Search results

Obviously, the OSAS crowd won't agree with the NOSAS crowd on this matter. Of course, anyone can continue to make sacrifices. The point of Hebrews is that the sacrifices will not be accepted after one is saved, KNOWS the truth and then rejects the truth, rejects their salvation through Christ...

You were saying?

You know that Jesus "never" knowing them is a figure of speech, right? And to recognize that these saved Christians who performed miracles in Jesus name BECAME workers of iniquity after the fact does not change the Holy Spirit sealing them and working through them BEFORE they fell again.

LOL Specifically, it means that Jesus sacrifice was undone, which means there is no other sacrifice to save the person from the consequences of their sin.

Yes, it is the same thing. It is the EXACT same thing. Consider the absurdity of casting demons out in Jesus name but not being born again. Nonsense. Total nonsense.

Well, Millenia is much more than a single lifetime of failure. That human's fail to meet the divine standard is one thing and none of us should be too surprised. The surprising thing is that the Creator of the universe took time and cared enough to find a way, despite our short comings of...

Normally, I take that position. However, there are synonyms and expressions that mean the same thing. Of course, my take on knowledge in the Bible is not head knowledge but heart knowledge, a transformative experiential moment. Yes, = born again.

There is your OSAS. Not in those words but in other words he did. Not all who call him Lord, Lord will be saved. This contradicts your OSAS. Paul? It most certainly IS what Jesus said you'd lose. See above. Also reference to vines not producing fruit being burned. Also reference salt being...

It seems that you have such a tattoo. Guess what? Not calling OSAS by name does not make what you are advancing something else.

Yes. Scripture is not God to be worshipped.

That's because there is no such thing as this. So, I don't struggle, I reject it out of hand. The 2 manifestations are due to TWO things being manifested. Your thinking is so corrupted, you assert antonyms are synonyms.

There is no but. These Scriptures reinforce my point. The point about hope is not to have hope in what is false but what is true. False hope is reliance on our capacity to pick ourselves up by our own boot straps. True hope rests in God's suffering servant, by whom many are saved.

What I love about your posts lately is how profoundly insightful they are in just a few words. Bravo! Bravo, dear sister!

That's a tough question you ask. I've concluded the purpose of the OT is to afford us the opportunity to attempt to meet the divine standard on our own. It was for us, in God's infinite mercy and love, to allow us to go it alone. Only after millenia of failure, when all rational hope was...

I would have bet my life that you'd come back with this OSAS nonsense. The passage specifically talks about those who KNOW the truth, which means were born again. But we all know that you can not acknowledge that for your doctrine's obliteration would result. And I do believe @marks brought up...

Even in your weak defense, you admit Differentia, 2 different halves - not the same half of the same thing. We obviously diagree. While eastern philosophies like Tao advocate what you do, Christianity rejects the intrinsic necessity of darkness, wrong and evil to exist. What's more Christianity...

This reminds me of a time my father tried to instigate a fight in my home between me and my teenage stepdaughters. He thought I should put a 5-minute timer on the shower head. When I asked him why he thought U should do this, he answered ‘efficiency.’ I retorted that I’m not guided or driven...

Can't answer my question. This tells me this thread is about OSAS. Projecting onto @Michiah-Imla what you, yourself, are guilty of, dodging. More projecting.

You're playing word games now. A miscarriage is not a chosen outcome.

I'm a little confused by the wording of this sentence. As I understand @Michiah-Imla's position, he has not sinned in the last decade. Now, we can debate the truth of this but that is secondary. He is claiming he has not sinned. It stands to reason that IF this is true, he would not confess to...