Jesus fulfilled all of the Law. That means when you read the beginning of Deuteronomy and the rest of the Law, it applies to Jesus.

Your passage of Maccabees indicates that they were paying for a standard OT sacrifice, since there is no special sacrifice for the dead in the OT; yet they still took a collection to make a sacrifice.

That's not the kind of Sacrifice that God commanded of the Jews specifically for worship.

Let's approach it this way: How did God command the Jews to offer sacrifice for worship? Explain it in detail.

Those passages don't dispel anything I said about Christ's atonement. You're reading something into those verses. You're also denying Christ proclamation on the Cross that "it is paid in full", which is blasphemy.

Didn't you read above that all the sacrifices in the OT are just shadows of Christ?

Reread your own quote. Those who took up the collection for a sacrifice did so with the HOPE that it would atone for the dead. So either they were wrong in that hope or God accepted the sacrifice and it is a picture/shadow of Jesus. If you take Maccabees as inspired scripture, then the latter is what this passage is illustrating.

Wanting to be LIKE God = not wanting to worship God above all else or assent to His will.  



So now we are back to the original question.  After repentance, does man have free will to reject God's will for his salvation again?  It's a simple question - man is free to reject salvation or man is not free to reject salvation.

Again, Let's approach it this way: How did God command the Jews to offer sacrifice for worship? Explain it in detail.

Sure, if God's will is to believe. However, seraphim and cherubim aren't redeemed humans. It's an apples/oranges comparison.  You're arguing a hypothetical based on a philosophical assertion. In scripture, Christ is our atonement that covers our sins, that would include unbelief and indifference; in fact, Paul indicates that very thing in 2 Timothy 2 and 1 Thessalonians 5 respectively:
13  If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

6  Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. 7  For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8  But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. 9  For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10  who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.

You're asking me to write a book on Arfcom? Lol.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to pivot your argument to. If you have a point to make, state it.

Book?

It takes a sentence or two to explain what God deemed as an acceptable manner of sacrifice to Him for forgiveness of sins and in keeping with His Covenant.

Why are you so evasive?

You want others to answer your questions, but you won't answer ours. It's a simple question. Once you prove you understand what a true sacrifice is, you'll see that it wasn't what was discussed in 2 Mac.

Here's another example:
"So now we are back to the original question.  After repentance, does man have free will to reject God's will for his salvation again?  It's a simple question - man is free to reject salvation or man is not free to reject salvation."

Well Jesus is the acceptable sacrifice for all sins in the NT, replacing the shadows of Him under the OT. If you mean under the OT, then you can look through Deuteronomy.
Not being invasive, you weren't clear on what you were asking. The Maccabee passage wasn't talking about sacrificing the coins themselves, it literally says they took up a collection for a sacrifice, meaning they gave the money to buy a lamb for the High Priest to make a sacrifice for sins. As if you could buy off God with cash like when the Pope tried to fleece the poor based on fear so he could buy himself a nice palace (and a golden throne) so he could pretend to rule as . But I digress.

If you read that passage of Maccabees with the understanding of how the Jews worshipped, it means what I said.
Answered three posts above. You're under the assumption that there are sins that Christ didn't atone for.

I have not argued anything.  I asked a question about whether or not man has free will.  You have not answered that question.

If the nature of "sacrifice" is different, then it is NOT about sacrifice at all. Your answer to 2 Mac of, "You're under the assumption that there are sins that Christ didn't atone for" would not be relevant. They would be prayers for a different purpose. That's why I want you to demonstrate that you explain the difference.

And classy stab at the Pope and RCC. See how you like to bring in other people's churches. Either volunteer your own information or stop insulting other churches. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Do you even attend a church at all?

I have. Yes man has free will; however, the Covenant Jesus made is not with us, He made a covenant with the Father. Hence, even when we are unfaithful He cannot deny us because He cannot deny Himself, as Paul wrote.

The covenant on Sinai was one between God and men who willingly took on the Law and failed at it.

That is not correct, the New Covenant is still between God and us with Christ serving as the mediator:

Hebrews 8:6-13
But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Christian view
"Christians view the New Covenant as a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. Some protestant theologians teach that the New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."

The very definition of mediator proves this.

