The Dualistic Conditional Immortality View of Hell

[Bible Highlighter]

Peace be with you.

Love and peace from the Lord be unto you.

aiki's view about sin and Hell is very clear. Sin is depravity therefore Hell is its just desserts.

Can you provide verses for this line of thinking?
Can you provide a real world example?

aiki here picks up on a hole in Jason's theology.

And here are the holes in Jason's theology.
Jason claims that God is moral and good.
If God is moral and good as Jason claims, how can 1 or 2 unrepentant sins separate the believer from God and Salvation?
Jason makes the claim that God is Holy and God punishes sin seriously by denying Salvation to a believer for just 1 or 2 unrepentant sins.

Well, I was attacking two different wrong doctrines at the same time separately. My point was not to bring them together as being the same thing. Eternal Security is about justifying sin on some level and Eternal Concious Torment is about painting God in a bad light and ignoring God's fair justice.

But when a Holy God punishes the sins of a sinner by sending the sinner to be tortured eternally in Hell, Jason makes the claim that cannot be, because God is moral and good.

If sin is as serious as Jason claims, that just 1 or 2 unrepentant sins can separate a believer from God and Salvation, why is it not possible for a Holy God to punish sin in a serious manner befitting what sin is?

There is a difference between God destroying a believer who has done something very wicked (Whereby God knows their heart and future) and He decides to end their life and condemns them vs. torturing wicked people waaaay beyond what the crimes call for. Now, I believe Ananais and Sapphira were once saved, but they lost that salvation but doing something really wicked in God's eyes. They lied to the Holy Ghost. Jesus said that even speaking bad words (blasphemy) against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven in this life. God will not put up with extreme wickedness for too long no matter if you are a believer or not. But "death" as punishment for people just committing one or two of certain sins as being horrible and evil in God's eyes is justifiable. For example: One sin can destroy people's lives. A person can drink and drive and kill their family. A person can just murder and cause all kind of problems in this world. So committing just one type of sin can be horrible and destructive. This in no way relates to the unjust punishment of Eternal Torment. There is no real world example that you can make to show us how Eternal Torment is just and good and fair.

Is it not possible that the Just treatment of sin by a Holy God is eternal punishment in Hell if sin is as serious as Jason claims sin to be?

Let's say a sinner kidnaps, then rapes, then tortures, then murders 100 females.

He gets caught and goes to trial.

The sinner lets everyone know that he enjoyed his sins.

The Sentences on offer:

The Judge sentences him to death. - Is this moral and good?

The Judge lets him live and sentences him to 100 years jail. - Is this moral and good?

The Judge makes him a warden in a female prison. - Is this moral and good?

The Judge forgives him and lets him back into society. - Is this moral and good?

The Judge banishes him to a Muslim country. - Is this moral and good?

The Judge orders him to be raped and tortured 100 times then put to death. - Is this moral and good?

Let's say among the victims of that sinner is Jason's wife, aiki's wife, Der Alter's wife and my wife.

But the sinner's mother lets everyone know that her son was born a good boy and is just a product of society's entertainment and inappropriate contentography. His life should be spared so that he can be rehabilitated.

Does morality and goodness come to play at all in all seriousness when sentencing this sinner?

Now if you feel angry at this sinner, just imagine how angry God would feel at this sinner.

If God were to send this sinner to be tortured forever in Hell, is this moral and good?

Or is God sadistic and wicked for sending this sinner to be tortured forever in Hell?

God bless you.

You offer a lot of questions with no real solution to anything.
This is not proof that there is a hole in my teaching of God's Word on this matter at all.
You did not really provide any real argument against me.
Just a lot of questions that go into different directions.
Yes, God would be wrong to send a sinner who has done the evil you have suggested to burn in hell for all time because it would be punishing somebody beyond a finite amount of crimes committed. Yes, God does hate sin, but God is also merciful and He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. God is love. God is not hate. Jesus (Who is God) said to the Father, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34). These truths in Scripture does not seem consistent with the God of ECT.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is what I was referring to as derogatory insinuations. "while you bury your moral compass? In this post link : The Dualistic Conditional Immortality View of Hell

Well, you have my apologies. I did not mean to make it personal with those words. I was not trying to be insulting in any way or to make this statement as a personal attack. If I could re-edit the post, I would do so. But just to have you know, I am attacking the belief of ECT. I am not singling you out. I believe ECT is the problem here. For doesn't ECT make a person to put aside their understanding of basic morality to believe that it is okay for God to punish a person waaay beyond a finite amount of sins or crimes committed against Him here in this life? For if ECT was sooo moral and good, wouldn't a person here have already explained to me already why it was moral and good?

Make a real world example to show me how ECT is moral, just, and good.
If not, then this is the proof in the pudding that shows that a person (who holds to an ECT viewpoint - generically speaking) does have to ignore morality on some level in order to believe it. Again, this is not a personal attack against you. I am talking about the flaw in the argument of the belief itself (in general here).

Anyways, please accept my apologies. I did not mean to make it personal.
May God bless you and please be well.



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To me, the argument that God must punish sin for all eternity because God is eternal doesn't resolve the issue of morality here. Just because God lives eternally doesn't mean that men sin against God eternally. Men do not have time machines so as to sin against God for all time. Also, it would be wrong of God to punish a person for all time for a finite amount of crimes committed here on this Earth because no real world example can illustrate such a thing. Jesus many times illustrated spiritual truth by way of real world examples. We also learn in Luke 12:47-48 that God is into fair justice. Such a passage would not exist in Scripture if God was into Eternal Torment.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I will admit, at first glance, Scripture does appear to suggest Eternal Torment because certain beings appear to be in fire and yet they are not burned, such as the richman not being burned by the flames in the Story of Lazarus and the Richman (Luke 16:19-31), and the beast and the false prophet appear to still be present in the Lake of Fire when the devil is cast there (Revelation 20:10) along with the following words, "...and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Also, the words "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is also very suggestive of Eternal Torment, as well. But when we take a closer look at Scripture, things are not always what they appear to be at first glance.

For example, the word "forever" and it's related words (synonyms) does not always mean "forever." See Post #2 within this thread to see a list. Also, while it is possible the richman could have been in the flames itself, we have to realize that he could also have been referring to the heat of the flames nearby him or we have to realize that (if he was in the flames), these are not the kind of flames that cause the kind of pain that makes you scream like we see in popular movies and or Christian videos.

We also see that the "Second Death" is the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). If it is called the "Second Death", logic dictates that it is related to the "First Death" in the fact that the body is destroyed. Matthew 10:28, Jesus relates the killing of the body in this world with the One (Himself) killing the body and soul in Gehenna (i.e. the Lake of Fire). Jesus does not make idle threats. If He says fear the One who can kill the body and soul in Gehenna, that means Jesus is going to kill the body and soul in Gehenna otherwise there is no real reason to fear Him then.

But what about "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46? Well, in Hebrews 6 it says,
"Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment" (Hebrews 6:2).

Are we to assume that God is going to be eternally judging us non-stop at some point for all time? No. But this is how one must interpret such words in Hebrews 6:2 if they are to interpret Matthew 25:46 in the same way.

As for the words "and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." in Revelation 20:11:
First, this is in reference to angels and not humans. Second, "for ever and ever" in Scripture is not always in reference to something being eternal. Psalms 21:4 says, "He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever." Okay. So a person asks God for the length of days upon their life and they receive the length of days for ever and ever. But does this mean God granted them with immortality in this life? No. This merely means that they forever ONE TIME been given the gift of living longer here upon this Earth. It is the same in Revelation 20:11. These demons (not humans) are tormented day and night For a certain set amount of time (that is temporal) with this type of punishment having a lasting consequence forever and ever. For we learn in both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 that the devil is mentioned as being like a carcase who is trodden under foot and who is brought to ashes.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe God's Word is like a test. He places things in there for us to think with our hearts and not with our heads alone. A surface reading of Scripture (while not looking at things morally) will only give a person the wrong conclusions about God. But God's Word is so much more. It is deeper than we think it is. One verse can have so much depth to it (like the depth of the deepest oceans).

For atheists use the wrong interpretation on God's Word to prove that God is not good and moral. However, they are not taking the whole Word of God into account in what it says by comparing Scripture with Scripture. They are not taking it on faith that God is good and that His good ways can be explained. Granted, I am not saying that believers here are like atheists. No, no. Most certainly not. What I am saying is that you have to trust God is good and moral in all He does and all of Scripture should bear witness to that fact. God's actions in regards to His Judgment within His Word are not some kind of unexplanable mystery. Yes, we cannot know God's ultimate plan for our life or for our neighbor's life (which is the unknowable judgments of God), but we can know that God is good even when a baby dies or when millions die. God is good. He is good in all He does. I cannot say God is good and then think He tortures people for all eternity (or time). That is a contradiction. God's Word gives us the answers to how God is good even despite the evil world that we live in today.



...

 

[aiki]

But the difference is if the truth backs us up by:

(a) The whole of Scripture.
(b) Whether or not a real world example can be made out of such a belief.

I can establish OSAS by both Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura. I don't know, though, what you mean by "real world example." I believe in the Triune God revealed in Scripture, but there is no "real world" parallel to the Triune aspect of God's nature. The Bible also teaches God is omniscient but there is no "real world" parallel to His omniscience. Only God is omniscient. God is also omnipresent, the Bible says. Can you find a "real world" example of a being like God that is everywhere in the universe at every moment? I can't. It doesn't seem to me, then, to be a legitimate criteria for determining divine truth to expect it always to have a "real world" parallel.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3).

This means that God's ways are not that complicated.

The verse doesn't actually say that. It says there is simplicity in Christ but why does this mean, therefore, that all God's ways are simple? What is simple about the doctrine of the Trinity? Or how about the way God brought about our salvation? He took on flesh, was born of a virgin in the line of King David, lived in relative obscurity for 30-some years, then with miracles and radical preaching provoked the Jewish religious leaders of his time to kill him, he died on a cross, and then rose again from the dead three days later. How is this simple? Obviously, it isn't. One could cite the story of Gideon, or of the defeat of Jericho, or of Joseph being sold into Egypt as other good examples of ways in which God acted that were not simple at all. It seems evident to me, then, that the "simplicity that is in Christ" is not a reference to God's ways being simple. The NASB translation helps to clarify what Paul actually meant:

2 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

The NIV translates the verse almost identically to the NASB:

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

The RSV, ISV, and ESV, also render the verse this way. In light of what I've pointed out above, these renderings make a whole lot more sense that what you've suggested.

People make them to be complicated when they say that a person can just believe on Christ and they then say we do not need to worry about our salvation from that point on.

What's complicated about the idea that when God saves someone they stay saved? That doesn't seem complicated in the least, to me.

Paul says to us believers that we are to prove that Christ is in us unless we be reprobate (2 Corinthians 13:5). Paul also says, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12). Peter says we are to make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10).

Yes, and? I agree entirely with Paul and Peter: anyone claiming to be saved needs to make sure their claim is true.

Paul writes that we must "work out our own salvation" but in the very next verse he writes,

Philippians 2:13
13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

We can only work out what God has first worked in to us by His Spirit. And He "works" His Spirit into each of His children at the moment they are saved. So, what Paul is saying is that as a consequence of their salvation, a child of God is able to work out in their lives what God has worked into them. Philippians 2:12, therefore, is not a verse teaching a SAL (saved-and-lost) doctrine.

The sermon on the mount could easily be categorized as a pure teaching on God's righteous ways. For I see very little emphasis by Jesus on how a person can just believe and then not worry about sin in regards to their right standing with God at the sermon on the mount. On the contrary, we see the exact opposite (See Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15).

