Lesser evil/OSAS

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Lesser evil?

Is there such a thing as lesser righteousness, too?:rolleyes:

Bad choice of words. The Mass is wrong. The Lutheran view is incorrect, but not as problematic.

There is no such thing as lesser rigtheousness.

"The lesser of two evils" is a common phrase of comparison. It is not a precise theological concept:rolleyes:






*Moderator's note* This thread is a split from the "Communion: The Lord's Supper" thread.

[Lighthouse]

I know. I'm being obnoxious.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I know. I'm being obnoxious.

You? No way! C'est n'est pas possible!;)

I'm under the weather myself. There was not much activity while you were gone. You did miss some of my brilliant posts. Unfortunately, you do not have time to read them. I always try to catch up so I can understand the flow of the arguments. Glad you are back...sort of;)

Where is sozo?:(

[billwald]

Transsubstantiation makes good sense if one uses Aristotilian methodology.

>Billwald, how does the order of the books change Christian doctrine though?

The primary beef between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was the nature of the prophets and the writings Moses (God) taught that the Torah was the canon and anything which disagreed with Torah was error. Thus anything that came after Moses could only be commentary on Torah or additional information that could not deduced from Torah. This is the teaching of the Sadducees (Priests). The Pharisees wanted the Prophets and Writings included in the Canon (Torah).

Unless Moses (God) lied the NT should be considered as commentary on Torah. Christians get it backwards and use the OT as commentary on the NT. In the same way, some dispensationalists consider Paul as the canon and the Gospels as commentary on Paul. The problem is complicated because even though the Gospels were written after Paul, the Gospel writers were eye witnesses to Jesus' preaching and Paul was not.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by godrulz

There is no such thing as lesser rigtheousness.
:up:
"The lesser of two evils" is a common phrase of comparison. It is not a precise theological concept:rolleyes: Sure it is! Between stealing a pack of gum and murdering a child, stealing a pack of gum is the lesser evil.

Then Pilate said to Him, "Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?"
Jesus answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." John 19:10-11

And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. Luke 12:47-48

You who judged your sisters, bear your own shame also, because the sins which you committed were more abominable than theirs; they are more righteous than you. Yes, be disgraced also, and bear your own shame, because you justified your sisters. Ezekiel 16:52

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
"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 hell as yourselves." Mat. 23:14-15

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." Mat. 11:21-24

In the measure that she glorified herself and lived 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." Rev. 18:7

[godrulz]

There is a difference between two options with one the lesser of the two evils (both bad) and degrees of evil/sin. Thx Turbo.

[Turbo]

:up:

[Sold Out]

Turbo - Which sin is most likely to send a person to hell - stealing or murder?

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Turbo - Which sin is most likely to send a person to hell - stealing or murder? I know that this was addressed to Turbo but I am going to take a shot at it. Nether stealing or murdering will send a person to Hell. :devil:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

I know that this was addressed to Turbo but I am going to take a shot at it. Nether stealing or murdering will send a person to Hell. :devil:

Rejection of the person and work of Christ (unbelief, selfishness, rebellion) is the issue. The variety of sins are just a manifestation of the one root. One sin allows us to fall short of the perfect glory of God and be condemned as sinners separated from God in need of a Savior.

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

Rejection of the person and work of Christ (unbelief, selfishness, rebellion) is the issue. The variety of sins are just a manifestation of the one root. One sin allows us to fall short of the perfect glory of God and be condemned as sinners separated from God in need of a Savior. you got it right for a change!Glory be:cool:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

you got it right for a change!Glory be:cool:

Salvation includes justification, sanctification, glorification (past, present, future). Most evangelical, biblical Protestants agree on justification by grace through faith (though there are different theories on the nature and extent of the cross...e.g. commercial transaction theory, moral government, etc.). Capable, godly evangelicals differ on the nature of sanctification (Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Reformed, etc.). Most believe in a physical resurrection with a glorified body. Perseverance of the saints is generally in the broad camps of Calvinism (TULIP) vs Arminianism (free will theism).

Justification and Deity of Christ are essentials of the faith.
Views on sanctification are not salvific issues unless they compromise justification by faith alone in the person and finished work of Christ.
It is possible to be a godly Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist and know and love God.

The Moravian motto was something about unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and love in all things.

[Lighthouse]

godrulz-
When we, as Christians, fall short of the glory of God, how does that affect our relationship with him?

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

Salvation includes justification, sanctification, glorification (past, present, future). Most evangelical, biblical Protestants agree on justification by grace through faith (though there are different theories on the nature and extent of the cross...e.g. commercial transaction theory, moral government, etc.). Capable, godly evangelicals differ on the nature of sanctification (Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Reformed, etc.). Most believe in a physical resurrection with a glorified body. Perseverance of the saints is generally in the broad camps of Calvinism (TULIP) vs Arminianism (free will theism).

Justification and Deity of Christ are essentials of the faith.
Views on sanctification are not salvific issues unless they compromise justification by faith alone in the person and finished work of Christ.
It is possible to be a godly Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist and know and love God.

The Moravian motto was something about unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and love in all things. I don't really care about calvinism, arminianism, open theism or any other ism you care to name. The only thing that matters to me is the truth of God's word. When people like you insist that they can undo what God has done I get a little upset. I even get more upset when a person as well versed as yourself can't understand the truth and changes the truth into a lie on the basis of some idiot with alphabet soup after his name. Some times I think you are educated beyond your intelligence. You certainly have no spiritual discernment.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

godrulz-
When we, as Christians, fall short of the glory of God, how does that affect our relationship with him?

Trap...run away...run away...Rom. 3:23 = all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...we are condemned as sinners before justification...then we are justified by grace and become believers.

What do you mean by a believer falling short of the glory of God? In the biblical context, it is a reference to unbelievers. Believers are in Christ and are no longer in a state of separation and rebellion.

If you mean what happens when a believer sins in thought, word, motive, deed (technically falling short of God's perfect, holy standard)...then our relationship is not severed. We do not instantly revert to a state of unbelief and condemnation as we were before conversion. We are in Him and He is in us. Like David, sin dulls our joy and intimacy with the Lord. We experience His conviction leading to repentance and a return to peace, joy, and love. Though we were still in relationship with Christ, most honest believers tend to hide due to guilt. He disciplines those He loves (Heb. 12).

If you mean what happens when a believer reverts to persistent unbelief, rebellion, enmity, hatred, Satanism, atheism, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc. and dies in that state....then they are back to a state of falling short of God's glory...they are by definition unbelievers, not believers. You may object that they were never saved then. Really? If they return to Christ, then you would say, well, I guess they were saved then. Tell your story to the heartbroken evangelical parents who have seen little Johnny go from a passionate love for God and ministy for years (with sound doctrine, fruit of the Spirit, profound faith) to immorality, drug addiction, Satanism, and suicide hating God to the last breath? OSAS? God will not be mocked nor will He compromise truth, justice, love, holiness. Those who are in Christ are in relationship/fellowship with Him. Those who reject Christ in the end are in rebellion and will die in their sins (whether they once lived for Him or not).

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

I don't really care about calvinism, arminianism, open theism or any other ism you care to name. The only thing that matters to me is the truth of God's word. When people like you insist that they can undo what God has done I get a little upset. I even get more upset when a person as well versed as yourself can't understand the truth and changes the truth into a lie on the basis of some idiot with alphabet soup after his name. Some times I think you are educated beyond your intelligence. You certainly have no spiritual discernment.

OSAS makes sense in Calvinism's TULIP structure. It involves determinism at the expense of love, freedom, relationship. We agree that the only thing that matters is the truth of God's Word. You underestimate the potential to be influenced by a preconceived theology. If you took time to understand church history and hermeneutics, you might be able to think more critically. My beliefs on conditional eternal security are based on Scripture, not an ism. To understand why the great isms believe the same or not is a tool, not the final authority.

Robert Shank: 'Life in the Son' exegeted relevant passages and came to the opposite conclusion of his Baptist denomination. Like him, I am satisfied that the OSAS texts are proof texts that do not stand up to contextual and grammatical study. The weight of evidence is that apostasy and falling away are warned about in Scripture. We are eternally secure if we are in Him. If we are not in Him, we do not have unconditional security.

Your arguments are more emotional than exegetical. This is not an issue of spiritual discernment (millions of believers pray to God, yet believe contrasting views). It is about rightly dividing the Word using grammatical, contextual, historical, theological, cultural, literal principles (hermeneutics/exegesis). This does not preclude prayerful study, reliance on the Spirit for illumination, or learning from others with biblical expertise in original languages, etc.

OSAS is not a salvific issue (unless you believe the lie that you can hate God and worship Satan and be saved just because you said a sinner's prayer when you were a kid). Let us not be divided by it, but shore up our beliefs from the Word, not from isms.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Trap...run away...run away...Rom. 3:23 = all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...we are condemned as sinners before justification...then we are justified by grace and become believers.

What do you mean by a believer falling short of the glory of God? In the biblical context, it is a reference to unbelievers. Believers are in Christ and are no longer in a state of separation and rebellion.

If you mean what happens when a believer sins in thought, word, motive, deed (technically falling short of God's perfect, holy standard)...then our relationship is not severed. We do not instantly revert to a state of unbelief and condemnation as we were before conversion. We are in Him and He is in us. Like David, sin dulls our joy and intimacy with the Lord. We experience His conviction leading to repentance and a return to peace, joy, and love. Though we were still in relationship with Christ, most honest believers tend to hide due to guilt. He disciplines those He loves (Heb. 12).
At least we're together on this point.

If you mean what happens when a believer reverts to persistent unbelief, rebellion, enmity, hatred, Satanism, atheism, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc. and dies in that state....then they are back to a state of falling short of God's glory...they are by definition unbelievers, not believers. You may object that they were never saved then. Really? If they return to Christ, then you would say, well, I guess they were saved then.
Actually I would believe that they weren't saved the first time. I've solidified a little more on that.

