Is MAD ethics and or morals void? Is MAD ethics even Christian?

[Nick M]

Tell me whether someone who murders 666 Ukrainians must first repent of that in order to be saved? Or do they just have to believe "Paul's Gospel", and they don't have to repent of murdering 666 Ukrainians first (or at all)?

Nobody believes the good news given to Paul if they think they didn't do anything wrong.

Nearest I can tell from this whole discussion is that there are some Acts 9ers who basically hold to the idea that a true believer will not commit grave sin, it just will not happen, because the true believer is a new creation, the old man has died. So only the old man would ever do grave sin, and since the old man is dead in the true believer, the true believer will never commit grave sin.

Acts 9ers posts what the Bible says. As for your point, saved or unsaved, most people don't commit "grave sin". And at the same time, most people do much worse which is breaking the 1st and 2nd commandments.

And, since the new creation is resurrected, there's no way for him to die and be resurrected again,

How can you be? Break it down for us. How are you uncrucified and unraised up?

so if anyone who thinks he's a true believer, commits grave sin, then he is wrong, he is an unbeliever, infidel, blasphemer, all the bad things that I'm called itt and on TOL.

Your conclusions don't match the data points. This is the real issue. Your "logos" is piss poor. There is no logic in it.

 

[Nick M]

The vast majority of people I ever discuss the gospel with, who say they are Christian and believe 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, don’t actually believe. When you peel a couple of layers of the onion, they still say they sin and can lose salvation. So they don’t actually believe.

 

[Derf]

The vast majority of people I ever discuss the gospel with, who say they are Christian and believe 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, don’t actually believe. When you peel a couple of layers of the onion, they still say they sin and can lose salvation. So they don’t actually believe.

The problem with OSAS is that if you leave the faith, you are considered to have never been saved in the first place. So why make a big deal about OSAS? If you are currently believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, then you can consider yourself safe ("saved"), because He has the power to resurrect you after you die. If you are currently not believing in the Lord, you are not safe (saved). Those two statements appear to be true whether you believe in OSAS or not. The operable solution is to believe in Christ.

It's the same for Calvinism's sovereign grace/decreed personal salvation. If He's going to save you or damn you (by not saving you), the only thing you can do is to believe in Christ.

Both doctrines are intended to comfort the believer, but they are just as much of a comfort to the fake believer, so no net benefit.

 

[Clete]

The vast majority of people I ever discuss the gospel with, who say they are Christian and believe 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, don’t actually believe. When you peel a couple of layers of the onion, they still say they sin and can lose salvation. So they don’t actually believe.

The Twelve, James and every other believing Jew prior to Israel being cut off absolutely did believe "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,", and not only could they all sin but they could all lose their salvation.

The doctrine that one no longer sins and that salvation cannot be lost is not the gospel, Nick.

 

[Clete]

The problem with OSAS is that if you leave the faith, you are considered to have never been saved in the first place.

This is a distortion of the biblical teaching, which is, unfortunately, rampant throughout much of Christianity, particularly Calvinism. It's unfalsifiable stupidity.

So why make a big deal about OSAS? If you are currently believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, then you can consider yourself safe ("saved"), because He has the power to resurrect you after you die. If you are currently not believing in the Lord, you are not safe (saved). Those two statements appear to be true whether you believe in OSAS or not. The operable solution is to believe in Christ.

It's worse than that. The way your opening sentence positions the doctrine makes the doctrine entirely meaningless. It's a tautology at best. It amounts to saying that the saved are saved and the unsaved aren't. No duh!

It's the same for Calvinism's sovereign grace/decreed personal salvation. If He's going to save you or damn you (by not saving you), the only thing you can do is to believe in Christ.

Again, it's worse than you imagine. Calvinism does not teach that God damns you "by not saving you", but that you were created to be damned and there was never any other option.

Both doctrines are intended to comfort the believer, but they are just as much of a comfort to the fake believer, so no net benefit.

No "net" benefit? Try no benefit whatsoever - at least in regard to the doctrinal distortion that you are here reacting to.

The actual biblical fact is that once a person has been saved, they are saved - period. They WILL be delivered safely to the day of redemption on pain of God forfeiting the Holy Spirit.

II Corinthians 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.​

​

Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.​

​

Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.​

The word translated “guarantee” is ἀρραβών, an earnest, a pledge, the down payment that secures what is to come. In plain terms, God has placed His own pledge within the believer, the Holy Spirit Himself, guaranteeing the inheritance “until the redemption.” If the redemption does not occur, then the pledge fails, which means God’s own guarantee fails and God forfeits the earnest payment, which is Himself. That's as iron clad a guarantee as anyone can conceive of.

