Justified by His Blood alone !

[Kidron]

By my understanding, most who believe that salvation can be lost do not believe it can be lost through evil works. They either believe the evil works demonstrate that there never was any faith, or that the evil works demonstrate that the faith has died. So this position doesn't strike me as illogical.

-
The reason a person believes they can lose it, is because the dont believe that Jesus can keep it.
THEY HAVE NO FAITH.
Its that simple...

They REJECT:

"looking unto Jesus the author and FINISHER OF OUR FAITH".... Hebrews 12:2

They reject":...."their sins and iniquities (GOD) will remember NO MORE".....Hebrews 8:12

They reject...." Jesus who <>hath attained<> ETERNAL REDEMPTION FOR US".. Hebrews 9:12

They reject...'"GOD = who began a good work in us (SAVED), will be FAITHFUL HIMSELF TO COMPLETE IT".... Philippians 1:6

They reject...."blessed is the BELIEVER, to whom GOD will not charge them with sins anymore"... Romans 4:8

-

 

[Jethro Bodine]

By my understanding, most who believe that salvation can be lost do not believe it can be lost through evil works. They either believe the evil works demonstrate that there never was any faith, or that the evil works demonstrate that the faith has died. So this position doesn't strike me as illogical.

Thank you for understanding the argument.
I've learned that half the battle is getting people to understand the argument in the first place.

 

[FreeGrace]

-
Then your theology is applicable if you are not a pre-tribber, however, for a believer it wont work regarding salvation because we are not kept saved by our works, or our Faith.....and that is because ""Jesus is the author and FINISHER of our Faith"..
Not YOU.... Not ME.
See, its like this..
If you are justified by faith without works, then you cant be un-justifed by what could not justify you to begin with.
See it?
In other words, what cant save you before Christ SAVED you, ....how could this un-save you later.?
It cant.
So, there IS such a thing as Glory, and their is also such a thing as Logic.
And sometimes, you have to discern logically within doctrine, and not just accept it literally as written.
For example, Genesis 24:64 Rebekah, "lit upon her camel"......and you said.....see there... God says we can smoke Camels, but i prefer Marlboro.
Is that logical?
Or, ... "i give unto you every herb bearing seed"......so, you say, ""Hallelujah !!!, now i can smoke more Marijuana, as its an HERB BEARING SEED"......where is my BONG and my bag of Sinsemilla...."""
Is that logical?
Or, .."take a little wine for thy stomach's sake, Timothy"< and you say...."well, good, crack the ice and pour that Jack Daniels MY WAY".
Is that logical.?
So, If you are born again, and you say..."well, you can be unborn again".
Is that Logical?
So, Hebrews 9:12 says ...."our redemption that JESUS purchased for us is Eternal".
Then is it Logical to say that its temporary if we dont hold unto our faith?
Can Faith save you?
Is this Logical ?
Does Christ on a Cross save you or does your Faith save you?
Its not both, and the one WHO does it, does it for eternity.

Extremely well said. But that's what those do who hold to contrary doctrines. They either ignore the obvious context, or they just completely misunderstand it altogether.

 

[FreeGrace]

Thank you for understanding the argument.

I believe we ALL understand the argument.

Those who believe that salvation can be lost do not understand the grace of God. Nor any of the verses that teach eternal security.

 

[Kidron]

They either ignore the obvious context, or they just completely misunderstand it altogether.

-
Yes.
And that is exactly why we have 3456,76890 denominations.
"doctrinal differences" will never achieve Christian Harmony.
HELLO PLAN OF SATAN.....
"""""GIVE THEM 345 BIBLES THAT ALL CONTRADICT AND SIT BACK AND WATCH THE WALLS GET HIGHER BETWEEN THEM ALL.""""""
"how can any 2 walk together unless theY be AGREED".

 

[smaller]

I believe we ALL understand the argument.

Those who believe that salvation can be lost do not understand the grace of God. Nor any of the verses that teach eternal security.

It's Divinely purposefully difficult to understand.

There are basic flaws on both sides of the fence of this debate.

There really is only ONE remedy to understand WHY these flaws exist. We have only to understand that in the same set of shoes abides both eternal security AND eternal damnation. Which Paul purposefully showed us here, upon himself.

2 Corinthians 12:
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB)

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

These passages are so utterly plain and to the point that it is completely unreasonable, if not dishonest, to redefine them by any verse or passage that OSAS uses to prove it is right.

