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

[Right Divider]

Forget using Hillary Clinton as a specific example. Perhaps that's too much of a hypothetical for your mind to wrap itself around. Just keep it generic if that helps. Just assume a severely backslidden Christian finds himself before God on the day of redemption and respond to the following...

No matter how "severely backslidden" a Christian is, they are still saved End of story.

As I say above, there are only three real possibilities for the severely backslidden who find themselves before Christ's Bema seat. I see no way to deny my position without denying free will.

1Cor 3:15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. ​

End of story.

 

[Clete]

No matter how "severely backslidden" a Christian is, they are still saved End of story.

1Cor 3:15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. ​

End of story.

Ideas have consequences Right Divider, as you well know! Why will you not engage the argument?


On that day, one of three things will happen...

Option 1: She (i.e. a severely backslidden Christian) joyfully embraces God as He truly is
If this is your answer, then you're conceding my core point without realizing it.
By taking this option, you'd be effectively admitting that what matters is not the profession alone, but whether the will ultimately aligns with God’s righteousness once truth is fully revealed. That means the decisive factor is what one loves when the truth is known.

Option 2: She hates God’s righteousness and rejects Him
This answer would explicitly endorse my position by acknowledging that a person can be sealed and delivered, but still refuse fellowship with God when confronted with who He actually is. At that point, the only remaining question is whether God forces eternal fellowship on someone who despises Him...

Option 3: God forcibly alters her will so that she embraces Him
This is the option that I think most Christians implicitly assume without ever admitting it.
This option is the equivalent of saying that love, allegiance, and worship are manufactured by divine fiat, not freely given. That reduces heaven to a kind of moral reprogramming, not a real relationship.

Options 1 & 2 acknowledge my position, either tacitly or explicitly. Option 3 denies free will, which collapses the concepts of love, relationship, righteousness, faith, allegiance, etc. and turns God into either a kidnapper who holds people against their will or Calvin's version of God who alters our will by fiat.

I am reasonably certain that those three options exhaust every rational possibility but, as I said, if you can refute it or show me another option then I'll be happy to read all about it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@Right Divider for clarification, we all recognize that Judgement Day is for those who utterly reject God, and that the Bema Seat Judgement comes after that, right?

"Sealed unto the day of redemption" means you make it past Judgement Day, as I understand it. (@Clete does this help make your point clearer?)

 

[Nick M]

Option 2: She hates God’s righteousness and rejects Him
This answer would explicitly endorse my position by acknowledging that a person can be sealed and delivered, but still refuse fellowship with God when confronted with who He actually is. At that point, the only remaining question is whether God forces eternal fellowship on someone who despises Him...

It was Delmar who said right here (to the dead babies question)

Heaven isn't a prison.

I think if someone is that stupid and chooses to shake their fist at him, they don't go to the lake of fire, but they do leave heaven. Yes, this is conjecture to what we don't know.

 

[Clete]

@Right Divider for clarification, we all recognize that Judgement Day is for those who utterly reject God, and that the Bema Seat Judgement comes after that, right?

"Sealed unto the day of redemption" means you make it past Judgement Day, as I understand it. (@Clete does this help make your point clearer?)

I am under the impression, although I could not establish it at the moment, that the day of redemption is the day when the process begins of Christians going through a judgement where we will receive rewards or suffer the loss of rewards. (I Corinthians 3:13–15; II Corinthians 5:10)

This is what I understand to be the Bema Seat of Christ and it seems to me that it would happen immediately following the rapture.

Are you suggesting that they are not the same thing or have I misunderstood you?


When I was a teenager, I was into eschatology and sort of got burned by it. Ever since then, I've treated it as the side issue of all side issues, which I admit was likely an over reaction. The point being that I may very well have the sequence of events wrong. It wouldn't surprise me a bit.

 

[Clete]

It was Delmar who said right here (to the dead babies question)

I don't follow. What "dead babies question", and how does it connect to Option 2?

I think if someone is that stupid and chooses to shake their fist at him, they don't go to the lake of fire, but they do leave heaven. Yes, this is conjecture to what we don't know.

Everyone who doesn't end up in either the New Heaven or the New Earth will find the Lake of Fire. Right?

 

[Right Divider]

On that day, one of three things will happen...

On what day? It seems that you have invented a "day of decision". That day does not exist.

I am reasonably certain that those three options exhaust every rational possibility but, as I said, if you can refute it or show me another option then I'll be happy to read all about it.

I cannot refute something that does not exist.