In the first Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is setting the bar of righteousness so high no one can reach it on their own. He was making it clear that the legalistic, external "righteousness" of the Pharisees could not gain anyone entrance into God's kingdom. This was a very radical sort of teaching since the Pharisees were regarded by the Jews as a sort of "gold standard" for pious living. If their righteousness was not enough (Matthew 5:20), no one could measure up. This teaching is an integral part of the Gospel which, in revealing our utter inability to meet God's standard of perfect righteousness, turns us to Christ who is the only and Narrow Way to God.

So was Jesus teaching wrongfully on the Sermon on the Mount by overemphasizing righteous living?

No. I think, though, that you misunderstand the fundamental message of his Sermon on the Mount. See above.

Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus and the doctrine of Godliness, they are proud and they know nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Actually, you have misunderstood Paul here, too. If you take verse 1-4 together, they make better sense:

1 Timothy 6:1-3
1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed.
2 And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things.
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness,

In context, Paul is talking about his own divinely-inspired words above concerning slaves and their masters that, as divinely-inspired words, are the "words of Christ" and communicate a godly doctrine.

But there are many who say they believe in OSAS and yet they do believe they can sin as much as they like with the thinking they are saved.

This has not been my experience in living all my life among thousands of believers who hold to an OSAS view.

When they speak generally of the gospel, I do not see much difference between their message and the those OSAS proponents who believe that a saint has to generally live holy. Also, I do not see OSAS proponents who believe that a saint must generally live holy making it their mission to speak out against those OSAS proponents who think they can sin as much as they like with the thinking they are saved, either. This tells me that their doctrines are not all that unrelated to each other. For one seeks to justify lots of sin and the other seeks to justify a little bit of sin with God obviously rewarding them with Heaven (despite doing such evils).

Your experience and opinions here do not define OSAS doctrine.

Does a child not love his parents just because they know they can be disciplined or punished by their parents?

A child who fears corrective discipline from their parent is one thing; a child who fears eternal conscious torment from their parent is quite another. Surely, this is obvious to you. No child could love a parent who they thought would cast them into hell if they stepped even slightly wrong. All such thinking engenders is fear which, as the apostle John points out, is anathema to love:

1 John 4:16-19
16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.
19 We love Him because He first loved us.

God's good ways and His fair judgment are in perfect harmony with each other. But in my view, these things become distorted in ECT and OSAS.

This is exactly what I think about your views!

This is what I do not understand. How can God agree with a believer's thinking that they can sin with God rewarding them with Heaven despite such evil?

This isn't the OSAS view. It's your Strawman version of it.

Our acceptance by God is entirely contingent upon Christ. His perfect, finished work at Calvary is the only means by which God opens His family and kingdom to us. Our sin-corrupted efforts to obey will never obtain for us the salvation that can only ever be found in "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World." In light of this, your SAL view seems to me grossly unbiblical, appealing to one's desire for Self-preservation rather than to a motive of love, and corrupts the perfect atonement of Christ by suggesting it requires the addition of our righteous deeds to gain us God's acceptance.

But what if you are wrong? Would you want God to be upset with you for misrepresenting His good character? For the point I am getting at is the "what if."

Inasmuch as I have carefully studied out this matter and have an excellent scriptural basis for my view, I am not troubled by any "what ifs?".

To me, I would not want to take the chance on coloring God in a bad light just because it is a doctrine that is popular among Bible believing churches.

This isn't what I am doing. This is your Strawman version of what you think I'm doing, but it is not actually what I'm doing.

If sin was that awful, then Jesus would need to suffer for all eternity in the flames for us in order to forgive us.

Yikes! You seem not to understand why hell is eternal. The eternality of hell is due to our imperfectness, not the depth of our sin. God's justice requires a perfect sacrifice for sin in order to be satisfied. Only He is perfect and so only He can fully atone for our sin. We aren't perfect and never will be on our own. And so, unrepentant, unregenerate sinners trying to satisfy a demand for perfection with imperfection spend an eternity doing so.

You actually have the weaker view of God's holiness because God has to (a) agree with your thinking that sin on some level is okay with Him because a believer can die in one or two unrepentant sins with the thinking they can be saved (as long as they generally live holy)

Again, this is not the OSAS view - at least, not mine. For OSAS to be true, God does not have to agree with or accept some of our sin. OSAS rests upon Christ's perfection, you see, not our own. Thinking as you do, that your righteousness somehow merits Gods acceptance of you reveals a very low view of God's perfect holiness. A man who understands how holy God is realizes that his best is utterly inferior to the holiness God demands from him. Only God's perfect holiness will do. And we only get that from Christ.

Romans 3:21-24
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

So, no, my view of God's holiness is not so low I think I can by dint of my own efforts make myself acceptable to God as you seem to do.

(b) God can punish people beyond what the crime calls for. Both of these beliefs are a violation of God's morality and goodness (Which is wrong). But people see the way they do for their own reasons.

But as I've explained in earlier posts, ECT doesn't hold that God punishes people out of proportion to their sin. That is what a person thinks when he has a low view of God's holiness and a weak sense of the wickedness of his sin.

Not true at all. When I was an ECT proponent in the past, I strived to defend the morality of ECT. But I was never able to truly do so.

So? This doesn't mean biblical explanations of OSAS don't exist. As I said, they do; you just don't accept them.

There is no real world example that you can provide for such a monstrous doctrine of painting God in such a bad light.

??? I really don't know what you mean here. People paint God in a bad light all the time. You've done so - though unwittingly, I think - in this very thread! Will that do as a "real world" example?

Yet, I still held to the belief in ECT. I am currently against ECT now because "whereas I was blind, now I see."

That, I think, remains a matter of opinion.

I used to believe in ECT very strongly. I then became on the fence on ECT and CI (Conditional Immortality). But I then later learned of more verses of the truth in support of CI that made such a positon the only truth. So it was not an overnight change. I carefully compared Scripture with Scripture and prayed about it a lot.

I have made a long and careful study of my beliefs concerning salvation and have looked to God for illumination and guidance. And I have come to a very different view than yours. Your efforts - like mine - don't of themselves guarantee you've got the right of things, so I'm not sure why you're talking about them.

I am always seeking to seek the truth of God's Word and not what I want.

Glad to hear it!

My encouragment to you is to pray to God to show you the truth of God's Word on this matter. Consider CI as a potential possibility.

I have and have discarded it as unbiblical. You should do the same. If you give false doctrines an inch, they'll take a mile.

Anyways, love, peace, and blessings be unto you.
And please be well in the Lord and His good ways.

You, too.

Selah.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I can establish OSAS by both Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura.

If after you read my following post and you do not agree, I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on. For after you read my post, and you still do not agree, I would encourage you to not reply to my post (because I am not interested in going back and forth about something that is so obvious to see in regards to "basic morality").

Anyways, to get to the topic at hand:

Well, Eternal Security can easily be disproved by pointing out the surrounding context of a verse that supposedly proves it. For there hasn't been a verse (that supposedly proves Eternal Security) that I was not able to refute using Scripture.

In fact, I am not sure how a person can read the Bible and ignore all the verses that refute the unbiblical teaching of Eternal Security. For when a person reads their Bible they will see a refutation of Eternal Security in the majority of the New Testament (and in some cases, depending on the book, they will see a refutation of Eternal Security on almost every page). Therefore, I beg everyone here (who believes in Eternal Security and who has an open heart to receive the seed of God's Word into their heart) to re-examine what they believe and look at the following verses by way of prayer. For if I am wrong, I have nothing to lose (because I do not believe in Works Salvationism; I believe in Relationship-ism with God). But if the Eternal Security Proponent is wrong, they have everything to lose. Anyways, here is a...

Long List of Verses Refuting Eternal Security or OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved):

• Matthew 7:21-23 - Jesus only “knows” those who do Father God’s will; all others are practicing lawlessness.

• Matthew 10:33 - Whoever denies Jesus before men He will also deny before His Father in heaven.

• Matthew 12:31-32 - Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. This means verbally cursing or speaking bad about the Holy Spirit.

• Matthew 13:18-23 - 2 people types (no root, unfruitful) come to eternal life, and then return to the lost state.

• Matthew 18:21-35, Mark 11:25-26 - Forgive men’s sins against you, or God won’t forgive your sins against Him.

• Matthew 25:44-46 - Those who do not help even one needy soul will go into everlasting punishment.

• Mark 8:35-36 - Whoever desires to save his (old) life, or gain the whole world, will lose his soul.

• Mark 9:43-48 - Get rid of whatever causes you to sin; it will cause you to be cast into hell fire.

• Mark 13:13 - But he who endures with his faith to the end (of his life) shall be saved eternally (Also seeMatthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Colossians 1:22-23, 1 Timothy 4:16, Hebrews 10:35-39, Revelation 2:10)

• Luke 9:23-25 - Whoever does not deny himself for Jesus’ sake will be destroyed (eternal death).

• Luke 14:26-33 - Jesus warns prospective believers how difficult and costly it is to be His disciple… will they have enough to finish this life of placing Him above all else, bearing their crosses, etc.?

• Luke 18:9-14 - Jesus taught that the man who was more justified was the one who humbled himself and cried out to God for mercy before God vs. the man who did not do so.

• John 3:19, 20 - An important point about "The Condemnation" is that those who loved darkness hate the Light because they loved the pleasure of their own evil deeds, unless of course their deeds should be reproved (that is).

• John 12:25 - He who loves his life in this world will lose it (eternal life) later.

• John 15:1-6 - Christians who do not bear fruit (are not abiding in Jesus) are thrown into the fire.

• John 17:3 - Eternal life is actually “knowing” Father God and Jesus Christ. Do you really know them?

• Romans 1:29-32 - Anyone practicing such sins is deserving of death due to God’s wrath on unrighteousness.

• Romans 2:5-11 - Wrath is coming to those who are unrighteously self-seeking and do not obey the truth.

• Rom 6:15-23 - Be a slave of God and to righteousness for holiness, resulting in holiness and eternal life.

• Romans 8:1-8 - Anyone who is carnally-minded (is living according to the flesh) will die spiritually.

• Romans 8:12-13 - We are not debtors to the flesh; if we live according to the flesh, we will die.

• Romans 11:20-22 - Fear unbelief, that if you do not continue to have faith, you will be cut off like the OT Jews.

• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Anyone practicing such sins is unrighteous, and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

• 1 Corinthians 15:2 - You are saved, if you hold fast to that word (the gospel) … unless you believed in vain.

• 2 Corinthians 7:10 - Godly sorrow over sin leads Christians to repent, which leads to salvation.

• 2 Corinthians 13:5 - Examine and test yourself to see if you are in the faith, unless you are disqualified.

• Galatians 5:1-4 - Christians are warned: those who later have attempted to be justified by law, … have been estranged from Christ and have fallen from grace.

• Galatians 5:19-21 - Anyone practicing such sins (the works of the flesh) will not inherit the kingdom of God.

• Galatians 5:24 - Those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

• Galatians 6:7-8 - Don't be deceived: sowing to the flesh reaps corruption, sowing to the Spirit reaps eternal life.

• Ephesians 5:3-6 - Believers practicing such sins will not inherit God’s kingdom, but will incur the wrath of God.

• Ephesians 5:25-27 - Jesus gave Himself for a glorious Church which will be sanctified, holy, without blemish.

• Philippians 2:12-16 - Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, holding fast the word of life …
  … so that: (1) you may become blameless, and (2) Paul did not labor in vain concerning you.