So your answer of "Yes man has free will; however, the Covenant Jesus made is not with us, He made a covenant with the Father. Hence, even when we are unfaithful He cannot deny us because He cannot deny Himself, as Paul wrote." is not valid.

You have therefore, still not validly answered H46 Driver's question:
"So now we are back to the original question.  After repentance, does man have free will to reject God's will for his salvation again?  It's a simple question - man is free to reject salvation or man is not free to reject salvation."

This sounds like a red herring to me. What kind of sacrifice do you think the Jews made for sins? They didn't raise money for prayers, they raised money for sin sacrifices in the hope that they would cover for their dead. Well, now Christ is the sin sacrifice, and we can't hope He covers our dead as well?
Not as "classy" as using fear for loved ones to fill coffers. I was just heading off a red herring in case you were going to make an argument that giving money is a sacrifice - when what the RCC with indulgences to build the Vatican was the very kind of thing you were claiming disqualified someone from grace.

Would it matter if I did or didn't attend church? All your fishing for is avenue of attack, rather than deal with actual exegesis.

So, man can reject salvation at any time, yes or no?

I will probably want a reattack on the New Covenant at some point in the future, but I think that the free will question matters more and want to stay there.

This sounds like a red herring to me. What kind of sacrifice do you think the Jews made for sins? They didn't raise money for prayers, they raised money for sin sacrifices in the hope that they would cover for their dead. Well, now Christ is the sin sacrifice, and we can't hope He covers our dead as well?
Not as "classy" as using fear for loved ones to fill coffers. I was just heading off a red herring in case you were going to make an argument that giving money is a sacrifice - when what the RCC with indulgences to build the Vatican was the very kind of thing you were claiming disqualified someone from grace.

Would it matter if I did or didn't attend church? All your fishing for is avenue of attack, rather than deal with actual exegesis.

It's not a red herring, though you like to use these tropes to dismiss having to answer. Please answer the question.

You again attacked the RCC. Do you attend a Church yourself? You can't keep having your cake and eating it to.

You have also still not validly answered the question two members have asked of you multiple times:

1) "So now we are back to the original question.  After repentance, does man have free will to reject God's will for his salvation again?  It's a simple question - man is free to reject salvation or man is not free to reject salvation."

You have also not addressed this:
2) You said,
"I have. Yes man has free will; however, the Covenant Jesus made is not with us, He made a covenant with the Father."

I responded and demonstrated how,
"That is not correct, the New Covenant is still between God and us with Christ serving as the mediator:
Since the Covenant is between God and the people, your defense of the position is also incorrect.

and if you add the Church question, that's 3 unanswered questions which now places this discussion in the realm of just perpetual drive-by post dumping and goal post moving. That's not productive..

I gave you an answer. Sorry it's not what you want.

Pay attention to the big beautiful red part.

Also, keep reading:

9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

9:23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

10 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Christ's Death Fulfills God's Will
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come
In the volume of the book it is written of Me
To do Your will, O God.' "

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,

16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," 17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.


In other words, He established the New Covenant, we did not; therefore, the New Covenant is between He and the Father - we just sign on to it by faith, and in this we find our comfort.

Since the OT sin sacrifices were shadows of the Cross, what you are saying is that those sacrifices were meaningless. Of course, Christ did fulfill ALL those sacrifices, and with one sacrifice of Himself. He is the Lamb of God, the one who bore our sins in our stead. Hence, He is our mediator, the one who covers our sin.

You're becoming unhinged here. We are on an internet forum, I don't have to answer on your schedule, I do have a life outside of Arfcom.

And I have answered in due time. You keep restating the question as if this is some interrogation that I have to endure rather than a discussion out of love. The Calvinists were the initial reason I didn't follow Calvin, and the Catholics were the initial reason I didn't follow Catholicism. Clanging cymbals and all that.

Walls of text can't change the truth. What does the word mediator mean?

Christ calls Himself the mediator:
me·di·a·tor
noun
a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.

So you're just going to ignore any questions you fear answering? Got it. There is no "discussion out of love" here, only an attempt at proselytizing a false Gospel under the cover of ambiguity while you attack everyone else.

I never really do this except in hopeless cases, but sometimes giving up on someone is the only option.

Seriously? Scriptures are just "walls of text [that] can't change the truth"?

I think you just lost any and all credibility here.

