Torah vs Grace?

[Verifyveritas76]

Yes it is. Notice what He says; I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. That is an unconditional statement. The angel that appeared to Joseph told him that he was to call the Son born to Mary, Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). There is nothing conditional about that.

Sure there is.

Firstly, it’s conditional as it only applies to those who are His.

Secondly, those verses fail to answer the question of how do you identify His sheep. His sheep hear His voice . . . . AND follow!

It also fails to address other scriptures that do identify his sheep, or how do you know they are his sheep.

Romans 2:7-8 actually does identify them

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious,†and do not obey†the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

There’s lots more that directly lay out the condition. Abiding. That the passages you quote doesn’t address abiding doesn’t prove that it excludes abiding, or that it isn’t necessary, it simply means that the author was focused on something else.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

No, those who are Jesus' sheep are kept by the Father and the Son and no one is able to take them from their hands.

And yet there’s Judas. Given by the Father to the Son, along with the other twelve, and yet only Judas lost according to Christ himself.

 

[Cap]

1 Cor 3:15: If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

It does not say he is saved "through" fire, but rather "as through" fire. This is very different. Through would mean he actually went through fire. But "as through" explicitly means he did NOT go through fire - but his situation afterwards is as if he had gone through fire. In other words, imagine your house after a bushfire has gone through it, but you've been saved. You've got nothing left at all, but you're still alive. So he is saved, but as through fire, as he has nothing to show for his life except for his own self.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would probably disagree. But I would agree that being 'saved' through fire and being saved 'after, or because of, or as result of the fire' are two different things. The fire comes and removes the works one creates in life that are apart from God. Some have more works then others. Some face the fire before death, some face it after. We all have a relationship with God because He choose to do so now within our lives, what of those who He did not choose to reveal Himself here?

You don't always bow your knee willingly. I expect a lot of this will be "Oh f**k, that God myth is actually real, and he's so terrifying I can't help but fall on my face." Bowing doesn't necessarily mean truly sincere repentance - and even if it did, the time for that will have passed.

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Appears even those in hell will bow, which makes it hard to do so begrudgingly.

Isaiah 45:22“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. 24They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone are deliverance and strength.’ ” All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.

Isaiah 45 is about what God is going to do to Cyrus, an unbeliever, to get him to bow. I just don't get the idea that when people reach this state, they will bow unwillingly.

Cap said: ↑
'all will be saved'

As I said before, I think this appears to be the case in some proof-texts but is not the case when reading all scripture and pulling a consistent message from it. But someone else may have a clearer response to that one.

I wonder sometimes why is it so hard for there to be a way for God to save all? Does it have to do with idea of Matthew 20:16 "So the last will be first, and the first will be last.", and the Parable of the Workers? Maybe it bothers some that others may benefit without the perceived struggle they themselves had to face? Maybe it is fear that if a message of "all saved" is preached then others don't have to try. Not sure.

What is interesting to me @FollowingHim is that you bring up the idea of no eternal hell and no one here bats an eye, but if others brought up the possibility...?

 

[FollowingHim]

What is interesting to me @FollowingHim is that you bring up the idea of no eternal hell and no one here bats an eye, but if others brought up the possibility...?

I don't know what you're getting at here. You brought up the idea of no eternal hell, I agreed but with major differences in the detail.

I wonder sometimes why is it so hard for there to be a way for God to save all?

It's not too hard at all. He could certainly do that, if He decided to. It's just not what He has told us He will do.

Just to extend your Isaiah quote slightly and change the emphasis:
22 Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone
are deliverance and strength.’”
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.
25 But all the descendants of Israel
will find deliverance in the Lord
and will make their boast in him.

He says all will bow before Him, acknowledge that He alone can deliver and is strong. This will be impossible to deny.
And then all who have opposed him will be "put to shame". Not saved, put to shame.
While the "descendants of Israel", which I would take to include the church in this context, will "find deliverance". As this is contrasted with "put to shame", it is different to it, it is something that is only received by His followers. Not everyone will find deliverance, only the chosen will.

