Preaching to the Choir

[Josheb]

Having perused the ops in this board, I noticed a few threads in which either the op or a post within a thread asserted (explicitly or implicitly) the position asserted was necessary for salvation. There is, for example, an op right here on the top page of this board titled, "Warning: Turn or Burn," (in ALL CAPS) that implies a lack of agreement with that opening post will result in judgment and burning in hell. Since eschatology is Christian doctrine, one being discussed by Christians in this Christian board in this Christian forum, I wonder for whom this op's admonition is intended. Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a member of the proverbial "choir" preach to the choir and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

 

[miamited]

Hi Josheb

Well, I would say that keeping in mind Jesus' admonition to those aligned with the fellowship of believers will apparently not all be saved because of some error in their beliefs, that preaching to the choir isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Jesus tells us that a day is coming when this will happen:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Now, as I understand the descriptors here, he is speaking of those aligned with his church. After all, what other group of people do such things in Jesus' name. Muslims? Atheists? Buddhists? Hindis? I'm confident that he is warning those who are, in their lives, aligned with his church in some way, that they don't have the right understanding or relationship that the Scriptures ask of believers.

So, some warnings among the fellowship would likely be a good thing.

 

[miamited]

I would further say that many of Paul's writings are a warning to how those that were, even in his day, aligned with the fellowship might need to stop and examine themselves and their faith. For example, Paul's admonition to the body that was allowing a man who had his father's wife, to expel him from among their fellowship. He was talking to a body of believers in that warning to them.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Having perused the ops in this board, I noticed a few threads in which either the op or a post within a thread asserted (explicitly or implicitly) the position asserted was necessary for salvation. There is, for example, an op right here on the top page of this board titled, "Warning: Turn or Burn," (in ALL CAPS) that implies a lack of agreement with that opening post will result in judgment and burning in hell. Since eschatology is Christian doctrine, one being discussed by Christians in this Christian board in this Christian forum, I wonder for whom this op's admonition is intended. Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a member of the proverbial "choir" preach to the choir and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

Those are interesting observations and questions. I would first say it is not completely discernable which particular ones among us who self-identify as Christians are actually saved. But it seems safe to assume some may not be. So preaching to the choir is not all bad. But I do agree with you that it is presumptuous for anyone to say, "Believe as I do or perish".

What is the best way to deal with those posts? I generally ignore the ones I am not interested in. On rare occasions I will discover through dialogue that some people's doctrines are so offensive that I will "ignore" them. Even then, I do not consider myself as qualified to pass judgement on their salvation. To me, that is God's alone to decide.

 

[Josheb]

Hi Josheb

Well, I would say that keeping in mind Jesus' admonition to those aligned with the fellowship of believers will apparently not all be saved because of some error in their beliefs, that preaching to the choir isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Got a tangible example of that? If there's a fatal error in their beliefs, then they're not part of the "choir."

Jesus tells us that a day is coming when this will happen:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Yes, and Jesus explicitly states he did not know any of those people. They think they are Christians, but they are not Christians. As Paul put it, they neither know or are known. Who, exactly, would that be in this board?

Now, as I understand the descriptors here, he is speaking of those aligned with his church. After all, what other group of people do such things in Jesus' name. Muslims? Atheists? Buddhists? Hindis? I'm confident that he is warning those who are, in their lives, aligned with his church in some way, that they don't have the right understanding or relationship that the Scriptures ask of believers.

So, some warnings among the fellowship would likely be a good thing.

All those other groups are outside the scope of this specific inquiry. This op stipulates the choir, those who are actually Christians. This board has 75 ops in it. Which of them was written to non-Christians?

 

[Josheb]

Those are interesting observations and questions. I would first say it is not completely discernable which particular ones among us who self-identify as Christians are actually saved. But it seems safe to assume some may not be.

Evidence from the board for that position?

Seriously, as I just asked miamited, there are 75 pages worth of ops in this board. Which one of them was written non-Christians? Which non-Christian here has an interest in Christian eschatology?

 

[miamited]

Got a tangible example of that? If there's a fatal error in their beliefs, then they're not part of the "choir."

Oooh, so you're going to tell us that if anyone is a part of those people that Jesus spoke of, then they aren't a part of the fellowship of believers. Got it. Well no, if all we're going to consider are born again believers, that's going to really be hard to know about someone else. For example: How do any of us know that you are a born again believer? Can you prove it in this medium?