• Philippians 3:7-14 - Paul presses on to attaining the goal of gaining Christ, knowing Him, and being found in Him.

• Colossians 1:21-29 - Jesus’ desires (and Paul labors to warn and teach) to present “holy and blameless” and “perfect in Christ Jesus” those who continue in faith, not moved away from the hope of the gospel.

• Colossians 3:5-6 - Believers practicing such sins beware: the wrath of God will come upon sons of disobedience.

• 1 Timothy 4:1 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith.

• 1 Timothy 5:11-15 - Some younger widows are condemned; they cast off their first faith and turned after Satan.

• 1 Timothy 6:3-4 - Paul says that if any man teaches contrary to the words of Jesus and the doctrine of Christ is proud knowing nothing.

• 1 Timothy 6:9-14 - Greed and love of money drowns men in destruction and perdition; Instead, pursue godliness and lay hold on eternal life (and keep this command without blame).

• 1 Timothy 6:17-19 - Commands for the rich (yes, Christians) to follow, so they may lay hold on eternal life.

• Titus 1:1-3 - Faith and knowledge of the truth lead to godliness, in the hope of eternal life.

• Hebrews 2:1-4 - Warning about drifting away: how shall we escape, if we drift and neglect so great a salvation?

• Hebrews 3:6 - We belong to Christ, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

• Hebrews 3:12-15 - Beware of an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, being hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, for we are only partakers of Christ if we hold steadfast to the end.

• Hebrews 3:17-19 - The OT Jews who sinned (did not obey) could not enter into God’s rest (the Promised Land).

• Hebrews 4:1 - Let us fear lest any of us come short of entering God’s rest (God’s promise of salvation).

• Hebrews 4:11 - Be diligent to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall according to the OT example of disobedience.

• Hebrews 6:4-8 - Those enlightened and partakers of the Holy Spirit who fall away will be rejected and burned.

• Hebrews 10:26-27 - If we sin willfully after receiving knowledge of the truth, expect God’s fiery judgment.

• Hebrews 10:29-31 - The Lord will judge His people. “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay”, says the Lord.

• Hebrews 10:35-39 - Endure in the faith, and do not be like those who draw back to perdition.

• Hebrews 12:14-15 - Pursue holiness (w/o which no one will see the Lord) lest anyone falls short of God’s grace.

• Hebrews 12:15-17 - Many believers become defiled, and finding no place for repentance, are rejected.

• James 1:12-16 - Love the Lord, endure temptation to sin; do not be deceived, sin results in spiritual death.

• 1 Peter 1:8-9 - Believing, you will receive the end of your (enduring) faith—the salvation of your souls.

• 2 Peter 1:10-11 - Be diligent to make your call & election sure, so you won’t stumble, but gain the kingdom.

• 2 Peter 2:1, 14 - The false prophets (i.e. believers) are those who have eyes full of adultery and cannot cease from sin.

• 2 Peter 2:20-22 - If Christians are overcome by worldly sins, they are worse off than they were before knowing the way of righteousness, they turned from the holy commandment delivered to them.

• 1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, God will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

• 1 John 2:3-5 - We are sure that we “know” God and are “in” Him, if we keep His commandments.

• 1 John 2:24-25 - If God’s word does not abide in us, the Father and the Son will not abide in us, nor we in Them, and we will not receive the promised eternal life.

• 1 John 3:15 - If you hate your brother, you’re like a murderer who has no eternal life abiding in him.

• Jude 1:4 NIV - There are those false believers who turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality

• Jude 1:20-21 - 3 things for Christians to do, while looking for God’s mercy unto eternal life.

• Revelation 2:10 - Be faithful until death and Jesus will give you the crown of (eternal) life (Also see Mark 13:13 above).

• Revelation 2:11 - He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death (eternal death).

• Revelation 3:5 - He who overcomes will not have his name blotted out from the Book of Life.

• Revelation 14:9-11 - Those that worship the Beast and take his mark drink of the wine of the Wrath of God and will be thrown in the Lake of Fire.

• Revelation 21:8 - Anyone practicing such sins will go into the lake of fire, which is the second death.

• Revelation 21:27 - Anyone practicing such sins is not in the Book of Life, and will not enter the New Jerusalem.

• Revelation 22:14 - Anyone who does not do God’s commandments does not have the right to the tree of life.

• Revelation 22:15 - Anyone practicing such sins will be outside the gates of the New Jerusalem.

• Revelation 22:18 - If any man takes away from the prophecy of the book (i.e. the Scriptures), God will take away their name out of the Book of Life.

Source:
Your handy-dandy long list of verses against OSAS

I don't know, though, what you mean by "real world example."

Real world examples would be like the parables Jesus put forth. For Jesus made real world illustrations (parables) so as to teach spiritual truth. The Canaanite woman was able to expound upon Jesus's parable with a parable (real world example) of her own to be in line with spiritual truth. She said even the dogs eat from the Master's table. Jesus did not say that it was just a fictious story or that she was in error. In fact, Jesus commended her for her faith in making a parable or real world example like this. In other words, the majority of God's truths within His Word can be made into a real world example or parable. However, this cannot be done with ECT or OSAS because they go against basic morality.

I believe in the Triune God revealed in Scripture, but there is no "real world" parallel to the Triune aspect of God's nature.

Yes, there is a difference between God and the creation. But this would not be the case for spiritual truths that would apply to us (which is what a majority of Christ's parables focused on). But even the creation shines forth the glorious nature of our God.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Romans 1:20).

A. "The Trinity in Science"
There are many examples of the Trinity within nature.

Atoms = Nucleus, Protons, Electrons.
Water Molecules = Hydrogen Atom, Hydrogen Atom, Oxygen Atom.
Colors of White Light = Red, Blue, Green.
Man's Formation = Dust, Mist (i.e. Water), Breadth of Life.
Man (Made in God's Image) = Physical Body, Spirit Body, Soul.
Time = Past, Present, Future.
Earth = Crust, Mantle, Core
3 Major Values = Black, Grey, White

The Bible also teaches God is omniscient but there is no "real world" parallel to His omniscience. Only God is omniscient.

The intricate design work of His creation is a testimony of His Omniscience.

God is also omnipresent, the Bible says. Can you find a "real world" example of a being like God that is everywhere in the universe at every moment? I can't. It doesn't seem to me, then, to be a legitimate criteria for determining divine truth to expect it always to have a "real world" parallel.

We know by the transformation of men by God's power can happen all over the globe at once is testimony to God's Omnipresent power. We see can see this in his creation (i.e. mankind). Men all over the globe can repent and turn to Him at once and be different men by God's power. But as I said before, the truths about God that are about His unique nature and being are different than the truths Jesus expressed in His parables that we are supposed to apply to our own lives (personally).

The verse doesn't actually say that. It says there is simplicity in Christ but why does this mean, therefore, that all God's ways are simple?

Well, the context of 2 Corinthians 11:3 is in being faithful to Christ.

"...for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2).

One could cite the story of Gideon, or of the defeat of Jericho, or of Joseph being sold into Egypt as other good examples of ways in which God acted that were not simple at all. It seems evident to me, then, that the "simplicity that is in Christ" is not a reference to God's ways being simple. The NASB translation helps to clarify what Paul actually meant:

2 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

The NIV translates the verse almost identically to the NASB:

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Very good. The context of what I was talking about in regards to Conditional Salvation. Devotion to Christ is simple and easy to understand. But Eternal Security is against that idea because it says you can also sin on some level and still be saved. Eve was deceived by the serpent into thinking she could sin and still be saved.

The RSV, ISV, and ESV, also render the verse this way. In light of what I've pointed out above, these renderings make a whole lot more sense that what you've suggested.

Not true, they are in line with Conditional Salvation and not Eternal Security.

What's complicated about the idea that when God saves someone they stay saved? That doesn't seem complicated in the least, to me.

It's complicated because God is not in the business of force saving anyone into His Kingdom. For if that was the case then everyone would be saved. God gave man free will to choose good or to do evil. To choose God or to choose themselves. God is not complicated in regards to morality because if one does serious evil, then God being fair, just, and good will punish that person (no matter who they are). God cannot agree with sin. God is good. That is simple. If God did not punish a believer for doing evil, then that would show us that God is not good, fair, and just. Oh, and sorry. God did not send His Son to the cross to pay for a believer's sins so that they can treat grace as a license to sin on some level. Yes, I know. You said a believer must generally live a holy life, but yet you seem to be also saying that a saint can die in one or two unrepentant serious sins and yet still be saved. This means a believer can commit suicide and be saved; Or a believer can kill another and be saved; Or a believer can sleep around and be saved. But it doesn't work like that.

Yes, and? I agree entirely with Paul and Peter: anyone claiming to be saved needs to make sure their claim is true.

How do they do that? 1 John 2:3-6.

Paul writes that we must "work out our own salvation" but in the very next verse he writes,

Philippians 2:13
13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

We can only work out what God has first worked in to us by His Spirit. And He "works" His Spirit into each of His children at the moment they are saved. So, what Paul is saying is that as a consequence of their salvation, a child of God is able to work out in their lives what God has worked into them. Philippians 2:12, therefore, is not a verse teaching a SAL (saved-and-lost) doctrine.

First, I believe God works in the believer and does the good work. But that does not mean a believer's free will is taken away and they are forced by God in the Lord doing His good work in them whether they like it or not. We are not dragged about like rag dolls doing God's will. Yes, God does indeed do the good work in us. For Jesus said we can do nothing without Him (John 15:5). But Paul says work out your salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING. Why all the trembling if it is not about fear?

In the first Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is setting the bar of righteousness so high no one can reach it on their own. He was making it clear that the legalistic, external "righteousness" of the Pharisees could not gain anyone entrance into God's kingdom. This was a very radical sort of teaching since the Pharisees were regarded by the Jews as a sort of "gold standard" for pious living. If their righteousness was not enough (Matthew 5:20), no one could measure up. This teaching is an integral part of the Gospel which, in revealing our utter inability to meet God's standard of perfect righteousness, turns us to Christ who is the only and Narrow Way to God.

Wow. Really? Do you really believe that? There is no verse in Scripture that says that was the point of the sermon on the mount. Actually, Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). That's Paul!

Actually, you have misunderstood Paul here, too. If you take verse 1-4 together, they make better sense:

1 Timothy 6:1-3
1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed.
2 And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things.
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness,

In context, Paul is talking about his own divinely-inspired words above concerning slaves and their masters that, as divinely-inspired words, are the "words of Christ" and communicate a godly doctrine.

That makes absolutely no sense. The people that Paul is talking to does not change what he was saying in verses 3-4.

Jesus's words on the Sermon on the Mount are still true in regards to instruction in righteousness.

In fact, all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Anyways, if the Sermon on the Mount was not Jesus instructing us on how to be righteous, then why did He warn us that we are in danger of hell fire if we look upon a woman in lust? (Matthew 5:28-30). Why would Jesus say that we are in danger of hell fire if we say "You fool!" to our brother? (Matthew 5:22). Why would Jesus say that if we do not forgive we will not be forgiven by the Father? (Matthew 6:15). Does Jesus later say we can do these sinful things and still be right with Him as long as we have a belief in Jesus? Surely not. Also, Jesus makes it a point in being not like the hypocrites in certain things, as well (Matthew 6). Jesus problem with the Pharisees was not just a lack of belief in Him as the Savior alone but He also condemned them by the fact they were hypoctrites (Matthew 23:13-33). Also, in Matthew 7, Jesus's point is made in verses 26-27.

