Do you have to repent to be forgiven

[Philthy]

Sean Boyle,
I agree with everything you said in your post, but I don’t believe that isolation means the same thing as making that child no longer part of the family.

Is this analogous to the person who is saved but doesnt have any reward in heaven? A child who is technically still part of the family, but who derives no pleasure or benefit from it?

It is impossible to change the fact that my daughter or your daughter would still be our daughters… even in isolation.

But it would be a meaningless reality, no? Would it have a benefit that any other child did not possess? Would it be more beneficial than being an adopted child who was truly part of the family and not isolated?

 

[Philthy]

I posted the same page from the Catechism in my second request that you remove your error regarding St. Augustine as the “inventor” of original sin, that I had pasted in my first post requesting that you edit your article. Nothing I posted has changed since the earlier post. I can see that you are playing games in the hopes that you will wiggle your way out of your error. Again, you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching. The Catechism does not teach that we carry the guilt of Adam’s sin, only that we are all born in a fallen state because of it. Original sin is* not an actual sin*.

When you quoted 402, you left out a significant part:

402** All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms**: "By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

…How does the Catholic doctrine of original sin hinge on the work of St. Augustine? The doctrine was already there from the beginning. St. Augustine borrowed from the work of eleven earlier early Church Fathers when writing about original sin in response to the Pelagian heresy. Which takes us back to my original request, which was that you remove the implication that St. Augustine invented original sin from your article, since such an implication is false.

If I claim to represent another’s viewpoint when, in fact, I don’t completely understand the other’s viewpoint and it is brought to my attention and I fail to retract my original representation, am I guilty of bearing false witness?

 

[Eden]

If I claim to represent another’s viewpoint when, in fact, I don’t completely understand the other’s viewpoint and it is brought to my attention and I fail to retract my original representation, am I guilty of bearing false witness?

I would have to say, “yes”. But apparently when one is “born again” in an Independent Baptist church, God does not see the sins of the saved, including the sin of those who bear false witness.

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

You are not accepting the payment if you go out and continue to live a un moral life. NO way around it we have to respond to Gods grace by our faith and our charity.

Prove that to me scripturally. Don’t just take proof verses out of context… prove it to me.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

But it would be a meaningless reality, no? Would it have a benefit that any other child did not possess? Would it be more beneficial than being an adopted child who was truly part of the family and not isolated?

Whether it had any benefit or not is beside the point. There are many “saved” people out there who have fallen into sin, and therefore isolated themselves from the Father and don’t enjoy fellowship with Him… but they are physically His children by birth, and are legally His children when distributing the inheritance.

If you are saved you are an heir to the kingdom, whether you are a prodigal son or not.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

The Catechism does not teach that we carry the guilt of Adam’s sin, only that we are all born in a fallen state because of it. Original sin is not an actual sin.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth…

You SAY that we don’t carry the guilt of Adam’s sin, but then you quote and stand by writings like this…

“…he [Adam] **has transmitted to us a sin **with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292”

So you are either a liar or you have no idea what the Catholic Church really teaches. Or maybe you quoted those articles of the Catechism in hopes that I wouldn’t read them.

“404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin”

Either we come into this world carrying the guilt of sin, or we don’t. I say we don’t… you apparently say both???

We do come into this world in a fallen state of death and seperation from God, but nowhere in the Bible will you find that we come into this world “guilty” of sin.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth…

You SAY that we don’t carry the guilt of Adam’s sin, but then you quote and stand by writings like this…

“…he [Adam] **has transmitted to us a sin **with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292”

So you are either a liar or you have no idea what the Catholic Church really teaches. Or maybe you quoted those articles of the Catechism in hopes that I wouldn’t read them.

“404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin”

Either we come into this world carrying the guilt of sin, or we don’t. I say we don’t… you apparently say both???

We do come into this world in a fallen state of death and seperation from God, but nowhere in the Bible will you find that we come into this world “guilty” of sin.

