Quote Originally Posted by Doug Yancey
Have you ever heard of Arminianism?
Yes, Jacob Arminius believed in once-saved-always-saved. It would be a strange faith if you were saved, then lost your salvation tomorrow, got back next Thursday, then lost it again in three months only to retrieve several years later. God is not fickle. When He gives His life its life eternal. He has the foreknowledge to do this. Unless of course you don't believe in God with this ability, who can say you are saved? The Roman Church teaches what you teach that you can lose salvation, but true salvation can never be lost as the Bible says. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29), just like Arminius taught. He said, never once did he profess a person could lose salvation. Scriptures allows for no exceptions of our will or otherwise. Eternal life received and kept is not by works, lest any man should boast: ""Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2.9). We are "justified by faith in Christ, and not by works: for by works shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2.16).

Unrepented sin can cause one to lose his or her salvation. The Bible is very clear that our behavior (repentance, obedience, works) determines whether we are saved.
Nope. Whoever believes on Him shall be judged no more, because he "hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5.24). How can this happen more than once? It is a one-time, once-for-all transaction. Obedience and works are for rewards or loss of rewards. A sinner can not lose the initial salvation he received just as he can't save himself.

Paul said obedience is necessary (Heb 5:9). That implies action--repentance, righteous endeavor. And, baptism (Mark 16:16). And, repentance (2Cor 7:10). Enduring (Mark 13:13). Works (James 2:14).
But Paul never said lack of these things can make you go to Hell. Since works are unto rewards, one would lose the reigning in the kingdom, not eternal life.

Paul insisted that salvation could be lost: If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries . . . . Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)
This passage does not say a person can lose salvation.

What is meant by "no more a sacrifice for sins"? Some people will say: "If I sin willfully after I have known the truth, I will not be saved. It is true that God has caused His Son to bear my sins and die for me that I might be saved through believing in His Son; but if I sin willfully, then according to Hebrews 10.26 there does not remain anymore sacrifice for sins, and consequently I will not be saved. Furthermore, the next verse states that there remains ‘a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries’ (v.27). So if I sin willfully, I can only wait for two things: one is judgment, the other is the fire which shall devour the adversaries, which is hell or perdition." In the view of these people this passage of the Scriptures is directed at Christians; so that if a Christian sins willfully he cannot be saved. Let us now see whether "if we sin wilfully" has reference to Christians or to another class of people. We shall also want to see if "sin wilfully" points to ordinary sin or rather to some specific sin.

According to the statement of the Bible, those people who "sin wilfully after that [they] have received the knowledge of the truth" have "a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries". Therefore, these cannot be that class of persons, mentioned in Hebrews 6, "who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift". The "truth" mentioned here is that truth spoken of in the first part of Hebrews 10, which is the redemption accomplished once and for all by the Lord Jesus Christ. Such people know of the death of the Lord Jesus, of His shed blood and broken body. They even know that they can enter the holy place boldly through the blood of the Lord Jesus and be accepted by God, and that the sacrifice for sins has been offered once and for all, so that the work of redemption is forever completed. Now if these people should sin willfully after they have had such knowledge of the truth as this, then there remains no more a sacrifice for sins.

We need to see that if the above verses could be applied to a Christian, that is, if a Christian is tempted to lie and steal, to frequent places he ought not to go, or do things he knows he should not do, and is thereby considered as sinning willfully and is therefore not saved, who then shall be saved? Even Paul and Peter would probably not qualify for being saved! Has not Paul the believer confessed: "For not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do. . . . For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise. . . . Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?" (Rom. 7.15,19,24) Does not Paul practice the evil he knows he should not do and does not do the good he knows he should do? And has not the believing Peter denied the Lord thrice before a maid? Does he not know that he is lying and that lying is sin? From all this we can know that the phrase "sin wilfully" must mean something special and not just committing a sin that one knows.

Yet this can be proven even in another way. To do so, we need to read the text of this Scripture passage all in one breath from verse 26 through 29:
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
What is really meant by "sin wilfully" in verse 26? It points to the three things in verse 29; namely, (1) trodden underfoot the Son of God, (2) counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified as an unholy thing, and (3) done despite to the Spirit of grace. In sum, it means to reject the gospel of salvation. He has heard the word of God which states that Jesus is the Son of God, yet he answers by saying that Jesus is a bastard. He has heard God’s word which says that Jesus has shed His blood for the remission of sins and that His blood is most precious—even as the blood of a pure spotless lamb, but he replies by saying that the death of Jesus is a martyr’s death and that the blood Jesus shed is common just like anybody else’s. He has heard the word of God which says that the Holy Spirit brings repentance and gives eternal life, nevertheless he retorts by declaring that he does not believe God will impart to him what Jesus has accomplished nor does he believe in new birth. Because of this kind of reaction, the Bible’s word is that there remains to him no more sacrifice for sins.