26 "And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:26-27).

This has not been my experience in living all my life among thousands of believers who hold to an OSAS view.

Many times, OSAS proponents have attacked me as a person instead of sticking with Scripture. That is my experience with them. They also can never explain the morality behind how God can ignore the concept of a believer dying in one or two serious unrepentant sins (like lying or lusting after a woman) and still being saved (as long as they live a holy life), too.

Your experience and opinions here do not define OSAS doctrine.

Yes it does because Jesus said we will know a tree by it's fruit.

A child who fears corrective discipline from their parent is one thing; a child who fears eternal conscious torment from their parent is quite another. Surely, this is obvious to you. No child could love a parent who they thought would cast them into hell if they stepped even slightly wrong. All such thinking engenders is fear which, as the apostle John points out, is anathema to love:

1 John 4:16-19
16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.
19 We love Him because He first loved us.

Perfect love is cast out by obeying His Word.
John says we perfect love by keeping His Word (1 John 2:5).
Whosoever says he knows him and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in them.

Our acceptance by God is entirely contingent upon Christ. His perfect, finished work at Calvary is the only means by which God opens His family and kingdom to us. Our sin-corrupted efforts to obey will never obtain for us the salvation that can only ever be found in "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World." In light of this, your SAL view seems to me grossly unbiblical, appealing to one's desire for Self-preservation rather than to a motive of love, and corrupts the perfect atonement of Christ by suggesting it requires the addition of our righteous deeds to gain us God's acceptance.

Not true.

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24).
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17).
"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Titus 1:16).
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, "
(1 Timothy 6:3-4).
"...God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." (James 4:6).
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:9).
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (1 Corinthians 16:22).
"If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15).
"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1:21).
"But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2:8-11).
"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." (John 3:20).
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1-2).
"...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17).

And there are of course many more verses like these, as well.

Verses on the Error of Christians saying they cannot walk uprightly:

Jesus says,

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

Jesus also says,

"You give glory to my Father when you produce a lot of fruit and therefore show that you are my disciples." (John 15:8 GW).

And Peter says,

"Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world." (1 Peter 2:12 NLT).

Paul says,

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" (Philippians 2:15).

Inasmuch as I have carefully studied out this matter and have an excellent scriptural basis for my view, I am not troubled by any "what ifs?". This isn't what I am doing. This is your Strawman version of what you think I'm doing, but it is not actually what I'm doing.

Wow. There is no more point to continue on with this kind of discussion if you are saying something like this. It appears that you are simply seeing what you want to see (and the truth of God's Word should not be carefully examined). It seems like you are saying you are infallibe in regards to knowing God's truth if you do not care to examine both sides of the argument by comparing Scripture with Scripture and by praying to God about it. No "what ifs" in you being wrong. You are right and that is it. Sorry, but you are not infallible and perfect in knowing the truth of God's Word.

But my encouragment to you is to be a good Berean and seek the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not.

Yikes! You seem not to understand why hell is eternal.

I say the same word, "Yikes!" in relation to what you believe because you honestly cannot see how it is immoral for a being to torture a people beyond the crimes in what they have done.

The eternality of hell is due to our imperfectness, not the depth of our sin. God's justice requires a perfect sacrifice for sin in order to be satisfied. Only He is perfect and so only He can fully atone for our sin. We aren't perfect and never will be on our own. And so, unrepentant, unregenerate sinners trying to satisfy a demand for perfection with imperfection spend an eternity doing so.

Again, if ECT is the punishment then Jesus would need to experience ECT for us in order to save us. But seeing that Jesus died one time upon the cross, that had fulfilled the necessary requirement for sin. Jesus did not need to suffer for all time on our behalf by suffering in the flames for all time. So in ECT, Jesus's punishment of sin does not match up with man's punishment of their sin.

Again, this is not the OSAS view - at least, not mine. For OSAS to be true, God does not have to agree with or accept some of our sin. OSAS rests upon Christ's perfection, you see, not our own. Thinking as you do, that your righteousness somehow merits Gods acceptance of you reveals a very low view of God's perfect holiness. A man who understands how holy God is realizes that his best is utterly inferior to the holiness God demands from him. Only God's perfect holiness will do. And we only get that from Christ.

Romans 3:21-24
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Sigh. Romans 3 is talking about Initial Salvation or how we are ultimately saved. It is not talking about the process of Sancitification (Which is God doing the good work through you) that comes after. Do you think Romans 3:11 applies to the faithful saint, as well?

So, no, my view of God's holiness is not so low I think I can by dint of my own efforts make myself acceptable to God as you seem to do.

We are told not to be deceived on the following matter.

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7).

He that does righteous is righteous.

In fact, we can know the difference between the children of God vs. the children of the devil by looking at their fruit. For it is written,

"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1 John 3:10).

For without holiness... no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

But as I've explained in earlier posts, ECT doesn't hold that God punishes people out of proportion to their sin. That is what a person thinks when he has a low view of God's holiness and a weak sense of the wickedness of his sin.

First, what verse actually says this? Second, what real world example can you give me to illustrate such a thing? No verse says that when we sin we are sinning against God on an ETERNAL level. Three, also no verse says that the unsaved have eternal life, either (i.e. Meaning the wicked will live eternally just as the saints will live eternally).

So? This doesn't mean biblical explanations of OSAS don't exist. As I said, they do; you just don't accept them.

There is a difference between rational explanations of God's Word that line up with the context and by using a real world example vs. not being able to do these things. OSAS cannot be explained in a rational way that lines up with the whole of Scripture in what it plainly says. OSAS cannot be made into a real world example or parable, as well.

??? I really don't know what you mean here. People paint God in a bad light all the time. You've done so - though unwittingly, I think - in this very thread! Will that do as a "real world" example?

False accusations will not help to prove your case here but they will only hinder it.

I have made a long and careful study of my beliefs concerning salvation and have looked to God for illumination and guidance. And I have come to a very different view than yours. Your efforts - like mine - don't of themselves guarantee you've got the right of things, so I'm not sure why you're talking about them.

But your belief does not take into account the whole of Scripture properly. Your changing of Jesus's words on the Sermon on the Mount to suggest that it was a point on how believers cannot live righteously is not found in the Scriptures. No verse or passage suggests that was Jesus's point on the sermon on the mount. On the contrary, there are many verses and passages in the New Testament that line up with what Jesus says on the Sermon on the Mount in regards to living righteously. Also, it would be deceptive of Jesus to teach such righteousness and then not conclude with some words that it is impossible to live righteously. That would be unfair to the crowd of people that He had spoken to.

Anyways, may God bless you.
And please be well.

Side Note:

Also, as for the term: "SAL" to describe Conditonal Salvationism. That would not be accurate. You are saying that SAL means it is a "Saved And Lost" Doctrine. But that is not the entire truth of such a belief. Christians who believe in Conditional Salvation believe it is possible to be saved right here and right now and they believe that if they endure until the end in their faith (for whosever chooses to do so by God's power and grace) they shall be saved in the end. For a believer's free will is not taken away the moment they accept Christ. So "CS" would be a more appropriate abbreviation because it more accurately represents what that belief is talking about. Salvation is a conditional thing. It is based on your choice to choose God (not just once but every day). It is about abiding in Christ and His goodness. For Jesus is the source of a person's life (i.e. salvation) (See 1 John 5:12).


...

 

[aiki]

If after you read my following post and you do not agree, I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on. For after you read my post, and you still do not agree, I would encourage you to not reply to my post (because I am not interested in going back and forth about something that is so obvious to see in regards to "basic morality").

Your myopia (tunnel blindness) in this matter is impressive but so very unwarranted. Thus far, you have not presented anything that comes anywhere close to refuting what I've put forward or that properly establishes your own views. But you are very confident, I'll give you that.

What you're asking for above is, really, the last word. But I can't in good conscience just give it to you. You'll have to earn it. At the moment, though, you're a very long way from having done so.

Well, Eternal Security can easily be disproved by pointing out the surrounding context of a verse that supposedly proves it. For there hasn't been a verse (that supposedly proves Eternal Security) that I was not able to refute using Scripture.

Actually, what you've shown so far is not refutation but more of a "this makes sense to me so I must be right," approach to Scripture. I haven't seen easy refutations from you but rather facile, superficial and somewhat confused interpretations of verses and passages. They may be easy for you to put forward but they don't properly refute anything.

For if I am wrong, I have nothing to lose (because I do not believe in Works Salvationism; I believe in Relationship-ism with God).

Nothing to lose? You have become a promoter of fear, of legalism and false teaching if you're wrong. You have led any who accept your thinking into deception and error if you're wrong. You have presumed to be a teacher of God's truth and stand before Him bearing a great and terrible responsibility that you have not fulfilled if you're wrong. Nothing to lose? I don't think so.

Matthew 7:21-23 - Jesus only “knows” those who do Father God’s will; all others are practicing lawlessness.

How does this refute OSAS? What is the root, the foundation, the heart of God's will?

Matthew 22:35-38
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and great commandment.

Those who practice lawlessness are first and foremost those who do not fulfill the First and Great Commandment, who do not love God with all of their being. All other obedience is supposed to rise out of the fulfillment of this commandment. This is why it is the First and Great commandment. This is perfectly in line with OSAS teaching; more so than SAL which promotes fear rather than love as a motive for walking with and obeying God. Anyone who claims to be born again but does not love God wholeheartedly is deceived about their salvation. But this doesn't mean SAL is true, only that many people mistake what constitutes genuine salvation and believe they are truly saved when they are not. This is classic OSAS belief.

Matthew 10:33 - Whoever denies Jesus before men He will also deny before His Father in heaven.

And whoever denies Christ, the one they are supposed to love with all of their being, was never truly saved. No refutation of OSAS here...

Matthew 12:31-32 - Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. This means verbally cursing or speaking bad about the Holy Spirit.

What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Attributing to Satan the work of God. (Matthew 12:24 - 27) A person who would do this and who truly believes the work of the Holy Spirit and of Christ is really the work of the devil has effectively turned themselves from the only way of salvation; for having turned from Christ and the power of the Spirit, the only way to God, they place themselves beyond the reach of God's forgiveness. I don't see here any support for SAL or any refutation of OSAS. Instead, all we have is one of the myriad ways people can keep themselves from being saved. Certainly, the Pharisees who blasphemed the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12, were never born again believers.

Matthew 18:21-35, Mark 11:25-26 - Forgive men’s sins against you, or God won’t forgive your sins against Him.

Yes, and? This is a command to give up the sin of unforgiveness if one wants to be forgiven by God. As with any sin a believer might commit and neglects to repent of, forgiveness is always available but not applied until the sin is given up by confession (1 John 1:8 - 10) and repented of. No SAL teaching here. And no OSAS refutation, either.

Matthew 25:44-46 - Those who do not help even one needy soul will go into everlasting punishment.

This isn't what the passage says. There is no "even one" in the passage. That is your legalistic spin on it. The general carelessness toward the needy of those cast into hell by God is merely indicative of their lost state. But there are plenty of unsaved people, atheists even, who are very charitable and make great efforts to help those in need. They aren't getting into God's kingdom, however. So, then, taking care of the needy is not by itself the reason people end up in hell. No, this carelessness toward the needy is just one of the many symptoms that may be evident in a lost person's attitudes and behaviour. So, again, no SAL teaching here and no OSAS refutation, either. Just a passage that defines one of the reasons the lost don't get into God's kingdom.

