Can someone who believes in OSAS help me?

[BigJack1]

Sonseeker,

Philthy adequately answered most of your rebuttal to my post. One thing I would like to hit on though is the council of Jerusalem. You say that the council was held by Apostles and no such Apostles are around today. Do you really think God has no forsight? Do you think God didn’t know or didn’t care that this wouldn’t be the only thing disputed among believers going in to the future? Do you really think he said, "Okay, as long as the apostles are here, you will have answers to the questions that you have, but after they are all gone, you are on your own (except for the Holy Spirit who will lead each of you to whatever truth you would like to believe)? That is certainly not the example we get from scripture. We see that the 11 passed on their authoirty to Matthias, not one of the 12 picked by Jesus. This obviously shows that they had the authority to pass on their authority to their successors. We see the same thing with Paul to Timothy and Titus. That line of Apostolic succession, unbroken for 2000 years from the Apostles themselves all the way down to the present Catholic clergy should be evidence enough that God did not leave us without a solution to the problem of determining truth. If you ask for evidence that the sky is blue and someone takes you outside and asks you to look up to the blue sky, and you still demand that the sky is green, then not much more can be done. When you ask for evidence, you must be ready to accept it when presented. Otherwise you are using your own preconceived notions of the way things are and are trying to force them to make sense, against the light of evidence and reason. You are therefore your own authority, your own Pope in fact. Hopefully this illustration makes you realize that the indvidual cannot be the authority nor can Scripture alone (because each individual’s interpretation of the Scriptures are not infallible. The Scriptures themselves are infallible, thus the need for an infallible Church to help us derive at their true meaning.)

You’re right that OSAS was not an issue at the council of Jerusalem. Neither was the divinity of Christ, the dual nature of Christ, the cannon of Scripture, etc. etc. etc. We know clearly however that these things (and countless) others did come into question as the Church grew. Therefore, subsequent councils were held as the need arose to clarify these matters infallibly. Funny, you accept the councils that established the cannon of the New Testament but you reject that same Church’s authority on other things. How do you know they got the cannon right? You’re obviously the authority on these things if you are able to pick and choose among the things settled by councils over the years, deciding which of them are true and which are not.

Take a long, hard, objective look and you’ll see that evidence for Catholicism is light years ahead of evidence for any other explanation.

BigJack

 

[sonseeker]

## Sonseeker,

What do you understand by “independent free will of man” ?

With respect to free will, Adam, prior to his fall, could choose to not sin, or choose to sin. Once he fell, he lost the ability to choose to not sin. We have inherited that degradation of the will. Unregenerate man can only choose to sin. His will is not neutral, he is a slave to sin. Once regenerate, he can again choose to not sin; however, because of the fall, the sin nature is still within in him, in his flesh. His flesh now battles with his regenerated spirit, and that battle will continue until he dies. Also, man’s will is subject to God’s will. God does not take a “hands off” approach to the creature’s will. He directs the creature as He sees fit. Man’s will does not operate independent of the will of God; man’s will is dependent to the will of God, and man’s will is subject either to sin, or to Christ.

 

[sonseeker]

Matt16_18:

The first epistle of John was written to refute the antichrists and their version of OSAS. If only you could understand this epistle!There is sin which is mortal … there is sin which is not mortal.

1John 5:16-17

Is the death caused by the sin physical, or spiritual?

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

God does not take a “hands off” approach to the creature’s will.

All through the Bible God appeals to men to recognize sin, and to reject it.

 

[Mickey]

** “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them” (Deut. 30:19-20).**

 

[Philthy]

sonseeker:

With respect to free will, Adam, prior to his fall, could choose to not sin, or choose to sin. Once he fell, he lost the ability to choose to not sin. We have inherited that degradation of the will. Unregenerate man can only choose to sin. His will is not neutral, he is a slave to sin. Once regenerate, he can again choose to not sin; however, because of the fall, the sin nature is still within in him, in his flesh. His flesh now battles with his regenerated spirit, and that battle will continue until he dies. Also, man’s will is subject to God’s will. God does not take a “hands off” approach to the creature’s will. He directs the creature as He sees fit. Man’s will does not operate independent of the will of God; man’s will is dependent to the will of God, and man’s will is subject either to sin, or to Christ.