What is meant by "there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins"? "No more" indicates that there once was. We must pay particular attention to this word "more". In this connection please note the following passages of the Scriptures:

"Who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself" (Heb. 7.27).

"Nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9.12).

"Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . . So Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many . . ." (Heb. 9.25-28).

"Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins" (Heb. 10.2).

"By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God" (Heb. 10.10-12).

Why do all the above passages indicate that the Lord Jesus has not offered himself many times but only once? It is because, beginning from Chapter 7, the book of Hebrews dwells on the comparison between the sacrifice which the Lord Jesus has offered and the sacrifices offered in the Old Testament period. The Lord Jesus Christ has offered himself only once and has forever accomplished eternal redemption; whereas the sacrifices mentioned in the Old Testament were in the form of bulls and goats which were offered year by year. Individually speaking, anyone living in the dispensation of the Old Testament had to bring and offer a bullock or a goat or a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons as a sin-offering each time he sinned. Corporately speaking, the whole congregation of Israel had to offer yearly, on the day of atonement, the sin-offering.

Why must they offer bulls and goats as sacrifices year after year? Because the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins. People had to offer sacrifice for the sins of this year as well as the sins of last year. Only Jesus Christ through the eternal Spirit has offered himself to God, and by so doing has obtained eternal redemption so that He has perfected forever us who are sanctified (Heb. 9.14,12; 10.14).

Consequently, Hebrews 10 follows this up by saying that anyone who has heard the truth and yet has sinned willfully has rejected the Holy Spirit as well as the blood of the Son of God. For such a person who has despised the Son of God there remains no more sacrifice for sins. For people in the Old Testament time, if they missed the opportunity for atonement one year they still might have it the following year. But today, if any man should reject Jesus Christ, there does not remain anymore sacrifice for sins, since even the sin-offering of the Old Testament dispensation has passed and is therefore no longer effective. Whoever has the knowledge of the truth but rejects it has no more sacrifice for sins available to him. For "in none other is there salvation" (Acts 4.12). God had done His uttermost when He sent the Lord Jesus Christ to this world to accomplish the work of redemption so that we might be saved. There is therefore nothing more He can add. Accordingly, the Bible tells us that if any man should sin willfully, that is, reject the gospel which he has heard and known, it is finished and done with for him. His end is nothing but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.

Hebrews 6.1-8 says that the end of the class of people therein mentioned is "nigh to a curse"; but Hebrews 10.26-29 says that the result for its group of people is to be burned with the "fire which shall devour the adversaries"; how then can this latter group ever point to Christians? This passage can mean none but those who have knowingly rejected the gospel, therefore there is no other salvation. Otherwise, why should the word "more" be used in saying "there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins"? Why should the word "once" be used repeatedly in the preceding verses? By joining these words within their context, we can easily discern the meaning of the words "there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins".

If we are 'chosen' and 'elected' without our choosing or repentance, why is there much preaching, commanding and instructing in the New Testament?
We are chosen by repenting and believing in Christ, but God doesn't change His mind: "For God's gifts and his call can never be withdrawn" (Rom. 11.29).

You're a Calvinist.
No, I don't believe in Calvinism. I believe in OSAS Arminian.

For this reason our salvation is eternally secured-You mean forced against our will?
No. It really is a choice for eternity. An authentic choice. Not a choice with a get-out clause.

Even if we don't accept it? Are we 'elected' and have no say in the matter?
No. That's Calvinism. If you don't accept it, after claiming you were saved, in reality, you were never saved to begin with. You keep talking about how you can lose salvation. It makes one think you are not saved to begin with. Where you have inserted to passages you can lose salvation if you are born-again, the verses don't actually say that.

Through our own free will. That is the classic debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. It has been going on since about the 4th Century. Calvinists are in the minority in this debate. Mormons are not part of it. We get our soteriology from God through His prophets--ancient and modern. That's the real issue.
You've actually misconstrued this debate. The debate is not about whether you can lose salvation because Arminians are OSAS. Rather, the debate is about how to get saved in the first place.