Tell your story to the heartbroken evangelical parents who have seen little Johnny go from a passionate love for God and ministy for years (with sound doctrine, fruit of the Spirit, profound faith) to immorality, drug addiction, Satanism, and suicide hating God to the last breath? OSAS? God will not be mocked nor will He compromise truth, justice, love, holiness. Those who are in Christ are in relationship/fellowship with Him. Those who reject Christ in the end are in rebellion and will die in their sins (whether they once lived for Him or not).
Johnny was never in Christ.

[godrulz]

Sorry...I still do not see why he could not have been in Christ. He may or may not have been in Christ. The end result is the same. He is not in Christ. I think you are clinging to the trees of a preconceived theology that you cannot see the forest of balanced truth.

[Lighthouse]

What I know is that the Life can not be lost.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

What I know is that the Life can not be lost.

Life is product of initial faith. We are dead before we come to Him.

Jn. 3:16, 36

Believe/faith/trust/love= eternal life

Unbelief= no life.

Which state are we in at death? One of faith or unbelief. This determines our destiny. We only have life if we come to Him and remain in Him. He keeps us in Him, but not if we renounce Him. It would be a lie to say we are alive in Him if we reject Him. We cannot reject Him? Why not? Did He remove our wills at conversion so brushing our teeth and sleeping or not sleeping with another man's wife becomes His fault? Oh, that's the flesh. Really? Then you are not responsible/accountable if you could not help it. If he keeps us, why do some sin? Maybe we really do have a mind and will post-conversion, even more free than before conversion?

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

Life is product of initial faith. We are dead before we come to Him.

Jn. 3:16, 36

Believe/faith/trust/love= eternal life

Unbelief= no life.


when does eternal life end godrulz?

and furthermore, how can death have any mastery over someone who has already died and has been raised again? as it is written:

Romans 6:9
knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him

since Christ is never to die again, and it is his life that we have (for we ourselves were dead), how can you say that we can die again?

[godrulz]

Eternal life never ends. Eternal death is also everlasting. Eternal life is not a metaphysical thing in a package inserted into our chest cavity. It is also conditional on being in and remaining in the one who is eternal life.

I Jn. 5:11-13 "...God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son (it is not 'in us'). He who has the Son (present, continuous tense vs past aorist tense...has the Son and continues to have the Son) has life (now and forever, IF we are in the Son...it is not a package of eternal life that is glued to us like crazy glue); He who does not have the Son of God does not have life (I don't think you really believe a former pastor who now worships Satan still has the Son=relationship vs metaphysical change). I write these things to you who believe (present, continuous tense vs aorist...believe and continue to believe=condition of eternal life cf. Jn. 3:16,36) in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life (biblical assurance; biblical eternal security vs OSAS).

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

Eternal life never ends.

so if we have eternal life, then we have life that never ends. does life that never ends, ever end?


Eternal death is also everlasting.

yes, but that is only given at judgement, unlike eternal life which is given now.


Eternal life is not a metaphysical thing in a package inserted into our chest cavity.

it is a description of the state of the life of your new spirit, raised up by God himself.


It is also conditional on being in and remaining in the one who is eternal life.

that's not what i understand eternal life to be, as explained above.


I Jn. 5:11-13 "...God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son (it is not 'in us').

do we not have the "spirit of Christ"?


He who has the Son (present, continuous tense vs past aorist tense...has the Son and continues to have the Son) has life (now and forever, IF we are in the Son...it is not a package of eternal life that is glued to us like crazy glue); He who does not have the Son of God does not have life (I don't think you really believe a former pastor who now worships Satan still has the Son=relationship vs metaphysical change). I write these things to you who believe (present, continuous tense vs aorist...believe and continue to believe=condition of eternal life cf. Jn. 3:16,36) in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life (biblical assurance; biblical eternal security vs OSAS).

remember Galatians 2:20. we no longer live, but Christ lives in us. we died and now it is God who is at work in us. he is our life, we are not our own. since the life in us is not our own and God has declared it to be eternal life (life that never ends) i see no reason to ever think i could lose such life.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Life is product of initial faith. We are dead before we come to Him.

Jn. 3:16, 36

Believe/faith/trust/love= eternal life

Unbelief= no life.

Which state are we in at death? One of faith or unbelief. This determines our destiny. We only have life if we come to Him and remain in Him. He keeps us in Him, but not if we renounce Him. It would be a lie to say we are alive in Him if we reject Him. We cannot reject Him? Why not? Did He remove our wills at conversion so brushing our teeth and sleeping or not sleeping with another man's wife becomes His fault? Oh, that's the flesh. Really? Then you are not responsible/accountable if you could not help it. If he keeps us, why do some sin? Maybe we really do have a mind and will post-conversion, even more free than before conversion?
Why can't you see that anyone who loves Him, only loves Him because of His love?! And His love never fails! No one who truly loves the Lord will ever stop loving Him!

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Why can't you see that anyone who loves Him, only loves Him because of His love?! And His love never fails! No one who truly loves the Lord will ever stop loving Him!

Why can't you see that my previous examples (another thread...love grows cold) show that believers could lapse in their degree of love? Is it Christ's fault that Peter's love wavered? Oh...you will say that was before they were saved like Paul was. Love is love, relationship is relationship, faith is faith, unbelief is unbelief...in any and all dispensations. We love (why?) because He first loved us. Love is a heart response from our will and intellect and emotion. It is possible since we are in the image of God. Do unbelievers love their children? God wants free moral agents who will freely love Him from their hearts. The imperatives exhorting us to love show that we are to love in response to His love. We love because of His love, but it is OUR love, not His love apart from our being. His love never fails, but that does not mean that mere mortals cannot fail or be selfish or hate.

Those who truly love the Lord will continue to love Him. This does not preclude the possibility of not loving, unless it is coerced and foisted on us from God (this is not defensible with any cogent understanding of the concept of love). Life is full of examples of those who once loved, but no longer love. Love is freely chosen and given. Where did you get the idea that love is a thing from God that cannot wax, wane, lapse, or have the equal and opposite choice (Adam was the prototype).

You fail the test of love. Is that God's fault since it is His love in us and not our own love? Oh, it is the flesh? Flesh cannot love or not love. It does not have will/intellect apart from our one will and intellect at the core of our being.

Can someone else help him see the incoherence of his assumptions?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Why can't you see that my previous examples (another thread...love grows cold) show that believers could lapse in their degree of love? Is it Christ's fault that Peter's love wavered? Oh...you will say that was before they were saved like Paul was.
Nope. I will say, that Peter's love never wavered. His total commitment may have, but he never stopped loving the Lord.

Love is love, relationship is relationship, faith is faith, unbelief is unbelief...in any and all dispensations. We love (why?) because He first loved us. Love is a heart response from our will and intellect and emotion. It is possible since we are in the image of God. Do unbelievers love their children? God wants free moral agents who will freely love Him from their hearts. The imperatives exhorting us to love show that we are to love in response to His love. We love because of His love, but it is OUR love, not His love apart from our being. His love never fails, but that does not mean that mere mortals cannot fail or be selfish or hate.
This is sad.:(

Love is not a response form the "heart." It is not some mere emotion. And the love we have for Him comes from Him. And that love DOES NOT FAIL!

Yes, it is a response. But once we are in Him we will always respond to Him. Not because we no longer have a will apart from Him, but because we are affected by His will, over our own!

Those who truly love the Lord will continue to love Him. This does not preclude the possibility of not loving, unless it is coerced and foisted on us from God (this is not defensible with any cogent understanding of the concept of love). Life is full of examples of those who once loved, but no longer love. Love is freely chosen and given. Where did you get the idea that love is a thing from God that cannot wax, wane, lapse, or have the equal and opposite choice (Adam was the prototype).
We choose to love Him, because of His love. And His love affects our love. His love never fails, and our genuine love never does either! And only those who genuinely love the Lord are saved.

You fail the test of love. Is that God's fault since it is His love in us and not our own love? Oh, it is the flesh? Flesh cannot love or not love. It does not have will/intellect apart from our one will and intellect at the core of our being.
What are you talking about?! True love NEVER fails! NEVER!

Flesh=sinful nature, not physical meat on bones, :dunce:.

[godrulz]

Flesh=sinful nature (NIV) is a preconceived 'original sin' (Augustinian) theology. The literal word is flesh, period. It is a metaphor for sin, not a living entity in our being somewhere. Sin is volitional, not a substance. Our natures are formed as we sin (before conversion). The more we sin, the greater our bondage (before Christ). There is not a nature back of our will inherited from Adam that causes us to sin. The will is the seat of sinful choices. We sin because we put bodily, physical, fleshly desires above the things of the Spirit/spirit. One should not give personal attributes to the 'flesh', nor make the mistake the NIV does and equate it with Augustinian original sin.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Flesh=sinful nature (NIV) is a preconceived 'original sin' (Augustinian) theology. The literal word is flesh, period. It is a metaphor for sin, not a living entity in our being somewhere. Sin is volitional, not a substance. Our natures are formed as we sin (before conversion). The more we sin, the greater our bondage (before Christ). There is not a nature back of our will inherited from Adam that causes us to sin. The will is the seat of sinful choices. We sin because we put bodily, physical, fleshly desires above the things of the Spirit/spirit. One should not give personal attributes to the 'flesh', nor make the mistake the NIV does and equate it with Augustinian original sin.
Is that what I said? No, it isn't.:rolleyes:

When I use the term flesh, I do not mean the meat on my bones. I mean the nature of myself that is at war with Christ. The part of me that fights agains who I am in Christ. And when I try to fight it myself, I always lose. But when I allow the victory I have in Christ to stay on my mind, then I don't even have to fight. All of Him, and non of me. I know it is a metaphor for sin, but every time I use it as that you start spouting stupidity about the flesh being inanimate. You can't even keep it straight. My desires for sin struggle against the freedom I have in Christ. And if I focus on the "flesh" I fall. It is only when I focus on Christ that victory is evident. That is the bottom line, and something you need to get through your thick skull.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Is that what I said? No, it isn't.:rolleyes:

When I use the term flesh, I do not mean the meat on my bones. I mean the nature of myself that is at war with Christ. The part of me that fights agains who I am in Christ. And when I try to fight it myself, I always lose. But when I allow the victory I have in Christ to stay on my mind, then I don't even have to fight. All of Him, and non of me. I know it is a metaphor for sin, but every time I use it as that you start spouting stupidity about the flesh being inanimate. You can't even keep it straight. My desires for sin struggle against the freedom I have in Christ. And if I focus on the "flesh" I fall. It is only when I focus on Christ that victory is evident. That is the bottom line, and something you need to get through your thick skull.

