Not true by your own injection of opinion into scripture. They are goats, not ‘unsaved’ unredeemed sub-humans you are making them out to be. They will confess Christ and glorify God. You think your confession saves you but will not allow the same for others. It’s always the pharisees who shut the gates in mens faces and declare it a service that God cannot do without.
They will be saved by God’s grace just as everyone else.
The goats are symbolic of the unrighteous or unsaved… go to the appropriate thread , Ran, and rant your human reasoning about it here: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=968&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
I just realized what keeps Aaron so strong in his viewpoints, duh. He’s tugging the party line. “Pretty much everyone believes this!” He probably believes what he does so that he can feel acceptable to others, otherwise why would he keep trying to use social stigmas to convert us to his way of thinking?
This is unwise, Aaron. One day you may awake to a sense of “burning” regret knowing that you chose your beliefs and lifestyle for the wrong reason, and you’ll feel the heat of your own hatred burning secretly against yourself, and then you will have to walk the long way back home and fulfill your debt of love to the others you’ve sinned against with your religious attitude.
Or like the disciples who would stop the little children from coming to the Master… “Let them come,” he says. 
Sonia
Right, Sonia. Much of what we call religion is about exclusion. But if there is one underlying theme to the Gospel it is that salvation is FREE. Given out like water, ‘Come on, come and drink it!’ So we see Christ preaching that to the dead sinners from the flood while He was with them.
Who then is excluded? Dead unrepentant sinners? No.
The religious set the limits of what God can do. They set the measure and expect God’s grace and love to abide by it. A grace and love that is boundless according to Paul, that is, without measure. Aaron thinks he knows something - but it’s a limited knowledge in every aspect of the term.
For example: Aaron can warn men but he cannot lift Christ up as the hero of humanity. It’s a truncated message - the ones he warns cannot love the One who will torment their loved ones. A half-Gospel is no Gospel. But he is stuck in the religion of his choice and will remain there - his ego is too large to admit error. Religious pride is deadly, like a snake bite. And he is bitten, there is no mistaking that.
Maybe you hear crickets because you refuse to read what has already been written by someone on the topic? The way you chose to skip over my extensive comments on the sin against the Holy Spirit, so you could focus on a couple of places out of context and declare I was just inserting things.
Similarly, other people here will more likely recall that I have already written extensively on what the Epistle to the Hebrews has to say about condemnation; and that I am in the habit of referring to Heb 10 with some regularity along with its quote from Deut 32. I seem to recall writing extensively on 2 Peter 2:20-22 already, too (though not as lengthily as with EpistHeb, since naturally there’s a ton more material there to discuss.)
As to Rev 16, at the time you brought that up you had previously flamed out of the forum in a huff declaring that it was a sin against God for believers to debate or even discuss doctrinal differences, handing us over to Satan as condemned sinning heretics while you were at it. Nine days later you showed back up again and, up until recently, outright refused to acknowledge that one way or another you must have made at least one serious error in your departing manifesto. I said in your thread on Rev 16 that there was less than no point trying to have even a discussion with you on that, unless and until you recanted at least part of your huff. Since you (somewhat vaguely) did so eventually, I have now addressed Rev 16 in that thread–pointing out along the way that, ironically, I already addressed much of the key material in my extensive scriptural commentary on the final chapters of RevJohn (not restricted to those final chapters)–which, again, you have just disregarded to the point of pretty consistently pretending afterward that I had not even tried to answer from the scriptures at all (despite the FEW HUNDRED VERSE REFERENCES mentioned in my commentary.)
Beyond which, you insistently keep taking what I said about the lake of fire out of context, and parading it around out of context, as though anyone should be impressed by that.
So, seeing as the crickets you hear are only in your imagination, why exactly should anyone (whether myself or one of the professional authors–one of whom is dealing with a terminally ill wife) bother to do anything at all in this thread? You can complain about me writing “books” of material on it, or complain about me writing nothing on it, but you cannot do both without contradicting your own complaints.
When you want to take account of everything I’ve written on these topics already, I’ll be around. Until then, you can go impress the crickets you hear inside your head.
The ‘major dilema,’ as you call it, exists only in your mind (with the crickets 
). The prophecies clearly state that all will be reconciled to God in Christ. This is His purpose of the ages which he created in Christ and for Him. Your ignorance of the details of the plan is not sufficient reason to declare God’s promises null and void.
As far as I’m aware, there is no sin listed in scripture that is called ‘irremediable’ – merely ‘unforgivable’. (Aaron, I’d be careful about changing the words of scripture to better suit your purpose–there’s no justification in the text or in the definition of ‘unforgivable’ for that change.)
So, we are dealing with two facts, apparently clearly stated in Scripture:
Therefore, the discussion in question should be: “What does it mean to say that a sin is ‘unforgivable’ and how does that fit with God’s stated purpose of reconciling all men to himself?” If these statements seem to us to be contradictory, then we have several options:
We can declare that one or other of the statements of scripture is false–in other words we will decide which parts of scripture seem more likely to be true, and stand by those–or we can say scripture is unreliable and not believe any of it.
We can say that one or the other of the statements is not intended to be understood in it’s full literal sense–in other words, it doesn’t really mean what it seems to say.
We can say that it is possible to both be guilty of an unforgivable sin, AND still become reconciled to God.
… any other options? I know I had another in mind but it ‘flitted’ before I could write it down … 
That’s all I have time for right now,
Sonia
Jason,
Where is your HEbrews 6 and 10 commentary? I wish it was easier to find things by verse- any organizational possibilities?
The auxiliary notes can be found here.
Ironically, despite cramming in a huge amount of material, the notes are somewhat oversimplified. I still need to collate the whole thing into essay form. (The notes were intended to aid in a class lecture I gave; I didn’t read an essay to them.)
There are some poorly conceived attempts at trying to lighten the info-dump with topical humor, which didn’t go over very well. Entirely my fault.
or we can discern between what is the difference between speaking against and denying Jesus and understand that this sin to blaspheme the HS is unforgivable… meaning to be so bad that you are unable to be forgiven: Luke 12:8-10 speaking and denying? The difference!
The sin cannot be forgiven - but the sinner can be. Big difference and one that you have glossed over consistently. ‘IT’ can’t be forgiven.
Um…that makes absolutley no sense, Ran. An unrepentant sin to blaspheme the HS is not forgiven, Ran. Explain to me how God forgives a sinner from an unrepentant sin? Your confused, my friend. Jesus does not say one thing and say “Syke” and do another. The sin is attached to the sinner which makes him what he is… a spiritually dead unrighteous sinner.
Show us where He says the sinner cannot be forgiven. What He does say is THAT PARTICULAR sin cannot be forgiven. “IT” cannot be forgiven.
? Um…are you ok, Ran? Luke 12:8-10; Mark 3:28-29; Matthew 12:31-32.
Ran
read these again: Luke 12:8-10 speaking and denying? The difference!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=987&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p13195
Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
(Notice in the last quote (tied with the rest) that the blasphemer is NOT doomed to eternal damnation - in danger of it, certainly - but savable.
Ran, are you being serious?.. but “Unto HIM” who commits the “IT” shall not be forgiven, Ran. 
Of course, that not what it says, Aaron. You are always fudging scripture.
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
Ran, I’m not fudging anything.
But you’re not following along. If Christ had meant that HE (the sinner) would never be forgiven - then Christ would have said just that. But He doesn’t say that.