• Mark 13:13 - But he who endures with his faith to the end (of his life) shall be saved eternally (Also seeMatthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Colossians 1:22-23, 1 Timothy 4:16, Hebrews 10:35-39, Revelation 2:10)

And the person who endures does so because they are genuinely saved and thus empowered by God to do so. Those who claim to be saved and then fall away give evidence only that they were never truly saved in the first place.

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

John 15:1-6 - Christians who do not bear fruit (are not abiding in Jesus) are thrown into the fire.

I jumped to this one because the intervening verses were of a kind with the ones I addressed above that do not support SAL and do not refute OSAS. This one, though, is one often used by SAL folk and that looks at first glance like it is teaching SAL. But hang on. What is really in view in this passage isn't the idea one can be saved and lost but the spiritual uselessness that comes from not abiding in Christ. It is very likely Christ is referring to a passage in Ezekiel 15 which emphasizes this point more clearly:

Ezekiel 15:1-5
1 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
2 "Son of man, how is the wood of the vine better than any other wood, the vine branch which is among the trees of the forest?
3 Is wood taken from it to make any object? Or can men make a peg from it to hang any vessel on?
4 Instead, it is thrown into the fire for fuel; the fire devours both ends of it, and its middle is burned. Is it useful for any work?
5 Indeed, when it was whole, no object could be made from it. How much less will it be useful for any work when the fire has devoured it, and it is burned?

As Ezekiel points out here, vine wood is not good for being made into furniture or tools. It is good, really, only for producing grapes. If a vine doesn't produce grapes, then, it is useless and good for nothing but to be burned. This is what Christ indicates in John 15:1 - 5. The unfruitful vine branch cast into the fire is symbolic of how useless it has become, it is not indicative of a saved-and-lost doctrine.

Colossians 3:5-6 - Believers practicing such sins beware: the wrath of God will come upon sons of disobedience.

As I looked through the verses between the last one in John 15 and this one in Colossians above I saw none that actually established SAL or refuted OSAS. This one, though, is interesting. Are the "sons of disobedience" saved children of God who have become lost? That isn't what the verse says nor is it what the context states. In fact, the "sons of disobedience" are presented in contrast to genuine believers whom Paul has, in the verse immediately prior, just described. Colossians 3:6 isn't, then, a warning to true believers but how Paul distinguishes genuine believers from the unsaved. In fact, in verse 7, Paul clearly states his contrasting purpose:

Colossians 3:7
7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

So, once again, no support for SAL and no refutation of OSAS.

I could go through all of the verses you've posted one-by-one and show the same faulty reasoning and/or misinterpretation in each of them, but I simply haven't got the time or interest. Anyone who does a careful investigation of the verses you've offered will not find any of them actually teach SAL doctrine or refute OSAS doctrine.

Jesus made real world illustrations (parables) so as to teach spiritual truth.

Yes, he did. Why is this, therefore, a reasonable and necessary criteria for establishing right doctrine? I know of no verse in Scripture that mandates such a thing. Christ never said, "God's truth must have a real world example." Why are you? This smacks of the artificial and arbitrary rules common to legalism.

The Canaanite woman was able to expound upon Jesus's parable with a parable (real world example) of her own to be in line with spiritual truth.

She did no such thing. She simply described herself as a dog feeding on crumbs. She was not sharing a spiritual truth, but indicating that she recognized how little she deserved Christ's aid. Goodness! What a spin you've put on her words! And in any case, her words in no way oblige any of us to do likewise. An "is" in Scripture is not always an "ought." By that I mean that what is recorded in Scripture as having been done does not, in being recorded, mean we must do the same. The Bible records many horrible acts done by wicked people but no one would reasonably assert we ought to follow their example because it appears in the Bible! So, too, with the Canaanite woman. Just because she appears in the record of Scripture in no way obliges us to follow her example.

In fact, Jesus commended her for her faith in making a parable or real world example like this.

No, he didn't. This is flat-out false. Careful, brother, this sort of bald mishandling of Scripture is very serious. Jesus did not commend her story; he commended her faith in him.

Matthew 15:27-28
27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

In other words, the majority of God's truths within His Word can be made into a real world example or parable.

Perhaps. But this in no way means we must always be able to do so with every doctrine of the faith. There is no place in all of Scripture which even implies this. You're imposing a rule here that is entirely you own.

A. "The Trinity in Science"
There are many examples of the Trinity within nature.

Atoms = Nucleus, Protons, Electrons.
Water Molecules = Hydrogen Atom, Hydrogen Atom, Oxygen Atom.
Colors of White Light = Red, Blue, Green.
Man's Formation = Dust, Mist (i.e. Water), Breadth of Life.
Man (Made in God's Image) = Physical Body, Spirit Body, Soul.
Time = Past, Present, Future.
Earth = Crust, Mantle, Core
3 Major Values = Black, Grey, White

None of these things accurately parallel the Triune nature of God. Some actually are examples of heretical views of the Trinity. An atom, for example, is constituted of three different sub-atomic particles, but none of these particles share a fundamental nature with each other as the Persons of the Trinity do. The particles together make up an atom but none of them alone possesses the nature of an atom. Each Person of the Trinity, however, possesses the essential nature of God. Individually, each of them is God. They don't come together to make God like protons and electrons come together to make an atom. The same sorts of problems exist in all of your other examples from nature. But this is to be expected. God is not what He has made. We see only a shadow, only traces of Him, in Creation.

The intricate design work of His creation is a testimony of His Omniscience.

But it is not a parallel to it, or an example of omniscience. The intricacy of nature is only the by-product of God's omniscience. These sorts of proper distinctions are often absent in your reasoning and may have much to do with your mistaken ideas about salvation and hell.

We know by the transformation of men by God's power can happen all over the globe at once is testimony to God's Omnipresent power.

But you weren't asking for a testimony of God's power, but an example of Christian doctrine from the real world. The effects of God's omnipresence may be seen in the world, but His actual omnipresent ability has no real world parallel. Only God is omnipresent, the Bible teaches. This is a basic doctrine concerning God. But there is no "real world" parallel to it or example of it. All we can see are the effects of God's omnipresence.

Devotion to Christ is simple and easy to understand. But Eternal Security is against that idea because it says you can also sin on some level and still be saved. Eve was deceived by the serpent into thinking she could sin and still be saved.

Just saying this doesn't make it so. It is not enough merely to assert what you have here about OSAS; you must prove through reasoned argument that it is so. OSAS is not against the idea of simple and sincere devotion to Christ. In fact, this is exactly the way OSAS believers relate to the one who has atoned perfectly and fully for their sin. They are simply and sincerely devoted to Christ because they understand that their acceptance with God is entirely in and through him. They don't have to layer on legalistic rules; they don't have to be afraid God will reject them; they don't have to bear the impossible burden of holy perfection; they can enjoy and obey Christ fully and freely out of pure, simple love for him. That's what OSAS teaches.

By the way, Eve was not deceived into thinking she could sin and still be saved. No one was saved until Christ died on the cross of Calvary. Salvation, then, wasn't in the equation when Eve chose to sin. She was guilty of doubting God's word, and doubting His goodness, and of prideful selfishness. Eating the Forbidden Fruit was just the consequence of these things. But doing so did not cut her off from God. Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden, but God still continued to interact with them and their offspring (ie. Genesis 4). This fact, though, is not very helpful to the SAL point of view...

It's complicated because God is not in the business of force saving anyone into His Kingdom.

"Force-saving"? God is the Great Persuader. His power to convince us to come to Him is far, far greater than our capacity to deny Him. But it is still that God persuades us to faith in Christ rather than that He forces us to faith in him. But, again, what exactly is complicated about this?

For if that was the case then everyone would be saved.

I never said God forces anyone to salvation. I said that when He saves them, they stay saved. Can you not see that these are two different statements? If you can, then you understand why your conclusion above is nonsensical.

Oh, and sorry. God did not send His Son to the cross to pay for a believer's sins so that they can treat grace as a license to sin on some level.

No, God sent Jesus to atone for our sins because we could not ever atone for them on our own. And God was entirely satisfied with what Jesus did so that no one has to add anything to what he did. No good works; no penance; no perfect holiness - only Jesus and in him the boundless grace of God that is greater than all our sin. (Ro. 5:20)

You said a believer must generally live a holy life, but yet you seem to be also saying that a saint can die in one or two unrepentant serious sins and yet still be saved. This means a believer can commit suicide and be saved; Or a believer can kill another and be saved; Or a believer can sleep around and be saved. But it doesn't work like that.

Strawman.

I wrote: Yes, and? I agree entirely with Paul and Peter: anyone claiming to be saved needs to make sure their claim is true.

You wrote: How do they do that? 1 John 2:3-6.

There is more to it than this. There is the evidence of the Fruit of the Spirit; there is the evidence of a love for the brethren; there is the evidence of a hunger for God's word; there is the inner witness of God's Spirit; there is the evidence of a grateful spirit; there is the evidence of a hatred of sin and a desire for holiness, and so on. There are many ways a person can determine if, in fact, they are saved. Obedience - especially external obedience that others can see - is just one of the ways and among the easiest to fake.

First, I believe God works in the believer and does the good work. But that does not mean a believer's free will is taken away and they are forced by God in the Lord doing His good work in them whether they like it or not.

Who said otherwise?

But Paul says work out your salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING. Why all the trembling if it is not about fear?

Not the craven fear and trembling of a slave under a cruel master, but the fear and trembling of a person who is in awe of the love, grace and power of their Heavenly Father.

Wow. Really? Do you really believe that? There is no verse in Scripture that says that was the point of the sermon on the mount.

I gave you a verse: Matthew 5:20.

Actually, Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). That's Paul!

What has this to do with anything we're discussing?

That makes absolutely no sense. The people that Paul is talking to does not change what he was saying in verses 3-4.

You appear here to have not understood at all what I wrote. I said nothing about those to whom Paul was writing, but addressed the context of his words. And that context pertained to slaves and masters and how as Christians they ought to behave. Paul was NOT referring to the Sermon on the Mount in verses 3 & 4 but to his own teaching that he had just given, inspired by Christ, and that communicated godly counsel.

Well, I'm out of time. I'll address the rest of your post later.

Selah.

 

[Gabriel Anton]

Peace be with you.

I'm not going to use Scriptural verses because it's safer not to.

Yes, God would be wrong to send a sinner who has done the evil you have suggested to burn in hell for all time because it would be punishing somebody beyond a finite amount of crimes committed.

Jason, you're playing God. I remember that Jesus said, "Nobody is Good but God alone." In order to say that, "God would be wrong," you have made yourself God and you are good, that is why you are the judge of what is good and what is bad. That's Pride in the highest degree.

Yes, God does hate sin, but God is also merciful and He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. God is love. God is not hate. Jesus (Who is God) said to the Father, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34). These truths in Scripture does not seem consistent with the God of ECT.

If that is the case in regards to the afterlife, why is that not the case in regards to God forgiving 1 or 2 unrepentant sins? Why cannot God be merciful in those cases as well?


Why is God according to you forgiving and merciful and loving in Justice?


But unforgiving, unmerciful and unloving in terms of Salvation that 1 or 2 unrepentant sins can separate a believer from God and Salvation?


I think you might have a criss-cross in your theology about Salvation and God.


But who am I to tell you this?


You, who can judge God Himself.


God bless you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your myopia (tunnel blindness) in this matter is impressive but so very unwarranted. Thus far, you have not presented anything that comes anywhere close to refuting what I've put forward or that properly establishes your own views. But you are very confident, I'll give you that.

