Or like the disciples who would stop the little children from coming to the Masterā¦ āLet them come,ā 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, āCome on, come and drink it!ā 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 Godās 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 itās 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. Itās 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 thereās 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 threadāpointing 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)āwhich, 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 authorsāone of whom is dealing with a terminally ill wife) bother to do anything at all in this thread? You can complain about me writing ābooksā 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 Iāve written on these topics already, Iāll be around. Until then, you can go impress the crickets you hear inside your head.
The āmajor dilema,ā 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 Godās promises null and void.
As far as Iām aware, there is no sin listed in scripture that is called āirremediableā ā merely āunforgivableā. (Aaron, Iād be careful about changing the words of scripture to better suit your purposeāthereās no justification in the text or in the definition of āunforgivableā for that change.)
So, we are dealing with two facts, apparently clearly stated in Scripture:
- That Godās stated purpose in Christ is to reconcile all of creation to Himself.
- The existance of a sin which is declared to be āunforgivable.ā
Therefore, the discussion in question should be: āWhat does it mean to say that a sin is āunforgivableā and how does that fit with Godās stated purpose of reconciling all men to himself?ā 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 falseāin other words we will decide which parts of scripture seem more likely to be true, and stand by thoseāor 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 itās full literal senseāin other words, it doesnāt 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.
-
ā¦ any other options? I know I had another in mind but it āflittedā before I could write it down ā¦
Thatās 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 didnāt read an essay to them.)
There are some poorly conceived attempts at trying to lighten the info-dump with topical humor, which didnāt 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 unforgivableā¦ 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. āITā canāt be forgiven.
Umā¦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 āSykeā and do another. The sin is attached to the sinner which makes him what he isā¦ 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. āITā cannot be forgiven.
? Umā¦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 āUnto HIMā who commits the āITā 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, Iām not fudging anything.
But youāre not following along. If Christ had meant that HE (the sinner) would never be forgiven - then Christ would have said just that. But He doesnāt say that.
Youāre delusional, Ran. Who do you think āhimā is referring to?
Not delusional - just reading carefully. āhimā is him and āitā is it. Understand the distinction or be silent.
Ran
āHimā( the sinner) is the one who is committing the āITā. āHimā is the whosoever (sinner). The āITā is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Ran, youāre starting to creep me out with your erroneous comments. There is something definitely not right with you, brother.