ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW 24:12-13 - WHY IT DISPROVES OSAS

[Phoneman777]

Rom 8:38-39 ESV For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rev 20:14 NIV Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

ATP, the focus of this thread is to evaluate whether OSAS stands the test of the Biblical scrutiny of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV. If you want to post OSAS "proof texts", please do so elsewhere. So far, you're only response to this scrutiny is:

• repeated attempts to shift the discussion from the cold "agape of many" of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV to the "agape of God" which will never grow cold
• your shocking "yes" answer to the question "can agape-less people who cannot fulfill the Two Great commandments still go to heaven?
• that when Jesus said "cold agape" - which is the antithesis of perfect, living agape - He meant "lukewarm" agape, while you conveniently ignore that the saints are not known by "imperfect agape" but are known by "God-perfected agape" in them.
• posting numerous OSAS "proof texts" which do not belong to this discussion.

You're only helping to convince others that Jesus' own words disqualify OSAS as a valid doctrine.

 

[ATP]

The issue up for discussion is simple: the saints are known by their agape for God, man, and their agape being perfected by God in them. Even people with a limited double digit IQ can see that "cold agape" is "dead agape" at best and at the very least "imperfect agape". So, how can these "many" be any longer counted as "saints" if they lack the Biblical criteria to be a saint, which is agape for God, for man, and perfected agape in them?

If, then, agape-less people are not going to heaven, then consider the only other alternative.

You know how to add the lake of fire into your doctrine, but you do not know what the lake of fire is. Are you willing to learn?

 

[Phoneman777]

You know how to add the lake of fire into your doctrine, but you do not know what the lake of fire is. Are you willing to learn?

Perhaps I should not have brought up the Lake of Fire. It is sufficient to say that saints who find themselves agape-less will not be entering the kingdom of heaven.

 

[ATP]

Perhaps I should not have brought up the Lake of Fire. It is sufficient to say that saints who find themselves agape-less will not be entering the kingdom of heaven.

It's not healthy to be stuck on one verse Phone. Can you expand beyond Matt 24:12? Can we focus on Rom 8:38 and Rev 20:14 for a second, or no.

 

[Angelina]

Hi Phoneman777,

Hi, Angelina, is there anything wrong with limiting a thread topic to an exploration of the impact that one particular verse may have on that topic? Academics do it all the time and entire senior papers have been written on the exploration of just one Bible verse.

Nothing wrong with that but you have to get permission from the admin to create an analysis/ or a thread without there being the ability to reply. The admin is the only member who has the jurisdiction/ability to create such threads.

It was my intention to do just that with Matthew 24:12-13 KJV and its impact on OSAS. In other words, the intent of this thread is not to explore whether there is any Biblical support for OSAS, but rather whether OSAS stands the test of the textual scrutiny of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV. Surely, such a discussion format is certainly healthy and likely to limit the "bomb-throwing" of what are considered "proof texts" by those who have opposing viewpoints of a forum topic, is it not?

I understand your thoughts regarding your exploration of this topic but again this is not possible without the admins approval. Placing such a topic in the debate forum will always draw replies because it is a topic that generates vigorous discussion. Making statements that does not allow others to participate in the debate forum is not conducive to this forums title name.

However, I would like to point out that members who engage in this thread must keep to the O/P as much as possible.

 

[Phoneman777]

Hi Phoneman777,

Nothing wrong with that but you have to get permission from the admin to create an analysis/ or a thread without there being the ability to reply. The admin is the only member who has the jurisdiction/ability to create such threads.


I understand your thoughts regarding your exploration of this topic but again this is not possible without the admins approval. Placing such a topic in the debate forum will always draw replies because it is a topic that generates vigorous discussion. Making statements that does not allow others to participate in the debate forum is not conducive to this forums title name.

However, I would like to point out that members who engage in this thread must keep to the O/P as much as possible.

Angelina, I can't see where this thread is one that doesn't "allow others to participate" or hinders "ability to reply" - it seems your admitted policy that we "keep to the O/P" is what does that. It was necessary to remind some of that policy several times in this thread.

It's becoming more evident to me that I should have entitled the thread: "Does OSAS Withstand The Textual Scrutiny Of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV?" Please change it, if possible. I regret that I didn't foresee that my title "...Why It Disproves OSAS" would actually encourage departure from this policy by those who would come to the defense of OSAS.

 

[Phoneman777]

It's not healthy to be stuck on one verse Phone. Can you expand beyond Matt 24:12? Can we focus on Rom 8:38 and Rev 20:14 for a second, or no.