I think you have an intellectually solid model here which, unfortunately, does not conform to observable reality. This means that it is an inaccurate model that falls short of its purpose.
You claim that an “unregenerate” man is INCAPABLE of choosing good? I would presume that atheists are unregenerate, no? How would you explain the reality that atheists do choose good? Some donate to charitable causes, some choose not to steal, murder, lie, etc because they believe it is the wrong thing to do. Some would put self professed christians to shame. Yet these same people do not accept Jesus Christ and think the Bible is a waste of paper. How do you explain this in light of your statement that "Unregenerate man can only choose to sin."?

---

Phil

 

[sonseeker]

Philthy:

I think you have an intellectually solid model here which, unfortunately, does not conform to observable reality. This means that it is an inaccurate model that falls short of its purpose.
You claim that an “unregenerate” man is INCAPABLE of choosing good? I would presume that atheists are unregenerate, no? How would you explain the reality that atheists do choose good? Some donate to charitable causes, some choose not to steal, murder, lie, etc because they believe it is the wrong thing to do. Some would put self professed christians to shame. Yet these same people do not accept Jesus Christ and think the Bible is a waste of paper. How do you explain this in light of your statement that "Unregenerate man can only choose to sin."?

Phil

Phil,

God does not believe in atheists.

Read this:

Romans 1:18-21: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 *For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. *

According to God, everyone knows that He exists. While it may seem to you, empirically, that atheists do good things, anyone who is not in Christ, can do nothing good.

John 15:5: “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing [good, or pleasing to God]. Whatever one does, no matter how kind, or good it may seem to you, if that person is not in Christ, he is not doing the work for the glory of God. It has no value.

Notice what Paul says about the one who is not in Christ:

Romans 8:8: So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. No matter how good the work may seem to you, if it is not done in Christ, it is valueless before God.

This is Paul’s description of his righteousness before He was in Christ (Phil 3:1-8), with verse 8 telling of His righteousness before he believed. The Greek word used to describe that righteousness in v8 is skubalon, i.e., dung.

Here is what Isaiah says about the so-called righteous deeds of men apart from God:

Isaiah 64:6: But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags…Look up the Hebrew with respect to the “filthy rags,” it is a very graphic simile.

Works done while not in Christ are useless before God, Phil.

 

[sonseeker]

Philty:

As far as I can tell he’s got a big enough mouth, but he’s nobody in the grand scheme of things. As for Boettener, the degree of ignorance he demonstrates in his writings regarding Catholicism and Catholic theology immediately raises suspicion on any other topic he chooses to opine on. Not what I would call a scholar.

In any event, even Catholics believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, but only the material sufficiency and not the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Some would be tempted to say that you also feel Scripture is formally INSUFFICIENT when you ask others to read books not contained in Scripture, no? But I’m sure you have modified the definition of sola scriptura to accommodate reading outside materials to help explain Scripture - so that’s not a problem for you and Jimmy.

Here’s my remaining two cents:

Jesus Christ himself said that if we do not forgive others their sins neither will our Father in heaven forgive us ours. I’ll take the liberty of assuming you believe that forgiveness of sin (by God) is a prerequisite of eternal salvation. It seems pretty simple to realize that people will continue to sin against us throughout our lives - we must continue to forgive them throughout our lives in order to have our own sins forgiven - and until we do, our sins are not yet forgiven. If our sins are not yet forgiven then we are not yet saved. What am I missing?

Phil, the prerequisite of salvation is faith in Christ. What Christ did was to procure the complete forgiveness of all sins for those who believe. That’s what you are missing.

Your argument about the church giving us the scripture evokes one response from me: Wha? God gave us the scripture, not the church. That is a silly argument; I have a great God, who not only inspired the scripture, but has assured that the canon is just what He decided it would be from eternity.