I have obviously not clearly laid out the doctrine of original sin, since you find my responses to be contradictory, and the doctrine is most certainly not. Maybe this article will help you:
Catholic Legate:

Let’s note – before we get too far ahead of ourselves – what Original Sin is and what it is not. The orthodox view of “Original Sin” is that it is distinct from “actual sin” in that the doctrine speaks to Original Sin’s damaging effects on our nature and not to the personal guilt for the sins we have actually committed. Original Sin is often confused with Original “Guilt.”** Simply stated, we are not guilty of Original Sin. **

And what, exactly, is “Original Sin”? Please consider that when God created Adam and Eve He did so without our “original” parents having any sort of sin within them naturally. They were created as God intended for us to be: free of sin and filled with the light of grace. After all, it wasn’t until AFTER their first sin that they became fallen. This is a theological point that all Christians agree on.

When Adam and Eve, due to their own willful actions, sinned against God everything changed for themselves - and for us. Instead of having a nature filled with grace, their disobedience caused their nature to be changed into one that lacked the fullness of grace. In other words, rather than having a nature that was filled with the LIGHT of God’s grace, they “threw away” and rejected God’s Will for them (God Willed them to be as He created them: filled with grace) and therefore the grace – the LIGHT that filled their souls – left them. What remained was a nature that was fallen and incomplete.

Instead of God’s Light filling their nature entirely (as He originally created them) a DARK SPOT filled the void and entered their nature. This “dark spot” – lacking God’s Light – meant that their wills were weakened, their intellect was darkened, their appetites were disordered, and they were, therefore inclined to sin. In Latin the word for “dark spot” is macula.

Therefore, in a stark contrast, a soul that overflows with the fullness of God’s Light – as God originally created Adam and Eve – a soul without a dark spot – is called immaculate.

Since our original parents, Adam and Eve, became the original sinners, and hence were no longer immaculate, they were the first humans to have acquired a fallen nature due to sin and it is this fallen nature that we all inherit. Thus it is called "Original Sin."

Therefore we are not “guilty” of original sin (in the same sense that we are guilty of actual sin when we commit it), rather we inherit it as part of our nature. It is precisely because we have a fallen nature (with all of its attributes such as our disordered appetites) that we commit actual sin. And those sins – the actual sins – are sins that we are personally guilty of.

catholic-legate.com/articles/icbridge.html

 

[Eden]

Eden,

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth…

You SAY that we don’t carry the guilt of Adam’s sin, but then you quote and stand by writings like this…

“…he [Adam] **has transmitted to us a sin **with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292”

So you are either a liar or you have no idea what the Catholic Church really teaches. Or maybe you quoted those articles of the Catechism in hopes that I wouldn’t read them.

“404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin”

Either we come into this world carrying the guilt of sin, or we don’t. I say we don’t… you apparently say both???

We do come into this world in a fallen state of death and seperation from God, but nowhere in the Bible will you find that we come into this world “guilty” of sin.

%between%

Since I have obviously not explained the doctrine of original sin clearly enough, since you see my consistent responses as being talking out of both sides of my mouth, maybe this article from the Catholic Legate will more clearly present the doctrine for you:

**The orthodox view of “Original Sin” is that it is distinct from “actual sin” in that the doctrine speaks to Original Sin’s damaging effects on our nature and not to the personal guilt for the sins we have actually committed. **Original Sin is often confused with Original “Guilt.” **Simply stated, we are not guilty of Original Sin.
**
And what, exactly, is “Original Sin”? Please consider that when God created Adam and Eve He did so without our “original” parents having any sort of sin within them naturally. They were created as God intended for us to be: free of sin and filled with the light of grace. After all, it wasn’t until AFTER their first sin that they became fallen. This is a theological point that all Christians agree on.

When Adam and Eve, due to their own willful actions, sinned against God everything changed for themselves - and for us. Instead of having a nature filled with grace, their disobedience caused their nature to be changed into one that lacked the fullness of grace. In other words, rather than having a nature that was filled with the LIGHT of God’s grace, they “threw away” and rejected God’s Will for them (God Willed them to be as He created them: filled with grace) and therefore the grace – the LIGHT that filled their souls – left them. What remained was a nature that was fallen and incomplete.