Our salvation must also be eternal-It is--once we receive it. The big question that has been debated for hundreds of years is whether that comes at the beginning of the 'journey', or at the end. I believe it comes at the end when we stand before God on the Day of Judgement.
What is eternal life? "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17.3). This tells me you are not born-again, you don't know Jesus Christ, because you admit you don't have eternal life.

"He is equal with God, therefore His hand is as strong as God’s hand." - See: John 10:29 and 14:28.
"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all..." (John 10.29). You're misreading this verse. It is not saying God the Father created the Son, but rather in terms of authority before the foundations of the world, the Son agreed with the Father the Son would be the perfect obedience unto the Father to show mankind how to be. "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I" (John 14.28). Same principle. You know full well this is how Christians read these verses, so you are seeking to change the times and the ways. That's what cults do.

So, you admit works and faith are linked? You can't have one without the other. It doesn't matter which comes first, they are both necessary.
They are both necessary, but not for the same purposes. Repentance and faith unto regeneration get you in the door, but works get you to the mansion. We who are saved are all going to overcometh one day, but some of us will do so sooner and thus receive reward for the 1000 years.

Can faith only save you without works? See James 2:14.
Yes, faith can save you without works; in fact, works can't make you a new creation of God. "By grace are ye saved, through faith;...not of works" (Eph. 2.8-9); "But to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Rom. 4.5).

In James 2.14, we see a man who claims salvation, but when you see his fruit you know his faith is superficial, not real, so not saved: "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" It does not mean he can lose salvation if he is really saved or that works are required for salvation as we have seen in the above verses salvation is by faith not by works, lest anyone should boast.

There is no 'threatening'. Only the person himself can 'threaten his own salvation by rejecting Jesus and His gospel.
You may feel threatened, but the fact remains the 5 unwise virgins are the same class of people as the 5 wise virgins with oil in their lamps, except the 5 unwise don't fill up with oil in their vessels. There are consequences for Christians, not loss of life, but loss of rewards. That's what the 1000 years is all about: the time of recompense without which this world would hardly be just. It is accountability which you are threatened by.

You believe in force. I believe in free will. That is the classic, ancient debate. In any case, salvation is always linked to behavior. You even admit it in your above comments. The difference is your use of the word: *constrain*, which implies force. I believe the Holy Spirit witnesses to the believer to persuade him to stay away from evil, but does not force him.
What you construe as force, I construe as God's love that we chose to enter into for the promise of God's keeping us and no man can pluck us out of His hand. Your god is either unwilling or unable to do this. Satan loves to cast doubt and give you a salvation of doubt and can fall out of which can only lead to death. The salvation of overcoming is always linked to behavior and works, but never is the free gift of salvation that all we need do is repent and believe in Christ to receive eternal life at new birth. Eternal life is an ability to know God and enter into a relationship with Christ. Previously, you said you don't have this life. Constrain is a pleasantly reigning in when we may backslide. That is the kind of Protector that you would want. Such persuasion is most convincing like a loving parent that doesn't let her child cross a busy street. Your god though lets you cross even that street which you may perish. That is not comforting.

"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead" (2 Cor. 5.14). "For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me" (Job 32.18).

I agree that one cannot escape the 'hand of God'. But, I don't agree with 'irresitible grace'. I'm not a Calvinist.
I don't believe in irresistible grace either. I am an OSAS Arminian.

Salvation is a personal choice. Not an irresistible mandate.
Salvation is a personal choice, not a choice to enter in getting saved, then the sad choice to leave it. Not at all. God won't waste His time saving you in the first place then. Hence, you are not saved, since you could leave any minute. Nor is it irresistible grace.

Because God respects free will. He does not force anyone to heaven.
I don't think God is respecting free will if a person can lose salvation, because salvation is a free will choice for eternity with God not a choice to enter in and then get out in a couple years. That is a vain and superficial salvation, the one you have. In such a case God would be forcing a false salvation on you. Whereas true salvation is once-saved always. God's love will constrain your authentic choice, because you know you don't have the strength to keep it, but trusting in God, He keeps you. You're trying to save yourself, but you can't do it. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1.13). You're only deceiving yourself and letting a cult control you on that basis like the Roman Church controls its adherents with fear of not keeping up works you could lose their organization's salvation.