You continue ignoring the scripture Phil, and seek your salvation in forgiving others so that your sins will be forgiven; I hope you don’t forget anyone; better keep a notebook with the names of everyone who has wronged you; don’t forget Boettner.

You know, Phil, the way I see it, with respect to salvation, there are only two religions in the world:

1. The religion of divine accomplishment—God has done it all.
2. The religion of human achievement—God has done some; I must do the rest.

Which does the scripture teach?
Which does man teach?

 

[sonseeker]

BigJack:

Philthy adequately answered most of your rebuttal to my post. One thing I would like to hit on though is the council of

Jerusalem. You say that the council was held by Apostles and no such Apostles are around today…We see that the 11 passed on their authoirty to Matthias, not one of the 12 picked by Jesus. This obviously shows that they had the authority to pass on their authority to their successors.*Acts 1:15-26: At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, *
*16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. *
*17 “For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” *
*18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. *
*19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) *
*20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’ *
*21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— *
*22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” *
*23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. *
*24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen *
*25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” *
26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Jack you say that the apostles’ choosing Matthias is the precedent for apostolic succession. Let’s look at what the passage says.

Peter says in v16 that reason for picking a successor to Judas was because “the Scripture had to be fulfilled.” Which scripture? Well, actually there were two passages that had to be fulfilled: 1) Ps 109:8, which Peter says “the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas…” another had to take his office, a clear statement on the inspiration and authority of the scripture, i.e., the Holy Spirit. What other scripture had to be fulfilled?

Matthew 19:28: *And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, **you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ***

How can 11 sit on 12 thrones? They can’t. They needed another. You go on to say that Christ did not pick Matthias: V24 And they prayed and said, “… Lord,… show which one of these two You have chosen.” Seems to me that Peter believed that He did.

Notice also the requirements: *21 “Therefore **it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us **all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— *
*22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” *Which of your so-called apostles since then meets those requirements? To use Matthias selection as a basis for apostolic succession is folly. The passage makes the reason for his selection clear: another was to take Judas’ office, and 12 apostles are to sit on 12 thrones in the kingdom judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Matthias was not chosen to establish an apostolic lineage.
BigJack:

When you ask for evidence, you must be ready to accept it when presented. Otherwise you are using your own preconceived notions of the way things are and are trying to force them to make sense, against the light of evidence and reason. You are therefore your own authority, your own Pope in fact.

You should take your own advice. The evidence from the scripture is easily rejected by you because it contradicts most of what you have learned.

Your arguments about the church giving us the scripture is silly. God gave us the scripture, and God is powerful enough to ensure that we get the canon that He decided on before the foundation of the world. As far as the ensuing confusion you allude to, God controls it because He ordained it.

 

[sonseeker]

“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it” (Jer. 18:7, 8).

“For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done” (Matt. 16:27).

Paul also says that God “will render to every man according to his works” (Rom. 2:6).

To the Corinthian church Paul wrote: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.” (II Cor. 5:10)

And John in picturing the last judgment says: “And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.” (Rev. 20:15)

Mickey, none of those verses speak to man’s free will.

Where does the scripture say that God has given man a free will?

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

Mickey, none of those verses speak to man’s free will.

Where does the scripture say that God has given man a free will?

:banghead:

 

[Lillith]

[/quote]

Mickey…you did good…step away from the wall and please don’t bash your head in…we appreciate you Mickey…and I for one read every word and need your scriptural expertise

 

[Philthy]

Hi sonseeker!

First off let me say “thankyou” for taking the time to respond to my posts! I know I sort of jumped in uninvited - I appreciate your time.

sonseeker:

Phil,
God does not believe in atheists.

Bummer, we are off to a bad start. The only reason I mentioned atheists was to address your claim that all “unregenerate” men are incapable of choosing good over evil. It doesn’t matter, therefore, whether God believes in atheists, all that matters is whether they are “unregenerate” or not. I simply assumed you would agree that they were unregenerate and therefore incapable of choosing good.

sonseeker:

According to God, everyone knows that He exists.