Instead of God’s Light filling their nature entirely (as He originally created them) a DARK SPOT filled the void and entered their nature. This “dark spot” – lacking God’s Light – meant that their wills were weakened, their intellect was darkened, their appetites were disordered, and they were, therefore inclined to sin. In Latin the word for “dark spot” is macula.

Therefore, in a stark contrast, a soul that overflows with the fullness of God’s Light – as God originally created Adam and Eve – a soul without a dark spot – is called immaculate.

Since our original parents, Adam and Eve, became the original sinners, and hence were no longer immaculate, they were the first humans to have acquired a fallen nature due to sin and it is this fallen nature that we all inherit. Thus it is called “Original Sin.”

Therefore we are not “guilty” of original sin (in the same sense that we are guilty of actual sin when we commit it), rather we inherit it as part of our nature. It is precisely because we have a fallen nature (with all of its attributes such as our disordered appetites) that we commit actual sin. And those sins – the actual sins – are sins that we are personally guilty of.

catholic-legate.com/articles/icbridge.html

 

[Eden]

I think the main problem you are having with understanding the Catholic teaching on original sin is that the use of the word “sin” is misleading. You are imaging that original sin is a “thing”, when in fact it is an absence - an absence of divine life, that is. It is not the guilt of Adam’s sin that is transmitted to all mankind, but the absence of divine life that was caused by the Fall. At baptism, this dark, empty space in the soul is removed by being infused with sanctifying grace, thus “removing” the mark of original sin from our souls.

More:

Q Why are innocent babies born with original sin?

A The “sin” in “original sin” is not the same as the “sin” that we confess in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Innocent babies remain “innocent” inasmuch as they are not “guilty” of anything. Original sin is not a “thing”; in a certain sense it is nothing where there should be something — and that’s the “sin”! God gave Adam and Eve the immense gift of divine life to pass it on to all of us. By their personal sin, they lost it and, as it were, couldn’t pass it on. **So we haven’t got the gift of divine life we ought to have, and so neither do we have the pledge of eternal life with God. This *deprivation ***is what we call “original sin.” I recommend reading the whole section on the Fall in the Catechism, par. 385-410.

Q I have heard it said that due to original sin, man continues to sin. However, if at baptism we are cleansed of original sin, shouldn’t that take away our propensity to sin? Also, what is the difference between our Blessed Mother, who was born without original sin, and a newborn who has just been baptized? Are they both free of original sin in the same way?

A Baptism frees us from original sin, the absence of the divine life in us, but not from its “side-effects,” including what Catholic tradition has called “concupiscence” — which is, well, a propensity to sin. Since the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin to begin with, Christian tradition has understood that she remained free from the inclination to sin also.

envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.5/ihaveaquestion.html

**Q: *Why do religions baptize infants? I think the Bible is clear that we will be judged ourselves, not by something we are born with (cf. Ezek. 18:20). Several other passages indicate that one is born innocent but, at some later point, becomes guilty by choosing sin (cf. Rom. 7:9–11; Ezek. 28:15; Is. 59:1–2). ***

A: It’s quite true that babies have no personal guilt and are not guilty of personal sin. That is why repentance is not necessary for them at baptism. They have nothing to repent of. They inherited from Adam and Eve not sin but the consequence of sin, which is a lack of sanctifying grace or spiritual life. We call this original sin, but it is really the consequence of the original sin that we are referring to.

Adam and Eve were created in a state of original grace or spiritual life. As long as they remained in God’s friendship, that original grace remained. But as soon as they sinned, they lost this precious gift, without which we cannot enjoy friendship with God or eternal life in heaven.

Adam and Eve could not pass on to their children a spiritual gift they no longer had. Through the sacrament of baptism, sanctifying grace is restored to the soul. This is why babies are baptized. The sacrament restores sanctifying grace to the soul, makes them children of God, and enables them to inherit heaven.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401qq.asp

 

[Odell]

I said

You are not accepting the payment if you go out and continue to live a un moral life. NO way around it we have to respond to Gods grace by our faith and our charity.