 

[Josheb]

Oooh, so you're going to tell us that if anyone is a part of those people that Jesus spoke of, then they aren't a part of the fellowship of believers. Got it. Well no, if all we're going to consider are born again believers, that's going to really be hard to know about someone else. For example: How do any of us know that you are a born again believer? Can you prove it in this medium?

Ugh!

You did not think that through, did you? I am taking the exact opposite position you just described.


IF it is assumed everyone in the Christian forum in the Christian board discussing Christian end times is a Christian then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to tell the Christians they are going to go to hell if they don't believe or do X, Y, or Z in an end times op. It's just stupid. If the op is being read by Christians, then the op is necessarily and inescapably preaching to the proverbial choir. It must be assumed there are non-Christians who do not believe the post if there's going to be a reader going to hell. If that is the assumption, then the author of any such op has presumed to judge the reader(s) as non-Christian AND that non-Christian reading a Christian op in a Christian board in a Christian forum with an interest in Christian eschatology. Both options are irrational. On top of either of those two irrationalities, there is the problem of salvation by grace through faith. A Christian is, by definition, someone who is already saved. To even remotely suggest their eternal salvation from sin is dependent upon agreeing with an end times op is ludicrous.

If you, miamited, are going to assert there are non-Christians in this Christian board reading Christian-authored ops about Christian eschatology then I would simply like you to point out to me one of those non-Christians. Otherwise, the default setting is that this board's ops are being read by Christians and preaching threats of hell to Christians is bad form at best; depraved and devilish works of the flesh void of any Spiritual truth, veracity, and efficacy at worst.


I will, therefore, repeat my original inquiries for you and everyone else to consider.


Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a member of the proverbial "choir" preach to the choir and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

 

[Free]

Ugh!

You did not think that through, did you? I am taking the exact opposite position you just described.


IF it is assumed everyone in the Christian forum in the Christian board discussing Christian end times is a Christian then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to tell the Christians they are going to go to hell if they don't believe or do X, Y, or Z in an end times op. It's just stupid. If the op is being read by Christians, then the op is necessarily and inescapably preaching to the proverbial choir. It must be assumed there are non-Christians who do not believe the post if there's going to be a reader going to hell. If that is the assumption, then the author of any such op has presumed to judge the reader(s) as non-Christian AND that non-Christian reading a Christian op in a Christian board in a Christian forum with an interest in Christian eschatology. Both options are irrational. On top of either of those two irrationalities, there is the problem of salvation by grace through faith. A Christian is, by definition, someone who is already saved. To even remotely suggest their eternal salvation from sin is dependent upon agreeing with an end times op is ludicrous.

If you, miamited, are going to assert there are non-Christians in this Christian board reading Christian-authored ops about Christian eschatology then I would simply like you to point out to me one of those non-Christians. Otherwise, the default setting is that this board's ops are being read by Christians and preaching threats of hell to Christians is bad form at best; depraved and devilish works of the flesh void of any Spiritual truth, veracity, and efficacy at worst.

Have you not already answered your own question by stating: "Yes, and Jesus explicitly states he did not know any of those people. They think they are Christians, but they are not Christians. As Paul put it, they neither know or are known."? Are those not the non-Christians that miamited is referring to?

How can anyone on these forums know for certain who are those who claim to be Christian and actually believes themselves to be, but isn't really?

I will, therefore, repeat my original inquiries for you and everyone else to consider.

I will, therefore, repeat my original inquiries for you and everyone else to consider.


Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a member of the proverbial "choir" preach to the choir and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

No one can answer the motivation behind what someone else posts if that motivation isn't clear. But, I think you might be reading too much into it and in what forum it was posted.

 

[Josheb]

No one can answer the motivation behind what someone else posts......

Can you answer the questions asked in this op?

Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a Christian preach to other Christians and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does that practice make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?


Take them one at a time. Succinct answers to the questions asked will be appreciated. Please do not further waste my time, or yours, or further obstruct the thread if you're not going to answer those questions.

 

[miamited]

Ugh!

You did not think that through, did you? I am taking the exact opposite position you just described.