Again, I think you inadvertantly created a “straw man” here. The point is that this is a class of people commonly referred to as atheists. Although this term may be a misnomer, they are still “unregenerate” yet can be observed to do both GOOD and EVIL, which contradicts your assertion that an unregenerate man can do NO GOOD.

sonseeker:

While it may seem to you, empirically, that atheists do good things, anyone who is not in Christ, can do nothing good.
John 15:5: “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing [good, or pleasing to God]. Whatever one does, no matter how kind, or good it may seem to you, if that person is not in Christ, he is not doing the work for the glory of God. It has no value.

sonseeker:

Your analysis is sensible, but I believe you should reread the entire chapter. You have drawn a conclusion: that one who does not profess to be a Christian has no relationship to Christ and therefore is incapable of doing anything good since “without me you can do nothing” But the fact remains that we can observe some who would not identify themselves as Christians doing good. My conclusion would be that in some sense

Christ is acting in that individual otherwise they wouldn’t be doing good. That would be an equally, if not more logical conclusion from the entire section of John 15. Certainly that is more logical than saying that even though they did good it is not good.

sonseeker:

Notice what Paul says about the one who is not in Christ:
Romans 8:8: So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God

. No matter how good the work may seem to you, if it is not done in Christ, it is valueless before God.

I think you have now confused two separate issues:

1. the ability to choose the morally proper course of action in a situation and
2. the inherent value of that action before God.

I believe we were dealing exclusively with number 1 as it related to free will in the regenerate and unregenerate man. Am I mistaken?
Once you recognize this distinction you will see that free will does in fact exist in the unregenerate to choose good or evil. **This is an important realization because the doctrine of OSAS requires our inability to CHOOSE **good or evil(ie have free will), and you claimed several posts back that:
“You continue to insist that you have a free will. How can that be? I have shown you repeatedly that you are wrong.” to Matt16_18.
It now appears that you have confused the issue of the existence of free will with the inherent value of a freely chosen act by an unregenerate before God (1 and 2 above). We can discuss the second issue (inherent value before God of an act) separately, but we should first come to some level of agreement on the first issue - existence of free will.

Phil
**This is Paul’s description of his righteousness before He was in Christ (Phil 3:1-8), with verse 8 telling of His righteousness before he believed. The Greek word used to describe that righteousness in v8 is skubalon, i.e., dung.

Here is what Isaiah says about the so-called righteous deeds of men apart from God:

Isaiah 64:6: But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags…Look up the Hebrew with respect to the “filthy rags,” it is a very graphic simile.

---

Good points. I believe however, that the works spoken of in both isntances are works of the law specifically. That would be different than someone “loving another” through a charitable act, for example, and thereby obeying Christ even if they don’t ful.
Works done while not in Christ are useless before God, Phil.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

sonseeker:

With respect to free will, Adam, prior to his fall, could choose to not sin, or choose to sin. Once he fell, he lost the ability to choose to not sin. We have inherited that degradation of the will.

So far, except for that second sentence - see below - all clear. Thanks ​

Unregenerate man can only choose to sin. His will is not neutral, he is a slave to sin.

Does this loss of ability mean that the unregenerate man is incapable of - let us say - acts of kindness and self-sacrifice ? Or, does it mean that he is capable of them, but, that because he is fallen, they are reckoned as being as worthless as acts which are clearly sinful, such as murder or theft ? Is there no moral difference between the unjustified murderer, and the unjustified man who prevents his attempts to commit murder - or are they “in the same boat”, not because there is no distinction between attempting & preventing murder, but because neither is justified ?​

Once regenerate, he can again choose to not sin; however, because of the fall, the sin nature is still within in him, in his flesh. His flesh now battles with his regenerated spirit, and that battle will continue until he dies. Also, man’s will is subject to God’s will. God does not take a “hands off” approach to the creature’s will. He directs the creature as He sees fit. Man’s will does not operate independent of the will of God; man’s will is dependent to the will of God, and man’s will is subject either to sin, or to Christ.