I agree with your post and have got it through my thick skull. If one feeds the flesh, it grows stronger. If one starves the flesh and feeds the spirit by focusing on the work of the Spirit, we have victory (this is a limited analogy to support your idea of what we focus on). You have not articulated your ideas like this before. Last time I dared say 'flesh' was a metaphor for sin, you or sozo blasted me like I was denying the reality of sin (cf. 'born again' )?! You have previously described flesh in terms that make one wonder what you really believe. This post sounds like a more moderate position than your older views?

Do you believe in 'original sin'? (side issue, but relevant to a traditional understanding of spirit vs flesh; blindly accepted by most, including Augustine and Catholics who baptize infants to deal with this supposed substance passed on genetically from Adam).

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Turbo - Which sin is most likely to send a person to hell - stealing or murder? Any sin will send one to hell if who does not accept that Christ is Lord and that he died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

For those who are under grace, no sin can send them to hell.

But as the verses I posted indicate, not everyone in hell (or the lake of fire) will experience the same level of torment. It will be proportionate to their sins, which are not all equal despite the clichés that are commonly taught these days.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Turbo

Any sin will send one to hell if who does not accept that Christ is Lord and that he died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

For those who are under grace, no sin can send them to hell.

But as the verses I posted indicate, not everyone in hell (or the lake of fire) will experience the same level of torment. It will be proportionate to their sins, which are not all equal despite the clichés that are commonly taught these days.

Faith vs unbelief determines destiny.

Works vs degree of sin determines rewards and degrees of punishment respectively.

One sin condemns us as sinners.

Some recognize that the sin of unbelief is unique. It cuts us off from the grace and provision of God.

We should not stigmitize one sin over another (i.e. divorce, homosexuality, etc.). The real issue is rejection of Christ, not the various manifestations of rebellion against Him.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by godrulz

Faith vs unbelief determines destiny.

Works vs degree of sin determines rewards and degrees of punishment respectively.

One sin condemns us as sinners.

Some recognize that the sin of unbelief is unique. It cuts us off from the grace and provision of God. OK.

We should not stigmitize one sin over another (i.e. divorce, homosexuality, etc.).Why not? God does, and He told us about it in the Bible.

The real issue is rejection of Christ, not the various manifestations of rebellion against Him. When unbelievers hear Christians saying that all sins are equal in God's eyes, that murder no worse than stealing a Tic Tac, they misrepresent God. And they harden the unbelievers' hearts because intuitively, they recognize that murder is worse and they figure that Christianity is dumb.

Many people reject God who otherwise might not because of innacurate things they hear about Him from Christians. I really don't like that. Let's be diligent to describe God accurately, and if people still reject Him, so be it.

[Rightglory]

Lighthouse,

In reading through this thread I picked some phrases you used in some of your replies to godrulz.

Johnny was never in Christ. If this be so, then any proponent of OSAS, has no security at all. You can think you are saved, you can live the Christian life, but if some event, some calamity should befall you and you reject Christ, then one can also say of you, he was never really saved in the first place. In other words you have no assurance whatsoever.



Love is not a response form the "heart." It is not some mere emotion. And the love we have for Him comes from Him. And that love DOES NOT FAIL! I don't know if you are married or not, but tell that to your wife. Paul compares the relationship of the Church to Christ and a marriage. Love of one is self-reciprocating. It is not that the other gives love for the other to give back so that it is your love to your wife that comes back to you.

Yes, it is a response. But once we are in Him we will always respond to Him. Not because we no longer have a will apart from Him, but because we are affected by His will, over our own! You will never find this in scripture. This a a mild form of fatalism, or pantheism. We are not robots whereby we have lost our Image in God. God does not take away the very thing that makes us human beings. Animals have more freedom than that in relation to God. They operate by instinct, a written law within their nature.

My desires for sin struggle against the freedom I have in Christ. And if I focus on the "flesh" I fall. It is only when I focus on Christ that victory is evident.
This is not correct phrasology of the issue of freedom. Believers struggle between the flesh and the spirit. This war is the result of the freedom we have through Christ. Christ removed the bondage for all of mankind. Everyman has this freedom through Christ. Freedom to freely love and obey and believe in Him or not to. That freedom is never coerced nor is it every locked. It would no longer be free.

Furthermore, if you sincerely believe what you stated regarding your struggle, then you are contradicting your view of OSAS. An OSAS believer has no struggle once they are saved. What could possibly remove them from that locked in status. What you do state, at least others of that view, is that one loses fellowship, but not relationship. However, that is not in the Bible anywhere as well. You also state you lose rewards. Just for the record, could you possible list these rewards. I have never been able to find them in scripture, yet they are referred to all the time by OSAS proponents.

Again the logic of this view must necessitate that if, as you say, God's will overrides man's, then what you actually do is God's will. This also means that when you sin, God is actually sinning for you since you no longer have control of any will or means of volition. How do you get around making God evil and sinful?
Or, you can take the view that a believer does not actually sin. Can you support that in scripture then as well.

Just some things to think about.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Turbo

OK.

Why not? God does, and He told us about it in the Bible.

When unbelievers hear Christians saying that all sins are equal in God's eyes, that murder no worse than stealing a Tic Tac, they misrepresent God. And they harden the unbelievers' hearts because intuitively, they recognize that murder is worse and they figure that Christianity is dumb.

Many people reject God who otherwise might not because of innacurate things they hear about Him from Christians. I really don't like that. Let's be diligent to describe God accurately, and if people still reject Him, so be it.

I also reject the idea that all sins are equally heinous. This is self-evident. Jesus was not saying lust had an identical effect as lust necessarily.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rightglory

Lighthouse,

In reading through this thread I picked some phrases you used in some of your replies to godrulz.

If this be so, then any proponent of OSAS, has no security at all. You can think you are saved, you can live the Christian life, but if some event, some calamity should befall you and you reject Christ, then one can also say of you, he was never really saved in the first place. In other words you have no assurance whatsoever.



I don't know if you are married or not, but tell that to your wife. Paul compares the relationship of the Church to Christ and a marriage. Love of one is self-reciprocating. It is not that the other gives love for the other to give back so that it is your love to your wife that comes back to you.

You will never find this in scripture. This a a mild form of fatalism, or pantheism. We are not robots whereby we have lost our Image in God. God does not take away the very thing that makes us human beings. Animals have more freedom than that in relation to God. They operate by instinct, a written law within their nature.


This is not correct phrasology of the issue of freedom. Believers struggle between the flesh and the spirit. This war is the result of the freedom we have through Christ. Christ removed the bondage for all of mankind. Everyman has this freedom through Christ. Freedom to freely love and obey and believe in Him or not to. That freedom is never coerced nor is it every locked. It would no longer be free.

Furthermore, if you sincerely believe what you stated regarding your struggle, then you are contradicting your view of OSAS. An OSAS believer has no struggle once they are saved. What could possibly remove them from that locked in status. What you do state, at least others of that view, is that one loses fellowship, but not relationship. However, that is not in the Bible anywhere as well. You also state you lose rewards. Just for the record, could you possible list these rewards. I have never been able to find them in scripture, yet they are referred to all the time by OSAS proponents.

Again the logic of this view must necessitate that if, as you say, God's will overrides man's, then what you actually do is God's will. This also means that when you sin, God is actually sinning for you since you no longer have control of any will or means of volition. How do you get around making God evil and sinful?
Or, you can take the view that a believer does not actually sin. Can you support that in scripture then as well.

Just some things to think about.

You are on the right track. OSAS is more problematic than proponents realize. Conditional eternal security is strong on eternal security for the believer, but also affirms other equally valid truths relating to love, freedom, and relationship.

It is ironic that Calvinists really are not as secure as they think. They cannot know for sure that they will not end up renouncing Christ, supposedly proving they were never saved to begin with. This may or may not be true. There is nothing, except a preconceived theology and questionable exegesis, to necessitate that somone who ceases to love or believe must never have truly loved or believed at a prior point in space-time history. We must avoid anything that smacks of fatalistic determinism to be biblical.

It still strikes me as odd that an Open Theist (usually closer to free will theism than determinism) would lean to OSAS so dogmatically. The future is open, even to the point that it was not known who would be saved in the end, trillions of years before the event.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

I agree with your post and have got it through my thick skull. If one feeds the flesh, it grows stronger. If one starves the flesh and feeds the spirit by focusing on the work of the Spirit, we have victory (this is a limited analogy to support your idea of what we focus on). You have not articulated your ideas like this before. Last time I dared say 'flesh' was a metaphor for sin, you or sozo blasted me like I was denying the reality of sin (cf. 'born again' )?! You have previously described flesh in terms that make one wonder what you really believe. This post sounds like a more moderate position than your older views?
How do you starve the flesh? By avoiding the lusts of the flesh, or by focusing on the Spirit, and allowing Him to lead you so you don't follow the lusts of the flesh?

Do you believe in 'original sin'? (side issue, but relevant to a traditional understanding of spirit vs flesh; blindly accepted by most, including Augustine and Catholics who baptize infants to deal with this supposed substance passed on genetically from Adam).
I'm not sure what my specific stance is on this yet. But I do know that infant baptism is preposterous, and that those who die before understanding right from wrong do not go to hell.

[God_Is_Truth]

godrulz, post #23 hasn't been responded to.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

godrulz, post #23 hasn't been responded to.