IF it is assumed everyone in the Christian forum in the Christian board discussing Christian end times is a Christian then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to tell the Christians they are going to go to hell if they don't believe or do X, Y, or Z in an end times op. It's just stupid. If the op is being read by Christians, then the op is necessarily and inescapably preaching to the proverbial choir. It must be assumed there are non-Christians who do not believe the post if there's going to be a reader going to hell. If that is the assumption, then the author of any such op has presumed to judge the reader(s) as non-Christian AND that non-Christian reading a Christian op in a Christian board in a Christian forum with an interest in Christian eschatology. Both options are irrational. On top of either of those two irrationalities, there is the problem of salvation by grace through faith. A Christian is, by definition, someone who is already saved. To even remotely suggest their eternal salvation from sin is dependent upon agreeing with an end times op is ludicrous.

If you, miamited, are going to assert there are non-Christians in this Christian board reading Christian-authored ops about Christian eschatology then I would simply like you to point out to me one of those non-Christians. Otherwise, the default setting is that this board's ops are being read by Christians and preaching threats of hell to Christians is bad form at best; depraved and devilish works of the flesh void of any Spiritual truth, veracity, and efficacy at worst.


I will, therefore, repeat my original inquiries for you and everyone else to consider.


Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a member of the proverbial "choir" preach to the choir and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

Hey Josheb

Ok, well I'll go with you believe that what you're saying is the truth and let it go at that.

 

[Free]

Can you answer the questions asked in this op?

Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a Christian preach to other Christians and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does that practice make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?


Take them one at a time. Succinct answers to the questions asked will be appreciated. Please do not further waste my time, or yours, or further obstruct the thread if you're not going to answer those questions.

No, I can't answer the questions, because, again, I do not know someone else's motive for posting what they have, unless they specifically state why. You're making a number of (at this point) unwarranted assumptions. You have to go back to that OP and ask them what they meant by what they posted and to whom they were posting. Only that person can give answers to your questions.

Maybe they chose this particular forum for no specific reason, but maybe because it's about an unbeliever's final destination, to post something to unbelievers in general that they felt burdened to share. Don't read so much into it unless intentions have been made clear.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Having perused the ops in this board, I noticed a few threads in which either the op or a post within a thread asserted (explicitly or implicitly) the position asserted was necessary for salvation. There is, for example, an op right here on the top page of this board titled, "Warning: Turn or Burn," (in ALL CAPS) that implies a lack of agreement with that opening post will result in judgment and burning in hell. Since eschatology is Christian doctrine, one being discussed by Christians in this Christian board in this Christian forum, I wonder for whom this op's admonition is intended. Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a member of the proverbial "choir" preach to the choir and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

Do you think it hurts to hear again a warning message, although it has already been received ?
Paul reiterated warnings multiple times, to churches he had already visited.

Personally, I don't think we can hear the warnings too many times.

 

[JLB]

Otherwise, the default setting is that this board's ops are being read by Christians and preaching threats of hell to Christians is bad form at best; depraved and devilish works of the flesh void of any Spiritual truth, veracity, and efficacy at worst.

Works of the flesh is an interesting phrase.

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:16

Paul teaches Christian’s how to avoid fulfilling the lust of the flesh.


He goes on to warn the Christians that practicing the works of the flesh will result in not inheriting the kingdom of God; which means burning in hell.

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21


JLB

 

[Josheb]

No, I can't answer the questions, because, again, I do not know someone else's motive for posting what they have, unless they specifically state why.

Which is the point of the inquiry. If someone else's disposition is unknown then how can anything be apresumed one way or another?

You're making a number of (at this point) unwarranted assumptions.

No, I am exploiting the assumptions of ops presuppositionally presuming conditions of the theology and the op's readers. In order for ANY author to imply "believe my post our you'll burn in hell" that author must first assume the reader is not Christian OR the Christian reader could burn in hell if not subscribing to the op's assertions (whatever that content and its motives and intent might be.

You have to go back to that OP and ask them what they meant by what they posted and to whom they were posting. Only that person can give answers to your questions.

That's incorrect (as I described above) but even if that were the case..... do you see any of the authors in this board showing up to explain themselves?

Maybe they chose this particular forum for no specific reason,

Ah, yes, I see. Aimless posting is better than prejudiced posting, or theologically untenable posting.

....but maybe because it's about an unbeliever's final destination...

UGH!