That paragraph makes perfect sense - FWIW, I don’t know of any Catholic who would say that our wills were independent of the Will of God, if by this was meant, that they are not wholly under His rule, and that they are not obliged to conform to His; in that sense they cannot be independent. That, would be sheer atheism, or worse.​

They are independent, only in being that of creatures, & so, distinct from the Will of the Uncreated God. In technical language, they are numerically distinct from the Will of God, but not independent of the Will of God - since for us to be independent of His Will, would imply that we are not oriented to God, and not required to obey God or His Christ; it would imply there could be creatures not obliged to obey God, or that we are not creatures.

IOW - Catholics would insist on the need for the subjection of the will to God; and would deny that God’s Will was identical in its Being with man’s. But then, AFAICS, so would you: correct ? ##

 

[BigJack1]

Sonseeker,

Know 1st of all that I’m praying for you. Someone like yourself who is flattered so much with your own knowledge that you don’t have the humility necessary to ever submit to the truth will never be swayed by any arguement, no matter how logically sound. I will ask the Blessed Mother (that ought to make you blow a gasket) to intercede for you that your heart will soften.

Thanks for quoting all that scripture for me so I didn’t have to. Those quotes support the Catholic position. They show that authority is indeed to be passed on from the apostles to their successors. Hmm. . . this looks like a difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of scripture. How could we ever know who (if either) was correct? I know, Jesus must have established a Church and gave it the authority to determine the true position. What a concept!

You know full well what I meant about the comment concerning Jesus not picking Matthias as one of the 12. If I have to spell it out for you. . . he did not, while in the flesh, walk up to Matthias (as he did the others) and say “follow me”. Of course the Apostles prayed for guidance in choosing a successor. The leaders of the Church still do and they still rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them, just as the 11 relied on Him back then.

Next, you quote how the successor to Judas had to be a witness to the resurrection. Does this disqualify Paul, Timothy, and Titus from being Bishops?

Your last part really shakes your credibility. Yes indeed, God did give us the Bible. You obviously believe however that he accomplished this one day by opening up the sky and having the completed work fall down to the Earth. I tend to believe that he worked through His Church and revealed the cannon of scripture to the world through it.(Review the history. You can come to no other conclusion). I have taken my own advice. I used to be much like you. I thought I had it figured out. Thankfully I was eventually able to take the more humble approach and realize that maybe, just maybe, my own personal beliefs might not be eternal truth. Indeed I was able to discover that the Lord gave us the gift of his Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth” (yes the Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of truth) and as such, I must acknowledge that what it teaches is the truth Christ wants the faithful to have.

Finally, the part about God ordaining the confusion that exists in the absence of an authority is simply too ridiculous to respond to.

BigJack

 

[Philthy]

Hi sonseeker! again, thank you for your thoughts…

sonseeker:

Phil, the prerequisite of salvation is faith in Christ. What Christ did was to procure the complete forgiveness of all sins for those who believe. That’s what you are missing.

Actually I don’t think I’m missing anything! I think what your missing is that “forgiving” others IS identical with “having faith” in Christ. You seem to believe the two can be separated - I don’t - Christ was perfectly clear in what he said.

sonseeker:

Your argument about the church giving us the scripture evokes one response from me: Wha? God gave us the scripture, not the church.

Oh really? And what, exactly, is the difference between God giving us the Scripture and the Church giving it? Is not the Church the body of Christ? And just to be accurate we were discussing the NT. Where and when did “God”, apart from the church “give us” the NT? To whom did he give it? And all this, as I requested, needs to be somewhere in Scripture. Even a hint that a NT was forthcoming. Scripture is very clear how we got the 10 commandments. Show me your Scriptural support that God “gave us” the NT. Otherwise tell me what yu mean by “God gave us the NT” other than he revealed it through the Church as history clearly recalls.

sonseeker:

That is a silly argument; I have a great God, who not only inspired the scripture, but has assured that the canon is just what He decided it would be from eternity.

