A hellish responsibility

So, the solution I propose today, which is pretty satisfactory to me is this:

To be hurt by the second death as a very disciplined defeated Christian backslider, must be LESS than the second death having authority over them.

In other words. probably, because they are eternally redeemed and have Christ living in them though there is a dispensation and temporary punishment of being hurt, innately they are not under that mechanism's authority in a total sense.

Because they can be matured under some kind of punishment during the millennium, they are not completely under that punishment's authority. Eventually, they overcome. But the flavor of that kind of overcoming in the kingdom age is different from the flavor of overcoming in the church age, the age of grace.

That's how I feel today.

Originally posted by sonship
So, the solution I propose today, which is pretty satisfactory to me is this:

To be [b]hurt by the second death as a very disciplined defeated Christian backslider, must be LESS than the second death having authority over them.

In other words. probably, because they are eternally redeemed and have Christ living in them though there is a dispensa ...[text shortened]... from the flavor of overcoming in the church age, the age of grace.

That's how I feel today.[/b]

You determine doctrines on how you feel .. today.

Originally posted by sonship
So, the solution I propose today, which is pretty satisfactory to me is this:

To be [b]hurt by the second death as a very disciplined defeated Christian backslider, must be LESS than the second death having authority over them.

In other words. probably, because they are eternally redeemed and have Christ living in them though there is a dispensa ...[text shortened]... from the flavor of overcoming in the church age, the age of grace.

That's how I feel today.[/b]

Christ lives in evil sinful Christians? What the hell are you smoking?
You dont know your bible. I can quote a dozen passages which contradict your false nonsense. What is sad is that there are some Christians who are nodding in agreement with your foolishness.

Originally posted by sonship
Extremely effective huh ?

Now let's see. If a Christian brother does not believe that [b]Revelation 20:15 says what it does as I interpret it, WHAT do I think will happen to that Christian brother ?

I am suppose to LACK the COURAGE to express my thought about that.
Well, I don't think believing Rev. 20:15 is about non-existence rat ...[text shortened]... Rom. 10:9) [/b] [/quote]

I often come back to those matters and that consequence, don't I ?[/b]

You can choose to be unequivocal in your responses to me, or you can choose to obfuscate. You continually choose the later. That's why it (my tactic) is effective.

Originally posted by divegeester
You can choose to be unequivocal in your responses to me, or you can choose to obfuscate. You continually choose the later. That's why it (my tactic) is effective.

Bump for sonship.

Originally posted by divegeester
You can choose to be unequivocal in your responses to me, or you can choose to obfuscate. You continually choose the later. That's why it (my tactic) is effective.

I'm not impressed with your calling things which your thick head cannot undersand - "obfuscation."

Originally posted by sonship
I'm not impressed with your calling things which your thick head cannot undersand - "obfuscation."

Then perhaps you will answer the question?
Here is the question from page 16 of this thread which you have been ducking and dodging with your obfuscation. In fact you've been dodging it for years.

Originally posted by FMF to sonship
Does divegeester's difference of opinion with you, to your way of thinking, place him at some degree of risk of being tortured for eternity?


Edit: here is the reason for your evasion:

1) If you reply yes, divegeeter (and of course anyone else who differs in opinion with you on this doctrine of eternal suffering), is in danger of that suffering; then you need to back it up with scripture and you won't be able to. Furthermore you will appear cultish and self aggrandising.

2) if you say no, divegeester is not in danger; then it makes your whole position on eternal suffering appear a little tawdry and actually inconsequential.

Ths same logic applies to your position on the Trinity and why you won't commit on the consequences of disagreeing with you on that doctrine either. In short this whole stand-off position you take is all about your vanity sonship.

Originally posted by divegeester

Now I have not read this thread but let's see if some "Gotcha!" moment has caused me to shrink away, evading something or other.

Edit: here is the reason for your evasion:

1) If you reply yes, divegeeter (and of course anyone else who differs in opinion with you on this doctrine of eternal suffering), is in danger of that suffering; then you need to back it up with scripture and you won't be able to. Furthermore you will appear cultish and self aggrandising.

2) if you say no, divegeester is not in danger; then it makes your whole position on eternal suffering appear a little tawdry and actually inconsequential.

Ths same logic applies to your position on the Trinity and why you won't commit on the consequences of disagreeing with you on that doctrine either. In short this whole stand-off position you take is all about your vanity sonship.

1.)

1) If you reply yes, divegeeter (and of course anyone else who differs in opinion with you on this doctrine of eternal suffering), is in danger of that suffering; then you need to back it up with scripture and you won't be able to. Furthermore you will appear cultish and self aggrandising.