Odell,
Prove that to me scripturally. Don’t just take proof verses out of context… prove it to me.

Did Jesus die so we could sin? Yes or NO

Im going to say no. So we should not sin because of his death right?

When you go out and comit murder you are not longer acceptng his sacrifice.

(Heb10:26-31) " If we sin DELIBERATELY after reciving knowledge of the truth, there no longer REMAINS sacrifice fo sins but a fearfull prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the advesaries…Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers **UNCLEAN **the covenant blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace."

Just as I have been saying there is a worst punishment for us. And you are not accepting his sacrifice when you sin deliberatly you CONSIDER unclean the covenant blood by which YOU where consecrated.

Thank you.

I have obviously not clearly laid out the doctrine of original sin, since you find my responses to be contradictory, and the doctrine is most certainly not. Maybe this article will help you:

obviously John not only take scripture out of context but he takes the Catechism deliberatly out of context too.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Philthy,

If you are saved you are an heir to the kingdom, whether you are a prodigal son or not.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

Didn’t the prodigal son repent before returning to his father’s house to be forgiven? That was one of the main points of the parable, wasn’t it?

 

[Odell]

Didn’t the prodigal son repent before returning to his father’s house to be forgiven? That was one of the main points of the parable, wasn’t it?

No thats a miss interpritation. LOL

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Bibleapogilst,

Faith alone and Scripture alone are clearly central to protestant christian theology. Take a look at the verses that some of us have listed for your consideration and study.

Many of them are tough to reconcile with sola fide. You have to ask yourself as a faithful christian, “Why is that?” "why are there elaborate writings from protestant brethen regarding these simple verses that seek to reconcile these verses with “faith alone” and not other verses.

Look at the early chruch, read the writings from those that were taught by the apostles. See what they have to say.

If I may, from your posts, you don’t seem to want to understand the faith of the Christ and his Church. Try looking at faith in a different light. Most non-catholic hate the Catholic Church for things that they wrongly believe she teaches. Look at the faith instead and see the thing that are similar. You’ll be surprised to see that all vesus in the bible make sense. There are no tough verses from this side of faith.

This sort of study can only bring you closer to God. Try it.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I have obviously not clearly laid out the doctrine of original sin, since you find my responses to be contradictory, and the doctrine is most certainly not. Maybe this article will help you:

Now I will bring you back to the original point of contention regarding your (Catholic) view of original sin, and my (Biblical) view of original sin.

I agree with you that there is an “absence” of spiritual life in a person when they are born. We both agree on that point.

What I do not agree with is that it can be Biblically justified to claim that this absence equates with guilt. You will not find any evidence for that in the Bible… or in logic.

The ONLY attempt at a logical explanation for guilt in a newborn is that Adam’s sin was transferred to that infant… and therefore the infant is responsible for Adam’s sin.

THAT is what I am asking you to prove… not that there is a cause and effect regarding Adam’s sin… but that it can be Biblically proven that an infant is GUILTY.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Just as I have been saying there is a worst punishment for us. And you are not accepting his sacrifice when you sin deliberatly you CONSIDER unclean the covenant blood by which YOU where consecrated.

The only way you can claim that when a person sins they are rejecting Christ’s sacrifice, is to claim a “works salvation”. By that I mean, you would have to claim that salvation is not a one time event, but a constant repenting - and reinstating of your position as a “saved” person. Or, in other words, that to maintain a certain level of righteousness would secure your salvation.

I am confident that my explanation of the Catholic view of salvation is accurate as Catholics say salvation is “faith, and works”.

If a person sins, you claim they are rejecting the sacrifice of Christ… but, your argument is self-defeating. If a person is striving for righteousness… and that person sins, they are actually rejecting “righteous living”, or “morality”. But not rejecting Christ or His sacrifice because the sacrifice is the factor that “atones” for that sin.

You can’t have it both ways Odell… you either have to claim “experimental religion” and OSAS, or you have to claim salvation is ALL works and is never complete.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Sean Boyle,

Didn’t the prodigal son repent before returning to his father’s house to be forgiven? That was one of the main points of the parable, wasn’t it?