As I've said before, universal salvation appears to be the message of specific proof texts, but not the actual consistent message of all scripture in context.

 

[Cap]

I don't know what you're getting at here. You brought up the idea of no eternal hell, I agreed but with major differences in the detail.

It's not too hard at all. He could certainly do that, if He decided to. It's just not what He has told us He will do.

Just to extend your Isaiah quote slightly and change the emphasis:
22 Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone
are deliverance and strength.’”
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.
25 But all the descendants of Israel
will find deliverance in the Lord
and will make their boast in him.

He says all will bow before Him, acknowledge that He alone can deliver and is strong. This will be impossible to deny.
And then all who have opposed him will be "put to shame". Not saved, put to shame.
While the "descendants of Israel", which I would take to include the church in this context, will "find deliverance". As this is contrasted with "put to shame", it is different to it, it is something that is only received by His followers. Not everyone will find deliverance, only the chosen will.

As I've said before, universal salvation appears to be the message of specific proof texts, but not the actual consistent message of all scripture in context.

I don't know if the word shame can imply unsaved, but I do agree that its confusing. What is clear is that all whoa re saved are Israel and since God says He will save all, then that would make everyone Israel. We'll see.

 

[FollowingHim]

It's not that the word "shame", in itself, means unsaved. But rather that it states "But" this other group will find deliverance. The "but" means this is a contrast, and the first group do not get deliverance. So there are some who are delivered, and some who are not.
If everyone was Israel, there would be nobody in the first group, and the statement would be meaningless.

 

[frederick]

Firstly, it’s conditional as it only applies to those who are His.

Yes exactly, for His sheep! So don't try to include those who aren't His sheep. It's unconditional for all His sheep.

 

[frederick]

We do not have enough information either way on this to make this projection. We only know how he finished his last days, not the preceding events of his life.

We do know about Judas' life; he was a thief and he stole (John 12:6). He was the son of destruction/perdition; that's him, who he was and he did what was consistent with his nature. He was a bad tree brining forth bad fruit.

 

[frederick]

Secondly, those verses fail to answer the question of how do you identify His sheep. His sheep hear His voice . . . . AND follow!

And those who aren't, don't hear so don't follow. Exactly. John 10:25-26; Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

 

[frederick]

It also fails to address other scriptures that do identify his sheep, or how do you know they are his sheep.

He knows His sheep. That's what He says. Since they are His and He and the Father keep them, they are the ones who never get out of His and the Father's hands.

 

[frederick]

And yet there’s Judas. Given by the Father to the Son, along with the other twelve, and yet only Judas lost according to Christ himself.

According to your scenario, Judas proves Jesus didn't mean what He said or failed to accomplish what He determined. That's a serious allegation to make and one I'll leave you to ponder from here. Thanks. Shalom.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

According to your scenario, Judas proves Jesus didn't mean what He said or failed to accomplish what He determined. That's a serious allegation to make and one I'll leave you to ponder from here. Thanks. Shalom.

I just quoted scripture. And yes its a serious allegation and one that all who confess should at least be aware of.

It simply means that what Jesus said doesnt mean exactly what you think it does. Not my words, Christs. I’m simply the one pointing out the scripture that doesnt reconcile with the OSAS perspective.

 

[Mojo]

I agree with you that the traditional view of eternal torment is wrong (shock, horror!).

When God restored the world after the flood, He did not resurrect all those who had done evil and fix them up to be good. He simply left them dead and gave the whole world to the good people.

I won't start a new thread because I frankly don't havee the time to contribute much to it, but I too have grappled with the concept if eternal damnation recently. Anhiliation seems plausible, but there are so many seemingly contradicting verses it's hard for me to produce a doctrine.

I reject universal salvation or restoration, but have to admit that there are some verses that can be used to support it. I would love for it to be true, but have my doubts.

We'll all find out eventually, though.

