Haven't you noticed how mean-spirited some get when discussing this topic?
Yes.
I suspect the reasons vary and cannot know for sure about others. I suspect lots of reasons are there.
I personally only get frustrated (which can lead to being mean-spirited if not kept in check) when members don't follow the Theological debate rules here. Like actually answering relevant yet challenging questions concerning their contrary understanding of Scriptures.
What's the point of repeating it over and over again?
I don't see any point when addressing the same individual, saying the same things about the same verses over and over. Or asking the same question over and over again for that matter (which is also contrary to good debate rules). I limit my repeated requests for an answer to a challange question I have for another member to one or two repeats at most.
Debate rules (both here and in formal debates and in 1 Peter 3:15) literally require that opposing relevant questions be answered (reasonably). Even if the answer is "I don't know". But the question; 'How can eternal life not be eternal???' has yielded zero reasonable answers. For obvious reasons, I suppose.
It's important in any debate that your position have reasoned answers ("be prepared" with your reasons, Peter calls it) to any relevant challange questions people might ask you. And it's very useful in evidencing the truth (or at least most reasonable position) to hold. That is, when people will actually and reasonably answer them. If their answer isn't reasonable (preferably Biblically based) then their position is obviously weakened and thus much more likely to be false.
I've listened to so many of William Lane Craig's debates now that I skip his introduction (because I pretty much know his arguments and the atheists) and fast forward to where he and his opponent get to asking questions of each other. To me, that's the red-meat of the entire debate.
Take this simple example:
I think that factions/divisions in the church over OSAS is necessary in order to show which side holds to the truth (OSAS vs antiOSAS). In otherwords, there can be some good that comes out of all this back-forth, in my opinion. Which is why I posted 1 Cor 11:19 (which I still think is relevant here even though I am aware you disagree but not so much why).
Here's the truth statement Paul made to the bickering and factious 1st Century church in Corinth. Corinth was a place and a church where many cultures and ideas mingled (not just Jewish vs Roman but the whole Mediterranean world). Good Christians had to have reasonable answers to people's challenging questions (both believers and non-believers). In short, I cannot think of a more applicable Epistle than this one to your point about factions/divisions over OSAS (eternal security).
1 Corinthians 11:19 For indeed it is necessary that there be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may become evident among you.
They were disagreeing about all sorts of things. Hair, jewelry, headship, sex, snobbery, marraige, divorce, the Lord's supper, etc. Yes this snipped verse (a cherry worth picking, IMO) happens to come in the section about their factions over the Lord's Supper. But, to me, it has application to factions over OSAS v OSNAS (or never saved until much later at post-resurrection or for that matter even in the new Heaven) or any other faction/division in the church really (divorce, headship, etc.)
Which is why I asked you why you thought it doesn't have any application (cannot be applicable).
Basically, the whole reason I participate here is to see which side of various issues/controversy has the better (more Biblically based) argument. I believe that's what Paul meant in his statement 1 Cor 11:19 instruction.
But yes, mean-spirited posts get in the way and have zero apologetic content to them and are unbiblical as your verses point out.
But disagreeing posts don't have to be mean-spirited and many are not (yet there's disagreement). Like yours and mine over 1 Cor 11:19 being applicable to these OSAS threads.
OSAS v OSNAS shamefully broke a past church of mine apart decades ago (as a young Christian before I'd studied soteriology much one way or the other). I didn't know then which side was right. Now I do (without going into detail) via listening to the arguments for/against OSAS.
My reply to your cooment in post #537 was in general agreement with your points made in that post (not disagreeing). I was merely adding a point which Paul had made to a bunch of factious 1st Century Christians. That is, when people divide over an issue, take the time to see who among you has the better Biblical evidence.
2