1 edit
Originally posted by @rajk999I hate to see a worthwhile thread dissipate due to literary subtleties.
You do not understand my posts. I dont ask people about their lives and if they sin. Neither do I answer personal questions.
I repeat what Jesus says and there is some leeway for stumbling and sinning.
What Jesus does not allow for is the OSAS doctrine ie a life of sin and evil will still lead to one entering the Kingdom of God. That is not in the Bible.
“I repeat what Jesus says and there is some leeway for stumbling and sinning.”
This appears to be a step toward agreement based on the unavoidable, non-habitual stumbling and sinning that being human entails.
“What Jesus does not allow for is the OSAS doctrine ie a life of sin and evil will still lead to one entering the Kingdom of God. That is not in the Bible.”
This appears to deny the possibility that an alleged OSAS doctrine ie a “life of sin and evil” will lead to entry to the kingdom of God.
Can’t both be true?
Originally posted by @js357Jesus is the final judge of these matters.
I hate to see a worthwhile thread dissipate due to literary subtleties.
“I repeat what Jesus says and there is some leeway for stumbling and sinning.”
This appears to be a step toward agreement based on the unavoidable, non-habitual stumbling and sinning that being human entails.
“What Jesus does not allow for is the OSAS doctrine ie a life of sin an ...[text shortened]... ine ie a “life of sin and evil” will lead to entry to the kingdom of God.
Can’t both be true?
The ideal situation is one where a Christian convert is able to resist all evil.
The worst situation is one where the sinning is unforgivable.
Of course there are a zillion in-betweens.
OSAS applies to a particular class of people identified by Christ.
It cannot be applied across the board to all Christians.
Originally posted by @rajk999No, but that doesn't stop you from accusing anyone of anything, even if you cannot back
Typical. He claims he is not one of the OSAS but he nevertheless supports their doctine
it up. Show me were I have supported that doctrine, without twisting words into meanings
only you see.
Originally posted by @rajk999Some simple reasoning explains two doctrines.
Jesus is the final judge of these matters.
The ideal situation is one where a Christian convert is able to resist all evil.
The worst situation is one where the sinning is unforgivable.
Of course there are a zillion in-betweens.
OSAS applies to a particular class of people identified by Christ.
It cannot be applied across the board to all Christians.
In hard-line Christianity, the doctrines of unforgivable sin and extreme eternal punishment (I'll call it Hell here) go hand in hand. Due to them, the possibility that God's mercy will result in our sinful enemies avoiding or short-cutting cosmic justice is eliminated. The sins that are deemed unforgivable are so because they are against God (or one member of the godhead) because otherwise, if the sins are against us, we might be induced to "forgive and forget." But how can we forgive a sin against God that even He cannot forgive?
These two doctrines rise or fall together. Without one, the other becomes vulnerable to a particular criticism, that being, if it is logically possible for God to be mercifully forgiving to all sinners for all sins, and God can do whatever is logically possible, why will there ever be anyone in Hell?
Ipso facto, Hell would not need to exist. That wouldn't do at all, would it? So these two doctrines necessitate one another just for the Hell of it.