Huh?
A person in Christ is saved from eternal punishment.
If that person believes in the lake of fire he is saved because he is in Christ.
If that person does not believe or interprets in some other way the lake of fire he is still saved, because he is in Christ.

I thought I made this clear above somewhere. Notice that the Apostle Paul says confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God raised Him from the dead, he will be saved.

No other requirement is listed there. Nothing is said that he must confess with is mouth that the lake of fire is a hot punishment that lasts forever.

Some posters are putting up a mighty effort to insert that requirement into my mouth.
But what is in my mouth is this.

"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)

"But sonship, we want you to teach that you have to believe in your heart that the lake of fire is a hot everlasting punishement. We want to imagine that YOU make agreement with your interpretation of Revelation 20:14 to be the basis of salvation."

That may be what you want. But what we have and what you get is Romans 10:9)

Now the other supposed inescapable horn of the dilemma.

2.)

2) if you say no, divegeester is not in danger; then it makes your whole position on eternal suffering appear a little tawdry and actually inconsequential.

What ?!?
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The "dilemma" I have not recently reviewed. But I think I have made it clear:

If Divegeester is a believer in Christ he is saved from eternal punishment (Rom. 10:9).
If Divegeester is an unbeliever rejecting Christ he is in danger of eternal punishment (Rom 10:9) .

If Divegeester is a believer in Christ and thinks "the lake of fire" means non-existence he is still saved from eternal punishment.

If Divegeester is an unbeliever rejecting Jesus Christ whatever he thinks about the lake of fire he is in danger of eternal punishment,

This understanding doesn't call for me having infallible knowledge of whether or not a person is a Christian. It only calls for me reading and understanding what Romans 10:9 says.

Originally posted by sonship
A person in Christ is saved from eternal punishment.
If that person believes in the lake of fire he is saved because he is in Christ.
If that person does not believe or interprets in some other way the lake of fire he is still saved, because he is in Christ.

If, according to your ideology, it doesn't matter whether someone believes in eternal torture or not, what is its purpose?

Originally posted by FMF
If, according to your ideology, it doesn't matter whether someone believes in eternal torture or not, what is its purpose?

All you are interested in doing is hopping, hopping, hopping around from objection to objection.

You don't have to believe in Christ if you really do not want to.
The "cage door" is open.
You have some good reasons not to call Jesus as Lord and some good reasons not to believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead ? You can follow them.

If your beef is something like this: "Sonship, you are FAR from a perfect guy. I can spot a lot of personal problems with you."

Okay, If you wish to wait for a smarter and better Christian to tell you the good news, wait.

Originally posted by sonship
All you are interested in doing is hopping, hopping, hopping around from objection to objection.

You don't have to believe in Christ if you really do not want to.
The "cage door" is open.
You have some good reasons not to call Jesus as Lord and some good reasons not to believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead ? You can fol ...[text shortened]...

Okay, If you wish to wait for a smarter and better Christian to tell you the good news, wait.

You have dodged the question.

Originally posted by FMF
You have dodged the question.

All you are interested in doing is hopping, hopping, hopping around from objection to objection.

Whatever the question was.

Divegeester,

You sometimes seem to kind of associate with atheists or at least be sympathetic to their arguments.

If you think that rejecting the doctrine of conscious eternal suffering will make some atheists here MORE disposed to believing in Jesus Christ, tell me which ones they are.

Let them come forward and tell us all -

If there is no eternal conscious suffered punishment for not being in Christ for eternity, what percentage MORE are you likely to be opened to receiving Jesus as Lord ?

1%?
10%
20% more?
50% more?

How much more is Jesus the Lord the Son of God desirable to your heart if there is no conscious retribution in not being saved in Him?

Would it make a difference to think Divegeester had the correct understanding of eternal punishment - non-existence ? Would it change ANY your attitude about God's existence or WHO Jesus Christ is ?

Originally posted by sonship
Whatever the question was.

In the light of you saying this:

A person in Christ is saved from eternal punishment.
If that person believes in the lake of fire he is saved because he is in Christ.
If that person does not believe or interprets in some other way the lake of fire he is still saved, because he is in Christ.

The question was this:

If, according to your ideology, it doesn't matter whether someone believes in eternal torture or not, what is its purpose?

Originally posted by sonship to divegeester
If you think that rejecting the doctrine of conscious eternal suffering will make some atheists here MORE disposed to believing in Jesus Christ, tell me which ones they are.

Surely the issue - or the dispute - concerns the supposed nature of your god figure rather than any personal preoccupation you may have about how many people you are converting to your ideology?