Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One bit I received from the SDA church that I found helpful, comforting, and sensible, and that I have carried with me in the years since, is an answer I received during a Bible/EGW study. The topic was the IJ doctrine and the close of probation. I posed the question, "What happens if my probation closes on Tuesday, and I want to be saved on Wednesday?"
The answer came, "If your probation closes on Tuesday, you won't want to be saved on Wednesday."
I believe it is very difficult for someone to put him/herself in a position where it is too late for redemption. The Bible mentions "the love of many waxing cold," (Matthew 24:12) and "whose consciences are seared." (1 Timothy 4:2) To me this says that someone beyond salvation would be absolutely unfeeling on the matter. That person would have no desire to change the situation. That person would openly state that he or she is lost, and not bat an eyelash. Also, with no love, no conscience, and therefore no sense of right from wrong, that person would be capable of unspeakable evil without remorse.
I have yet to meet someone who fits this description. Charles Manson sort of comes to mind--but of course I haven't met him. Even if I had, I could not say for sure whether he falls into this category, but I'd guess he's at least a probable example.
I'm asking for a gesture of Christian brotherhood here, not just a theological debate in the nature of "one of us is right and the other is wrong," which I despise. I do not wish to debate, neither in a forum or via PM.You are entitled to your belief. Will you please let me be entitiled to mine, without putting me down for it by saying I don't "truly" know the Creator? And while you're at it, since the insult that I don't truly know the Father caused so much offense, it seems someone who claims to be so much more plugged in to Him than I am would have enough of His gentleness to apologize.
Or, I may just have to conclude that this is just one more forum I'm not free to speak my mind in.
Save anyone from what, Sentipente?I was referring to her statement that there is a possibility that one of the Father's creatures could be beyond salvation. When we come to truly know Him we understand that we are not His because He discovered us but because He made all of us from His very being. He could never refuse to save anyone of us.
......Romans 9:20-23, speculating over the motive that God has for the destruction that is taken for granted and supported by many texts.
The assertion of God's refusal to [not] "save" anyone doesn't mesh well with the judgment of those who have rejected Him. This is true in the new covenant as well as the old covenant mediated by Moses:
Hebrews 10:28-31
28: He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
By asserting God's inability to [not] "save" everyone, you deny the will everyone has to reject Him - and you deny God the right to destroy His property that has rejected Him.
This is God's 'down payment' of the redeemed possession that He has promised to save from judgment. The manner in which this is written more than suggests that there are those who do not fall into this category, and they have destruction promised for them.
I am dismayed - I preach umitigated grace and recognize that our own works are unable to add to the salvation that God has Himself provided. But the portrayal of the wrath of God that remains over those who have rejected Him is a Scriptural reality that can't be ignored.
and here Moriah and Victor can no more walk together, being not agreed.
μή με βασανίσῃς
Your kind words are sufficient for meThank you, Victor C. For the record, I tried to rep you for that, but you and Moriah are in the same situation. Both of you have been repped too recently by me.
Will someone cover Moriah and Victor for me? Thanks.
And I LOVE that cat!Your kind words are sufficient for me
I am dismayed - I preach umitigated grace and recognize that our own works are unable to add to the salvation that God has Himself provided.
Father is abundant in mercy, and it is available for the asking. None the less, it is a gift that can be rejected.
The portrayal of the wrath of God bes secondary to His election to give the full measure of that wrath to Christ to bear for us, secondary to the salvation He wrought for us all, and a MUCH misunderstood and poorly exegeted notion. Far from any sort of "Scriptural reality" in the way it typically bes parsed, no, it should not be ignored. It should be worked through -- but not by reverting back to common fundy ignorance on the subject invoking an eternal torture chamber and a "God of Love" whose version of "love" consists in claiming not to violate free as an excuse for refusing to save, deliver and heal, in order to, in the end, do precisely that (violate free will) without caring one whit, in order that He may torture or destroy them what displeases him, like some fussy self-important old man who cannot bear to have His ego bruised by being questioned or disagreed with.But the portrayal of the wrath of God that remains over those who have rejected Him is a Scriptural reality that can't be ignored.
Understood. Our approach should be one of patience.It bes dismayed as well. Perhaps it worded that too dramatically. It has been in dire torment all week and it bes exhausted and probably too much reactionary to things.
The idea of "irresistable grace" is one of the tenets of Calvinism, and I have to reject it.It agrees with unmitigated grace. It agrees unreservedly that our own works are unable to add to the salvation that God has Himself provided. But Victor it honestly believed -- could have sworn even you saying so directly -- that you shared in common with Moriah the extension of that by definition to the whole thing about human effort, including supposed human "choice" and supposed human "free will" (which it does not believe in to begin with). It genuinely -- but perhaps mistakenly? -- believed you shared Moriah's perception of that, that man cannot add to the salvation God has provided and that includes the whole notion of having to "choose" it.
I certainly hope I have presented a consistent message throughout.Maybe it had you confused with someone else. It will have to comb your posts & see if it can find what it bes thinking of.
Throughout Scripture, including the new testament, the presentation of "us" and "them" changes the address a specific message goes to. Yes, for those of "us" that have had the righeousness of Christ imputed onto us, Jesus has borne the entire judgment that we ourselves cannot bear.God's wrath already GOT exercised ultimately -- upon His own Son. No takebacks crossouts or do-overs. Done deal, everyone gets the same, regardless of when they come, whether now or at the last hour.
I have seen Adventists reject the Christian description of the Gospel for the very reasons you have elaborated on. For this reason I questioned Sentipente immediately with "what are you saved from?". It is important to note the passages of Scripture that don't shrink back from identifying a portion of his creation that is subject to wrath, destruction, and the lake of fire and the winepress of His wrath.The portrayal of the wrath of God bes secondary to His election to give the full measure of that wrath to Christ to bear for us, secondary to the salvation He wrought for us all, and a MUCH misunderstood and poorly exegeted notion. Far from any sort of "Scriptural reality" in the way it typically bes parsed, no, it should not be ignored. It should be worked through -- but not by reverting back to common fundy ignorance on the subject invoking an eternal torture chamber and a "God of Love" whose version of "love" consists in claiming not to violate free as an excuse for refusing to save, deliver and heal, in order to, in the end, do precisely that (violate free will) without caring one whit, in order that He may torture or destroy them what displeases him, like some fussy self-important old man who cannot bear to have His ego bruised by being questioned or disagreed with.
That portrait of God bes filth and Moriah most definitely rejects that. Unfortunately, it represents an accurate assessment of anyone or anything with "impotent omnipotence" what resorts to torturing creatures for things they had no choice about and no power over in the first place for not having recognized in something that may have struck them as odd, bizarre, or unseemly, a key to the golden land of actually meriting that blame. A God what bes a molester of innocents first and a destroyer of them afterwards for having been molested and lost their innocence.
Ephesians 2:11-16there bes no hope.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?