Like in the matter of tithing, the Protestant church leadership is horribly ignorant (some willfully) of what the Bible actually teaches in plain words about the necessity to believe to the end in order to be saved in the end. I'm personally convinced that OSAS is the end time deceit that will finish off the Christian Church in accordance with prophecy. More people will follow this deceitful doctrine to their destruction than any other doctrine. If telling people they can depart the living God, rejecting their faith in Christ and that they can serve idols, because they will still be saved, and they then do that, if that is not causing them to stumble, destroying them, what is? And we know what God says will happen to people who lead people into that.

 

[FreeGrace]

It's Divinely purposefully difficult to understand.

I absolutely disagree. I believe the Bible is quite clear as to the issue.

There are basic flaws on both sides of the fence of this debate.

Can't be. If that were true, then God's plan has flaws. I reject such a notion.

There really is only ONE remedy to understand WHY these flaws exist.

There isn't any flaw in God's plan.

We have only to understand that in the same set of shoes abides both eternal security AND eternal damnation. Which Paul purposefully showed us here, upon himself.

Such confusion does not exist in Scripture.

For those who have believed, there is eternal security. For those who have never believed, there is eternal damnation. That is what is found in God's Word. It's quite simple and not flawed in any way, nor is "divinely purposely difficult to understand".

2 Corinthians 12:
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Oh, here we go again. There is nothing here to support your "shoe analogy".

The phrase "thorn in the flesh" is obviously a metaphor. And the phrase "messenger of Satan" refers to one of his fellow fallen angels, allowed to buffet Paul.

None of which has to do with Paul's being threatened with eternal damnation.

I still have no clear idea of how this verse supports your contradictory view of both views. Could you try once again to make your view clear as to how in your own "same set of shoes" exists both eternal security and eternal damnation?

 

[FreeGrace]

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

It isn't the human who holds (have) the Son of God in his hand, but it IS the Son of God who holds the one who has believed. And this is what Jesus SAID about those He gives eternal life:
"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand." John 10:28

I cannot imagine how those who think salvation can be lost must twist this verse to fit their theories.

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

This has been explained ad nauseum. There is nothing more to add. But the key is in the phrase "unless you believed in vain (without reason). That unlocks the meaning of the verse, which disproves your theory.

These passages are so utterly plain and to the point that it is completely unreasonable, if not dishonest, to redefine them by any verse or passage that OSAS uses to prove it is right.

What IS so utterly plain are these FACTS:
1. The gifts of God are irrevocable. Notice that Paul did NOT add any exceptions or limitations to the statement, which makes it a "blanket statement" regarding ALL the gifts of God.
2. Eternal life is a gift of God.
3. Therefore, eternal life is irrevocable.

 

[Kidron]

"

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)
"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)
.

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)


This verse is telling you not to fellowship with a backslider, etc.
Has nothing to do with salvation



"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.


This is not teaching that you can lose it.


"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

-
Paul is telling THEM that they are to STAND, ..."stand"....."stand", and that means to withstand the wiles of the devil and to be strong in your discipleship....and this "stand" is based on holding unto the "Grace doctrine" that he preached to THEM....and this is explained as "Pauline Theology" that is the teaching that Paul gave them that they received.
So, he is talking about the discipleship of these believers, they are to remember it and hold unto it and STAND strong in Christ because OF IT..
This is explained a bit in Hebrews 13:9.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When this verse is considered with Jesus' own words in John 10:28, I find it very hard to understand how one can even consider that salvation can be lost.

Here's what you do when it seems two passages are contradicting one another. If one passage or verse can no longer be true under any circumstances by making another one true according to what you say it means then you can not make that verse true according to what you say it means. Let's put this test to your claim:

You say it is impossible that these passages means eternal life can be lost:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."
"9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God"
(1 John 5:11-12 NASB, 2 John 1:9 NASB)

Because of this verse:

"I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. " (John 10:27-28 NASB)

So, let's make John 10:27-28 above true according to what you say it means (that eternal life can not be lost). The problem is, that makes this very same author's other words in the other passages completely and utterly contradictory. Why? because they are so plain and unable to be redefined or reinterpreted to be consistent with what you say John 10:27-28 means.

But if we reverse the logic it's easy to see that John 10:27-28 can still be true if we read the simple words of the other passages to mean exactly what they say, that eternal life can be lost. It's just simple, honest logic.

Making John 10:27-28 true according to your doctrine makes 1 John 5:11-12, 2 John 1:9 not true. So we know your interpretation is WRONG. But making 1 John 5:11-12/ 2 John 1:9 true for what it plainly says does not make John 10:27-28 false. It can still be true if 1 John 5:11-12/ 2 John 1:9 says eternal life can be lost. We can do the same with ANY other OSAS passage or verse you bring up. It's impossible to define your so-called OSAS verses the way you do and not make 1 John 5:11-12/ 2 John 1:9 false. Impossible.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This has been explained ad nauseum. There is nothing more to add. But the key is in the phrase "unless you believed in vain (without reason). That unlocks the meaning of the verse, which disproves your theory.