There is much more than can be said to biblically establish that those saved under the grace gospel (i.e. Paul's gospel) cannot lose their salvation. Some of which goes all the way back to Abraham but that is already sufficient to prove the point and will do for now. It really is too bad that you can't be trusted to consistently respond to substantive posts sufficient to make it worth spending the time to be thorough.

It should be made clear, by the way, that what is guaranteed is the believer's deliverance to the day of redemption. What happens after that is a different issue.

 

[Derf]

This is a distortion of the biblical teaching, which is, unfortunately, rampant throughout much of Christianity, particularly Calvinism. It's unfalsifiable stupidity.


It's worse than that. The way your opening sentence positions the doctrine makes the doctrine entirely meaningless. It's a tautology at best. It amounts to saying that the saved are saved and the unsaved aren't. No duh!


Again, it's worse than you imagine. Calvinism does not teach that God damns you "by not saving you", but that you were created to be damned and there was never any other option.


No "net" benefit? Try no benefit whatsoever - at least in regard to the doctrinal distortion that you are here reacting to.

The actual biblical fact is that once a person has been saved, they are saved - period. They WILL be delivered safely to the day of redemption on pain of God forfeiting the Holy Spirit.

II Corinthians 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.​

​

Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.​

​

Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.​

The word translated “guarantee” is ἀρραβών, an earnest, a pledge, the down payment that secures what is to come. In plain terms, God has placed His own pledge within the believer, the Holy Spirit Himself, guaranteeing the inheritance “until the redemption.” If the redemption does not occur, then the pledge fails, which means God’s own guarantee fails and God forfeits the earnest payment, which is Himself. That's as iron clad a guarantee as anyone can conceive of.

There is much more than can be said to biblically establish that those saved under the grace gospel (i.e. Paul's gospel) cannot lose their salvation. Some of which goes all the way back to Abraham but that is already sufficient to prove the point and will do for now. It really is too bad that you can't be trusted to consistently respond to substantive posts sufficient to make it worth spending the time to be thorough.

It should be made clear, by the way, that what is guaranteed is the believer's deliverance to the day of redemption. What happens after that is a different issue.

What are the options "after that"?

 

[Clete]

What are the options "after that"?

What is guaranteed is deliverance to the day of redemption, not the permanent alignment of the will afterward.

At the day of redemption, every saved person will encounter God in truth, not through distortion, trauma, bad theology, or human cruelty. At that point, ignorance is removed. What remains is the will responding to reality as it truly is.

God does not coerce love or fellowship. Heaven is not a prison, and eternal life is not imposed by force. A person who, even with full knowledge, freely rejects God is not someone God will compel to remain in His presence.

So, in short, salvation guarantees resurrection and confrontation with truth; it does not turn God into a jailer who forces eternal fellowship on a will that freely rejects Him after full revelation.

One might ask whether anyone confronted with the unadulterated truth about God would ever choose to reject Him but Lucifer and a third of the angels did exactly that and so we know its possible. More importantly, whether such a response will be rare or common is beside the point. The question is not one of frequency but of principle. A relational God isn't going to override a person's will after truth has been fully revealed, and so, if someone doesn't want to stick around in Heaven, as rare as such a one might be, God isn't going to force him to do so.

 

[Nick M]

The problem with OSAS is that if you leave the faith, you are considered to have never been saved in the first place.

That is true for some. Many never believed. You can't unknow your parents. If they did believe and fall away, they are still saved. He is faithful when we are faithless.

So why make a big deal about OSAS?

I don't know, why make a big deal about eternity in the lake of fire with weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Let me think about it.

If you are currently believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, then you can consider yourself safe ("saved"),

Not quite. You have to believe 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, according to Paul. That specifically is what you believe. For the worker bees, it includes repentance as he went to the cross to pay for your crimes. So it means you admit you have crimes. Most say they are good people. Don't think so? What Ray Comfort videos for about half an hour. They all say they are good people.

 

[Nick M]

The Twelve, James and every other believing Jew prior to Israel being cut off absolutely did believe "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,", and not only could they all sin but they could all lose their salvation.

I have not seen it in early Acts. Meaning he was punished in our place. The Holy Spirit (through Peter) levels a murder charge against Israel at Pentecost. He did, but they didn't know. I don't know when it was to be revealed to them. Peter says be water baptized, a ceremonial cleansing of sin, change their ways to the law of Moses, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And of course in Acts 5, 2 people that were part of all of it, I don't know how much, were executed for keeping some of the proceeds and lying to God (the Spirit speaking through Peter). The covenant of circumcision is narrow path, no doubt.