What you're asking for above is, really, the last word. But I can't in good conscience just give it to you. You'll have to earn it. At the moment, though, you're a very long way from having done so.



Actually, what you've shown so far is not refutation but more of a "this makes sense to me so I must be right," approach to Scripture. I haven't seen easy refutations from you but rather facile, superficial and somewhat confused interpretations of verses and passages. They may be easy for you to put forward but they don't properly refute anything.



Nothing to lose? You have become a promoter of fear, of legalism and false teaching if you're wrong. You have led any who accept your thinking into deception and error if you're wrong. You have presumed to be a teacher of God's truth and stand before Him bearing a great and terrible responsibility that you have not fulfilled if you're wrong. Nothing to lose? I don't think so.




How does this refute OSAS? What is the root, the foundation, the heart of God's will?

Matthew 22:35-38
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and great commandment.

Those who practice lawlessness are first and foremost those who do not fulfill the First and Great Commandment, who do not love God with all of their being. All other obedience is supposed to rise out of the fulfillment of this commandment. This is why it is the First and Great commandment. This is perfectly in line with OSAS teaching; more so than SAL which promotes fear rather than love as a motive for walking with and obeying God. Anyone who claims to be born again but does not love God wholeheartedly is deceived about their salvation. But this doesn't mean SAL is true, only that many people mistake what constitutes genuine salvation and believe they are truly saved when they are not. This is classic OSAS belief.



And whoever denies Christ, the one they are supposed to love with all of their being, was never truly saved. No refutation of OSAS here...



What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Attributing to Satan the work of God. (Matthew 12:24 - 27) A person who would do this and who truly believes the work of the Holy Spirit and of Christ is really the work of the devil has effectively turned themselves from the only way of salvation; for having turned from Christ and the power of the Spirit, the only way to God, they place themselves beyond the reach of God's forgiveness. I don't see here any support for SAL or any refutation of OSAS. Instead, all we have is one of the myriad ways people can keep themselves from being saved. Certainly, the Pharisees who blasphemed the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12, were never born again believers.



Yes, and? This is a command to give up the sin of unforgiveness if one wants to be forgiven by God. As with any sin a believer might commit and neglects to repent of, forgiveness is always available but not applied until the sin is given up by confession (1 John 1:8 - 10) and repented of. No SAL teaching here. And no OSAS refutation, either.



This isn't what the passage says. There is no "even one" in the passage. That is your legalistic spin on it. The general carelessness toward the needy of those cast into hell by God is merely indicative of their lost state. But there are plenty of unsaved people, atheists even, who are very charitable and make great efforts to help those in need. They aren't getting into God's kingdom, however. So, then, taking care of the needy is not by itself the reason people end up in hell. No, this carelessness toward the needy is just one of the many symptoms that may be evident in a lost person's attitudes and behaviour. So, again, no SAL teaching here and no OSAS refutation, either. Just a passage that defines one of the reasons the lost don't get into God's kingdom.



And the person who endures does so because they are genuinely saved and thus empowered by God to do so. Those who claim to be saved and then fall away give evidence only that they were never truly saved in the first place.

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.



I jumped to this one because the intervening verses were of a kind with the ones I addressed above that do not support SAL and do not refute OSAS. This one, though, is one often used by SAL folk and that looks at first glance like it is teaching SAL. But hang on. What is really in view in this passage isn't the idea one can be saved and lost but the spiritual uselessness that comes from not abiding in Christ. It is very likely Christ is referring to a passage in Ezekiel 15 which emphasizes this point more clearly:

Ezekiel 15:1-5
1 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
2 "Son of man, how is the wood of the vine better than any other wood, the vine branch which is among the trees of the forest?
3 Is wood taken from it to make any object? Or can men make a peg from it to hang any vessel on?
4 Instead, it is thrown into the fire for fuel; the fire devours both ends of it, and its middle is burned. Is it useful for any work?
5 Indeed, when it was whole, no object could be made from it. How much less will it be useful for any work when the fire has devoured it, and it is burned?

As Ezekiel points out here, vine wood is not good for being made into furniture or tools. It is good, really, only for producing grapes. If a vine doesn't produce grapes, then, it is useless and good for nothing but to be burned. This is what Christ indicates in John 15:1 - 5. The unfruitful vine branch cast into the fire is symbolic of how useless it has become, it is not indicative of a saved-and-lost doctrine.



As I looked through the verses between the last one in John 15 and this one in Colossians above I saw none that actually established SAL or refuted OSAS. This one, though, is interesting. Are the "sons of disobedience" saved children of God who have become lost? That isn't what the verse says nor is it what the context states. In fact, the "sons of disobedience" are presented in contrast to genuine believers whom Paul has, in the verse immediately prior, just described. Colossians 3:6 isn't, then, a warning to true believers but how Paul distinguishes genuine believers from the unsaved. In fact, in verse 7, Paul clearly states his contrasting purpose:

Colossians 3:7
7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

So, once again, no support for SAL and no refutation of OSAS.

I could go through all of the verses you've posted one-by-one and show the same faulty reasoning and/or misinterpretation in each of them, but I simply haven't got the time or interest. Anyone who does a careful investigation of the verses you've offered will not find any of them actually teach SAL doctrine or refute OSAS doctrine.



Yes, he did. Why is this, therefore, a reasonable and necessary criteria for establishing right doctrine? I know of no verse in Scripture that mandates such a thing. Christ never said, "God's truth must have a real world example." Why are you? This smacks of the artificial and arbitrary rules common to legalism.



She did no such thing. She simply described herself as a dog feeding on crumbs. She was not sharing a spiritual truth, but indicating that she recognized how little she deserved Christ's aid. Goodness! What a spin you've put on her words! And in any case, her words in no way oblige any of us to do likewise. An "is" in Scripture is not always an "ought." By that I mean that what is recorded in Scripture as having been done does not, in being recorded, mean we must do the same. The Bible records many horrible acts done by wicked people but no one would reasonably assert we ought to follow their example because it appears in the Bible! So, too, with the Canaanite woman. Just because she appears in the record of Scripture in no way obliges us to follow her example.



No, he didn't. This is flat-out false. Careful, brother, this sort of bald mishandling of Scripture is very serious. Jesus did not commend her story; he commended her faith in him.

Matthew 15:27-28
27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.



Perhaps. But this in no way means we must always be able to do so with every doctrine of the faith. There is no place in all of Scripture which even implies this. You're imposing a rule here that is entirely you own.



None of these things accurately parallel the Triune nature of God. Some actually are examples of heretical views of the Trinity. An atom, for example, is constituted of three different sub-atomic particles, but none of these particles share a fundamental nature with each other as the Persons of the Trinity do. The particles together make up an atom but none of them alone possesses the nature of an atom. Each Person of the Trinity, however, possesses the essential nature of God. Individually, each of them is God. They don't come together to make God like protons and electrons come together to make an atom. The same sorts of problems exist in all of your other examples from nature. But this is to be expected. God is not what He has made. We see only a shadow, only traces of Him, in Creation.



But it is not a parallel to it, or an example of omniscience. The intricacy of nature is only the by-product of God's omniscience. These sorts of proper distinctions are often absent in your reasoning and may have much to do with your mistaken ideas about salvation and hell.



But you weren't asking for a testimony of God's power, but an example of Christian doctrine from the real world. The effects of God's omnipresence may be seen in the world, but His actual omnipresent ability has no real world parallel. Only God is omnipresent, the Bible teaches. This is a basic doctrine concerning God. But there is no "real world" parallel to it or example of it. All we can see are the effects of God's omnipresence.



Just saying this doesn't make it so. It is not enough merely to assert what you have here about OSAS; you must prove through reasoned argument that it is so. OSAS is not against the idea of simple and sincere devotion to Christ. In fact, this is exactly the way OSAS believers relate to the one who has atoned perfectly and fully for their sin. They are simply and sincerely devoted to Christ because they understand that their acceptance with God is entirely in and through him. They don't have to layer on legalistic rules; they don't have to be afraid God will reject them; they don't have to bear the impossible burden of holy perfection; they can enjoy and obey Christ fully and freely out of pure, simple love for him. That's what OSAS teaches.

By the way, Eve was not deceived into thinking she could sin and still be saved. No one was saved until Christ died on the cross of Calvary. Salvation, then, wasn't in the equation when Eve chose to sin. She was guilty of doubting God's word, and doubting His goodness, and of prideful selfishness. Eating the Forbidden Fruit was just the consequence of these things. But doing so did not cut her off from God. Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden, but God still continued to interact with them and their offspring (ie. Genesis 4). This fact, though, is not very helpful to the SAL point of view...



"Force-saving"? God is the Great Persuader. His power to convince us to come to Him is far, far greater than our capacity to deny Him. But it is still that God persuades us to faith in Christ rather than that He forces us to faith in him. But, again, what exactly is complicated about this?



I never said God forces anyone to salvation. I said that when He saves them, they stay saved. Can you not see that these are two different statements? If you can, then you understand why your conclusion above is nonsensical.



No, God sent Jesus to atone for our sins because we could not ever atone for them on our own. And God was entirely satisfied with what Jesus did so that no one has to add anything to what he did. No good works; no penance; no perfect holiness - only Jesus and in him the boundless grace of God that is greater than all our sin. (Ro. 5:20)



Strawman.

I wrote: Yes, and? I agree entirely with Paul and Peter: anyone claiming to be saved needs to make sure their claim is true.

You wrote: How do they do that? 1 John 2:3-6.

There is more to it than this. There is the evidence of the Fruit of the Spirit; there is the evidence of a love for the brethren; there is the evidence of a hunger for God's word; there is the inner witness of God's Spirit; there is the evidence of a grateful spirit; there is the evidence of a hatred of sin and a desire for holiness, and so on. There are many ways a person can determine if, in fact, they are saved. Obedience - especially external obedience that others can see - is just one of the ways and among the easiest to fake.



Who said otherwise?



Not the craven fear and trembling of a slave under a cruel master, but the fear and trembling of a person who is in awe of the love, grace and power of their Heavenly Father.



I gave you a verse: Matthew 5:20.



What has this to do with anything we're discussing?



You appear here to have not understood at all what I wrote. I said nothing about those to whom Paul was writing, but addressed the context of his words. And that context pertained to slaves and masters and how as Christians they ought to behave. Paul was NOT referring to the Sermon on the Mount in verses 3 & 4 but to his own teaching that he had just given, inspired by Christ, and that communicated godly counsel.

Well, I'm out of time. I'll address the rest of your post later.

Selah.

Do not bother to address the rest of the post. I will not read it. I started to skim read your recent reply here and you ignored what I said in regards to Jesus saying to the Canaanite woman about how she had great faith. You then decided to teach me this fact when I already stated such a thing.

I do not know what you said in reply to your view on distorting the "Sermon on the Mount" so as to erroneously say that it was an example of how we cannot live righteously, and I am honestly not interested in debating such a distortion of God's Word. That is a gross misrepresentation of the text. Anyone who reads the text plainly knows it is about instruction in righteousness.

Moving on.
And may God's love shine upon you.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Peace be with you.

I'm not going to use Scriptural verses because it's safer not to.




Jason, you're playing God. I remember that Jesus said, "Nobody is Good but God alone." In order to say that, "God would be wrong," you have made yourself God and you are good, that is why you are the judge of what is good and what is bad. That's Pride in the highest degree.




If that is the case in regards to the afterlife, why is that not the case in regards to God forgiving 1 or 2 unrepentant sins? Why cannot God be merciful in those cases as well?


Why is God according to you forgiving and merciful and loving in Justice?