Lol, nobody has been able to explain how the person who didn't really believe makes it so the condition for holding fast the word is not true for the one who really did believe.

So stop ignoring the question and explain it for us: How does not believing in the first place make it so Paul is not saying to those who really did believe "you are saved if you hold fast the word" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB)

 

[smaller]

Such confusion does not exist in Scripture.

It's right there in black on white to see, plainly, in 2 Cor. 12:7.

There is also another unpopular fact with believers, that being the Spirit is "actively" against and contrary to our own flesh. Gal. 5:17.

For those who have believed, there is eternal security. For those who have never believed, there is eternal damnation. That is what is found in God's Word. It's quite simple and not flawed in any way, nor is "divinely purposely difficult to understand".

If it were as easy as you claim, the majority of christiandom doesn't see it. And there are adverse spiritual reasons that it is NOT seen that are Divinely Intentional.

Oh, here we go again. There is nothing here to support your "shoe analogy".

The phrase "thorn in the flesh" is obviously a metaphor. And the phrase "messenger of Satan" refers to one of his fellow fallen angels, allowed to buffet Paul.

Neither Satan or his messengers are "metaphors." They are real adverse spiritual entities that have sway over the flesh, just as Jesus shows in Mark 4:15. But believers can't see that as a fact either. Even though the evidence of Satan and his minions overlap with mankind in the flesh is one of the most pronounced matters in the Gospels.

None of which has to do with Paul's being threatened with eternal damnation.

There was no such animal as Paul, a freestanding individual. Paul's flesh had indwelling sin. He had evil present with him. His flesh was contrary to and against the Spirit just like everyone else.

And if we LOOK to our "very real" adversary's we'll understand this subject matter much much better and not take a blind approach that any believer in the flesh is just them. That's NOT what scripture presents. You can try to metaphor Satan out of the picture but it ain't going to happen. We do have battles with our adversaries. And they do PUT OUT our eyes to that matter. Eph. 6:11-12.

What most don't understand is that the battle ground is our own body and the enemies "work" in that battlefield. You on the other hand don't want to look at them and would rather even say they are saved. Just like the other side of the debate.

Neither side wants to get ALL the parties to the drama on the discussion table, and they CAN NOT because of our adversary.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)


This verse is telling you not to fellowship with a backslider, etc.
Has nothing to do with salvation

Why are you ignoring the obvious?
John is saying anyone who "does not abide in the teaching of Christ DOES NOT HAVE GOD", and the one who does not have God doesn't have the Son either (2 John 1:9 NASB emphasis mine). The same John who said the person who does not have God and the Son does not have eternal life (1 John 5:11-12 NASB).

But you are claiming that one does have eternal life even if you do not have God and the Son. It's impossible to believe what you are teaching. You have improperly divided the passages I gave away from each other and have become guilty of not rightly dividing the word of God correctly. I think it prudent that the church stop believing what deceitful leadership has been teaching the church these passages obviously are not teaching.

 

[Kidron]

Why are you ignoring the obvious?
John is saying anyone who "does not abide in the teaching of Christ DOES NOT HAVE GOD"

-
Here is what is obvious, but not to you.
You have the Spirit of GOD, because you are SAVED, not because you are "abiding in any teachings".
Listen fella, when you are first saved, THAT INSTANT...= Do you have the Spirit of God come to live in you?
RIGHT !!
So, Have you been abiding by any Christian Doctrines and teachings till then ????, or did you Trust Christ and were SAVED = the Spirt of God comes to live inside HIS NEW TEMPLE?.
So, its obvious that you dont understand any of this, Jethro Bodine.
That is what is obvious by what you continue to write,....... Galatians 1:8

 

[Runner]

I believe we ALL understand the argument.

The poster to whom I was responding, who characterized opposing views as "illogical," seemingly didn't.

Those who believe that salvation can be lost do not understand the grace of God. Nor any of the verses that teach eternal security.

Whereupon you proceed to demonstrate that "we" do not all understand the argument. "We" are interested only in proclaiming the obvious correctness of our own views and telling those who disagree that they "do not understand the grace of God" and that sort of thing.

The fact of the matter is, "the verses that teach eternal security" are tempered by numerous other verses suggesting that enduring in faith to the end is necessary for salvation. This is why I decline to play the Bible Verse Game - it really goes nowhere unless you are willing to deal with all of the verses, in context. The very fact that we are talking about one of the really huge controversies in Christendom, one that has occupied the greatest minds for centuries and has led to a variety of diverse positions, tells us (or should tell us) the "correct answer" is considerably less than obvious.

