Eternal security or conditional security?

[Sinthesis]

The Holy commandment of the gospel is "Repent", for the kingdom of God is at hand.

Strictly speaking, to repent is to only accept the baptism of John the Baptist. So to repent is not the holy commandment of the Gospel.

Jhn 13:34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.​

This is the holy commandment of the gospel. It is new because it is not one of the Ten Commandments, though keeping it is necessary in order to keep the Ten Commandments.

Mar 12:30 - And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 - And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.​

But it is also not new...

2Jo 1:5 - And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
2Jo 1:6 - And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.​

...because it was tucked into Leviticus, though the self righteous find it easy to overlook.

Lev 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
​

So that one of the worst things a Christian can do in the name of Jesus is to turn from His holy commandment to love thy neighbor in favor of vengeance and judgement in the name of God; two activities reserved to God, which are therefore only practiced by those showing themselves that they are god.

2Pe 2:20 - For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 - For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 - But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
​

 

[FreeGrace]

They can end up in the lake of fire because the condition for the promise is that one believe, now, present, tense, not stop believing as OSAS insists one can do and still have the promises.

But where are any verses that teach that one must continue to believe in order to continue to have eternal life? That is the missing piece to the doctrine of LOS.

'Believes' in John 3:16 is in the present tense: Whoever presently believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Note that 'have' in 'have eternal life' is in the subjunctive mood. That means this:

"The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. " From: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/3/1/t_conc_1000016
​

From the context, it is continued believing that determines the possibility and potential of having eternal life.

Jesus said that those who believe HAVE eternal life, not the "possibility and potential of having eternal life".

But OSAS is portraying it as if the 'having' is settled and can not be reversed and is not conditional on anything whatsoever now that it is already happened. But we can easily see that is not true to the Greek mood of the word 'have'.

Jesus' statements in both John 3:16 and 10:28 show that eternal life IS setttled. Those who believe HAVE eternal life. Not the potential for it.

Regarding the comments on the subjunctive mood, the possibility and potentiality isn't about having eternal life sometime in the future, but the possibility of believing. Not having eternal life.

What "may or may not occur" is the action of believing, obviously, since possession of eternal life isn't even an action. Eternal life is a gift, which is a noun. So the subjunctive mood cannot refer to EL itself.

Check the voice; it is passive. That means the action comes from an outside agency, which is God. We have nothing to do with receiving eternal life. We receive it passively when we believe.

What was Jesus teaching in John 5:24 if not that one who believes already has eternal life?

 

[MarkT]

I agree.


Why assume the word "destroyed" means de-saved or something? Obviously it meant they died in the desert. As I pointed out, it certainly didn't mean they were de-saved. Because Moses was one of the many "destroyed" in the desert whom God was displeased with. But if you need more proof that "destroyed" doesn't mean 'de-saved', then look to what Jesus said about Himself:

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!” 20 Then the Jews said, “This temple has been under construction forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 So when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken.​

Jude said they were destroyed, which suggests they died like ordinary men, and they went down to Sheol where the destruction takes place. So even though God saved them out of the land of Egypt, they were destroyed because of unbelief.

The Scriptures say,
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Psalms 82: 6-7

The Bible doesn't say Moses was destroyed. Indeed Michael contended with Satan for the body of Moses, and Michael rebuked Satan, and the LORD buried Moses in the valley of the land of Moab. Numbers 34:5-7

So when it says 'destroyed', it is referring to the house of the man. So Jesus said destroy this temple, meaning his body, and in three days God will raise it up.

 

[FreeGrace]

Please show me from the scriptures and the context, where your "idea" of someone dying EVERY TIME they sin.

Apparently there is misunderstanding of what I posted. Your post indicated that Rom 6:16 refers to spiritual death. I asked how does one die spiritually every time they sin? Please answer.

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:12-16

I don't find that Paul wrote that we die a spiritual death, every time we sin, but rather if we become a slave to sin again, then we are back under it's dominion to live once again as a sinner who is bound to sin, in which the end result is eternal death.

Still not clear. Scripture teaches that believers will continue to sin. So, what's the status WHEN they sin? Or is this some kind of cumulative thing?

James says this in his letter -
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. James 1:12-15

Sin, when it is full grown, in which it has fully matured, in the end it brings for death.