But unforgiving, unmerciful and unloving in terms of Salvation that 1 or 2 unrepentant sins can separate a believer from God and Salvation?


I think you might have a criss-cross in your theology about Salvation and God.


But who am I to tell you this?


You, who can judge God Himself.


God bless you.

You said it is safer to not use Scripture verses. Then you turned around and started to use a quote from Scripture both here and in a reply to me in another thread.

You are not making any sense.
Also, ad hominems do not help to prove that you are right in any way, too.

Stick with Scripture to prove your case for ECT or move on. Granted, I already discussed the 5 or so verses that supposedly supports ECT multiple times already. So I am not so sure you can offer me anything new.

Good day to you, sir.
And may God bless you.


...

 

[Gabriel Anton]

You said it is safer to not use Scripture verses. Then you turned around and started to use a quote from Scripture both here and in a reply to me in another thread.

You are not making any sense.
Also, ad hominems do not help to prove that you are right in any way, too.

Stick with Scripture to prove your case for ECT or move on. Granted, I already discussed the 5 or so verses that supposedly supports ECT multiple times already. So I am not so sure you can offer me anything new.

Good day to you, sir.
And may God bless you.


...

Peace be with you.

How is anyone supposed to use Scripture to explain anything to you?

You twist Scripture to suit your own belief.

Forever is not forever? Sound familiar?

What happened to Biblical Pacifism?

Peace and love, joy and harmony.

You sound annoyed, Champ.

I'm just talking to you, not spitting at you or beating you, you know?

I use Scripture sometimes, sometimes I don't, what's wrong with that?

Did Jesus go around quoting Scripture to everyone? All the time?

You should be grateful that you have people that talk to you, albeit they might not agree with you.

You should be kind and loving, not telling people to "move on" or "do not bother to address the rest of the post."

Biblical pacifism? You preach but don't practise? Hypocrisy?

You can say, "God would be wrong..." and when someone says, "Jason is playing God," that is attacking you and then you have the guile to preach about Biblical Pacifism? And lecture and teach people telling you otherwise.

This is a public forum. Where is someone supposed to move on to?

Hell is Forever.

Forever is Forever.

God is Good.

God punishes how he wants.

God sends people to Hell.

God is still Perfect, Virtuous, Righteous and Holy.

God sends my family members to Hell.

I clap and rejoice because God is Just.

God is Always Perfect and Holy.

God judge us.

Humans are dirt and worms and maggots.

Humans don't judge God.


God bless you.

 

[mmksparbud]

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God gave Adam and Eve the penalty for disobedience right at the start---He told them they would die--period. He never said they would burn in hell forever. I don't believe God was being deceitful with them. The penalty for sin is still death. It is the penalty Christ suffered for us---death--He did not spend eternity in hell for us---He died for us so we can have the reward of eternal life---the reward for the lost is not eternal life in hell, it is eternal death.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Peace be with you.

How is anyone supposed to use Scripture to explain anything to you?

You twist Scripture to suit your own belief.

Forever is not forever? Sound familiar?

What happened to Biblical Pacifism?

Peace and love, joy and harmony.

You sound annoyed, Champ.

I'm just talking to you, not spitting at you or beating you, you know?

I use Scripture sometimes, sometimes I don't, what's wrong with that?

Did Jesus go around quoting Scripture to everyone? All the time?

You should be grateful that you have people that talk to you, albeit they might not agree with you.

You should be kind and loving, not telling people to "move on" or "do not bother to address the rest of the post."

Biblical pacifism? You preach but don't practise? Hypocrisy?

You can say, "God would be wrong..." and when someone says, "Jason is playing God," that is attacking you and then you have the guile to preach about Biblical Pacifism? And lecture and teach people telling you otherwise.

This is a public forum. Where is someone supposed to move on to?

Hell is Forever.

Forever is Forever.

God is Good.

God punishes how he wants.

God sends people to Hell.

God is still Perfect, Virtuous, Righteous and Holy.

God sends my family members to Hell.

I clap and rejoice because God is Just.

God is Always Perfect and Holy.

God judge us.

Humans are dirt and worms and maggots.

Humans don't judge God.


God bless you.

You bless and curse me in the same breath.

Anyways, ad hominems only hinders your case and does not help it.
Stick to Scripture and stop with the insults.

As for the word forever:
Ever read Philemon 1:15?

It says,

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

Okay. Did Onesimus return to his master for all time?
Is Onesimus still alive?
Or Is Onesimus's master still receiving Onesimus forever and ever in some kind repeated loop in time?
Surely not.
The words "for ever" are merely used in a temporal sense here.

In other words,, the word "forever" (and it's related words, i.e. synonyms) 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 do you 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 25:27 until -- 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" Habakkuk 3:6).

• 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.”​

Anyways, in conclusion, I have discovered that the word "forever" as used in the Bible is true. It does mean "forever" but it is talking in "forever" under the context of within either a temporary Covenant, or here upon this Earth (which is temporal), or within the Lake of Fire (Which is also a temporary place). It is forever for as long as a particular thing or place exists.

Here is the source for list above for the Scriptural examples used on the word "forever":
http://www.apttoteach.org/attjom/index.php


...

 

[aiki]

Jesus's words on the Sermon on the Mount are still true in regards to instruction in righteousness.

In fact, all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Yes, of course. But Paul wasn't talking about the Sermon on the Mount or Scripture generally but about what he had just taught to Timothy about Christians who are slaves or the masters of slaves.

Anyways, if the Sermon on the Mount was not Jesus instructing us on how to be righteous, then why did He warn us that we are in danger of hell fire if we look upon a woman in lust? (Matthew 5:28-30).

See, here, again, you aren't thinking carefully about what I'm writing. I didn't say that the Sermon on the Mount was not about instruction in righteousness. In fact, I implied the very opposite when I wrote that Jesus was setting the bar of righteousness so high it was out of reach for any who are not indwelt by God's empowering Spirit and justified apart from their works through the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Many times, OSAS proponents have attacked me as a person instead of sticking with Scripture. That is my experience with them. They also can never explain the morality behind how God can ignore the concept of a believer dying in one or two serious unrepentant sins (like lying or lusting after a woman) and still being saved (as long as they live a holy life), too.

Well, I have been careful not to talk with you about who you are. I have no idea who you are, so why would I? I have, though, had somewhat to say about your thinking and arguments. I have explained the morality behind ECT pretty thoroughly, offering a perfectly biblical rationale for it anchored in God's incredible holiness and our desperate wickedness. You dismissed my explanation out-of-hand, not engaging with my explanation but just retreating to your entrenched ideas about hell. I also explained that the believer's acceptance by God depends entirely upon Christ and his perfect atonement for their sin on Calvary's cross. This is a completely biblical doctrine, unassailable scripturally and uncontroversial among Bible scholars. But you appear to ignore the matter of our justification and acceptance by God entirely and again just retreat to your deeply-rutted ideas about what is essentially works-salvation (though you deny that it is).

God doesn't ignore the sin in a believer who dies without confessing and repenting of it. He sees the believer in Christ, clothed in Christ's perfect righteousness (imputation, justification), and accepts them - as He has from the first moment of their second, spiritual birth - on that basis. The sin is not ignored; God recognizes that it has been paid for perfectly and entirely by Christ and there is, therefore, no burden of atonement or divine condemnation resting upon the believer. This is a perfectly biblical answer to your "unanswerable" question.

I wrote: "Your experience and opinions here do not define OSAS doctrine.

You wote: Yes it does because Jesus said we will know a tree by it's fruit.

Again, you aren't thinking carefully. Your response here is a non sequitur. We know the claims of a believer to salvation are true if the fruit of their life bears out their claim. But we aren't talking about the character of a person's living - their fruit - but a doctrine of the faith. To assess the truth of a Christian doctrine one must look to Scripture, the source of all Christian doctrine, not the character of a doctrine's life. Doctrines aren't, after all, alive, are they? They don't get up in the morning and go to work, or marry and have children, or get sick and die. So, applying Christ's words about people to the doctrines of Scripture doesn't work. In doing so you just end up with a non sequitur.

Perfect love is cast out by obeying His Word.
John says we perfect love by keeping His Word (1 John 2:5).
Whosoever says he knows him and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in them.

Oh, dear. Perfect love is cast out by obeying God's word? I think you misspoke here rather badly. Or perhaps this was a Freudian slip. In any case, 1 John 2:5 says nothing of the kind. It says that our obedience to God is how we show we are in Him. Remember, though, that the First and Great commandment is to love God with all of one's being (Matt. 22:36-38). The beginning of our obedience to God, the foundation of it, is to love Him wholeheartedly. All other obedience flows out of the keeping of the First and Great commandment. What John is saying, then, is that our obedience (which is demonstrated above all by a deep love for God) shows we are one of His. Too many Christians get this wrong. They get busy doing righteous things but their hearts are far from God. They pray, and go to Bible studies, and give a tithe, and think to themselves, "There. I've shown that I'm a true Christian." The apostle Paul, though, crushes this sort of thinking:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

SAL drives people to careful observation of external righteousness, to an obsession for keeping the rules lest they be destroyed. OSAS prompts people to love and enjoy God and to obey Him because they do.

And there are of course many more verses like these, as well.

Simply posting a wall of verses without explanation as to why serves little purpose. I suppose you think their import to our discussion is self-evident, but I don't.

Verses on the Error of Christians saying they cannot walk uprightly

Who said "Christians cannot walk uprightly"? I didn't. I spoke only to the proper motive for doing so. I never suggested Christians couldn't live righteously. Again, you don't seem to be carefully considering my words.

Wow. There is no more point to continue on with this kind of discussion if you are saying something like this.

Not if your goal has been to change my mind. I am writing as much for the silent audience to our discussion as to you directly. I have no illusions, though, that I can change your mind. That's never been my goal. My goal has been to defend and represent the OSAS view well.

It appears that you are simply seeing what you want to see (and the truth of God's Word should not be carefully examined). It seems like you are saying you are infallibe in regards to knowing God's truth if you do not care to examine both sides of the argument by comparing Scripture with Scripture and by praying to God about it. No "what ifs" in you being wrong. You are right and that is it. Sorry, but you are not infallible and perfect in knowing the truth of God's Word.

I am seeing what is evident in Scripture. I am not infallible but I am well-studied in this matter. Perhaps you aren't used to someone like me challenging your views. I can't help that.

But my encouragment to you is to be a good Berean and seek the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not.

Please take your own advice. Thanks.

I say the same word, "Yikes!" in relation to what you believe because you honestly cannot see how it is immoral for a being to torture a people beyond the crimes in what they have done.

As I've said now a few times, I don't believer this is what God is doing. Perhaps you think repeating this Strawman will convince others that it is true, but the truth is that it simply isn't true - no matter how many times you say it is. I don't see God's punishment of the wicked in hell as an immoral act levied in excess of a sinner's crime, but a testament to the incredible holiness of God and the deep depravity of our sin. You have not once come anywhere close to actually engaging what Scripture clearly says about this. I offered a number of verses in an earlier post, making the case for my view quite plainly. You ignored them and retreated to your fortress of false doctrine.

Again, if ECT is the punishment then Jesus would need to experience ECT for us in order to save us.

Not if he is perfect and infinite as he was/is.

Sigh. Romans 3 is talking about Initial Salvation or how we are ultimately saved. It is not talking about the process of Sancitification (Which is God doing the good work through you) that comes after. Do you think Romans 3:11 applies to the faithful saint, as well?