That brings us back to the underlying fundamental question of who are the unbelievers reading Christian posts about Christian end times doctrines written by a Christian author in a Christian board? and Why would any Christian presume there are unbeliever's in that board?

.....to post something to unbelievers in general that they felt burdened to share.

There are no unbelievers in this board! Everyone has been asked who those supposed unbelievers presumed to exist might be and the response is silence. There's zero evidence any such readers exist in this board.

Don't read so much into it unless intentions have been made clear.

The point is the "reading into it" has already occurred on the part of the author who tells people they'll burn in hell if they do not subscribe to the assertions of his op. Try for a minute to be as critical of those ops as you've tried to be with me because every point your making is applicable to them, not me.

• There are no unbelievers here.
• Christians cannot lose their salvation because they do not subscribe to an op's eschatological assertions.

Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a Christian preach to other Christians and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell if they, the Christian readers, do not subscribe to the op's assertions?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

No, I can't answer the questions................

Sure you can.

 

[Josheb]

Works of the flesh is an interesting phrase.

Comes straight out of scripture.

Galatians 5:16-26
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

What would you call the practice of one Christian telling other Christians they're going to burn in hell if they do not subscribe to the author's eschatological assertions? What would you call the presumption an author can sit in judgment of another Christian's eternal disposition? We might have room for such admonitions if the audience were non-Christian but that is not the case in a Christian board in a Christian forum, overwhelmingly populated with Christians.

The Holy Spirit does NOT inspire, teach, or empower those practices.

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:16

Let's not forget the love, joy, peace, patience.... portion. Neither should we neglect the fact love is ever-trusting, and ever-hopeful, and it is hubris (if not adulterous idolatry) to sit in judgment over someone else's eternal disposition. The Spirit does not inspire, teach, or empower that behavior.

Paul teaches Christian’s how to avoid fulfilling the lust of the flesh.

Yes, and not once does he ever threaten his Christian readers eternal destiny if they don't believe his end times views. A LOT of Christians living today would be going to hell if that were the case.

He goes on to warn the Christians.....

Focus.

This op is specifically about ops in this board, the eschatology board. This op has absolutely nothing to do with ops in the Christology, soteriology, hamartiology, pneumatology, or ecclesiology boards. This op is about the practice of one Christian presuming to threaten other Christians in a Christian thread in a Christian board in a Christian forum. Protests about the possibility of non-Christians being present must be evidenced, not assumed. Based on y'all's profiles, you've all been here more than two years and two of you have been here more than a decade! Anyone who's posted in the eschatology boards of other forums KNOWS these boards are populated by Christians arguing Christian perspectives with other Christians. It is the assumption there might possibly, maybe could be a non-Christian here that is the unfounded presumption!

It is irrational!

And the Holy Spirit of God NEVER inspires, leads, or empowers a person to be irrational.

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool."

Acts 17:2
And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures....

Acts 17:16-17
Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.

Acts 18:4
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.


God is a God of reason. The presuppositional presumptions of threatening ops in the end times board are irrational. If just the six of us currently in this thread 1) Stopped practicing this ourselves, 2) didn't feed those who do other than to note the fleshly, logically fallacious, and scripturally unsound practice for the benefit of others..... this entire board would benefit. The type of op described in this op happens because there are preachers and teachers outside the forum that teach this to their audiences (which may well have non-Christians in attendance) and they bring those practices into this board inappropriately.

Or perhaps I should threaten the eternal disposition of those who disagree . LOL!

 

[Josheb]

Do you think it hurts to hear again a warning message, although it has already been received ?

Do you think it is appropriate to expect other to answer your questions when the questions they've asked are ignored and go unanswered?

Do you think it hurts to hear again a warning message, although it has already been received ?

1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23

Paul reiterated warnings multiple times, to churches he had already visited.

He never threatened their eternal disposition over eschatology.

Personally, I don't think we can hear the warnings too many times.

They are not warnings. They are threats, "If you do not believe X then you will burn in hell," and they are threats made by one Christian to other Christians over one of the most disputed subjects in Christendom.

Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology, how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a member of the proverbial "choir" preach to the choir and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell?
• Does this make sense to anyone?
• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?