Only in your Calvinistic mind
.
You are misconstruing Calvinism. I reject all 5 points of Calvinism. The 5th point of OSAS Arminian is not the same thing as the 5th point of Calvinism. The 5th point of OSAS is as was said before a choice for life, but in Calvinism it is forced, because it wasn't the person's choice to enter in in the first place.

"I give unto them my sheep eternal life; and they shall never perish" (John 10.28)-That verse does not say or imply that they have no choice to turn away. That is a Calvinistic assumption.
This verse says "they shall never perish." That's the plain reading of the text. Calvinists misuse this verse to say God forces them and pride themselves on that basis, for a Calvinist didn't enter into salvation with the choice afforded to him. But an OSAS Arminian did receive the choice and made the choice for forever, so God does His part so "they shall never perish." And your salvation is false also because you assume eternal life is by works, so it doesn't matter what the text says. After all, Mormons say some of the Bible is wrong. You're not distinguishing between what Arminius and Calvin taught, so I can see how you are confused.

Paul said obedience is necessary for salvation (Heb 5:9).
Such kind of salvation is eternal. Once saved, forever saved. "Having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation" (Heb. 5.9). The salvation which the Lord has accomplished for us is eternal, therefore our salvation is also eternal. Once you are born-again, you tend to obey Him.

Interesting interpretation. But, I still disagree.
I could sense some crumbling there. Let me repeat that point. "Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee" (1 Tim. 4.16). There are different aspects of salvation: salvation of new birth and salvation of overcoming. The salvation of overcoming is referred to here. Read Rev. chapters 2 & 3 about the "overcometh" warning to each church period.

The real issue is whether any unclean or unrighteous person can live with God forever.
Exactly, so you have to ask yourself how you can maintain yourself by works, whereas a Christian is kept by God even though he may falter here or there. "For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1.12). This was a choice for life with no Mormon out-clause.

There has to be an 'out-clause' in order to preserve free will. I am not a Calvinist.
No, there doesn't have to be an out-clause for God to preserve free will if it is true salvation, for God keeps as 2 Tim. 1.12 the choice "committed" which is a choice for forever. You're not a Calvinist, but neither are you an Arminian. You're a non-OSASer.

Then, why doesn't it say 'overcomers salvation'? You are just interpreting that passage to fit your Calvinistic assumptions. You are wrong!
It doesn't have to always say overcomers to mean overcoming. Look. The Bible is not about mostly salvation and unsalvation, but overcoming salvation for believers. It is a book for believers: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved" (Matt. 10.22). Read it as intended and it will come alive to you like never before.

I am persuaded by God you are not saved because your faith is not on solid rock: once-saved-always-saved.

I have never said my will was 'passive'. You have not answered whether that word 'led' means against their will.
You said "It implies more than just a simple, passive belief." Belief is not passive. But it is real and authentic, requiring no works to make it as you say, impassive. You are unwilling to repent to the cross of salvation to receive Christ once-saved-always-saved. That lacking repentance is why you have an out-clause, because it is not solid and real. What you construe as non-passive is adding in man's works to keep the eternal life you haven't even got yet, according to your theory. Yuck! I have something right now you don't have. Eternal life! Praise God!

Your god takes away from you your free will to have the choice for forever in a keeping God. This free will option is not available to you according to the god of Mormonism. Please go to God and ask Him what He has promised. Inquire of Him: Has Your love for me changed? Will You repent concerning Your word? Do You have the power to perform Your promise? Are You trustworthy? Are You dependable? If you think more upon God, your faith will spontaneously rise up without the need of manufacturing it. Do always remember this, that you yourself are not faithful, nor is your own faith trustworthy. God alone is the source of faith! And He is faithful!

Doesn't say we can't reject what we have.
If you can reject it, it only means you didn't enter into salvation to receive eternal life immediately upon being born-again. You're unwilling to repent and believe in the True Christ for that kind of salvation. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1.3-5). My faith is guarded and can never fade away, whereas yours can. God keeps me from rejecting Him, because that was my choice to enter into. Whereas you entered into one where you could get out. You didn't read your marriage vows.

Faith without works is dead just false faith with works is dead.

Choice certainly does imply action.
Choice is a choice; action is a work. To be saved you will need to choose the God who can keep you and will never let you go. Right now you worship a fickle god who will let you go.