This refers again to the loss of fellowship when a believer sins.

 

[gr8grace3]

They can end up in the lake of fire because the condition for the promise is that one believe, now, present, tense, not stop believing as OSAS insists one can do and still have the promises. 'Believes' in John 3:16 is in the present tense: Whoever presently believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Note that 'have' in 'have eternal life' is in the subjunctive mood. That means this:

"The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. " From: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/3/1/t_conc_1000016
​

From the context, it is continued believing that determines the possibility and potential of having eternal life. But OSAS is portraying it as if the 'having' is settled and can not be reversed and is not conditional on anything whatsoever now that it is already happened. But we can easily see that is not true to the Greek mood of the word 'have'.

Because John 3:16 is not describing an individual believer. It is describing a purpose.

"that" in John 3:16 introduces the purpose clause. It is why we see "believe" in the present tense and "eternal life" in the subjunctive mood.

God sent His Son for the purpose/potential of eternal life for anyone who believes. The indicative mood can't used in a purpose clause because it is showing the reader "what will happen" or what the potential/possibility is. This is why "eternal life" is in the subjunctive mood. It is describing the outcome of God sending His Son. Not the individual believer and whether they have eternal life or not.

"Believe" is in the present tense because of the purpose clause also. John 3:16 isn't describing the individual believer and whether or not they presently believe. It is describing the mean's God uses to bring eternal life to mankind.

The purpose clause. The saving is contingent upon God sending His Son and then God describes the purpose.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[MarkT]

Let's please be clear. I KNOW what Paul said; "the gifts and calling of God ARE IRREVOCABLE". So let's not trivialize what Scripture SAYS by trying to insinuate what I only think Paul said.

v.29 isn't interpreted by only the previous verse. It's interpreted by whatever Paul had previously written about God's gifts in that same letter. So 1:11 is relevant: spiritual gifts. So is justification, in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17. And so is eternal life, from 6:23. All these are gifts of God.

The Bible is divided into verses, but that doesn't mean you can divide up sentences when they follow logically. The word 'For' connects vs. 28 to vs 29. Indeed a case can be made that they should be taken together as one verse. Paul didn't write verses and lines. He wrote complete thoughts. Don't fall into the trap Isaiah spoke of, of taking things line by line and precept by precept.
Isaiah 28:13
Therefore the word of the Lord will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Exactly! Rom 11:29 is a promise: those who HAVE eternal life cannot have it revoked (taken away).

No. It's a irrevocable promise that whoever believes in him, and keeps his commandments, shall inherit eternal life.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But where are any verses that teach that one must continue to believe in order to continue to have eternal life? That is the missing piece to the doctrine of LOS.

It's not missing. OSAS simply can't see it. That's how indoctrinatins work. We all have to have the honesty to cast off the indoctrinations that cause us to not see plain scripture:

"you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB)

If a person automatically thinks ahead of time that salvation is not conditional on anything, not even holding fast the word, then they will skip right over passages like the above and not see the plains words that are there that contradict their predetermined thinking. It's an interesting phenomenon. I learned I was dong that with scripture by an example that Dr. Jeremiah gave about his encounter with a Jehovah's Witness. I don't do that anymore. When I started reading scripture for what it actually says and not reading it according to the predetermined doctrines of the church I started learning loads of truth. It's pretty amazing how much the church has wrong but continues to teach the church.

Jesus said that those who believe HAVE eternal life, not the "possibility and potential of having eternal life".

Jesus' statements in both John 3:16 and 10:28 show that eternal life IS setttled. Those who believe HAVE eternal life. Not the potential for it.

The believer does in fact have eternal life right now. That is not in contention. But the point you're missing in the original Greek is that it is conditioned on presently believing (that is, it is conditioned on holding firmly that which you heard). And, furthermore, the 'have' in 'have eternal life' in John 3:16 NASB signifies the 'having' of eternal life as being presently conditioned on that present believing. The 'have' being in the subjunctive mood signifies that having as being conditional, not unconditional as OSAS claims.

What was Jesus teaching in John 5:24 if not that one who believes already has eternal life?