My posts stand. Your posts stand. We agree on most, but come to different conclusions. We have life if we are in the Son and the Spirit indwells us. This life includes being in relationship with Christ and continuing in the faith. If we later reject Christ and His finished work, renounce the faith, revert to atheism, etc., there is no sense that we still have the Son, Spirit, and life. He will never leave or forsake us. This does not preclude the possibility of us stiffening our necks and hearts to the point of rejecting love, truth, grace. Eternal life is in the Son. It is not resident in us apart from the Son. Being in the Son is conditioned on walking in the light as He is in the light, trusting, loving for longer than uttering a sinner's prayer in the remote past.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

My posts stand. Your posts stand. We agree on most, but come to different conclusions. We have life if we are in the Son and the Spirit indwells us.

than i shall just say thanks for discussing this with me and i look forward to discussing further things with you in days to come. :)


This life includes being in relationship with Christ and continuing in the faith.

the life is not our own and is not sustained by our own efforts.


If we later reject Christ and His finished work, renounce the faith, revert to atheism, etc., there is no sense that we still have the Son, Spirit, and life.

it's not up to us as to whether or not we keep the Spirit, Son and the Life. those were put there by God and only by God are they removed.


He will never leave or forsake us.

think about that for a second. you say he will never leave us and never forsake us. how can you then say that we would ever cease to have life in him? to lose the life that he gives us would require him forsaking us by definition. do you see the contradiction your position implies? you hold that God will never leave us, but that we also can lose salvation which by definition means God has forsaken us.


This does not preclude the possibility of us stiffening our necks and hearts to the point of rejecting love, truth, grace.

it does if he will never forsake us.


Eternal life is in the Son.

and the Son is in us.


It is not resident in us apart from the Son.

agreed.


Being in the Son is conditioned on walking in the light as He is in the light, trusting, loving for longer than uttering a sinner's prayer in the remote past.

if that's true, then the promise of him never leaving us is void and false.

[godrulz]

God will never leave or forsake us in the sense that He will not initiate this. He would have never 'left' Adam or the human race if we had not first rebelled. The promise is that God is faithful, not fickle. He will not up and leave us without cause. This should not be taken as a wooden literalism (where is the verse again?), but as a promise of His faithfulness. It does not contradict nor preclude the other verses that have a conditional element or allow us to forsake Him and come out from under His grace to return to the pigpen/vomit. We cannot sever the relationship and take God by surprise. He determines when we finally, defiantly reject the light to return to darkness. As God, He knows when we have crossed the line to the point of no return (death usually).

I promise to never leave or forsake my wife at marriage. I may never leave her in my intention or reality. However, if she was unfaithful and we could not be reconciled, we could divorce and I could grant this request. She remarries and our relationship is dead (thankfully this is not a true story, though played out constantly in the real world). Though I intended to never leave her and was faithful to MY promises, she short-circuited this. Her free will resulted in a change that ultimately undermined my promises and intentions. I could refuse to divorce her, but the reality is that the relationship could be beyond repair as she moves in with the other guy for years to come.

God is faithful, but it does not preclude us from being faithless. If we become wicked and return to a state of unbelief, His faithful promises will turn to rejection and judgment against our rebellion and return to a godless life. To say we are saved still, despite our unbelief and renunciation of the faith, is not consistent with NT teaching on falling away and apostasy. God remained faithful, but we reaped the consequences of unbelief.

God is the perfect parent, yet Israel, Lucifer, and Adam became imperfect. Our rebellion does not diminish God's provision or character. There is consequences to rebellion even to the point of separation from God for eternity.

[HopeofGlory]

godrulz,

Do you think that YOU will ever reject the light and return to darkness? Please explain why or why not.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

godrulz,

Do you think that YOU will ever reject the light and return to darkness? Please explain why or why not.

I personally do not believe I ever WOULD reject the light and return to darkness. I believe I theoretically COULD, but would not. I do not doubt my Savior nor my salvation. He is able to keep me from falling (Jude 24, 25). His love and grace are powerful influences. I have tasted and seen the goodness of the Lord. I have no desire for my former life. The grass is greener. It would be supreme stupidity and selfishness if I did fall away. His truth is so strong in my life, that He would no doubt convict me and convince me to return to fellowship/relationship. Despite lapses in motive, thought, word, or deed, my heart intention is to live supremely for the Lord.

My experience is the norm for those who have been transformed by the Spirit after repentant faith.

There is another category of people who were convicted sinners. They were no longer careless sinners. Yet, they did not yield to Christ and receive Him as Lord and Savior. They were close to the kingdom, but not converted. If they totally walk away they will be lost since they were never really saved.

The other category is a converted sinner who came in repentant faith. They are believers and had the assurance of the Spirit. They had the Son, so they had life. Some of these fell away or apostasized. Apart from Calvinism's TULIP, these believers ended up in a state of unbelief and godlessness. They are not OSAS no matter how much a preconceived theology says so. The loophole is to say that ALL such cases were never saved. I do not believe this is self-evident, defensible, nor biblical.

Some attempt undermine the security of believers who reject OSAS by saying we are depending on ourselves. They wonder who can be saved. Calvinism's TULIP seems to offer security, yet many wonder if they really are the elect based on knowing their own weak hearts. Those in their churches who leave the faith are said to have never been saved, yet they seemed to have the same evidence as those who remained. Doubt and lack of assurance can also creep into this scenario.

Those who purpose to love, know, trust, serve God will experience is saving and keeping power. Despite struggle, nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ. Those who sit on the fence and think they can live like the devil just because they got saved in their past, are mocking God and living a lie. They are in danger of being sifted by the enemy of our souls. If they do not attend to their spiritual life, they may be slowly deceived and seduced back to their former state. They will not be lost unless they willfully, defiantly reject the person and work of Christ in the end.

[HopeofGlory]

Godrulz,

What is it that separates you from the category of repentant sinners that fall away, did you receive some other gift than they?

You say you have tasted the heavenly gift and that Christ is able to keep you therefore you believe you will not fall away (security).

You say it is possible that you COULD (not secure) but I want to know more about why you believe you never WOULD yet others will. It seems you are double minded in your thinking.

Security is not possible for those who believe they COULD.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

Godrulz,

What is it that separates you from the category of repentant sinners that fall away, did you receive some other gift than they?

You say you have tasted the heavenly gift and that Christ is able to keep you therefore you believe you will not fall away (security).

You say it is possible that you COULD (not secure) but I want to know more about why you believe you never WOULD yet others will. It seems you are double minded in your thinking.

Security is not possible for those who believe they COULD.

Hope: Are you coming from a Calvinistic perspective or Mid-Acts or something else? Other threads such as "Always Saved?" would give more Scripture and argumentation.

Salvation is a love relationship with God through Christ. It is not a gift in a box that is wrapped and placed in a vault in our bodies somewhere.

We both received Christ, but only those who continue to love, trust, and follow Him can be said to be in right relationship in the end. The essence of reconcilitation/redemption is knowing God, the key to eternal life (Jn. 17:3; I Jn. 5:11-13).

We chose to respond to or reject the Gospel message (Jn. 1:12 vs Lk. 7:30). The Spirit convinces and convicts, but some resist and refuse and are not saved. I will not fall away, because I chose to love, trust, and obey Him until the end. He is able to keep me from falling. I know His grace. I do not desire to leave Him and know He will not leave me.

Hebrews talks about those who returned to Judaism instead of Christ. Other books talk about the various heresies and deceptions that could snare a believer. Jesus talked about various soils and results in response to the Gospel. I Jn. 2:15-17 gives 3 reasons a believer may be lured back to their former life.

I believe Judas and Charles Templeton are two examples of believers that fell away (among many others).

Security is conditional. I believe in conditional, biblical eternal security in Christ. It is not possible to be secure if one is outside Christ. Again, the root issue is if a believer can revert back to rebellion and unbelief. Unless you categorically deny free will, intellect, and emotions (personal, moral, spiritual image of God), it should be possible to move from unbelief to belief and belief to unbelief (involves will and intellect). If I put my money in a bank that had a deposit guarantee, the money is secure. The bank is fully responsible for it. If I take it out of the bank and put it under my mattress, it is no longer secure. This is not the bank's fault nor does it reflect on their faithfulness. This is a limited analogy. Our marriage is secure IF we freely enter into it and freely maintain it in mutual love and commitment. One unfaithful party can thwart the faithfulness of the other party to keep the bonds and relationship together. Salvation is not unilateral nor passive. There are two parties in a reconciled relationship. God's provision and power are not in question. What is in question is free moral agency and the potential stupidity and selfishness of man.

Do you believe an evangelical Christian can be deceived and pursue Mormonism or a New Age Christ? Do they have fire insurance just because they grew up in the faith and walked with God? Is there any responsibility and accountability for renouncing the living Christ to trust a counterfeit or false religion for salvation? Is it fair to say that because someone becomes a Buddhist they could never have been a genuine Christian (a Buddhist can become a believer, so why can't a believer become a Buddhist)? Can a believer renounce Christ for a myriad of reasons and still be saved? If so, how are they different than their preconversion state of the other deceived people?

Falling away is not a minor lapse. It is a defiant rebellion against great light (Heb. 6:4-6).

The proof texts for unconditional eternal security or just proof texts for the security of the believer who believes and continues to believe (Greek present, continuous tense). They do not negate the legitimate warnings and conditional verses (see whole context around proof texts). We must do what Robert Shank did in "Life in the Son: A study of the doctrine of perseverance". He exegeted verses that seem to support OSAS and the ones that seem to support conditional eternal security (ironically, both camps claimed some of the same verses...resolved with correct translation and interpretation). We must guard against our pre-conceived theologies and follow all the evidence.

Security is possible for those who would continue to follow Christ (whether they could or could not fall away). There will be as many or more Arminian-Wesleyan (non-OSAS) believers in heaven as there will be OSAS Calvinists (in fact, many in the Reformed-Calvin tradition will not make it since they presume they are covenant children...there parents were Christians, so they must be....since they are OSAS, they can live like the devil and show up to church and put on a show...this can happen in any denomination, but the fruits of Calvinism can be problematic sometimes, but not necessarily).

[Rightglory]

HopeofGlory & godrulz,

Very excellant responses, godrulz,

Some additional comments regarding two concepts that OSAS proponents use constantly and are clearly shown in scripture to be false.