Faith is much stronger than belief. And, faith without works is dead.
Faith is belief. Faith without works is not real faith, just as works without real faith are dead.

restitution is part of the process. If a thief steals something from you, part of his repentance would be to return what he stole. That is a 'work'.
Sometimes you don't have the means to pay back, so does that mean you can't be saved? Of course not. Faith is a free gift that anyone can be saved. Not paying back what you can pay back after being saved may lose rewards, but it can't lose you life.

Yes, and what's wrong with that? Why are you so negative toward 'works'? You have acknowledged it is part of the salvation process. Certainly part of true faith.
I am positive towards work. You are negative towards work, because you think work can lose you salvation. Not at all. Salvation is a free gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast. Therefore, works is unto rewards, not loss of life. Since you admit I "have acknowledged it is part of the salvation process. Certainly part of truth faith" then why do you think that is negative? Paul never thought he could lose eternal life. Alas, you claim you don't have eternal life, and I agree, you don't.

I disagree. You can argue that works follow initial salvation, but you must admit that if works don't follow, there is no real salvation.
I said, "Discipleship is required for rewards, not for initial salvation" which you disagree. Why do you think discipleship is not required for rewards? Don't you believe in accountability? You think discipleship is for initial salvation!? That is works. Man can't save himself. He is a sinner. You even admit if works don't follow, the person was not really saved to begin with. Therefore, it is not that he lost salvation, but was never saved to begin with.

I don't believe God extends grace to unrepentant sinners. The unrighteous are not saved.
Then you should admit that you are not saved, because you are unwilling to repent and believe in Jesus Christ who saves to the uttermost, once-saved-always-saved. You would rather believe in something lesser, that can only save you if you are a good worker. You are unrighteous, for this false teaching.

To become a disciple of Christ, to be saved, is a choice that implies action, direction, decision and commitment. Without all that, how can you be saved?
Becoming a new creation in a choice+works is you saving yourself, but you can't do that, you are a sinner. Sinners can't save themselves. That's why salvation is a free gift to anyone who believes in God. A choice for Christ knows nothing of what actions to even take, so it is not faith plus works, but God will lead us into the works He has apportioned for us if we are diligent in Him. What you need to concern yourself with is the problem of your faith implying opportunity for losing faith which is not true faith.

Paul mentions three heavens (2Cor 12:2).
3rd Heaven is Paradise above. The angels are in 3rd Heaven. The fallen angels have fallen down to 2nd heaven. The earth and the natural universe we see is 1st heaven.

Why do you call it 'kingdom of heaven' when you are talking about earth? I believe the Kingdom of God ison the earth and the kingdom of heaven is, well, in heaven.
There are 3 aspects of the kingdom of heaven and 3 aspects of the Kingdom of God. Try to understand.

After the birth of Christ, there comes one who prepares the way for Him. His name is John, and he proclaims that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The Lord, together with the apostles whom He sends forth, announce the same news. What does it mean? Later on, as noted in chapters 8 and 9, we see that the Lord heals the sick and casts out demons, and that all these are closely related to the nearness of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5-7 speaks of the nature of the kingdom of heaven: which is, that those who belong to this kingdom are absolutely righteous towards themselves, absolutely gracious towards others, and absolutely pure towards God. In Matthew 10 we learn that the Lord sends out His apostles. And in Matthew 11-12 we see that a great transition begins occurring, as though the kingdom of heaven is now being taken away from the Jews. Now with regard to the kingdom of heaven found spoken of in Matthew 13, some interpreters have asserted that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are the kingdom of heaven in mystery. Such an assertion is logically unsound when it is held up against all the things which we have just seen: how that both John and the Lord as well as His disciples proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, how that the Lord then announces the nature or character of this kingdom, and how after He is rejected by the children of Israel He in the thirteenth chapter is found declaring only the outward boundary of this kingdom (what we see in this age being but the outward appearance). So that chapter 13 does not deal with the character or nature of the kingdom of heaven, for this has already been described in Matthew 5-7.
Some, on the other hand, contend that all who desire to enter the kingdom of heaven mentioned in chapter 13 must possess the character of the kingdom of heaven as laid down in chapters 5-7. This interpretation again is impossible to accept, since in chapter 13 we have presented the tares, the leaven, and so forth as being in the kingdom of heaven. So that this chapter presents to us nothing but the outward appearance of the kingdom of heaven.
The kingdom of heaven is not the millennial kingdom; it is the reigning in the millennial kingdom. Let us see that the kingdom of heaven has three different aspects.