The 'believing' in John 5:24 NASB is present believing, not past believing.
Those who have passed from death to life are those who are presently believing, not those who have ceased believing as OSAS insists.

 

[chessman]

I find it completely unreasonable for OSAS to make some kind of claim that since Jesus prophesied that the thief would be with him in Paradise today that means anybody and everybody that gets saved is saved no matter what. ...

I didn't make that claim. I have a very high view of Scripture and believe Jesus meant exactly what he said there. I would never extend that statement to 'anybody and everybody that gets saved ...'. That wasn't my point. I was not using the thief on the cross to prove OSAS for anyone other than that particular individual. But to be clear, yes I think it was an OSAS statement/declaration/prophecy (whatever you want to call it) made by Jesus toward that particular individual, don't you? (I would really appreciate your [edited] answer to that question)

Granted, he only lived a couple more hours so maybe it was an easy prediction to make, maybe not. But still, Jesus said it, thus I believe it. Would you allow for that thief to have become de-saved and still think Jesus was Truthful?

I was/am merely asking you this hypothetical question because of the definable Biblical situation it presents. It's a baseline, so-to-speak, that we could both agree with (that particular person became 'saved' on the cross). Then we could extend it hypothetically under your anti-OSAS theory (the thief could change his mind about Jesus and thus become de-saved as a result) versus mine (the Bible makes 100% accurate statements/predictions/prophecies about all true believers' final destiny, not just that one individual. I understand it's hypothetical to assume the thief stopped believing in Jesus after Jesus' death. The Scripture doesn't say one way or the other. But if he did stop believing, given your anti-OSAS view, it would make Jesus' prophecy/statement about him then be a false statement, is my point. Don't you agree? Or do you view Jesus' statement as more flexible than that toward the thief's outcome? You replied:

In your hypothetical situation, if the REASON he did that was because he changed his mind about trusting in Christ then, yes, he is lost.

If those things happened (your REASON and outcome, "he is lost"), would you still think Jesus' statement was accurate/true? I wouldn't.

I'm just trying to get a little further clarification on your view of the accuracy/consistency of Scripture with this line of question. I wouldn't make to much out of it.

Also (moving to another topic), we kind-of dropped what I thought was a line of questions/response/exegesis that was making some progress with respect to what the actual Scriptures say that you point to to prove your version of anti-OSAS. We left off with you respecting my particular OSAS version (namely that Once Saved, Always a true Believer, thus Always Saved, OSABAS) and how that jives with 1 Cor 15:1-2. As does your view, BTW. You then pointed out that it's Heb 10 that 'proves' anti-OSAS. And I gave my contextual exegesis of why I see that it does not, in fact, teach anti-OSAS. You never responded. So I wonder if you had any criticism of my view of what Hebrew's 10 was speaking about.

Here's the post where we left off discussing that Text, should you desire to continue discussions with me on that passage.

Hebrews 10:26-27 ...
This is the author going back to his previous point. If a NT believer (but still culturally tied to Jews even family ties) were to begin to go back to OT practices they'd relyed on their whole life (which is again not the modern situation), then they would be doing so because they keep holding on to a terrifying expectation of judgment, burning wrath, etc.

 

[chessman]

Jude said they were destroyed, which suggests they died like ordinary men, ...
So when it says 'destroyed', it is referring to the house of the man. So Jesus said destroy this temple, meaning his body, and in three days God will raise it up.

That's my point. The word "destroy" doesn't mean to de-save. When Jude says (In Jude 1:5) "destroyed those who did not believe", there's no exegetical reason to think he meant they were de-saved. That would be an extreme case of reading into the Text something that just isn't there.

and they went down to Sheol where the destruction takes place.

Jude doesn't say their destruction takes place in Sheol. But really, it doesn't matter. The point I made was that the word "destruction" doesn't mean de-salvation.

 

[FreeGrace]

The Bible is divided into verses, but that doesn't mean you can divide up sentences when they follow logically. The word 'For' connects vs. 28 to vs 29. Indeed a case can be made that they should be taken together as one verse. Paul didn't write verses and lines. He wrote complete thoughts.

And Paul's complete thoughts include all the things that he described as gifts in that epistle. And he never described anything that Israel had as "gifts of God". And he didn't make any exceptions to the fact that God's gifts are irrevocable.

