizing first of all - that there are saved saints in all Christian denominations:

As a Seventh-day Adventist -- if I am wrong about my beliefs – there is still no risk to me.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

2. IF I am wrong about rejecting the secret rapture and millennial kingdom on Earth (when I say that in the future the saints are raptured at Christ's Rev 19 appearing according to Matt 24 - and the saints spend the millennium with Christ in heaven, while earth is desolate for that period of time) – there is no risk to me. I get raptured anyway and learn about the details in heaven.

3. IF I am wrong about rejecting OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

4. IF I am wrong about the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment being the 2 Cor 5:10 judgment also in Rom 2:6-16, and so then those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me.

5. IF I am wrong about the 7th day Sabbath of Ex 20, and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me – let each one observe the day as he is persuaded Rom 14.

6. IF I am wrong about God’s health message and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me. The Adventist church has one of the 5 “blue zones” in the world, and live 5-7 years longer on average.

7. If I am wrong about Rev 14 (three Angel's messages) being the final warning to mankind before the tribulation-plagues of Rev 16 and the Rev 19 appearing of Christ, and those who ignore it are right, then still there is no risk to me for reading the warning as it is scripture and so is not a problem to share it "anyway".

8. IF I am wrong about rejecting "communion with the dead" (958) and those who choose to commune with the dead are right - there is no risk to me.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective. "
​

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them.

Hi Bob, funny that you made this OP. I found it by accident also in the new threads section that I check sometimes. I was thinking about doing something similar in private conversations with some people. Which I now feel I should do. I would put it in the public General forum so more people can read it.

God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob, funny that you right this OP. I found it be accident also in the new threads section that I check sometimes. I was thinking about doing something similar in private conversations with some people. I would put it in the public General forum so more people can read it.

God bless.

ok will do. A number of people have mentioned it and the thread just got started - so am starting this in General Theology forum here.

 

[SustainableBlueberry]

Sound’s like an Adventist version of Pascal’s Wager: It posits that human beings wager with their lives that God either exists or does not. A rational person (like Bob Ryan : ) should live as though God exists and seek to believe in and serve God. If God does not exist, Bob will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity separated from God – however that works out in the Adventist universe)...interesting take on a life long Roman Catholic philosopher's work.

 

[BobRyan]

Sound’s like an Adventist version of Pascal’s Wager: It posits that human beings wager with their lives that God either exists or does not. A rational person (like Bob Ryan : ) should live as though God exists and seek to believe in and serve God. If God does not exist, Bob will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity separated from God – however that works out in the Adventist universe)...interesting take on a life long Roman Catholic philosopher's work.

And include that scenario in my first point in the OP. Where I point that believing in God in the scenario where the atheist's view is the right one - still gives me the ultimate upside ending for the atheist -- a hole in the ground. My purpose in including that first scenario is to remind the Christian reader that this sort of common sense logical argument is exactly what we claim atheists should be capable of understanding.

Realizing first of all - that there are saved saints in all Christian denominations:

As a Seventh-day Adventist -- if I am wrong about my beliefs – there is still no risk to me.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

2. IF I am wrong about rejecting the secret rapture and millennial kingdom on Earth (when I say that in the future the saints are raptured at Christ's Rev 19 appearing according to Matt 24 - and the saints spend the millennium with Christ in heaven, while earth is desolate for that period of time) – there is no risk to me. I get raptured anyway and learn about the details in heaven.

3. IF I am wrong about rejecting OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

4. IF I am wrong about the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment being the 2 Cor 5:10 judgment also in Rom 2:6-16, and so then those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me.

5. IF I am wrong about the 7th day Sabbath of Ex 20, and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me – let each one observe the day as he is persuaded Rom 14.

6. IF I am wrong about God’s health message and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me. The Adventist church has one of the 5 “blue zones” in the world, and live 5-7 years longer on average.

7. If I am wrong about Rev 14 (three Angel's messages) being the final warning to mankind before the tribulation-plagues of Rev 16 and the Rev 19 appearing of Christ, and those who ignore it are right, then still there is no risk to me for reading the warning as it is scripture and so is not a problem to share it "anyway".

8. IF I am wrong about rejecting "communion with the dead" (958) and those who choose to commune with the dead are right - there is no risk to me.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective. "
​

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them.

 

[caecilius]

The OP is such an awesome post. I would like to post it in a couple other forums

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The OP is such an awesome post. I would like to post it in a couple other forums

I agree it is, but we can only discuss the Sabbath in the Traditional Adventist forum, the Sabbath Safe House 7th Day Safehouse and the Sabbath and the Law forum (debate forum) Sabbath and The Law Each forum has a statement of purpose and you will need to read that so you know what is allowed and not. It takes a while to learn to navigate things, but feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

 

[caecilius]

I dont mean this forum set. I am talking about putting it on another part of the internet--another forum set --- not here at Christian forums.

 

[BobRyan]

The OP is such an awesome post. I would like to post it in a couple other forums

ok with me - just attach "BobRyan" to the post to signify its source.

There is also another form of the OP - in General Theology on this same CF web site.

 

[BobRyan]

Sound’s like an Adventist version of Pascal’s Wager: It posits that human beings wager with their lives that God either exists or does not. A rational person (like Bob Ryan : ) should live as though God exists and seek to believe in and serve God. If God does not exist, Bob will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity separated from God – however that works out in the Adventist universe)...interesting take on a life long Roman Catholic philosopher's work.

In the OP -- I am making the point that the wager scenario above applies to more than just the "does God exist" scenario. And I am arguing that the same "caution" is best approach applies to all of the scenarios I list.

 

[Homeowner]

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them.

Isn't that bit pointless since you could go through all of thousands of religions past and present and whatever points of faith they might have and "some risk" might exist at rejecting any of their claims ?