Sure, ATP, all I ask is that we stick to the O/P which is stated policy. BTW, I've asked Angelina to change the title to "Does OSAS Withstand The Textual Scrutiny Of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV?" because analyzing that is the purpose of this thread, bro. A belief must line up with 100% of God's Word or it is 100% false. The issues of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV are concerned with this:

• "the agape of many" not "the agape of God"
• the fact that "the agape of many will grow cold" which everyone agrees means "no agape remains".
• the conjunction "but" is a Contrasting Conjunction which Jesus uses to contrast verse 12 and 13

Romans 8:38 KJV clearly is a promise to the saints who are known by their agape (1) for God, (2) for others, and (3) for having the agape of God perfected in them. The subjects of verse 12 who once possessed such perfected agape no longer possess perfected agape which has turned cold and dead, as Jesus makes so abundantly clear.

Therefore, you cannot take a promise that applies to the saints who are known by their agape (1) for God, (2) for others, and (3) for having the agape of God perfected in them and apply it to those who do not. Yes, the implications of this are startling to those who believe OSAS, but if that's the direction to which the Bible points, then we must go that way.

 

[ladodgers6]

How do these passages refute that Christ secured Salvation on the Cross again?? Because there is nothing in these passages that indicate that.

 

[ATP]

• the fact that "the agape of many will grow cold" which everyone agrees means "no agape remains".

When scripture mentions the elect or the chosen, who are they referring to Rom 8:33 ESV.

If Matt 24:12 wanted to clarify agape love being separated from us, shouldn't they of used chórizó instead of psuchó.

John 6:35-40 NIV Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

psuchó: to breathe, blow, to make cool
Original Word: ψύχω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: psuchó
Phonetic Spelling: (psoo'-kho)
Short Definition: I cool, grow cold
Definition: I cool, pass: I grow cold.

chórizó: to separate, divide
Original Word: χωρίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chórizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kho-rid'-zo)
Short Definition: I separate, depart
Definition: (a) I separate, put apart, (mid. or pass: I separate myself, depart, withdraw.

 

[Angelina]

Angelina, I can't see where this thread is one that doesn't "allow others to participate" or hinders "ability to reply

In the portion you placed on the first post of this thread. See below...

***Note: The scope of this thread is an analysis of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV only. Please do not attempt to refute the content of this post with other OSAS "proof texts" - if you wish to post OSAS "proof texts", please refer to Justaname's thread "The Doctrine of OSAS".***

it seems your admitted policy that we "keep to the O/P" is what does that.

Trying to prevent members from "refuting the content of this post" has been the point of contention...then after explaining that you cannot make such a request ~ I then added that members should keep to the O/P.

It's becoming more evident to me that I should have entitled the thread: "Does OSAS Withstand The Textual Scrutiny Of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV?" Please change it, if possible. I regret that I didn't foresee that my title "...Why It Disproves OSAS" would actually encourage departure from this policy by those who would come to the defense of OSAS.

It doesn't encourage departure from anything. Let me make it a bit more plainer...You can't create a topic in the Debate forum or any other forum and set the stand for that topic. Meaning you cannot decide how it's gonna be approached by others. That's the job of the Administrator.

Hope that makes sense or maybe you need to discuss this with the Admin himself.... :huh:

 

[Phoneman777]

In the portion you placed on the first post of this thread. See below...



Trying to prevent members from "refuting the content of this post" has been the point of contention...then after explaining that you cannot make such a request ~ I then added that members should keep to the O/P.


It doesn't encourage departure from anything. Let me make it a bit more plainer...You can't create a topic in the Debate forum or any other forum and set the stand for that topic. Meaning you cannot decide how it's gonna be approached by others. That's the job of the Administrator.

Hope that makes sense or maybe you need to discuss this with the Admin himself.... :huh:

Angelina, thank you for clarifying that thread posters do not the authority to dictate to others what kind of responses to a thread are acceptable or not and that they do not set the standard for the same, and also for clarifying that there is already a policy - that participants stick to the O/P topic. [edited by the mod]

 

[Phoneman777]

When scripture mentions the elect or the chosen, who are they referring to Rom 8:33 ESV.

If Matt 24:12 wanted to clarify agape love being separated from us, shouldn't they of used chórizó instead of psuchó.

John 6:35-40 NIV Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

psuchó: to breathe, blow, to make cool
Original Word: ψύχω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: psuchó
Phonetic Spelling: (psoo'-kho)
Short Definition: I cool, grow cold
Definition: I cool, pass: I grow cold.

chórizó: to separate, divide
Original Word: χωρίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chórizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kho-rid'-zo)
Short Definition: I separate, depart
Definition: (a) I separate, put apart, (mid. or pass: I separate myself, depart, withdraw.

Brother, what other conclusion can we draw but that Jesus is making plain that to us that the "many" no longer possess agape? Besides, you assume that the promise of Romans 8:38 can be claimed by the "many" of verse 12. Let's back up and establish a couple of things:

Question: To whom is the promise of Romans 8:38 KJV?
Answer: The promise is to the saints.

Question: By what are the saints known to be saints?
Answer: The saints are known by their agape for God, for others, and for their agape perfected in them.