First, God will never leave nor forsake us, Hebrews 13:5

First lets look at the Hebrews 13:5 text. In Vs 4 it says that God will judge. Will judge if you become fornicators, adulterers etc. What it means is that if one remains content, that is being not in sin. Also look at the next verse, 13:6 is quoted above, it applies to this "never leave you" quote with the word so. So it is connected. "The LORD is my helper", not the covetousness (loving money). So if you keep obeying God and listening to His warnings, then He won't leave you, but if you start the practice of sin, He will leave you and you will need to repent again.

Then let's look at the quote which is a phrase from the OT.
Knowing where it comes from has some important points to know. The Lord spoke to Joshua, "I will not leave you nor forsake you" (Joshua 1:5). Before that, "He will not leave you nor forsake you" is what Moses told the people and then Moses told it to Joshua (Deut. 31:6,8). The reason Moses said this is because he just told the people that the Lord told him that he would not cross over the Jordan. Moses was giving them assurance of their crossing without him. It doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want (like being a fornicator, adulterer, or coveter), and God will never leave us.
In fact, after this word was given through Moses to the people, the Lord said this in Deut. 31:16,17 - "Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured." We see that God said that He would forsake them because of their sin. So people should not be preaching that God will never leave you nor forsake you no matter what you do, because we just saw the truth of God saying otherwise. True, it's in Hebrews 13:5, but if you take it out of context by not mentioning the verse before and after it, then you could be preaching the license to sin.
So, is context important. Do we have a license to pluck texts out of the Bible in support of presuppositions and attempt to make them seem correct by misusing scripture?


The second one is this contrast of fellowship and relationship. In the Bible they are the same. They are never contrasted. See I John 1:3ff. Here the use of the word fellowship is clearly being in union with Christ and that is also our relationship. We are sons of God, we are co-heirs all describe relationship. Never does it say that we can be out of fellowship and still remain in the relationship. Without fellowship we have no relationship with Christ. You cannot have fellowship with Satan and still say that our relationship with Christ is intact. It is blasphemy to do so.

[godrulz]

Context is king. You are right that it is disingenuous to quote the verse that says that God will not forsake us without quoting the verse that says He will forsake us. The 'conditional' motif is found in Scripture, but will be missed if we proof text verses without sensitivity to context and other equally relevant verses.

Our relationship with God is based on truth and reality. It is not based on a binding, unconditional legal contract. Some covenants were unconditional, while others were conditional (cf. Abrahamic, Noahic, Davidic, etc.). i.e. it is specious to claim we are in right relationship and reconciled to God based on OSAS despite renouncing Him in favor of false religion or godlessness.

[HopeofGlory]

godrulz,

I hold to no canned version of theology but I do believe in a progressive revelation of God's word with man progressively understanding it. I would rather understand you than argue with you about interpretation of scripture.

You continue to be double minded in your responses and I find it hard to believe you don't realize it unless words have no meaning.

It is God that opens the eyes of our understanding by giving us the spirit of wisdom and revelation of him (Eph 1:17-18). Through this understanding we know it is impossible to turn away.

We hear the gospel but we must first realize we are sinners with out hope in need of redemption. The penalty for sin is death and it is Christ that paid the price of our sin with his blood. If we willingly accept that reveal truth salvation is freely given and it is then that we truly love God because He first loved us.

This knowledge of God abides in us and it cannot be forgotten and nothing in this world can compare to His love. I want you to understand that I love God because He first loved me and I know he will continue because He loved me at my worst and this is why I will not fall away. It is not a choice I make but a love that I cannot within myself deny.

If it were possible to turn away from the revealed love of God I know not what type of human could but I am sure he could not have experienced God's forgiving love.

I still don't know why you believe you will never turn away but others who have experienced the same will. I don't want analogies or examples of others that assumed did. I want to know what you personally feel within you sets you apart from the ones that will turn away.

[godrulz]

The difference between those who respond to or reject Christ involves the heart and will. God creating free moral agents is a double-edged sword. The possibility of love, freedom, and relationship involves the equal possibility of hate/selfishness, bondage, and alienation. This is true before or after conversion, unless we become less free after conversion.

I agree with the strong influence of God's love and power. For it to be genuine love, relationship, free, and accountable, it must not be causative nor coerced. God's love is wooing, persuasive, influential, drawing. It is not unilateral, coerced, causative.

By definition, love relationships must be freely entered into and maintained. I believe it is a cooperative effort initiated by God (synergism vs monergism). We love because He first loved us. His love is shed abroad in our hearts. We respond to His commands and exhortations. This is possible because we are in the image of God and involves will and intellect. There is no accountability without choice.

At stake are biblical and normative definitions of love, freedom, relationship, etc.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

God will never leave or forsake us in the sense that He will not initiate this.

that isn't what the word "never" means. it means if we run away from him, he doesn't run away from us. he chases after us, he follows us. we may turn our back to him, but he never turns his back to us. he never leaves us.


He would have never 'left' Adam or the human race if we had not first rebelled.

why do you believe he left adam at all? adam was not saved before the fall by the way. to be saved, you must first be fallen and adam was obviously not that before the fall :duh:


The promise is that God is faithful, not fickle. He will not up and leave us without cause.

if God says he will never leave us, but then on some occasions does so, he is a liar and unable to be trusted. is that the God you believe in?


This should not be taken as a wooden literalism (where is the verse again?)

Hebrews 13:5


but as a promise of His faithfulness. It does not contradict nor preclude the other verses that have a conditional element or allow us to forsake Him and come out from under His grace to return to the pigpen/vomit.

ah, but you see, i don't believe any verses applicable to believers suggest such a thing!


We cannot sever the relationship and take God by surprise. He determines when we finally, defiantly reject the light to return to darkness. As God, He knows when we have crossed the line to the point of no return (death usually).

we all crossed the "point of no return" the moment we first sinned. after that, there is no hope for us. our only "hope" is that God will reach down and save us. by his grace, he does do this.

but why do you then add another "point of no return"? if we are in Christ, and all our sins are paid for, how could we ever be condemned again? Christ would have to be condemned if we are to ever be condemned for it is his life we have!


I promise to never leave or forsake my wife at marriage. I may never leave her in my intention or reality. However, if she was unfaithful and we could not be reconciled, we could divorce and I could grant this request. She remarries and our relationship is dead (thankfully this is not a true story, though played out constantly in the real world). Though I intended to never leave her and was faithful to MY promises, she short-circuited this. Her free will resulted in a change that ultimately undermined my promises and intentions. I could refuse to divorce her, but the reality is that the relationship could be beyond repair as she moves in with the other guy for years to come.

and that is exactly what happened with God and Israel, but remember that Israel has not been completely cut off, they have only been set aside. what makes you think God would do differently with the body of Christ, especially when it deals with something much more important (salvation)? God does not have a double standard does he?


God is faithful

AMEN!


but it does not preclude us from being faithless. If we become wicked and return to a state of unbelief, His faithful promises will turn to rejection and judgment

absolutely not. we, as the body of Christ, have already been judged. there can never again be judgement for us because every single sin against us has been paid for. our case in court was thrown out the window and can never be brought forth again so long as Christ lives. unless you are willing to say Christ will at some point cease living, you cannot hold that we as Christians can somehow be judged again.


against our rebellion and return to a godless life. To say we are saved still, despite our unbelief and renunciation of the faith, is not consistent with NT teaching on falling away and apostasy. God remained faithful, but we reaped the consequences of unbelief.

it may not be consistent with the entire NT, but it is quite consistent with the letters of Paul, our apostle.


God is the perfect parent, yet Israel, Lucifer, and Adam became imperfect.

i wouldn't say Lucifer was ever a child of God. ;)


Our rebellion does not diminish God's provision or character.

AMEN!


There is consequences to rebellion even to the point of separation from God for eternity.

i do not believe this is the case as i have explained above.

GIT

[godrulz]

Israel was not forsaken corporately. The Church will never be forsaken. Some in Israel were not of Israel according to Paul. God will not reject His corporate people, but individuals can remove themselves from the people of God and relationship with Him. We are saved in Christ and with His Church. If we are not in Christ or the Church, we are not saved.

Comments on Rightglory's contextual interpretation of Heb. 13:5? God promised to never leave us, yet He said He would forsake those who rebel against Him.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

Israel was not forsaken corporately. The Church will never be forsaken. Some in Israel were not of Israel according to Paul. God will not reject His corporate people, but individuals can remove themselves from the people of God and relationship with Him. We are saved in Christ and with His Church. If we are not in Christ or the Church, we are not saved.

here is one point i wish to focus on. what are your thoughts on this part of my post:


we, as the body of Christ, have already been judged. there can never again be judgement for us because every single sin against us has been paid for. our case in court was thrown out the window and can never be brought forth again so long as Christ lives. unless you are willing to say Christ will at some point cease living, you cannot hold that we as Christians can somehow be judged again.


read it carefully and tell me what part specifically you disagree with and for what reason, again as specific as you can.


Comments on Rightglory's contextual interpretation of Heb. 13:5? God promised to never leave us, yet He said He would forsake those who rebel against Him.

i'll take a look at it shortly.

[godrulz]

The literal payment/commercial transaction theory of the atonement is flawed. It logically leads to universalism. Our past sins certainly are forgiven. He will not bring them up again. I would distinguish various sins such as adultery and murder from the sin of unbelief. If someone is in a state of supreme selfishness, rebellion, defiance, renunciation, godlessness, etc., then they are not in Christ nor in the faith. Their unbelief is a barrier to appropriating the provisions of Christ. The issue again comes back to whether a genuine believer can revert to a state of unbelief, apostasy, or falling away. If they can, then the sin of unbelief becomes the issue, not the fact that they once believed and experienced His grace and forgiveness.

If we remain in Him, our past sins will never be judged again. There is no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus (not just a past state, but our present and future experience also). Following Christ does not give immunity from the consequences of future sins. There is provision, as in initial salvation, but it must be appropriated...i.e. if someone falls away or rejects Christ, they would need to be restored to come under the covenant of grace again (I am not talking about isolated lapses into sin, but horrific unbelief). I John, carefully exegeted, is relevant to our discussion.

I usually resonate with your keen mind and am sympathetic with your beliefs. This is one area we are not seeing eye to eye. C'est la vie:cool:

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rightglory
First lets look at the Hebrews 13:5 text. In Vs 4 it says that God will judge. Will judge if you become fornicators, adulterers etc.

yes it does.