You don’t seem to understand. The issue is not whether God is great, nor is it whether He inspired Scripture, nor is it whether God decided what would be in the Canon from all eternity. We all agree on those issues. THE QUESTION IS, "HOW DID GOD CHOOSE TO REVEAL HIS ETERNAL DECISION REGARDING INSPIRATION AND THE CANON. I say he did so through Tradition and the Catholic councils of Hippo, Carthage etc. I have yet to hear your version. And you have grown noticeably silent on your Scriptural support.

sonseeker:

You continue ignoring the scripture Phil, and seek your salvation in forgiving others so that your sins will be forgiven; I hope you don’t forget anyone; better keep a notebook with the names of everyone who has wronged you; don’t forget Boettner.

Again, I think we have a misunderstanding. I seek my salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus tells us that forgiving others IS having faith in Jesus Christ - not in its entirety of course, but forgiveness is a part of faith in Christ. How can you ignore this clear teaching? Now who’s ignoring Scripture?

sonseeker:

You know, Phil, the way I see it, with respect to salvation, there are only two religions in the world:

1. The religion of divine accomplishment—God has done it all.
2. The religion of human achievement—God has done some; I must do the rest.

Which does the scripture teach?

Scripture doesn’t teach, people do. Scripture is read. You’ll read Scripture with a genuine heart and get one meaning. I’ll read it with a genuine heart and may get another. It goes back to the formal insufficiency of Scripture to fully communicate all of itself, despite all the info being there. You never addressed this issue from my post. Confronted with this reality some choose to “agree to disagree” and label their disagreements as “non-essentials” under the banner of “unity”. It is admirable, but I don’t buy it and the everchanging “biblical” doctrine just keeps growing and growing…

Thanks again for your thoughtful posts…

Phil

 

[Matt16_18]

sonseeker:

Is the death caused by the sin physical, or spiritual?

Mortal sin is the desolating abomination that destroys the temple.Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are.
1Cor. 3:16-17 When a Christian chooses to commit mortal sin, he brings the desolating abomination into his temple. Mortal sin makes the temple desolate, i.e. uninhabited, and eternal life no longer abides in that temple.

John teaches that hatred and murder are mortal sins: He who does not love abides in death. Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1John 3:14-15
Obviously John is not teaching that if a Christian hates another brother, that this sin is going to cause the Christian filled with hatred his *physical * death. The mortal sin of hatred brings spiritual death, because that Christian that hates has no eternal life abiding in him.

 

[Matt16_18]

sonseeker:

With respect to free will, Adam, prior to his fall, could choose to not sin, or choose to sin.

You are clearly contradicting yourself. You have said that neither Adam nor Lucifer had free will, and now you are saying that before the Fall, that Adam could CHOOSE to be either obedient or disobedient to God’s will. If Adam could make that choice, then you cannot deny that Adam had the freedom of will to be able to make that choice.

Once he fell, he lost the ability to choose to not sin. We have inherited that degradation of the will. Unregenerate man can only choose to sin.

Whether or not unregenerate men are free to not commit sin is totally irrelevant to any discussion of OSAS, since OSAS is not a doctrine that concerns unregenerate men. OSAS is a doctrine that concerns regenerate men. Christ sets free the regenerate man from the bondage to sin. If you do not believe that truth, then in no way can you claim to be a Christian.

The Christian is like Adam before the Fall, he is not in bondage to sin, and he can choose to be either obedient or disobedient to God’s will. If the Christian chooses to commit mortal sin, he will lose the eternal life abiding in him and become spiritually dead, just as Adam became spiritually dead by choosing disobedience to God.

 

[dennisknapp]

Matt 16_18

You continue to insist that God has nothing to do with evil. How can that be?** I have shown** you repeatedly that you are wrong. You continue to insist that you have a free will. How can that be? I have shown you repeatedly that you wrong.

“I have shown?”

Wait, I thought you have no freewill?

It should be God has shown through you.

Peace

 

[sonseeker]

Philthy:

Hi sonseeker!

First off let me say “thankyou” for taking the time to respond to my posts! I know I sort of jumped in uninvited - I appreciate your time.

Phil, thanks for your posts. We are not on the same page, and I am certain that we never will be. I answered your questions to the best of my ability. I do not want to get involved in a lengthy back and forth.

Thanks again