If one wants to argue that Paul didn't include the gift of God that is eternal life in the gifts of God that are irrevocable, where exactly did he make that clear?

No. It's a irrevocable promise that whoever believes in him, and keeps his commandments, shall inherit eternal life.

Where is the verse that commands that one "keep his commandments" to inherit eternal life?

I have shown numerous verses that specifically say that salvation and eternal life are by faith in Christ, with no mention of keeping his commandments.

The command to keep his commandments are directly for believers, those who are saved. Because God has given the gift of the Holy Spirit so that believers can keep his "commandments".

The Law was given to prove that man cannot "keep his commandments" (Rom 2, Gal 3); to show that man is a sinner and incapable of deserving or earning God's salvation.

 

[JLB]

Apparently there is misunderstanding of what I posted. Your post indicated that Rom 6:16 refers to spiritual death. I asked how does one die spiritually every time they sin? Please answer.

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:12-16

I did answer as how the scriptures address the issue of sin and how it leads to death.

It's like spiritual cancer, if you don't deal with it it will kill you, spiritually and eternally. The problem is the death is everlasting in the fires of hell.

The way you get rid of it is to confess it to God and turn from it, and God will cleanse you of it.

Your doctrine, however has no place for the biblical concept of confessing your sin and repenting of it, in order to be cleansed.

You "think" that if you say that you believe in Jesus Christ, that all of your future sins are forgiven "automatically" without confessing them them or turning away from them. Your hyper-grace doctrine teaches a person can live however the want and practice all manner of sin until the day they die, even renouncing Jesus Christ and confessing Allah as their lord, and still receive the salvation of their soul.

Edit


14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. James 1:12-15

Sin, when it is full grown, in which it has fully matured, in the end it brings for death.

This denotes a process. A process by which the person is enticed by his own desire, a desire from sin dwelling in his flesh, in which this desire once it goes through the process and fully conceives it gives birth, that is to say, it manifest's [it becomes] as an actual "deed".

Then this deed [sin] when practiced over and over, gains a foothold and become's stronger and stronger, as being more and more mature, as a natural child grows stronger and stronger and more mature, through all the stages of growth, until finally the person has become a "slave" to this particular sin, and obeys it [rather than the Spirit within] because this sin has overcome them and become it's master, and the person can not escape and dies in this condition and is lost for eternity. The death being eternal death.

This is a process, and does not "just happen", but the person employs their will and effort to do what this sinful desire demands, rather than putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Romans 8:12-13


For He has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.

as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 2 Peter 1:3


JLB

 

[JLB]

The word "not obey" is a Greek word that means "not believe".
apeitheō

1) not to allow one’s self to be persuaded (meaning lack of faith)
1a) to refuse or withhold belief
1b) to refuse belief and obedience

Disobedience is unbelief. It is the same Greek word.

Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Hebrews 4:6 NKJV

Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6 KJV

Adam did not believe God, but rather, he believed "someone other than God", and therefore he obeyed "someone other than God" and ate of the fruit.

Disobedience is unbelief.

Those who do not believe the Gospel, do not obey the Gospel.

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved... 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” Romans 10:9-13,16



Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. Hebrews 4:11 NKJV
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Hebrews 4:11 KJV


Disobedience is unbelief.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Where would one get "hell" from the clear context?? Why would anyone assume that the earth opened up and their bodies fell into hell??

Here is the Hebrew for the word "pit":
ׁשאל
she’ôl she’ôl
sheh-ole', sheh-ole'
From H7592 ; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranian retreat), including its accessories and inmates:—grave, hell, pit.

Why should anyone assume that the writer only meant hell? One really has to assume to think that the earth can open up all the way down to hell. lol

The text is very clear; the earth physically opened up, which creates a PIT, from which people fell into the pit. Then the earth closed up again. One could say the earth swallowed them up.

What literally and very clearly stated was that God caused the earth to open up, like a Florida sinkhole and the people fell into the hole. Then the earth closed up again.

When the earth opens up, as in a sinkhole, a pit is created.

One only has to read what the scripture actually says, to understand it's clear, unmistakable warning.

EDIT

31 Now it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split apart under them, 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all their goods. 33 So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly. Numbers 16:31-33

These were cast alive down into hell; Sheol.