I am not troubled at all by the notion that saving faith is faith that endures to the end, as opposed to faith that occurs at an isolated moment in time. When all of the verses are read in context, it seems to me that this is the stronger position - but not so obviously so that I feel compelled to scream at those who disagree. I don't see that this position diminishes the work of Christ or the grace of God; if anything, it seems to me that OSAS is more troubling in this regard. The debate reminds me of Pascal's Wager about the existence of God: If I bet that I must endure in faith to the end, and it turns out OSAS was correct, what have I lost? If I bet on OSAS and live and teach others this understanding and it turns out I was wrong - well, that could be a problem.

-
Yes.
And that is exactly why we have 3456,76890 denominations.
"doctrinal differences" will never achieve Christian Harmony.

The post you were enthusiastically endorsing stated, "They either ignore the obvious context, or they just completely misunderstand it altogether." I would suggest the reason we have 41,000 denominations is because people go around dividing Christendom into "us" and "them" and saying things like, "They either ignore the obvious context, or they just completely misunderstand it altogether." In these doctrinal controversies that have raged for centuries, the Bible invariably contains ambiguities and the correct interpretation is never obvious. For that matter, it seems pretty clear the New Testament authors did not all share precisely the same understanding.

What will achieve Christian Harmony? Will it be achieved when all those who disagree with you come to their senses and concede you were obviously right all along - or will it be when you concede they were obviously right all along?

It's Divinely purposefully difficult to understand.

There are basic flaws on both sides of the fence of this debate.

There really is only ONE remedy to understand WHY these flaws exist. We have only to understand that in the same set of shoes abides both eternal security AND eternal damnation. Which Paul purposefully showed us here, upon himself.

2 Corinthians 12:
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

You lost me there. I don't know that there are "basic flaws" on both sides of the argument. Both sides err when they insist their view is the only possible one and that anyone who disagrees simply does not understand the Bible, does not understand the grace of God, yada yada yada. The basic flaw on each side is dogmatism. There are two (more, actually) plausible views because there are ambiguities in the Bible verses. When anyone on either side acknowledges this reality and does not become dogmatic about his own position, then I don't believe his position is flawed. I may strongly believe OSAS is the weaker position and may chose to live my life as though I must endure in faith to the end, and I may even try to persuade others my position is the stronger one, but this doesn't compel me to shout down everyone who holds to OSAS and insist they don't understand the Bible, don't understand the grace of God, yada yada yada.

Are you suggesting God planted the ambiguities so controversies like this would arise? Or controversies like this arise because we are imperfect beings with imperfect understandings? Or the controversies are "thorns" that keep us from boasting? Your reference to 2 Corinthians 12 confuses me a bit. It seems like the ambiguities are precisely what give people a basis to boast - in effect saying, "Only I, not you, have the correct understanding." If you are saying we should remember that there are no obvious answers and that positions other than our own may have some merit, then this would be consistent with what I'm saying in the above paragraph.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

-
You have the Spirit of GOD, because you are SAVED, not because you are "abiding in any teachings".
Listen fella, when you are first saved, THAT INSTANT...= Do you have the Spirit of God come to live in you?
RIGHT !!
So, Have you been abiding by any Christian Doctrines and teachings till then ????, or did you Trust Christ and were SAVED = the Spirt of God comes to live inside HIS NEW TEMPLE?.

So, let me get this straight.....the church is to completely ignore the plain words of scripture and instead go with your carefully constructed words, right? I find it completely and utterly unreasonable to ignore the plain words of scripture in favor of your version of the gospel that directly contradicts them.

So, its obvious that you dont understand any of this, Jethro Bodine.
That is what is obvious by what you continue to write,....... Galatians 1:8

No, really, you are the one that has formulated a doctrine that is utterly contrary to the plain words of scripture. The person who does not abide in Christ does not have the Father, and the one who has neither the Father nor the Son does NOT have eternal life.

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB)​

But you are boldly and blatantly telling the church they still have eternal life if they do not continue in the Father and the Son. If that is not destroying the temple of God, causing believers to stumble, what is, Kidron, what is? Seriously, what is?

Now, do not separate the context of the passages above and explain to the church how they do not mean eternal life is not contingent on continuing in the Father and the Son. DO NOT BREAK APART THE CONTEXT OF THESE PASSAGES!

 

[Kidron]

"They either ignore the obvious context, or they just completely misunderstand it altogether."
.