What it means is that if one remains content, that is being not in sin.

how did you come up with that from verse 4?


Also look at the next verse, 13:6 is quoted above, it applies to this "never leave you" quote with the word so. So it is connected.

verse 5 is the basis of verse 6, yes.


"The LORD is my helper", not the covetousness (loving money).

i fail to see how you got to that statement.


So if you keep obeying God and listening to His warnings, then He won't leave you, but if you start the practice of sin, He will leave you and you will need to repent again.

so far, absolutely nothing you've shown here indicates that.


Then let's look at the quote which is a phrase from the OT.
Knowing where it comes from has some important points to know.

sounds great. :up:


The Lord spoke to Joshua, "I will not leave you nor forsake you" (Joshua 1:5). Before that, "He will not leave you nor forsake you" is what Moses told the people and then Moses told it to Joshua (Deut. 31:6,8).

sounds good to me :thumb:


The reason Moses said this is because he just told the people that the Lord told him that he would not cross over the Jordan. Moses was giving them assurance of their crossing without him. It doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want (like being a fornicator, adulterer, or coveter), and God will never leave us.

there is no indication in the text that suggests that God would leave us if we are unfaithful. your verses are given as truth because of the character of God, not on the condition of the hearts of the people. in other words, God isn't going with them because of the goodness in them (since there is none), but because he is good.


In fact, after this word was given through Moses to the people, the Lord said this in Deut. 31:16,17 - "Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured." We see that God said that He would forsake them because of their sin.

you would have a valid point, if we were still under the law like Israel. this point illustrates quite well that the people of Israel had no real security. if anything, you are actually arguing for dispensationalism with this point. we are the body of Christ and over and over in Paul's letters we read about how we are eternally secure in Christ. how we have died with him, how we will certainly be raised from him, how all our sins were paid for, how we no longer live but Christ in us and how his righteousness is now our own.


So people should not be preaching that God will never leave you nor forsake you no matter what you do, because we just saw the truth of God saying otherwise.

we saw the truth of that in regards to Israel, but not to the body of Christ.


True, it's in Hebrews 13:5, but if you take it out of context by not mentioning the verse before and after it, then you could be preaching the license to sin.

anybody who thinks having all their sins forgiven means they have a license to sin is a fool and understands nothing.


So, is context important. Do we have a license to pluck texts out of the Bible in support of presuppositions and attempt to make them seem correct by misusing scripture?

absolutely not.


The second one is this contrast of fellowship and relationship. In the Bible they are the same. They are never contrasted.

while i have not studied that out myself, i will take you at your word and accept it for the time being.


See I John 1:3ff. Here the use of the word fellowship is clearly being in union with Christ and that is also our relationship. We are sons of God, we are co-heirs all describe relationship.

being a son doesn't just describe the relationship, it is a focus point of it. it is because we are sons that we are co-heirs. the word never says we are like sons, but rather it says we actually are sons.


Never does it say that we can be out of fellowship and still remain in the relationship.

does being out of fellowship with my earthly father negate my being his son?


Without fellowship we have no relationship with Christ.

i deny this. just as i do not lose my sonship when i lose fellowship with my earthly father, neither do i lose my sonship if i lose fellowship with my heavenly father.


You cannot have fellowship with Satan and still say that our relationship with Christ is intact. It is blasphemy to do so.

the relationship may not be "in tact" but you would not cease to be a son.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

The literal payment/commercial transaction theory of the atonement is flawed. It logically leads to universalism.

that or unconditional election. however, i don't believe i was stating the literal payment/commercial transaction in my post.


Our past sins certainly are forgiven. He will not bring them up again.

not once do we ever read "and the Lord Jesus forgave us only of our past sins". what we do read is "having forgiven us of ALL our sins". if we have a sin, it is forgiven. keep in mind that we have the life of Christ, his righteousness within us. since Christ eternally lives, he eternally cleanses us. at the moment of faith we are made perfectly clean. from that point on, we are continually cleansed of all future sins as they come upon us because Christ is ever presently keeping us clean of them. he always lives to intercede for us, on our behalf. so long as he lives, he makes provision for our sin.


I would distinguish various sins such as adultery and murder from the sin of unbelief.

if it's a sin, it's paid for by Christ, for he paid for all sins.


If someone is in a state of supreme selfishness, rebellion, defiance, renunciation, godlessness, etc., then they are not in Christ nor in the faith.

we cannot know that for sure, but is more than likely.


Their unbelief is a barrier to appropriating the provisions of Christ.

yes, their unwillingness to put faith in Christ keeps them from being saved.


The issue again comes back to whether a genuine believer can revert to a state of unbelief, apostasy, or falling away. If they can, then the sin of unbelief becomes the issue, not the fact that they once believed and experienced His grace and forgiveness.

the question really is, how many sins were paid for by Jesus for the believer?


If we remain in Him, our past sins will never be judged again.

how can the same sin be paid for a second time? if a thief steals a million dollars, is judged guilty and serves his time in jail, can the court ever call him back (after being set free) to serve the punishment again when no further crime has been committed?


There is no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus (not just a past state, but our present and future experience also). Following Christ does not give immunity from the consequences of future sins.

Christ does not save us from future sins? :shocked:


There is provision, as in initial salvation, but it must be appropriated...i.e. if someone falls away or rejects Christ, they would need to be restored to come under the covenant of grace again (I am not talking about isolated lapses into sin, but horrific unbelief). I John, carefully exegeted, is relevant to our discussion.

why are some taken care of by Christ and not others?


I usually resonate with your keen mind and am sympathetic with your beliefs. This is one area we are not seeing eye to eye. C'est la vie:cool:

i think i'd be worried if i ever meet someone with whom i agree on all things on actually. disagreement keeps us all honest and so long as we are peaceful, kind, gentle and show grace to one another, we can benefit and learn from one another. nobody has it all right which is why we should always use humility with one another.

May the love of the Lord be with you through all your days.

Peacefully,

GIT

[godrulz]

There is provision for future sins. His death is efficacious for the penalty of all sin. The Bible does not teach forgiveness of non-existent sins before they are committed, nor forgiveness while the sins are persisted in. Repentance is a strong concept in the OT and NT. He wants to not only forgive our sins, but He wants to free us from their power to keep us in bondage contrary to His holiness. We will ultimately be freed from the very presence of sin when we are glorified and this world system is judged.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

There is provision for future sins. His death is efficacious for the penalty of all sin. The Bible does not teach forgiveness of non-existent sins before they are committed, nor forgiveness while the sins are persisted in.

what would keep God from forgiving us of a sin at any time if Christ has already paid for it?


Repentance is a strong concept in the OT and NT.

yes, but repentence is never commanded to believers as something to take away sins.


He wants to not only forgive our sins, but He wants to free us from their power to keep us in bondage contrary to His holiness. We will ultimately be freed from the very presence of sin when we are glorified and this world system is judged.

the bible states we already have been free from sin, not that we will be someday.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Rightglory

HopeofGlory & godrulz,

Very excellant responses, godrulz,

Some additional comments regarding two concepts that OSAS proponents use constantly and are clearly shown in scripture to be false.

First, God will never leave nor forsake us, Hebrews 13:5

First lets look at the Hebrews 13:5 text. In Vs 4 it says that God will judge. Will judge if you become fornicators, adulterers etc. What it means is that if one remains content, that is being not in sin. Also look at the next verse, 13:6 is quoted above, it applies to this "never leave you" quote with the word so. So it is connected. "The LORD is my helper", not the covetousness (loving money). So if you keep obeying God and listening to His warnings, then He won't leave you, but if you start the practice of sin, He will leave you and you will need to repent again.
1] You're so full of crap I'm surprised you don't have a closet solely for Metamucil.
2] What version are you using?
3] Hebrews 6: 4-6 [the same book] says, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. This means that you can not repent again. You can only repent once. What do you think that means?

Then let's look at the quote which is a phrase from the OT.
Knowing where it comes from has some important points to know. The Lord spoke to Joshua, "I will not leave you nor forsake you" (Joshua 1:5). Before that, "He will not leave you nor forsake you" is what Moses told the people and then Moses told it to Joshua (Deut. 31:6,8). The reason Moses said this is because he just told the people that the Lord told him that he would not cross over the Jordan. Moses was giving them assurance of their crossing without him. It doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want (like being a fornicator, adulterer, or coveter), and God will never leave us.
In fact, after this word was given through Moses to the people, the Lord said this in Deut. 31:16,17 - "Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured." We see that God said that He would forsake them because of their sin. So people should not be preaching that God will never leave you nor forsake you no matter what you do, because we just saw the truth of God saying otherwise. True, it's in Hebrews 13:5, but if you take it out of context by not mentioning the verse before and after it, then you could be preaching the license to sin.
So, is context important. Do we have a license to pluck texts out of the Bible in support of presuppositions and attempt to make them seem correct by misusing scripture?
You don't have a clue what eternal security is. It is not that we are saved even if we live in sin, it is that we are free from sin, and do not live in it anymore! We are set free from the power of sin in our lives, and the condemnation when we do fail, because we always will. But being free in Christ does not mean that we are in Christ if we live in sin. It means that when we are in Christ we do not live in sin, because He has set us free!:doh:

The second one is this contrast of fellowship and relationship. In the Bible they are the same. They are never contrasted. See I John 1:3ff. Here the use of the word fellowship is clearly being in union with Christ and that is also our relationship. We are sons of God, we are co-heirs all describe relationship. Never does it say that we can be out of fellowship and still remain in the relationship. Without fellowship we have no relationship with Christ. You cannot have fellowship with Satan and still say that our relationship with Christ is intact. It is blasphemy to do so.
You are completely misguided if you think that anyone in Christ would ever be out of fellowship with Him.:nono:

[Rightglory]

God Is Truth,

the question really is, how many sins were paid for by Jesus for the believer?

The answer is all, but then you have a large contradiction. Christ paid the penalty for all, for all of the sins of the world. Thus every human being has been forgiven using your understanding. Godrulz indicated in an earlier post that this leads to universalism and that is just what the above states.

what would keep God from forgiving us of a sin at any time if Christ has already paid for it?