(1)An outward appearance, boundary, or scope as is shown to us in Matthew 13.
(2)A spiritual reality, that is to say, a kind of spiritual conduct which is formed as a result of learning righteousness and grace progressively under the authority of God and which is elucidated for us in Matthew 5-7; and
(3)A reigning with Christ in the future millennial kingdom as revealed in the fact of our future reward as told to us in Matthew 5-7.

Accordingly, we must first of all enter into the sphere or boundary of this kingdom of heaven by being sons of the kingdom; then secondly, we need to have the kind of conduct described for us in Matthew 5-7 – which is to have real spiritual conduct; and lastly, as a consequence we may reign with the Lord.

Today there are three different kinds of people:
(1)those who have entered within the sphere of the kingdom of heaven and yet unsaved; these are represented by tares.
(2)those who have been saved and are in the domain of the kingdom of heaven, ye they fail to keep the teaching of Matthew 5-7.
(3) those who are saved and also keep the teaching of Matthew 5-7; they truly overcome, and therefore in the future they shall reign with the Lord in the third stage or aspect of the kingdom of heaven.

A Comparison Between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God

The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are distinguishable but are not separable. Let us consider in some detail these two descriptive phrases found in Scriptures.
(1)With certain parables Matthew employs the statement “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto . . . “; but Luke uses the words “The kingdom of God is like. . . . “ for the same parables – thus indicating that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are one and the same. Both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven in these parallel instances refer to the outward domain of the kingdom. On this level, it can be said that the outward appearances of both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are alike. Parables such as that of the leaven belong to this category.
(2)Yet the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are not synonymous with respect to the second aspect of the kingdom of heaven, inasmuch as what is described in Matthew 5-7 speaks of actual overt behavior whereas “the kingdom of God is righteous and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14.17). The one stresses spiritual conduct; the other inner spiritual condition.
(3)Even so, in the third aspect of the kingdom of heaven is again similar to the kingdom of God since both refer to the matter of reigning during the millennial kingdom.

Though the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are similar as regards the first aspect, the kingdom of God covers also the time of which the prophets in the Old Testament speak – for whenever the sovereignty of God is present, His domain is there at the same time. But this characteristic is not applicable to the kingdom of heaven.

With regard to the third aspect, it is true that the kingdom of God is the same as the kingdom of heaven in that both refer to ruling with Christ in the millennium; yet the kingdom of God extends further on into eternity since in eternity God also reigns – but by that time the kingdom of heaven will have passed away. With respect to the third aspect, therefore, the kingdom of God exists longer than the kingdom of heaven.

In certain sense it can be said that the kingdom of God includes the kingdom of heaven, but not vic versa.

So far as the outward official history of the church on earth goes today, there can be said to be the Roman Catholic Church, the national churches, and the private churches. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the entire world is under her domain and that no national church is therefore allowed. The national church such as the Anglican Church asserts that every citizen of the nation belongs to the Church. But due to dissatisfaction with the national churches, there came into being the so-called private churches.

As regards to the outward sphere, as long as people say they are Christians, no one can drive them out of the kingdom of heaven; for the Lord has not promised to weed out the tares today. At communion or the Lord’s Table or the breaking of bread, however, the church may indeed weed out or separate the unsaved and the wicked from the saved ones. So that in the outward appearance of the kingdom of heaven, such as in a national church, unbelieving people may be included therein, but in the sphere of the believing assembly an unsaved person may be excluded from fellowship. This clarifies the two totally different spheres: that of the outward appearance of the kingdom of heaven and that of the church. Within the boundary of the outward appearance of the kingdom of heaven there may be tares; but within the churches the body of Christ there is only wheat no tares.

Only Calvinists believe in OSAS.
I am an Arminian. Arminians are OSAS like others such as Dave Hunt and Watchman Nee. Why does this offend you?

That only makes my point that choosing, repenting, commiting and being baptized are 'works' that are connected or linked to being 'saved'. Does it really matter whether they come before or after one is saved?
The Bible says choosing is not a work. "He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him" (Heb. 7.25). Are faith and works contrasted as opposites? "By grace are ye saved, through faith;...not of works" (Eph. 2.8-9); "But to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Rom. 4.5). Christ repeatedly gave such invitations as "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11.28), and "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (John 7.37). Baptism follows salvation. It's called credobaptism. Repentance leads to choosing, but neither is repentance a work. Committing to a God who keeps is a salvation which you have not entered into. Works won't save you, you're just relying on your flesh.