 

[frederick]

Perhaps it is helpful to those who might read our discussion later to clarify our positions so as to understand the different conclusions we come to.
I have stated and hold to the opinion that we must begin with who God is and what He says He can do.

Again, I encourage you to start with a clear understanding of who God is and to draw your conclusions from that foundation. If you ascribe more power/ability to man than to God, you will fall into error. I would remind you, God does the impossible.

Start with who God is, and not who sinners are, and you will see that it is God who is able to do as He wills.

I therefore interpret Judas Iscariot's actions and spiritual condition based upon this foundation.

@Verifyveritas76 begins with the example of Judas Iscariot and his actions, and seeks to understand what Jesus Christ has said and then what He can do.

And yet there’s Judas. Given by the Father to the Son, along with the other twelve, and yet only Judas lost according to Christ himself.

It simply means that what Jesus said doesnt mean exactly what you think it does. Not my words, Christs. I’m simply the one pointing out the scripture that doesnt reconcile with the OSAS perspective.

And so we arrive at the different understandings expressed above primarily because of the different approach we have begun with. I trust this will be helpful to anyone viewing this in the future.

 

[Cap]

I won't start a new thread because I frankly don't havee the time to contribute much to it, but I too have grappled with the concept if eternal damnation recently. Anhiliation seems plausible, but there are so many seemingly contradicting verses it's hard for me to produce a doctrine.

I reject universal salvation or restoration, but have to admit that there are some verses that can be used to support it. I would love for it to be true, but have my doubts.

We'll all find out eventually, though.

What's the difference between eternal destruction or eternal torment, except maybe a justified conscience in those who view it from the outside.

I'm inclined to believe God pulls it all together in the end.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

God, who could create anything He wanted, could not create beings with free-will, and at the same time, guarantee that they would love and serve Him by choice.

If the will was truly free, then it could not be guaranteed or forced to make the right choices. In order to have the love and obedience of free-wills by their own choice, this risk God was willing to take.

The problem was that God is so perfect that He could not allow the wrong choices of free-wills to destroy the perfection that He demanded. Yet, His desire for the love from His creation… by their own free choice… was considered worth the pain that might ensue from anyone making wrong choices. When God gave the freedom of will to the creatures He created, His justice and perfection demanded that He hold the free-wills accountable for their wrong choices. He would also reward those who made right choices.

Also, another issue and factor had to be considered. God's Love! God's love demanded that He find a way for restoration of the sinners. The problem: God only had one remedy for sin... death! The solution?

God also desired a Son! This also presented a problem and an opportunity!

God had no wife with whom to have a Son. Yes, He could create angels and call them “sons.” He could create Adam and call him a son, but that would not be the same as having an actual begotten son! Angels were (1) apparently all created male. (2) They were created with great power and glory.

Creating Eve was the solution! The Man was in the image of God. The female version was able to not only bear children for the man, but she was also capable of bearing a Son by God Himself. This Son would be born with less power and glory than God, Himself, or even than that of angels; but in God’s image, He would be; and this humble beginning would allow for this begotten son to be tested, and if found obedient, then exalted and glorified to have all authority and be vested with the power and glory of the Father…. sitting at His Father’s right hand!

What would be this ultimate test that would warrant such promotion! Obedience unto death!

This would also provide the means in which God could grant forgiveness without violating His own justice! The eternal reward of the repentant would also balance with the eternal reward (punishment) of the rebellious. Jesus’ obedience would demonstrate His worthiness to rule beside the Father.

Why not just destroy/annihilate the wicked?

God never intends for the increase of the Kingdom to cease. If the wicked were simply destroyed, then where would be the example of ‘warning’ to the future generations? There was no devil to tempt the devil, and he rebelled. The example of Hell will be the warning that ‘crime does not pay.’ If any would sin in the future, before the sin could spread, the prison (Hell) would also be able to house the future offenders.