Strong's H7585 - shĕ'owl

sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit

1. the underworld
2. Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead
   1. place of no return
   2. without praise of God
   3. wicked sent there for punishment
   4. righteous not abandoned to it
   5. of the place of exile (fig)
   6. of extreme degradation in sin

Sheol is Hades in the Septuagint. The place where God prepared the devil and his angels to spend eternity.

“How you are fallen from heaven,O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven,I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,To the lowest depths of the Pit.
Isaiah 14:12-15

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41



JLB

 

[JLB]

Strictly speaking, to repent is to only accept the baptism of John the Baptist. So to repent is not the holy commandment of the Gospel.

The Gospel that John was sent to preach -

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”
Matthew 3:1-2


The Gospel Jesus preached -

From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17


What is the command in this statement?

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.




JLB

 

[Douglas Summers]

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Hi Sinthesis,
Do you think man can love one another by command? Man can understand that , "love your neighbor as yourself," because what suffers a man that grieves himself in his soul is able to treat others that go through the same because he has gone through it. And knowing the trial that he himself went through is able to help his neighbor by doing what was needed to relieve his own grief, he now knows what his neighbor needs to overcome and comfort his neighbor.
But in the command to love your brother (John 13:34) is a new commandment, to love your brother as Christ has loved you. It is new because it comes by regeneration. Regeneration comes by seeing ourselves for what we are and our Adamic nature, and in that sorrow we then feels Gods grace undeserved. You must be born again. And the new commandment is by the love that I (Christ) have loved you. So by that Spirit of Grace that we now know that fills our heart and soul, let it manifest to your brothers needs and helps.
Brother here is not the world of man, though we are to broadcast that love to the world, But brother in this instance is the Body of Christ, born again believers, who share the Spirit of Christ as one body and His trials as we comfort one another (John 15:9-25) That is missing for the most part on this forum because very little fellowship with Christ and His brethren...His body.

 

[MarkT]

That's my point. The word "destroy" doesn't mean to de-save. When Jude says (In Jude 1:5) "destroyed those who did not believe", there's no exegetical reason to think he meant they were de-saved. That would be an extreme case of reading into the Text something that just isn't there.

To destroy something is to demolish it. To put an end to it. (re. the temple)

Destroyed doesn't mean de-saved because there is no way to de-save. Do you go back in time to de-save? Do you lead them back into bondage in the land of Egypt to de-save them?

Nevertheless, he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And this was after they were saved.

 

[JLB]

That's my point. The word "destroy" doesn't mean to de-save. When Jude says (In Jude 1:5) "destroyed those who did not believe", there's no exegetical reason to think he meant they were de-saved. That would be an extreme case of reading into the Text something that just isn't there.

That's just it, the word "de-save" is not found in the bible.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28

Going to hell, is associated with being destroyed by everlasting fire.

But if the Lord creates a new thing, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the pit, then you will understand that these men have rejected the Lord.”...So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly. Numbers 16:30,33


Pit = Hell

Hell [Sheol] is the place where the devil and his angels will be sent when Jesus returns.


There is no reason to think anything other than these folks who angered the Lord and rejected Him, were made an example of for the rest of the children of Israel, and for us, whom the end of the age has come upon.


The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, To turn one away from the snares of death. Proverbs 14:27


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I did answer as how the scriptures address the issue of sin and how it leads to death.

It's like spiritual cancer, if you don't deal with it it will kill you, spiritually and eternally. The problem is the death is everlasting in the fires of hell.

What was the effect of Jesus Christ dying for our sins?

The way you get rid of it is to confess it to God and turn from it, and God will cleanse you of it.

In the context of 1 John 1, the purpose of confession is to restore fellowship. Not keep one out of hell.

Your doctrine, however has no place for the biblical concept of confessing your sin and repenting of it, in order to be cleansed.[/QUTOE]
That is exactly my understanding of what confession is for.

You "think" that if you say that you believe in Jesus Christ, that all of your future sins are forgiven "automatically" without confessing them them or turning away from them.

When Christ died on the cross for our sins, He died for all of them. What verse or passage says that He only died for some of them? Why should I accept that view?