Repentance. That is what separates the believer from the unbeliever. Christ forgave absolutely no sins on the Cross. He paid the penalty of sins, whether they be only one sin, or a billion(s) of sins of everyone who ever lived. Atonement does not mean forgiveness.

There is no remission of sin without repentance or confession. That is why we seek forgiveness daily because sin separates man from God, whether believer or unbeliever.

yes, but repentence is never commanded to believers as something to take away sins.

It is the only thing that reconciles man to God. Without it we are doomed to die in our sins.

the bible states we already have been free from sin, not that we will be someday.

I think you better look around you. Reality speaks loudly. Sin has not be eradicated.
What you mean to say, I hope, is that mankind has been freed from the bondage to sin and death. Even as believers, it is the only thing that affects our relationship with God. If we permit the flesh to rule, to predominate, and we do this willingly, without repentance we will quench the Holy Spirit and He will leave us to our own destruction.

[Rightglory]

God_Is_Truth,

I deny this. just as i do not lose my sonship when i lose fellowship with my earthly father, neither do i lose my sonship if i lose fellowship with my heavenly father. We are not speaking of a biological connection here. If we want to do that, it still would not apply because all human beings are sons of God. He created us all, we live and move and have our being from His grace alone. All men.
We are speaking of a relationship. No relationship exists if two parties are out of fellowship. By having fellowship we have a relationship. One does not exist without the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon. You are either in relationship with Satan or with God. There are only two choices. There is no place, no verse that will say we can be half in Christ and half in Satan, or any combination.

Even in our human affairs this is true. Fathers disown their own sons, sons leave fathers. They remain away and lose inheritances. Yet they are always linked biolgically though they are out of fellowship and have no relationship whatsoever.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rightglory
The answer is all, but then you have a large contradiction. Christ paid the penalty for all, for all of the sins of the world. Thus every human being has been forgiven using your understanding. Godrulz indicated in an earlier post that this leads to universalism and that is just what the above states.

no it does not. the reason is this. Jesus did pay for all the sins of all mankind. the reason all are not saved is that not all accept his provision by faith. but here is the difference between you and I. i believe that when a person puts their faith in Christ, then ALL of THEIR sins are forgiven through Christ. whereas you believe only the sins up to that point are forgiven, i believe that they are forgiven in whole and that no more sin can be attributed to them. thus, Christ died for all, all are forgiven at faith, and we do not have universalism.


Repentance. That is what separates the believer from the unbeliever.

i strongly disagree, it is faith in Christ that seperates believers from unbelievers.


Christ forgave absolutely no sins on the Cross. He paid the penalty of sins, whether they be only one sin, or a billion(s) of sins of everyone who ever lived. Atonement does not mean forgiveness.

it was because of the cross that God forgave those before Christ and because of it he forgives those after Christ as well. atonement means to cover up, propitiation means to take away. Christ is out propitiation, not our atonement.


There is no remission of sin without repentance or confession.

where is repentence stated as a requirement for the believer?


That is why we seek forgiveness daily because sin separates man from God, whether believer or unbeliever.

sin does NOT seperate the believer from God. Christ paid for all his sins and the believer cannot fall from God's favor because the believer has not a righteousness of his own, but Christ's.


It is the only thing that reconciles man to God. Without it we are doomed to die in our sins.

not according to the dispensation of grace. grace requires only faith (which is a denial of works), not repentence. should we repent? will we repent? yes to both. if we understand the gospel, we will desire to repent of our sins. but are we requird to repent in order to be saved? absolutely not.


I think you better look around you. Reality speaks loudly. Sin has not be eradicated.

just because people now can live free from sin does not mean it is easily done.


What you mean to say, I hope, is that mankind has been freed from the bondage to sin and death. Even as believers, it is the only thing that affects our relationship with God. If we permit the flesh to rule, to predominate, and we do this willingly, without repentance we will quench the Holy Spirit and He will leave us to our own destruction.

i mean that nothing in a believer compels them to sin. they sin because they are used to sinning (living by the flesh), it is a habit to them and bad habits are hard to break.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rightglory

God_Is_Truth,

We are not speaking of a biological connection here.

not biological (for God has no body), but spiritual.


If we want to do that, it still would not apply because all human beings are sons of God. He created us all, we live and move and have our being from His grace alone. All men.

no, we are not all sons of God.


We are speaking of a relationship. No relationship exists if two parties are out of fellowship.

if a wife goes on a trip without her husband, they are not in fellowship. by your definition, they are no longer husband and wife. do you the lunacy of such a statement?


By having fellowship we have a relationship. One does not exist without the other.

fellowship is an essential aspect to a relationship, yes, but it is not required for the relationship to exist.


You cannot serve God and mammon. You are either in relationship with Satan or with God. There are only two choices. There is no place, no verse that will say we can be half in Christ and half in Satan, or any combination.

and all believers are in fellowship with Christ all the time.


Even in our human affairs this is true. Fathers disown their own sons, sons leave fathers. They remain away and lose inheritances. Yet they are always linked biolgically though they are out of fellowship and have no relationship whatsoever.

whether one is disowned or not, they are still a son and the other still a father. the relationship has no strength, but it is still existant.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

what would keep God from forgiving us of a sin at any time if Christ has already paid for it?



yes, but repentence is never commanded to believers as something to take away sins.



the bible states we already have been free from sin, not that we will be someday.

Literal payment is a false assumption. Payment is one of several metaphors, but should not be pressed with a wooden literalism (Commercial Transaction theory is Augustinian, ? Anselm, not necessarily biblical). If the cross 'pays' for humanities sins, then all should be unconditionally forgiven without repentant faith or appropriation of the provision. Likewise, believers are fully forgiven/justified/sanctified. It is disingenuous to say we are forgiven before a theoretical sin is committed or when we defiantly persist in sin.

I Jn. 1:9 confession is linked to repentance and renewed obedience (see all relevant verses in OT/NT).

Yes, we have been freed from sin. However, some still struggle with the flesh and temptation. The future aspect is not the penalty or power of sin (free now), but free from the very presence of evil doers and temptation. Our glorified bodies will not be in an environment of the world, lust, etc. We will not have physical, sexual desires nor the opportunity for immorality.

We should walk in the Spirit vs flesh, light as He is in the light, be holy, because He is holy, etc. We are freed from the power and penalty of sin now. This should be our experience in reality. There is no condemnation for those in Christ, and victory over temptation. Just because we are forgiven for past sins is not a license to persist in present sins with no intention to confess, repent, and renew obedience.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

1] You're so full of crap I'm surprised you don't have a closet solely for Metamucil.
2] What version are you using?
3] Hebrews 6: 4-6 [the same book] says, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. This means that you can not repent again. You can only repent once. What do you think that means?


You don't have a clue what eternal security is. It is not that we are saved even if we live in sin, it is that we are free from sin, and do not live in it anymore! We are set free from the power of sin in our lives, and the condemnation when we do fail, because we always will. But being free in Christ does not mean that we are in Christ if we live in sin. It means that when we are in Christ we do not live in sin, because He has set us free!:doh:


You are completely misguided if you think that anyone in Christ would ever be out of fellowship with Him.:nono:

You seem to be affirming what we do as evidenced in I John. We are free, saved, secure IF we are in Christ and walk in the light as He is in the light. You are implying a conditionality in that living in heinous sin would prove we are not in Christ.

I would distinguish relationship/commitment from fellowship/intimacy. Many believers have God on 'ignore' and have an anemic time in prayer or the Word. We carry on without an awareness of His voice and presence due to our busyness.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rightglory

God_Is_Truth,

We are not speaking of a biological connection here. If we want to do that, it still would not apply because all human beings are sons of God. He created us all, we live and move and have our being from His grace alone. All men.
We are speaking of a relationship. No relationship exists if two parties are out of fellowship. By having fellowship we have a relationship. One does not exist without the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon. You are either in relationship with Satan or with God. There are only two choices. There is no place, no verse that will say we can be half in Christ and half in Satan, or any combination.

Even in our human affairs this is true. Fathers disown their own sons, sons leave fathers. They remain away and lose inheritances. Yet they are always linked biolgically though they are out of fellowship and have no relationship whatsoever.

The brotherhood of man is based on having a common Creator. This common humanity should not be confused with redemptive or spiritual sonship. We are not all sons of God. We are rebels against Him who need to be reconciled and adopted as spiritual sons of God.

Only those who come in repentant faith and receive Christ and are led by the Spirit are sons of God (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8).

"Born again" is a spiritual rebirth, and is not identical to physical birth.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

Literal payment is a false assumption. Payment is one of several metaphors, but should not be pressed with a wooden literalism (Commercial Transaction theory is Augustinian, ? Anselm, not necessarily biblica).

while no analogy is perfect, they are valid because they do contain some truth(s). i deny the literal payment assumption as well (that Christ has paid a price for us in the form of a commercial transaction). however, it is true that we are reedemed and bought by Christ.

as i understand it, Christ paid the punishment required by God for all of us. that is, the took on the full wrath of God which is due to every sinner. therefore, all who are in Christ have the righteousness Christ earned attributed to them. those who are not in Christ are still under the wrath.

those who are in Christ are new creations, literally. we have died and are no longer under law. we are under grace, meaning that God's favor with us is not dependent on who we are or what we have done. it is done because we are in Christ. we are in Christ because God has placed us there. he placed us there when we put faith in him. since we are now in Christ and his favor is dependent on that, i see no way to lose favor with God. for when we are in Christ, God's favor towards us is no longer dependent on our faith. it is on the basis of being in Christ and in him alone. thus, even if we lose faith we are still in Christ and God still looks favorably towards us.


If the cross 'pays' for humanities sins, then all should be unconditionally forgiven without repentant faith or appropriation of the provision.

that is how calvinists understand it and why they hold to unconditional election.


Likewise, believers are fully forgiven/justified/sanctified.

did you just say fully forgiven? in other words, nothing lacking? completely? are you sure you agree with that?