Eventually, Hell will become as a small grain of sand compared to the increase of free-wills that choose to follow the Kingdom. The existence of Hell, and the warning it will provide, will be an act of mercy to the unborn generations who, because of this warning, will be spared its fate.

 

[frederick]

The female version was able to not only bear children for the man, but she was also capable of bearing a Son by God Himself. This Son would be born with less power and glory than God, Himself, or even than that of angels; but in God’s image, He would be; and this humble beginning would allow for this begotten son to be tested, and if found obedient, then exalted and glorified to have all authority and be vested with the power and glory of the Father…. sitting at His Father’s right hand!

That's interesting. Are you saying Jesus Christ, in the incarnation, was a lesser god than the Father; that He is a god of similar substance to the Father but not equal to the Father? Just needing clarification.

 

[The Revolting Man]

God, who could create anything He wanted, could not create beings with free-will, and at the same time, guarantee that they would love and serve Him by choice.

If the will was truly free, then it could not be guaranteed or forced to make the right choices. In order to have the love and obedience of free-wills by their own choice, this risk God was willing to take.

The problem was that God is so perfect that He could not allow the wrong choices of free-wills to destroy the perfection that He demanded. Yet, His desire for the love from His creation… by their own free choice… was considered worth the pain that might ensue from anyone making wrong choices. When God gave the freedom of will to the creatures He created, His justice and perfection demanded that He hold the free-wills accountable for their wrong choices. He would also reward those who made right choices.

Also, another issue and factor had to be considered. God's Love! God's love demanded that He find a way for restoration of the sinners. The problem: God only had one remedy for sin... death! The solution?

God also desired a Son! This also presented a problem and an opportunity!

God had no wife with whom to have a Son. Yes, He could create angels and call them “sons.” He could create Adam and call him a son, but that would not be the same as having an actual begotten son! Angels were (1) apparently all created male. (2) They were created with great power and glory.

Creating Eve was the solution! The Man was in the image of God. The female version was able to not only bear children for the man, but she was also capable of bearing a Son by God Himself. This Son would be born with less power and glory than God, Himself, or even than that of angels; but in God’s image, He would be; and this humble beginning would allow for this begotten son to be tested, and if found obedient, then exalted and glorified to have all authority and be vested with the power and glory of the Father…. sitting at His Father’s right hand!

What would be this ultimate test that would warrant such promotion! Obedience unto death!

This would also provide the means in which God could grant forgiveness without violating His own justice! The eternal reward of the repentant would also balance with the eternal reward (punishment) of the rebellious. Jesus’ obedience would demonstrate His worthiness to rule beside the Father.

Why not just destroy/annihilate the wicked?

God never intends for the increase of the Kingdom to cease. If the wicked were simply destroyed, then where would be the example of ‘warning’ to the future generations? There was no devil to tempt the devil, and he rebelled. The example of Hell will be the warning that ‘crime does not pay.’ If any would sin in the future, before the sin could spread, the prison (Hell) would also be able to house the future offenders.

Eventually, Hell will become as a small grain of sand compared to the increase of free-wills that choose to follow the Kingdom. The existence of Hell, and the warning it will provide, will be an act of mercy to the unborn generations who, because of this warning, will be spared its fate.

There’s something God can’t do?!

 

[Cap]

God, who could create anything He wanted, could not create beings with free-will, and at the same time, guarantee that they would love and serve Him by choice.

God can create anything but He can't create something? Doesn't make sense to me. God does give free will, but He as a loving Father controls that free will which leads to His glory.

 

[rustywest4]

God the Creator is capable of uncreating, yet still having the furnace blazing hot (lake of fire) and visible for all time as a reminder of where the rebelliousness and lawlessness and death was thrown into.

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:28‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭20:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I personally don’t think that the “second death” is like an eternal feeling of dying... especially since Death itself and Hell itself are tossed into the Lake of Fire at the end. I lean towards the second death / death of the “soul” being like a removal of that Breath of Life that was breathed into Adam making him into a living being... that part of Adam that made Him in God’s likeness, having free will.