Right, and as mediator of the new covenant He has established between Himself and the Father. Sure, you can say he's the bridge between God and man (although a moot point since He's God in the flesh), although the covenant itself provides a covering for us that your claim denies. In other words, you're denying the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ by insisting that God sees our sin.

Eta: the fact we are covered by Christ makes your attempt at the free will argument irrelevant.

Sounds like you're projecting to me.

It certainly was an attack on a brother, impugning his character, accusing him of basically not being a good Christian, psychoanalyzing him and others that don’t agree with his position. This attack wasn’t pertinent to the argument and certainly was fallacious. VG has repeatedly lost the argument in this thread and when that’s apparent, he resorts to interrogation tactics. It’s his mo.

I would say other “fundamentalists” have no interest arguing with him for 20 years. Even in this thread he was soundly defeated pages ago. He just keeps going in circles. It’s not productive.

I am glad I hung around long enough to see the Maccabees passage. That, if taken as inspired scripture, has interesting implications regarding salvation through Christ, but not as VG saw it.

If a Christian dies, they are good.  If someone is not a Christian and they die, not good.

“God sees to the fruits of our labors, and if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and not produce fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross,” Pope Francis said."

Not the best choice of words, but it was not what you quoted. It also doesn't mean what you are implying/asserting that Christ was a failure in atoning for our sins. Rather, it means that we often feel our lives are fruitless, desperate, or going nowhere by men's standards, by our own standards even. Often, we may feel as though we are failures, living a life of failure and by those same standards, humanly speaking, Christ "failed". Or do you think the Jews weren't laughing at His "failure" while He was dying?

Of course, by His standards and our Christian standards Christ's sacrifice on the cross was perfect.

The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

Which baptism?

"I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

That's not what I asked you to cite. Of course we need to be baptized. In fact, that's the reason for your initial argument; You are not in agreement with Catholics and Protestants baptizing infants. So there is no lack of belief that one must be baptized to be saved.

What I asked you to cite were the "touchy-feely" things you asserted were needed in order for the Baptism to be valid. These things about infant baptism's inadequacy:
"appreciate the redemption received through christ" and "thus the richness and love of Christ's gift is not *as* appreciated as it should be".

Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees

23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The _____________ sit in Moses’ seat.
Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the churches, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Teacher, Teacher' But you, do not be called Teacher; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.  

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whoever exalts himself will be [e]humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

“But woe to you! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
Woe to you, For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of [h]hell as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who [j]swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who [k]dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and [l]self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you  hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and [m]adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood[n] of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?  Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.


37 “O, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”
.... the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! 3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.”

4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins [c]have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her just as she rendered [d]to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. 7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived [e]luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ 8 Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who [f]judges her.
The World Mourns Babylon’s Fall

9 “The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, 10 standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’

11 “And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore: 12 merchandise of gold and silver, precious stones and pearls, fine linen and purple, silk and scarlet, every kind of citron wood, every kind of object of ivory, every kind of object of most precious wood, bronze, iron, and marble; 13 and cinnamon and incense, fragrant oil and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men. 14 The fruit that your soul longed for has gone from you, and all the things which are rich and splendid have [g]gone from you, and you shall find them no more at all. 15 The merchants of these things, who became rich by her, will stand at a distance for fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16 and saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city that was clothed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls! 17 For in one hour such great riches [h]came to nothing.’ Every shipmaster, all who travel by ship, sailors, and as many as trade on the sea, stood at a distance 18 and cried out when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, ‘What is like this great city?’

19 “They threw dust on their heads and cried out, weeping and wailing, and saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city, in which all who had ships on the sea became rich by her wealth! For in one hour she is made desolate.’

20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and [i]you [j]holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!”
Finality of Babylon’s Fall

21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. 22 The sound of harpists, musicians, flutists, and trumpeters shall not be heard in you anymore. No craftsman of any craft shall be found in you anymore, and the sound of a millstone shall not be heard in you anymore. 23 The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived. 24[i][b] And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.”

lol

This is a wall of text, without context. Name a supposed heresy, explain how you arrived at the belief it was a heresy, and cite where the RCC practices it.

So is the vatican now quadratinian because they believe Mary to be divine?

I'm not sure what's so funny.

Name a supposed heresy, explain how you arrived at the belief it was a heresy, and cite where the RCC practices it.

Posting random verses mean nothing.