Paul says the message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. People that argue against the message of the cross, and say sin will separate them from God can't possibly believe the gospel.

 

[Derf]

What is guaranteed is deliverance to the day of redemption, not the permanent alignment of the will afterward.

Good point.

At the day of redemption, every saved person will encounter God in truth, not through distortion, trauma, bad theology, or human cruelty. At that point, ignorance is removed. What remains is the will responding to reality as it truly is.

God does not coerce love or fellowship. Heaven is not a prison, and eternal life is not imposed by force. A person who, even with full knowledge, freely rejects God is not someone God will compel to remain in His presence.

So, in short, salvation guarantees resurrection and confrontation with truth; it does not turn God into a jailer who forces eternal fellowship on a will that freely rejects Him after full revelation.

One might ask whether anyone confronted with the unadulterated truth about God would ever choose to reject Him but Lucifer and a third of the angels did exactly that and so we know its possible. More importantly, whether such a response will be rare or common is beside the point. The question is not one of frequency but of principle. A relational God isn't going to override a person's will after truth has been fully revealed, and so, if someone doesn't want to stick around in Heaven, as rare as such a one might be, God isn't going to force him to do so.

So you seem to think that someone who is saved, including being filled with the earnest of the Holy Spirit, might still reject eternal life and choose the lake of fire?

And does that also apply to those who never accepted Christ in this life, that they might, once resurrected and confronted by the truth of God, accept Him and be alive forevermore?

 

[Clete]

I have not seen it in early Acts. Meaning he was punished in our place. The Holy Spirit (through Peter) levels a murder charge against Israel at Pentecost. He did, but they didn't know. I don't know when it was to be revealed to them. Peter says be water baptized, a ceremonial cleansing of sin, change their ways to the law of Moses, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And of course in Acts 5, 2 people that were part of all of it, I don't know how much, were executed for keeping some of the proceeds and lying to God (the Spirit speaking through Peter). The covenant of circumcision is narrow path, no doubt.

Paul says the message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. People that argue against the message of the cross, and say sin will separate them from God can't possibly believe the gospel.

This does not seem to be a response to what I said. Please clarify.

 

[Clete]

Good point.

So you seem to think that someone who is saved, including being filled with the earnest of the Holy Spirit, might still reject eternal life and choose the lake of fire?

It is not likely but unlikely does not mean impossible. It is the choice that a full third of the angels, including Lucifer, an arch angel, made.

The thing is that life is real and God is not a magician. People are exposed to all kinds of things and their reaction to those things have real consequences. If, for example, someone who has been exposed to false teachings about how God controls everything that happens and then their family is burned alive in a car crash caused by some lunatic drunk, they might blame God and become embittered while their pastor tries to convince them that "God's ways are higher than our ways". Such a one may be so blind with hatred that all the truth in God's universe isn't sufficient to overcome it. And so, while the opportunity for eternal life with God will be available, their acceptance of it will not be compelled.

And does that also apply to those who never accepted Christ in this life, that they might, once resurrected and confronted by the truth of God, accept Him and be alive forevermore?

Absolutely not!

Derf, I really have a difficult time believing that you are doing anything on this website other than trying to be a trolling pest. On what planet does this question even make ANY sense whatsoever?!

I take you off of ignore for ONE SINGLE DAY and you can't go three posts before taking what could be a rational discussion down the path of ridiculousness and stupidity. I mean, are you just completely ignorant of even the most basic of Christian principles? NO! Of course you aren't! And so what I am supposed to conclude other than that all you're doing here is being a troll?

 

[Right Divider]

MAD ethics are Christian ethics.
MAD morals are Christian morals.
MAD doctrines are Christian doctrines.
MAD beliefs are Christian beliefs.
MAD faith is Christian faith.
etc. etc. etc.

 

[Clete]

I thought of another category of believers who may choose not to remain after the day of redemption. I was doing a home inspection this morning, and the homeowner, who works from home, was present. Before starting her workday, she spent time sitting on her back patio listening to a stream of online, hard-left political commentary. One of the speakers could be clearly heard saying that he “[expletive] hates every single MAGA supporter.” At the same time, this woman had Christian-themed artwork on her walls, a Bible on her nightstand, and she said, “God bless you,” as I was leaving.