"You do err, not knowing the Scriptures." Romans 3 is mainly about our justification which is not an initial condition that the believer leaves behind as they walk with God but is the constant/permanent state in which they live thereafter. Without justification, there is no sanctification.

Romans 3:11 does not apply to the justified believer insofar as they are in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to them. This is a positional fact, however, not what is true necessarily in a believer's daily living. This is why Paul is so often correcting and criticizing the thinking and conduct of people he regards as brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, they are clothed in Christ's righteousness, they are saved, but they still go awry and need to be corrected and taught and shepherded into faithful, holy living. Paul understood that the position of the believers to whom he wrote had to be brought into their condition over time, through a process of growth and change.

We are told not to be deceived on the following matter.

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7).

He that does righteous is righteous.

In fact, we can know the difference between the children of God vs. the children of the devil by looking at their fruit. For it is written,

"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1 John 3:10).

For without holiness... no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

See, because you don't really understand the doctrine of OSAS, you think that what you've written here is a challenge to my view. But it isn't. OSAS is absolutely compatible with the notion that children of God ought to live holy, righteous lives. It just doesn't hold that doing so is necessary to remaining saved. That is a works-salvation idea and totally contrary to the explicit declaration of Scripture.

First, what verse actually says this?

See my earlier posts.

Second, what real world example can you give me to illustrate such a thing?

What "real world" example can I give you of a person who holds a low view of God's holiness and weak view of their sin and who therefore champions annihilationism? Well, that would be you, I think. You're a very good example of this very thing.

No verse says that when we sin we are sinning against God on an ETERNAL level.

Where did I say our sin was "on an eternal level"? I haven't said any such thing. Again, you aren't thinking carefully about what I'm writing. I did say, though, that because unrepentant sinners are imperfect beings trying to atone in hell to a perfect degree (which is what God's holiness and justice requires) they remain doing so forever. As I said in my last post, this isn't a matter of the quality of their sin, but of the imperfectness of their nature.

OSAS cannot be explained in a rational way that lines up with the whole of Scripture in what it plainly says. OSAS cannot be made into a real world example or parable, as well.

Well, the first has been done here quite well, as far as I'm concerned. The second is just an artificial rule you're trying to impose. As such, I'm free to ignore it.

But your belief does not take into account the whole of Scripture properly.

How do you know this? You haven't by any means got the whole of my view represented in this thread. In fact, OSAS - at least, the version of it that I hold - never pits Scripture against itself but is (scripturally speaking) knit together in a well-synthesized whole.

Your changing of Jesus's words on the Sermon on the Mount to suggest that it was a point on how believers cannot live righteously is not found in the Scriptures.

As I showed you, you jumped to an assumption/conclusion in this based upon a careless reading of my comments.

Salvation is a conditional thing. It is based on your choice to choose God (not just once but every day).

Nope. See above.

Selah.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, of course. But Paul wasn't talking about the Sermon on the Mount or Scripture generally but about what he had just taught to Timothy about Christians who are slaves or the masters of slaves.



See, here, again, you aren't thinking carefully about what I'm writing. I didn't say that the Sermon on the Mount was not about instruction in righteousness. In fact, I implied the very opposite when I wrote that Jesus was setting the bar of righteousness so high it was out of reach for any who are not indwelt by God's empowering Spirit and justified apart from their works through the imputed righteousness of Christ.



Well, I have been careful not to talk with you about who you are. I have no idea who you are, so why would I? I have, though, had somewhat to say about your thinking and arguments. I have explained the morality behind ECT pretty thoroughly, offering a perfectly biblical rationale for it anchored in God's incredible holiness and our desperate wickedness. You dismissed my explanation out-of-hand, not engaging with my explanation but just retreating to your entrenched ideas about hell. I also explained that the believer's acceptance by God depends entirely upon Christ and his perfect atonement for their sin on Calvary's cross. This is a completely biblical doctrine, unassailable scripturally and uncontroversial among Bible scholars. But you appear to ignore the matter of our justification and acceptance by God entirely and again just retreat to your deeply-rutted ideas about what is essentially works-salvation (though you deny that it is).

God doesn't ignore the sin in a believer who dies without confessing and repenting of it. He sees the believer in Christ, clothed in Christ's perfect righteousness (imputation, justification), and accepts them - as He has from the first moment of their second, spiritual birth - on that basis. The sin is not ignored; God recognizes that it has been paid for perfectly and entirely by Christ and there is, therefore, no burden of atonement or divine condemnation resting upon the believer. This is a perfectly biblical answer to your "unanswerable" question.

I wrote: "Your experience and opinions here do not define OSAS doctrine.

You wote: Yes it does because Jesus said we will know a tree by it's fruit.

Again, you aren't thinking carefully. Your response here is a non sequitur. We know the claims of a believer to salvation are true if the fruit of their life bears out their claim. But we aren't talking about the character of a person's living - their fruit - but a doctrine of the faith. To assess the truth of a Christian doctrine one must look to Scripture, the source of all Christian doctrine, not the character of a doctrine's life. Doctrines aren't, after all, alive, are they? They don't get up in the morning and go to work, or marry and have children, or get sick and die. So, applying Christ's words about people to the doctrines of Scripture doesn't work. In doing so you just end up with a non sequitur.



Oh, dear. Perfect love is cast out by obeying God's word? I think you misspoke here rather badly. Or perhaps this was a Freudian slip. In any case, 1 John 2:5 says nothing of the kind. It says that our obedience to God is how we show we are in Him. Remember, though, that the First and Great commandment is to love God with all of one's being (Matt. 22:36-38). The beginning of our obedience to God, the foundation of it, is to love Him wholeheartedly. All other obedience flows out of the keeping of the First and Great commandment. What John is saying, then, is that our obedience (which is demonstrated above all by a deep love for God) shows we are one of His. Too many Christians get this wrong. They get busy doing righteous things but their hearts are far from God. They pray, and go to Bible studies, and give a tithe, and think to themselves, "There. I've shown that I'm a true Christian." The apostle Paul, though, crushes this sort of thinking:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

SAL drives people to careful observation of external righteousness, to an obsession for keeping the rules lest they be destroyed. OSAS prompts people to love and enjoy God and to obey Him because they do.



Simply posting a wall of verses without explanation as to why serves little purpose. I suppose you think their import to our discussion is self-evident, but I don't.



Who said "Christians cannot walk uprightly"? I didn't. I spoke only to the proper motive for doing so. I never suggested Christians couldn't live righteously. Again, you don't seem to be carefully considering my words.



Not if your goal has been to change my mind. I am writing as much for the silent audience to our discussion as to you directly. I have no illusions, though, that I can change your mind. That's never been my goal. My goal has been to defend and represent the OSAS view well.



I am seeing what is evident in Scripture. I am not infallible but I am well-studied in this matter. Perhaps you aren't used to someone like me challenging your views. I can't help that.



Please take your own advice. Thanks.



As I've said now a few times, I don't believer this is what God is doing. Perhaps you think repeating this Strawman will convince others that it is true, but the truth is that it simply isn't true - no matter how many times you say it is. I don't see God's punishment of the wicked in hell as an immoral act levied in excess of a sinner's crime, but a testament to the incredible holiness of God and the deep depravity of our sin. You have not once come anywhere close to actually engaging what Scripture clearly says about this. I offered a number of verses in an earlier post, making the case for my view quite plainly. You ignored them and retreated to your fortress of false doctrine.



Not if he is perfect and infinite as he was/is.



"You do err, not knowing the Scriptures." Romans 3 is mainly about our justification which is not an initial condition that the believer leaves behind as they walk with God but is the constant/permanent state in which they live thereafter. Without justification, there is no sanctification.

Romans 3:11 does not apply to the justified believer insofar as they are in Christ and so his righteousness is imputed to them. This is a positional fact, however, not what is true necessarily in a believer's daily living. This is why Paul is so often correcting and criticizing the thinking and conduct of people he regards as brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, they are clothed in Christ's righteousness, they are saved, but they still go awry and need to be corrected and taught and shepherded into faithful, holy living. Paul understood that the position of the believers to whom he wrote had to be brought into their condition over time, through a process of growth and change.




See, because you don't really understand the doctrine of OSAS, you think that what you've written here is a challenge to my view. But it isn't. OSAS is absolutely compatible with the notion that children of God ought to live holy, righteous lives. It just doesn't hold that doing so is necessary to remaining saved. That is a works-salvation idea and totally contrary to the explicit declaration of Scripture.



See my earlier posts.



What "real world" example can I give you of a person who holds a low view of God's holiness and weak view of their sin and who therefore champions annihilationism? Well, that would be you, I think. You're a very good example of this very thing.



Where did I say our sin was "on an eternal level"? I haven't said any such thing. Again, you aren't thinking carefully about what I'm writing. I did say, though, that because unrepentant sinners are imperfect beings trying to atone in hell to a perfect degree (which is what God's holiness and justice requires) they remain doing so forever. As I said in my last post, this isn't a matter of the quality of their sin, but of the imperfectness of their nature.



Well, the first has been done here quite well, as far as I'm concerned. The second is just an artificial rule you're trying to impose. As such, I'm free to ignore it.



How do you know this? You haven't by any means got the whole of my view represented in this thread. In fact, OSAS - at least, the version of it that I hold - never pits Scripture against itself but is (scripturally speaking) knit together in a well-synthesized whole.



As I showed you, you jumped to an assumption/conclusion in this based upon careless reading of my comments.



Nope. See above.

Selah.

You just wasted your time in replying to me. I did not read the the majority of your reply to me. I only glanced briefly about what you wrote on the Sermon on the Mount and stopped. No more. By what you said, you nullify Jesus's words on the Sermon on the Mount. For you do not believe Jesus is teaching us about any kind of instruction in righteousness because you believe it cannot be used to instruct us on any actual righteous living (that is applicable to our life) because you erroneously think it is an example of how we cannot live righteously (Which goes against the text itself). You do not make any sense. I am not reading any more of illogical arguments.

Please move on.
I am not interested in debating with you anymore.
You will see what you want to see.

Good bye.
And good day to you.


...

 

[aiki]

I only glanced briefly about what you wrote on the Sermon on the Mount and stopped. No more. By what you said, you nullify Jesus's words on the Sermon on the Mount. For you do not believe Jesus is teaching us about any kind of instruction in righteousness because it cannot be used to instruct us on any actual righteous living because you think it is an example of impossiblity of we cannot live righteously. You do not make any sense. I am not reading any more of illogical arguments.

Well, you can't seem to stop yourself from reading them.

Because you are not thinking carefully about what I'm writing but are continually jumping to Strawman assumptions/conclusions about what I think, you're constantly speaking and thinking past what I'm actually saying. Jesus's moral standard set out in the Sermon on the Mount is attainable - but only through him. I actually made this point, but you are so eager to defend your position you can't seem to comprehend any other.

Selah.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I did not read the majority of your last three posts. I only picked out one or two sentences in passing. Please move on.
I am not interested in debating with you anymore.


...

 

[Der Alte]

Among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); [Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]
n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link:Jewish Encyclopedia Online
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link:Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

When Jesus taught about,

• “Then shall he say … Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24​

These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned one of the major existing Jewish views of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 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.​

Jesus used the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.

 

[aiki]

I did not read the majority of your last three posts. I only picked out one or two sentences in passing. Please move on.
I am not interested in debating with you anymore.

It's quite all right if you've decided to ignore my posts. There are many others watching this thread who will read what I wrote.

I will move on.

I could tell you were losing interest a while back. I will cease to debate with you - so long as you cease to debate with me.

Be well. Walk with God.

Selah.