Your hyper-grace doctrine teaches a person can live however the want and practice all manner of sin until the day they die, even renouncing Jesus Christ and confessing Allah as their lord, and still receive the salvation of their soul.

It isn't "hyper-grace" that makes this true, it's because of the "greater grace" that God gives.
But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
James 4:6

The use of the perjorative "hyper" exposes the true feelings of LOS doctrine towards God's grace to mankind.

Just because those God has saved may in fact rebel later on, and greatly offends some, doesn't change the grace of God.

We are saved by God's grace. We are kept by God's grace.

Consider the words of Jesus:
“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:39

So, who has God given to Jesus? Those who have believed. Please explain what the words in red mean. Keep in mind Jesus repeats the phrase "raise up on the last day" in the next verse. For context.

14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. James 1:12-15

Sin, when it is full grown, in which it has fully matured, in the end it brings for death.

My previous question wasn't answered. Does this apply to each sin individually, or is it cumulative? Or which sins cumulatively add up to this and which don't? And please support your answer with Scripture.

This denotes a process. A process by which the person is enticed by his own desire, a desire from sin dwelling in his flesh, in which this desire once it goes through the process and fully conceives it gives birth, that is to say, it manifest's [it becomes] as an actual "deed".

I'm pretty sure we all understand the process of how sin occurs. I hop you'll answer my question.

Then this deed [sin] when practiced over and over, gains a foothold and become's stronger and stronger, as being more and more mature, as a natural child grows stronger and stronger and more mature, through all the stages of growth, until finally the person has become a "slave" to this particular sin, and obeys it [rather than the Spirit within] because this sin has overcome them and become it's master, and the person can not escape and dies in this condition and is lost for eternity. The death being eternal death.

If we will "die" because of certain sins, or frequency of sins, then why did Jesus die for sins? Or did He just die for the "occasional sin"?

This is a process, and does not "just happen", but the person employs their will and effort to do what this sinful desire demands, rather than putting to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit.

I see. We have to kill our own sins in spite of Jesus perfect sacrifice for them already, which means that by killing our own sins, we then become our own saviors. That is exactly what your theology leads to.

 

[FreeGrace]

Disobedience is unbelief. It is the same Greek word.

Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Hebrews 4:6 NKJV

Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6 KJV

Adam did not believe God, but rather, he believed "someone other than God", and therefore he obeyed "someone other than God" and ate of the fruit.

Disobedience is unbelief.

Those who do not believe the Gospel, do not obey the Gospel.

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved... 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” Romans 10:9-13,16

Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. Hebrews 4:11 NKJV
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Hebrews 4:11 KJV
Disobedience is unbelief.
JLB

And what has all this proved? That people go to hell because they never believed.

[edited] I don't see that it can support LOS doctrine.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because John 3:16 is not describing an individual believer. It is describing a purpose.

"that" in John 3:16 introduces the purpose clause. It is why we see "believe" in the present tense and "eternal life" in the subjunctive mood.
God sent His Son for the purpose/potential of eternal life for anyone who believes. The indicative mood can't used in a purpose clause because it is showing the reader "what will happen" or what the potential/possibility is. This is why "eternal life" is in the subjunctive mood.

No, the 'having' of eternal life is in the subjunctive mood. That means that action--the action of 'having' eternal life--may or may not have happened and is conditioned on circumstances. That means OSAS misuses 'have' eternal life in John 3:16 when it insists the 'having' is done and said and irreversible.

It is describing the outcome of God sending His Son. Not the individual believer and whether they have eternal life or not.

"Believe" is in the present tense because of the purpose clause also. John 3:16 isn't describing the individual believer and whether or not they presently believe. It is describing the mean's God uses to bring eternal life to mankind.

The purpose clause. The saving is contingent upon God sending His Son and then God describes the purpose.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Here's what the subjunctive mood means:

"The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances." (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/3/1/t_conc_1000016 bold mine)
​

The 'action' spoken of in the passage has to be the believing (John 3:16 NASB). That's the only action described that "may or may not occur". The giving of Christ is in the aorist tense meaning it's already done as a historical fact. The action that is in question, and which makes the having of eternal life in question is the present action of believing. But OSAS claims once you believe in the past you have eternal life no matter what--even if you stop believing in the present.