This woman has no idea what the Bible actually teaches. She has no concept of justice, no understanding of righteousness, and no grasp of moral reality. She believes that evil is righteousness and that righteousness is evil. Her moral instincts are not merely underdeveloped, they are inverted.

Now, I do not actually know this person, and I am taking some liberty here in order to make a point. That point is this: there are people who genuinely believe the gospel. They know they are sinners. They believe that God became a man, died, and rose again to secure their salvation. I believe such people can indeed be saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.

The question is whether such a person will necessarily want to live with the God they eventually encounter.

Will someone like this desire to remain in the presence of a God whose justice they despise, whose righteousness offends them, and whose moral clarity they have spent their lives opposing? This woman is going to be stunned when she discovers what God is actually like. Of course, all of us will be surprised in some measure, but many will be joyfully surprised. Others will be horrified.

In her moral framework, God will look like a tyrant. In her political imagination, He will look like a monster. If she already believes that righteousness is oppression and justice is evil, what will she think when she meets the perfectly righteous Judge of all the earth?

A simple question exposes the issue: would you want to live forever in a heaven governed by someone you believe to be evil?

 

[Derf]

It is not likely but unlikely does not mean impossible. It is the choice that a full third of the angels, including Lucifer, an arch angel, made.

The thing is that life is real and God is not a magician. People are exposed to all kinds of things and their reaction to those things have real consequences. If, for example, someone who has been exposed to false teachings about how God controls everything that happens and then their family is burned alive in a car crash caused by some lunatic drunk, they might blame God and become embittered while their pastor tries to convince them that "God's ways are higher than our ways". Such a one may be so blind with hatred that all the truth in God's universe isn't sufficient to overcome it. And so, while the opportunity for eternal life with God will be available, their acceptance of it will not be compelled.


Absolutely not!

So it sounds like you are willing to say that "saved" means resurrection from the dead (and no more) for believers, but resurrection from the dead does not mean "saved" for unbelievers.

Derf, I really have a difficult time believing that you are doing anything on this website other than trying to be a trolling pest. On what planet does this question even make ANY sense whatsoever?!

I take you off of ignore for ONE SINGLE DAY and you can't go three posts before taking what could be a rational discussion down the path of ridiculousness and stupidity. I mean, are you just completely ignorant of even the most basic of Christian principles? NO! Of course you aren't! And so what I am supposed to conclude other than that all you're doing here is being a troll?

Immutability is one of the basic Christian principles I grew up with. Are you saying I should not ignore that one? Open Theism rightly questions some basic Christian principles. Should we not, as diligent Christians, also question others? that doesnt mean we reject them, but surely it doesn't hurt to question them and see if they stand the test, as Immutability hasn't.

 

[Derf]

I thought of another category of believers who may choose not to remain after the day of redemption. I was doing a home inspection this morning, and the homeowner, who works from home, was present. Before starting her workday, she spent time sitting on her back patio listening to a stream of online, hard-left political commentary. One of the speakers could be clearly heard saying that he “[expletive] hates every single MAGA supporter.” At the same time, this woman had Christian-themed artwork on her walls, a Bible on her nightstand, and she said, “God bless you,” as I was leaving.

This woman has no idea what the Bible actually teaches. She has no concept of justice, no understanding of righteousness, and no grasp of moral reality. She believes that evil is righteousness and that righteousness is evil. Her moral instincts are not merely underdeveloped, they are inverted.

Now, I do not actually know this person, and I am taking some liberty here in order to make a point. That point is this: there are people who genuinely believe the gospel. They know they are sinners. They believe that God became a man, died, and rose again to secure their salvation. I believe such people can indeed be saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.

The question is whether such a person will necessarily want to live with the God they eventually encounter.

Will someone like this desire to remain in the presence of a God whose justice they despise, whose righteousness offends them, and whose moral clarity they have spent their lives opposing? This woman is going to be stunned when she discovers what God is actually like. Of course, all of us will be surprised in some measure, but many will be joyfully surprised. Others will be horrified.

In her moral framework, God will look like a tyrant. In her political imagination, He will look like a monster. If she already believes that righteousness is oppression and justice is evil, what will she think when she meets the perfectly righteous Judge of all the earth?

A simple question exposes the issue: would you want to live forever in a heaven governed by someone you believe to be evil?

And here's the other side of that. Consider an unbeliever who goes to that person's church and hears the convoluted gospel taught there, including the character of God they portray in it. That person might reject such a god and his gospel, but then be confronted by the truth about God at resurrection. Why would his eternal state be determined by a convoluted gospel presented by someone who rejects God's true character?