It is disingenuous to say we are forgiven before a theoretical sin is committed or when we defiantly persist in sin.

on the contrary, the price for the sin is paid before the sin is paid. the wages of sin is death and Christ died on our behalf. all in Christ have died and been raised with him. therefore, if we do something that is sinful, the penalty for that is already paid. thus, forgiveness is continuous. we never lose favor with God because there is never a time where we have sin that is unpaid for.


I Jn. 1:9 confession is linked to repentance and renewed obedience (see all relevant verses in OT/NT).

i believe that it's in reference to the transistion between unbelievers and believers. if the unbeliever confesses that he is a sinner and receives the grace of God, he will be forgiven.


Yes, we have been freed from sin. However, some still struggle with the flesh and temptation. The future aspect is not the penalty or power of sin (free now), but free from the very presence of evil doers and temptation. Our glorified bodies will not be in an environment of the world, lust, etc. We will not have physical, sexual desires nor the opportunity for immorality.

no disagreement here.


We should walk in the Spirit vs flesh, light as He is in the light, be holy, because He is holy, etc. We are freed from the power and penalty of sin now. This should be our experience in reality. There is no condemnation for those in Christ, and victory over temptation. Just because we are forgiven for past sins is not a license to persist in present sins with no intention to confess, repent, and renew obedience.

no disagreement here either.

[Rightglory]

God In Truth,

not biological (for God has no body), but spiritual.
Yes, Spiritual, so why are you trying to compare it with another meaning of the words. There are several meanings for both fellowship and relationship. However, the only one we are interested in is the Biblical or spiritual one.
Therefore my analogy of you comparing a biological status (relationship) with the fact that every creature, surely man has a relationship with God, his creator. However both are not what we are speaking about.
Thus, one cannot in the Scriptural understanding, be out of fellowship and still remain IN Christ, a relationship. They are the same.
By the way, when a wife and husband are separated whether on a trip or during a work day, they are not out of fellowship. The analogy would also hold here however that they may have a legal standing, a relatioship, but that relationship is null and void if they are in fact out of fellowship.

fellowship is an essential aspect to a relationship, yes, but it is not required for the relationship to existAs in husband and wife but as I stated above, this is not the scriptural understanding. Fellowship is what makes the relationship. It is not a legal one but an ontological one. But if one is not of Christ or IN Christ there is no relationship. One is out of Christ. Being out, you also do not have fellowship.

and all believers are in fellowship with Christ all the time. Only when they are IN Christ. However, the Bible and the NT, is repleat with verses that show that believers do not remain, that we are constantly warned about falling, not abiding, not enduring. Every parable is about believers who did not stay the course. The problem with you understanding is that it is connected to a unscriptural definition of who is a believer.

whether one is disowned or not, they are still a son and the other still a father. the relationship has no strength, but it is still existant. Yes, a biological and even a legal connection. But no fellowship there is no real relationship. That is the kind of relationship we have IN Christ. That relationship is contigent on fellowship, that is, that we remain IN Christ.

Another fallacy is that most protestants separate justification and sanctification. They put them in separate categories or boxes and then have no relationship or connection between them.
There is never a separation of justification and sanctification. That is why they maintain that the justification is permanent, though the sanctification does not need to be permanent. One simply falls out of fellowship but remains justified. However, very simply, if we become disobedient, fall from grace, lose our faith, we also lose our justification, since we are justified by faith. Loss of faith, loss of justification. Sanctification is the evidence of that faith. See the Book of James. It is practical salvation.

"But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1:7). It is quite clear that cleansing for sin is conditioned upon fellowship with God. Fellowship is conditioned upon walking in the light. If the blood of Christ is not cleansing us from all sin, it is impossible to be in a relationship with God! Fellowship and relationship are the same thing and are inseparable from the saving work of Christ. Being "out of fellowship with God" is the same as being out of the grace and relationship with God, not saved.

[elected4ever]

RightgloryFellowship is what makes the relationship. About as dumb a statement that I have ever heard on this subject. The relationship is described as father/ son by Jesus and the Apostle John. Jesus said that the father/son relationship is mandatory yet this is always assigned as a metaphorical description of salvation and does not exist on a practical basis by those who think that they are in charge of maintaining their own salvation. Such a belief is umbilical and causes me to believe that only an intellectual ascent has been adopted by these expositors in order to exercise control over those under their influence.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rightglory
Yes, Spiritual, so why are you trying to compare it with another meaning of the words.

because spiritual or physical the truth is the same.


There are several meanings for both fellowship and relationship. However, the only one we are interested in is the Biblical or spiritual one.

biblical one is preferred, yes.


Therefore my analogy of you comparing a biological status (relationship) with the fact that every creature, surely man has a relationship with God, his creator.

i deny that every creature or even every man has a relationship with God.


However both are not what we are speaking about.
Thus, one cannot in the Scriptural understanding, be out of fellowship and still remain IN Christ, a relationship. They are the same.

how are you defining fellowship then?


By the way, when a wife and husband are separated whether on a trip or during a work day, they are not out of fellowship. The analogy would also hold here however that they may have a legal standing, a relatioship, but that relationship is null and void if they are in fact out of fellowship.

see i would say they are out of fellowship, which is why i need you to tell me how you define fellowship.


As in husband and wife but as I stated above, this is not the scriptural understanding. Fellowship is what makes the relationship. It is not a legal one but an ontological one. But if one is not of Christ or IN Christ there is no relationship. One is out of Christ. Being out, you also do not have fellowship.

i guess it depends on how you define fellowship and what it means to be "in Christ". in all likelihood, i probably agree with you here.


However, the Bible and the NT, is repleat with verses that show that believers do not remain, that we are constantly warned about falling, not abiding, not enduring. Every parable is about believers who did not stay the course. The problem with you understanding is that it is connected to a unscriptural definition of who is a believer.

hmm, which parts of the NT teach that? oh yes, the ones not addressed to the body of Christ. of course they teach that those people fall away! but they are not about the body of Christ where believers are secure. Paul is the one who states over and over how we are secure in Christ.


Yes, a biological and even a legal connection. But no fellowship there is no real relationship. That is the kind of relationship we have IN Christ. That relationship is contigent on fellowship, that is, that we remain IN Christ.

to state that our relationship with Christ is depenent on us is to say we have no security whatsoever. this is not in accordance with the gospel of grace.


Another fallacy is that most protestants separate justification and sanctification. They put them in separate categories or boxes and then have no relationship or connection between them.

the biblical teaching is that they are indeed distinct seperate things. justification is the declaration of the individual as righteous and the sanctification is the practical change in the person in accordance with how they are justified. justification says "you are holy", sanctification makes you holy.


There is never a separation of justification and sanctification. That is why they maintain that the justification is permanent, though the sanctification does not need to be permanent. One simply falls out of fellowship but remains justified.

there is ample difference and distinction between justification and sanctification.


However, very simply, if we become disobedient, fall from grace, lose our faith, we also lose our justification, since we are justified by faith. Loss of faith, loss of justification. Sanctification is the evidence of that faith. See the Book of James. It is practical salvation.

the book of James does not pertain to the body of Christ. the gospel you've described here says that our state in Christ depends on us maintaining that. you make God out to be unfaithful by going back on that which he has guaranteed us. it is unbiblical to say the least.


"But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1:7). It is quite clear that cleansing for sin is conditioned upon fellowship with God.

John is contrasting the positions of those who walk in the light (believers) and those who do not (unbelievers). he is not distincting among believers (of which there is only one group).


Fellowship is conditioned upon walking in the light.

and all in Christ walk in the light.


If the blood of Christ is not cleansing us from all sin, it is impossible to be in a relationship with God!

obviously.


Fellowship and relationship are the same thing and are inseparable from the saving work of Christ. Being "out of fellowship with God" is the same as being out of the grace and relationship with God, not saved.

well if that's what you believe fellowship to be then i would state that believers are never out of fellowship with Christ.

[Rightglory]

God Is Truth,

i deny that every creature or even every man has a relationship with God.

Really, I can see why you have a problem understanding the Biblical meaning then. So who created those who don't have a relationship with God. Who sustains their life, their very being? What do you believe in anyway?
I can see the problem you will have with this view. Incorrect views always lead to contradictions and now you have a very large one.

how are you defining fellowship then? By being In Christ and participating in our relationship. No participation, no relationship. Faith is that fellowship and the works strengthen and extend that fellowhip, thus relationship. We lose faith, reject Christ, we are not only out of fellowship, we have no relationship, we are not saved. If you believe that we are saved only on the basis of a legal, biological, creator kind of connection, then all of mankind will be saved as all have that kind of connection. He is our creator after all, of all of us. That is why a father and son may always have that legal, biological connection, but if they are out of fellowship there is no relationship that is significant or that matters. So you have a legal relationship but nothing else. We are not saved on the nothing else.

see i would say they are out of fellowship, which is why i need you to tell me how you define fellowship Given modern tools, a simple phone call would keep them sharing their lives. Just what makes a trip so unique that they are not sharing other things. If they got into an argument and one walked out and said "I want a divorce" and does not ever speak again, but only via an attorney, they have no fellowship and they have no relationship, though at the moment it is still legal. The idea you have above is not even in the dictionary. Just how are you making this a no fellowship.

hmm, which parts of the NT teach that? oh yes, the ones not addressed to the body of Christ. of course they teach that those people fall away! but they are not about the body of Christ where believers are secure. Paul is the one who states over and over how we are secure in Christ.
No, only the ones addressed to the Body of Christ. You cannot fall away unless you are in first. What else could you fall away from, the devil. There are only two options, right?
Show me a verse that categorically shows and disproves all the opposing verses that a believers faith is secured absolutely, finitely, from the moment one first believes to the end of their life?

to state that our relationship with Christ is depenent on us is to say we have no security whatsoever. this is not in accordance with the gospel of grace. We have assurance but no security. Wrong word. I have a lot more assurance than you have security which is none. Man's personal salvation is a cooperative synergistic relationship. It is a relationship after all not an arrangement which might be more akin to what you are describing. We were saved, redemptively, solely for the purpose that man could once again be in direct communion with God. God is not going to do for you what he specifically created you to to, that is love and o