A man can know he has eternal life as long as he stays in the covenant. He has that assurance. He also has his free will to reject or withdraw. God does force that man to stay against his will.
Before you said eternal life is in the future, not present, but the Bible disagrees with you. "These things I write to you, who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know you have eternal life" (1 John 5.13). For you to be made to stay would be forced because you have an out-clause. But Christians have keeping-in-clause and that is true salvation. True repentance is saying to God, I don't know how to do this, all I know is I trust in you to keep me to the end, so when I falter, your promise is assured that you will not let me fall back. You were unwilling to commit to this kind of salvation, so that is why you are going to Hell, not the least of which the many other strange things you teach claiming God is gods and there were multiple intelligences always existing. What does the Bible have to say about that?

the Persons of the Godhead are co-equal, co-inherent and uncreated One Being for Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" being (John 10.30), "one Lord" (Deut.6.4) "from everlasting to everlasting" (Ps. 90.2; 1 Chron. 16.36, 29.10; Neh. 9.5). "Believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him" (John 10.38) proves that the Father and the Son are One Being" (Deut. 19.3). "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me...besides me there is no saviour. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no Rock; I know not any" (Is. 43.9-10; 44.8). It is God "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. No one has seen the Father except the one [Jesus] who is from God; only he has seen the Father" (1 Tim. 6.16; see John 1.18)-tells us only God is uncreated and Jesus is God because Jesus can see the Father. In Isaiah 9.6 the Son is our originator: "everlasting father, referring to Him being the author of existence. Isaiah 40.28 says "The Lord is the everlasting God" and in Habakkuk 1.12, the rhetorical question "O Lord, are you not from everlasting?" is asked. We don't see these words describing God's uncreated existence characterizing man as a prior intelligence. In Colossians 1.16 we are told that "All things were created by him [Jesus]," the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (Rev. 22.13,16). This expression tells us that God existed first, none with Him or before Him. "For in him [or, by him] were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him" (Col. 1.16).

If I am not commited to Christ and His gospel, I have no such assurance. But, I am commited. So, I can rely on Christ's promises--not on His forcing me to conform. Remember, it is a two-way covenant--I and Jesus walking hand in hand in a saved condition. As long as I hold onto that Hand, I am saved. I have that assurance. Nothing can pluck me out of His hand--except my own letting go of it. If that happened, it is not Jesus' fault. That's what free will is about. Calvinism is about determinism and force. It is not biblical. Most Christians reject it.
How could you have assurance, since you worship a god who has not promised to keep you no matter what? In fact you really don't even know if you will have eternal life in the future, because you admit you might change your mind. If you are truly saved nothing can pluck you out of God's hand, not even you, because you would have entered into a permanent covenant with Him to be kept thick or thin. But you don't want that relationship. You want a works based salvation in which you can opt out at any time. You're in an uncommitted relationship which is not with Jesus Christ, but you worship a false Christ. The Mormon Jesus is just another one of those false Christs out there. Calvinism is false, but so is non-OSASism. Most Christians reject Calvinism and non-OSASism. The truth hurts when you are not in the truth.

Because I am not a Catholic and it would be presumptuous of me to do so. That does not mean I can't have opinions about Catholicism (or, any other 'ism'). But, only Catholics can speak authoritatively about their own faith--not you or me.
Your cult is very similar to the Roman Church. You both hold non-OSAS works salvation. You both have various temple rituals and much of secret at higher levels. You both deny the coming millennial reign of Christ and time of recompense (Rev. 20.2-7). You both add books to God's word in the 66 books. You have men as your idols, etc., etc. You even have your own pope as it were.

That's because Catholics are not Calvinists.
Rather, that's because they are not OSAS Arminians.

Neither are LDS Christians.
Praise the Lord at least you realize that LDS are not Christians. Christians are defined as believing in the Triune God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit as the On and Only uncreated Being before time began. And nothing existed then but God. And no, God is not gods.

But, many anti-Mormons like to accuse Mormons of relying on feelings when we testify of what we believe.
Since you don't solve logical contradictions you must be living in the passions of your flesh. For example, how can there be multiple uncreated beings or intelligences as some Mormons put it, without asking the question where did they all come from and why were they separate from each other? I like to use the phrase "star dust". How is star dust intelligence? Furthermore, how is God gods? He is no longer a personal Being then. Because no Mormon has ever been able to reconcile these contradictions, we know what you worship is Satan.