Prove, using their own documents, that they claim she is divine.

Because they most certainly do not state or believe that:

The terms "woman" and "creature" in the Catechism refer to non-divine entities:

Mary's predestination
488 "God sent forth his Son," but to prepare a body for him,[125] he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":[126]

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.[127]

"In the Catholic Church, Mary is accorded the title "Blessed" (beata, µa????a) in recognition of her assumption to Heaven and her capacity to intercede on behalf of those who pray to her. There is a difference between the usage of the term "blessed" as pertaining to Mary and its usage as pertaining to a beatified person. "Blessed" as a Marian title refers to her exalted state as being the greatest among the saints; for a person who has been declared beatified, on the other hand, "blessed" simply indicates that they may be venerated despite not being officially canonized. Catholic teachings make clear that Mary is not considered divine and prayers to her are not answered by her, but rather by God through her intercession. The four Catholic dogmas regarding Mary are: her status as Theotokos, or Mother of God; her perpetual virginity; the Immaculate Conception; and her bodily Assumption into heaven."

I didn't assert it, the pope did.

you don't need to spin it. we all heard the heresy. But Christ won on the cross.  HE WON THE WHOLE GAME.  only ____________ would say otherwise.

LOL, ok. you must be kidding.

You can either be snarky, or you can make a reasoned argument. So far, you have been trying to assert that the RCC teaches heretical doctrines only through your opinions, as "LOL!, you have to be kidding", isn't evidence.

Provide something of substance, and I can respond.

So far you have made two claims of heresy against the RCC:

1) That infant Baptism is wrong. I have shown through Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Church teaching that it has always been a Christian doctrine.

2) That the RCC encourages the worship of the Virgin Mary. I have shown through the Church's own catechism, or constitution, that it does not allow the worship of Mary.

Do you have any other assertions?

As a non catholic, your definition of “defeated “ is different from mine.  

Disagree with him or not, it’s not VG being evasive and going in circles.  His (m1975) MO is similar to other posters who are not even Christian  

Except I did answer his question, it's just that the point I made invalidated it. Yet he still tried to hammer the question as if it was still relevant, trying to get some cheap gaslighting points and totally clueless as to what just happened.

And tried to imply that a guy with a different perspective posting on a subforum is on the same level as Jim Jones and David Koresh.

From today's Epistle, James 1:
"[22]But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. [23] For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. [24] For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. [25] But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.  [26] And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is vain. [27] Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world."

This has been the theme for the Pascal season.

John 15:1-8

Jesus said to his disciples:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower.
He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit,
and every one that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit.
You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you.
Remain in me, as I remain in you.
Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own
unless it remains on the vine,
so neither can you unless you remain in me.
I am the vine, you are the branches.
Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit,
because without me you can do nothing.
Anyone who does not remain in me
will be thrown out like a branch and wither;
people will gather them and throw them into a fire
and they will be burned.
If you remain in me and my words remain in you,
ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you.
By this is my Father glorified,
that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.”

Again, because we covered this passage already, if you don't read this through the lens of imputed righteousness, you're going to think that salvation isn't a free gift.

If you do read it through the lens of imputed righteousness by faith in Jesus, you see it as separate from salvation, and about the disciple's future roles as Apostles.

No, you'll see salvation as a free gift, but remaining in salvation as something that requires effort and free will on our part.

Now, you CHOOSE to see it and all other passages you find confirm OSAS through the other lens because that's what you need in order to hold to that doctrine. That's confirmation bias.

Of course it will LOOK like that through the lens you are choosing to use; You've created a lens to make it look that way.

To view it through that lens you have made two false assumptions:
One that you were given the FINAL authority to interpret Scripture as you please. No one, especially not the Apostles in the NT or the Early Church fathers, many who were actually with the original Apostles, ever believed that. In fact, they wrote the opposite. It is the Church who has the final authority. So the use of SS when you cite, erroneously, verses is just a man-made doctrine.

Secondly, you are assuming that you have discovered what no one saw until the 1600s, which is OSAS, and even then not in the same way you believe it. Your version of OSAS is, at the oldest, about 100 years old. Now, to the extreme that you take it, where one who is saved can oppress, abuse, steal, murder, etc. and still get to Heaven, that's not traceable until around 1975.

Those are unequivocal facts. They are not opinions.