Question: Is "cold agape" - acknowledged by most to mean "dead, non-existent agape" - considered "perfected agape"?
Answer: No, it is far far from perfect agape.

Question: If the saints are known by their perfected agape, can the "many" be considered saints?
Answer: No, they cannot be saints because they do not possess perfect agape.

Question: If they are not saints, can they claim the promise of Romans 8:38?
Answer: No, they cannot claim the promise.

 

[mjrhealth]

Phoneman what are you trying to prove, that God cant possibly save man????

2Ti_2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Dont you understand, teh only thing that can cause you to loose your salvation is to Reject Christ, Cast Him out as He did to the devils. Dont you beleive in the works of Jesus, dont you beleiev ypur sins are covered, dont you believe God!!!???

All I see is a thousand reasons why God cant save you when and denying the power of God,

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

But than if you dont beleiev??/

In all His Love

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman what are you trying to prove, that God cant possibly save man????

2Ti_2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Dont you understand, teh only thing that can cause you to loose your salvation is to Reject Christ, Cast Him out as He did to the devils. Dont you beleive in the works of Jesus, dont you beleiev ypur sins are covered, dont you believe God!!!???

All I see is a thousand reasons why God cant save you when and denying the power of God,

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

But than if you dont beleiev??/

In all His Love

I'm sorry, but do you have anything to offer concerning the topic of this post, which is an analysis of the impact that Matthew 24:12-13 KJV has on OSAS? Perhaps you are unaware that CB policy is that we stick to the O/P topic when replying to an O/P. Just a friendly reminder, bro Might I suggest that you review the O/P?

 

[ATP]

Brother, what other conclusion can we draw but that Jesus is making plain that to us that the "many" no longer possess agape? Besides, you assume that the promise of Romans 8:38 can be claimed by the "many" of verse 12. Let's back up and establish a couple of things:

Jesus tells me that once I believe, he will never drive me away...ever. Amen. Oh, and the elect in Rom 8:33 ESV are born again christians who believe. Shalom, ATP.

John 6:35-40 NIV Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

 

[ATP]

I'm sorry, but do you have anything to offer concerning the topic of this post, which is an analysis of the impact that Matthew 24:12-13 KJV has on OSAS? Perhaps you are unaware that CB policy is that we stick to the O/P topic when replying to an O/P. Just a friendly reminder, bro Might I suggest that you review the O/P?

MJR pretty much summed it up with 2 Tim 2:13, but few will listen. Are you willing to listen?

 

[Phoneman777]

Angelina, thank you for clarifying that thread posters do not the authority to dictate to others what kind of responses to a thread are acceptable or not and that they do not set the standard for the same, and also for clarifying that there is already a policy - that participants stick to the O/P topic. [edited by the mod]

I would have preferred you had edited the thread title. Is there some reason why it can't be or isn't being done?

 

[Phoneman777]

Jesus tells me that once I believe, he will never drive me away...ever. Amen. Oh, and the elect in Rom 8:33 ESV are born again christians who believe. Shalom, ATP.

John 6:35-40 NIV Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

ATP, you asked me to address Romans 8:38-39 KJV and I did. Now, please do this for me:

• adhere to forum policy by sticking to the O/P and stop deviating from it by posting OSAS "proof texts"
• explain why you think "many" of verse 12 who do not meet the Biblical qualifications of a saint (agape for God, for others, and perfected agape in them) can be saints

Again, you continually extend promises that are for the saints alone to former saints or those who never accepted Jesus, something that the Bible no where does.

 

[ATP]

ATP, you asked me to address Romans 8:38-39 KJV and I did. Now, please do this for me:

• adhere to forum policy by sticking to the O/P and stop deviating from it by posting OSAS "proof texts"
• explain why you think "many" of verse 12 who do not meet the Biblical qualifications of a saint (agape for God, for others, and perfected agape in them) can be saints

Again, you continually extend promises that are for the saints alone to former saints or those who never accepted Jesus, something that the Bible no where does.

I told you to address Rom 8:38 and Rev 20:14. If death can no longer separate us from Christ, and the lake of fire is the second death that that makes God a liar.

 

[ATP]

explain why you think "many" of verse 12 who do not meet the Biblical qualifications of a saint (agape for God, for others, and perfected agape in them) can be saints

I already gave my response to you................

If Matt 24:12 wanted to clarify agape love being separated from us, shouldn't they of used chórizó instead of psuchó.

psuchó: to breathe, blow, to make cool
Original Word: ψύχω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: psuchó
Phonetic Spelling: (psoo'-kho)
Short Definition: I cool, grow cold
Definition: I cool, pass: I grow cold.

chórizó: to separate, divide
Original Word: χωρίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chórizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kho-rid'-zo)
Short Definition: I separate, depart
Definition: (a) I separate, put apart, (mid. or pass: I separate myself, depart, withdraw.