At this point I would like to make another observation: See how much difficulty this op caused everyone. Who here answered the questions asked before commenting. Even after the ambiguities were clarified there are no answers to the specific questions asked. Everyone avoided the questions and their answers. Consider also which of the eschatological viewpoints is most likely to foster the Christian-threatening ops. How is it that it is only those adhering to those few viewpoints that post so irrationally as to threaten other Christians with eternal damnation if the readers don't subscribe to their end times assertions?

As I just noted to JLB, we've all been in the end times discussion boards long enough to see this and know better. We've all ben Christians long enough and read our Bibles sufficiently to know this is misguided practice. If just the handful of us here in this thread avoided the practice, noted it when it occurs, and did not feed it otherwise, the entire board would benefit.

 

[JLB]

What would you call the practice of one Christian telling other Christians they're going to burn in hell if they do not subscribe to the author's eschatological assertions?

A lie.

 

[jasonc]

As posited .

Eschatology posted here is preaching to choir .

Therefore I posit because it's assumed that all who attend church are saved why do the same ?


Sure it's not a church here . We do have the lost that openly say it and deny the gospel post but they usually arent posting in theology discussions .

Besides . In either case in the church or here .the lost watch and listen and God may convict them into repentance based on His timing .

 

[Free]

Which is the point of the inquiry. If someone else's disposition is unknown then how can anything be apresumed one way or another?

But that is what you are doing, is it not? You have assumed the OP was posting his post towards other Christians, but that is nowhere indicated.

No, I am exploiting the assumptions of ops presuppositionally presuming conditions of the theology and the op's readers. In order for ANY author to imply "believe my post our you'll burn in hell" that author must first assume the reader is not Christian OR the Christian reader could burn in hell if not subscribing to the op's assertions (whatever that content and its motives and intent might be.

Yes, and you seem to have assumed the latter, without basis for doing so. It seems to me that the OP clearly wrote such a post for unbelievers. Why should we assume otherwise?

That's incorrect (as I described above) but even if that were the case..... do you see any of the authors in this board showing up to explain themselves?

If you want to know why someone wrote what they wrote or to whom they wrote, because nothing clearly indicates either of those, then you must ask them. None of us are mind readers.

Ah, yes, I see. Aimless posting is better than prejudiced posting, or theologically untenable posting.

I'm not sure what your point is, but just read the OP and how they couldn't post in the comments on YouTube.

That brings us back to the underlying fundamental question of who are the unbelievers reading Christian posts about Christian end times doctrines written by a Christian author in a Christian board? and Why would any Christian presume there are unbeliever's in that board?

I've already pointed this out, even based on what you had already stated:

"Yes, and Jesus explicitly states he did not know any of those people. They think they are Christians, but they are not Christians. As Paul put it, they neither know or are known."

There are clearly those who think they're Christian but are not, right? Maybe something in that OP will get someone to reconsider, although not likely since they believe themselves to be Christian.

There are no unbelievers in this board!

That is an assumption, based on the reasons already given.

Everyone has been asked who those supposed unbelievers presumed to exist might be and the response is silence. There's zero evidence any such readers exist in this board.

No, the response hasn't been silence.

The point is the "reading into it" has already occurred on the part of the author who tells people they'll burn in hell if they do not subscribe to the assertions of his op. Try for a minute to be as critical of those ops as you've tried to be with me because every point your making is applicable to them, not me.

• There are no unbelievers here.

This is an assumption, again, for the reasons given. Besides, there are unbelievers on these forums who can still read was written, never mind those who aren't members but just peruse the site.

• Christians cannot lose their salvation because they do not subscribe to an op's eschatological assertions.

Of course, but you're assuming that that was his point and it doesn't seem like it is.

Since salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by eschatology,

Of course, and no one has stated otherwise.

how is it one Christian can even remotely imply his siblings in the body of Christ might burn if there is any disagreement with that op?

• How can a Christian preach to other Christians and threaten them with divine judgment culminating with their burning in hell if they, the Christian readers, do not subscribe to the op's assertions?
• Does this make sense to anyone?

Again, you're assuming the intent of the author. I think you need to read the OP's first paragraph a little more closely and also see that it is their only post.

• Is this practice something anyone here thinks should be ignored?

Of course not, but is that actually what was done? It doesn't appear so to me.

What is the better, more whole-scripture alternative?

Go to the OP and ask what his intentions were, since he seems to have cause you offense.

Sure you can.

No, I can't; I'm not a mind reader.