-
Exactly.
People ither rightly divide the word, or the wrongly divide it.
Nothing new under the sun.
And for that simple reason, + the fact that 345 "new versions" dont agree in many places, = how can this produce anything other then Christian Chaos, (thank you SATAN) that you see play out in 456,6543 Denominations, as well as endless Christian Forum threads where people people saved 40 years cant even agree that Jesus saved them + NOTHING.


K

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Exactly.
People ither rightly divide the word, or the wrongly divide it.

Of which you gave a shining example (wrongly dividing the word of God).
Now, go back and try to sell your doctrine by not separating these verses apart from each other:

"God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 1:9-10 NASB)

"24 ...let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:24-26 NASB)
​

You said John is talking about 'fellowship', not eternal life. Explain that one more time using ALL of the context above. Of course you know we will instantly see it is impossible to insist that John was talking about broken fellowship and not about losing eternal life.

This is bothersome because you want to be a teacher of Israel. But like Nicodemus, you do not have an adequate knowledge of the scriptures. By only knowing some of the scriptures and creating doctrines from those you destroy the temple of God causing believers to stumble. And God has his warning for those who do that.

 

[smaller]

You lost me there. I don't know that there are "basic flaws" on both sides of the argument. Both sides err when they insist their view is the only possible one and that anyone who disagrees simply does not understand the Bible, does not understand the grace of God, yada yada yada.

The very real problem with both sides of the debate is trying to justify the unjustifiable.

We have an inherent problem with the "flesh." That being, the Spirit is against and contrary to it. Gal. 5:17

It won't be saved. "Works" salvation folk believe their flesh isn't contrary to the Spirit and the Spirit against their flesh if they do "enough" sufficient works. Eternal security people refuse to see the same issues. And neither party really cares to connect sin to the devil, as scripture does. 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15, etc.

So, who is the missing party in the conversations? Uh, yeah, our spiritual adversaries, as usual.

The spiritual reality IS that no believer really want's to fess up that their own sin is actually demonic. They can't make that statement of fact, because it is "personally" detestable to do so and demonic pride will not allow it to happen. So it's quite explainable.

The basic flaw on each side is dogmatism. There are two (more, actually) plausible views because there are ambiguities in the Bible verses.

I cited the easiest answer earlier in the thread. IF you (I believe you are somewhat of a legal expert) see the evidence, we might see that both eternal damnation and eternal salvation were walking in the same shoes, here:

2 Corinthians 12:
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

There are two parties in the above shoes. Paul, eternally saved. The messenger of Satan, eternally damned.

Jesus makes the identical case in Mark 4:15 showing again, TWO parties.

Paul makes the identical case, again, in Romans 9:18-24. And again in 2 Tim. 2:20-21.

So, yeah, the answer is quite easy to see, but there IS another party who would prefer to see otherwise. Which is basically why very few can grasp the matters.

Are you suggesting God planted the ambiguities so controversies like this would arise?

We should recognize the deeper principles in play here. They would be for example Satan's moving into "actions" within MAN where the Word is sown. This is particularly true when it comes to LAW. Paul shows how this principle works in painstaking detail in Romans 7:7-13, proving that sin, which IS of the devil, 1 John 3:8, moves in antithetical fashions to Gods Laws, His Word. This is also why it's also basically impossible for anyone to be "legally compliant" to Gods Laws, because it's not dealing with "only" people, but also adverse spiritual agents.

Will these adverse spiritual agents EVER agree on anything? Uh, no. They like to keep us all in stitches with these stupid religious debates.

Or controversies like this arise because we are imperfect beings with imperfect understandings? Or the controversies are "thorns" that keep us from boasting? Your reference to 2 Corinthians 12 confuses me a bit. It seems like the ambiguities are precisely what give people a basis to boast - in effect saying, "Only I, not you, have the correct understanding." If you are saying we should remember that there are no obvious answers and that positions other than our own may have some merit, then this would be consistent with what I'm saying in the above paragraph.

I would merely point out that even with Paul there was an adverse spiritual agent who would never understand or agree on anything. And Paul at least recognized that fact for himself.

Few people understand how Paul could make the conclusion that he was the chief of sinners AFTER salvation. 1 Tim. 1:15. But if we observe his "against the Spirit" cohort in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, it's quite easy to see how he made that determination.

As it relates to this topic in particular, the blood of Jesus avails the messenger(s) of Satan in the flesh of man exactly nothing. Nada. Zilch. But for believers, yes, entirely forgiven. Two states of truth are seen again in this topic, simultaneously, but in opposition/contradiction.

And for the unbelievers, they are basically Divinely Intentionally blinded to the entire conversations, so it really wouldn't mean anything to them in their state of blindess. Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2 shows them to be under the power of darkness, of Satan.