That is official LDS doctrine. There are hints of it in the Bible (Jeremiah 1:5). But, we get that doctrine from modern extra-biblical revelation. That's the real issue.
Intelligence implies being. That passive acceptance mindless of multiple beings that always existed has no basis, and gives no reason why down the street another cult is not just as legitimate with its differing number of different beings that always existed. That's just plain goofy. You really didn't think this out properly. Any false teaching inevitably has gaping hopes. There are many in Mormonism, but I find this to be the biggest one. There are no hints of multiple uncreated always existing different beings or intelligences. We have only ever seen One uncreated Being in Scripture. God!

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jer. 1.5). This verse is referring to God's infinite foreknowledge, not preexisting spirits or whatever you call them this decade as I get confused by all the changes in your cult. You plunge into a fantasy life with this one verse and don't read it as it was meant to be read as originally intended.

Some day you will learn that we did [always exist]
Some day you will realize this is how you keep yourself eternally separated from God and sends you to Hell, because you make yourself equal with God in always having existed. Shame on you!

"Son of man, give the prince of Tyre this message from the Sovereign LORD: In your great pride you claim, `I am a god! I sit on a divine throne in the heart of the sea.' But you are only a man and not a god, though you boast that you are like a god." (Ez. 28.2)

Some gods claim to always have existed when they didn't. "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" (Is. 44.6). The serpent lied: "God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God" (Gen. 3.5).

God is from everlasting to everlasting. Not you. Oh how that must pain you!

It's a logical contradiction to be be created and yet always existed. You really need a new word for created. It's misleading. You're changing Biblical terms and redefining them. Cults love to do that.

Calvinism is not biblical
You're like a clanging bell. Yes, I know Calvinism is not Biblical. You missed the point. An unsaved person's views seem to take on the particular predisposition of his flesh. The holder of the non-OSAS view naturally tends to be strong-willed, but the Bible says not by the will of man nor the will of the flesh is one saved. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1.13). Here will of man does not refer to choice, but rather, man's planning in works. Will of the flesh here points to man's passions, emotional pursuits. And of course, of blood refers to physical. Calvinists like to misuse this verse too when they treat it as denying man the free-choice. You guys are crazy! You non-OSASers and Calvinists! May God forgive you for you know not what you do.

We have discussed this before. I have sent you evidence to the contrary. As usual, you did not rebut it. Only dismissed and gave me insulting opinions. Therefore, I will not re-visit.
I have replied to a large bulk of your material, which you hadn't responded to in kind, so the burden is on you. Your vague response is most telling. Why be coy? Address it at least in some words, and not none at all.

If you strip all the bizarre teachings away in Mormonism or LDS, I think the 3 most important proofs that you are going to Hell are these:

1) Unwilling to repent to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior who presents you to the Father who can and does keep you eternally, knowing your own will is untrustworthy to keep yourself a thousand years, 10 years or even one year. It is clear you are unsaved because you think you can save yourself by works. No you can't! You think too highly of yourself. Trust in God who keeps, not you can keep yourself saved.

2) You worship not the Christian God and you admit that LDS is not Christian. But Christianity is the 66 books written and by Textual Criticism proven without add-ons. In other words, there is only One uncreated Being and it is logically incoherent to claim an always existing whatever you call it, different intelligences, etc. without asking yourself where they all came from. Do you realize how this is henotheism and polytheism? As well as atheistic, because atheists also teach an always existing whatever that is not God.

3) The number of revisions and transformations your cult takes shows it is untrustworthy. Are we to believe the current decade teachings are the correct ones and not the originals or subsequent decades from its founder? You sugar coat things up but you can always find the holes. You ought to ask yourself why don't you adhere to the original of your leader? Contrast this with Christianity in which the NT is still the same (with consistent Creeds).

You also teach nearly universalism with few going to Hell. It does not reflect the human condition very well. Your god is just too impersonal for Christians and leave confused what is to happen after you die, as you seem to be changing from classical Mormonism which teaches you will be a god of worlds. I know you need to change the story, but being coy about it is likely due to embarrassment, rather than being an open book of the Lord. Perhaps you are embarrassed about it and think it needs to get revised like other Mormon doctrines, e.g. treatment of blacks, polygamy, etc.

My prayers go out to you to yet receive Christ, the one who saves eternally at new birth and a Father who can keep you inspite of your weakness. Amen.