You should read your Bible before you post. There is no indication in that parable whatsoever that the prodigal son’s father ever “did not” forgive him.

Also you will notice that the prodigal son never lost his position as his father’s son (Luke 15:24).

Another point to bolster the OSAS position… thanks Sean!

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Now I will bring you back to the original point of contention regarding your (Catholic) view of original sin, and my (Biblical) view of original sin.

I agree with you that there is an “absence” of spiritual life in a person when they are born. We both agree on that point.

What I do not agree with is that it can be Biblically justified to claim that this absence equates with guilt. You will not find any evidence for that in the Bible… or in logic.

The ONLY attempt at a logical explanation for guilt in a newborn is that Adam’s sin was transferred to that infant… and therefore the infant is responsible for Adam’s sin.

THAT is what I am asking you to prove… not that there is a cause and effect regarding Adam’s sin… but that it can be Biblically proven that an infant is GUILTY.

Again - The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin, only that the infant inherits the consequences of that sin, a fallen nature.

FACT:

1. The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin.
2. The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin
3. The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin, nor does it teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Did you get that? Because it seems that I have to repeat this only to have it fall on deaf ears over and over again.

Why in the world would I biblically try to prove that an infant is GUILTY when the Catholic Church does not teach this? I think you need to go find a Calvinist and ask them to biblically prove that an infant is born guilty of Adam’s sin because:

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT INFANTS INHERIT THE GUILT OF ADAM’S SIN, ONLY THAT THE INFANT INHERITS THE FALLEN NATURE THAT RESULTED FROM HIS SIN.

This fallen nature is what is referred to as “original sin”. There is no guilt passed on, just the consequence of the sin on all of our souls before baptism. Original sin is not really a “sin” but a “state”. And it sounds like you agree with this, so what is your problem with the Catholic teaching of original sin again? And have you corrected your error on your website article which insinuates that St. Augustine invented original sin yet?

 

[Eden]

BA - Before you respond to my post above, please brush up on the distinctions between differing Christian theologies regarding original sin. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to have a dialogue with someone who continually misrepresents (either because you willfully misrepresent it or because you do not understand) the Catholic teaching of original sin. Thank you.

Here is a primer:

ORIGINAL SIN IN CATHOLICISM

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state … original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act" (404). This “state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice … transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt* were Adam’s*, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way** implicating** them in his sin. (By “implicating them in his sin”, this simply means “involving them in his sin”, not that they carry the guilt of his sin).

IMPLICATE: To involve or connect intimately or incriminatingly

The Catholic Church did not accept all of Augustine’s ideas, which he developed to counter the claim by Pelagius that the influence of Adam on other human beings was merely that of bad example. For instance, the Church did not adopt the opinion that involvement in Adam’s guilt and punishment takes effect through the dependence of human procreation on the sexual passion, in which the spirit’s inability to control flesh is evident. Rather, the Church teaches that original sin comes to the soul simply from the new person taking his nature from one whose nature itself had original sin. In this way, the Church argues that original sin is not imputing the sin of the father to the son; rather, it is simply the inheritance of a wounded nature from the father, which is an unavoidable part of reproduction.

reference.com/browse/wiki/Original_sin

In contrast:

Original sin in mainstream Protestantism

The notion of original sin as interpreted by Augustine of Hippo was affirmed by the Protestant “reformers” Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of “total depravity”) results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam’s fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
Whether it had any benefit or not is beside the point. There are many “saved” people out there

Im reposting here because my first response to this has disappeared…
I dont think it is beside the point. Your use of the term “saved” has an implied benefit to it. What is the benefit of a salvation devoid of benefit (reward)? This question arises from your contention that salvation and reward are separate - that salvation is by faith alone and that reward is by works alone.

who have fallen into sin, and therefore isolated themselves from the Father and don’t enjoy fellowship with Him… but they are physically His children by birth, and are legally His children when distributing the inheritance.

Physically His by birth? Im not sure who is excluded from that category or what you even mean by it.
But it is still the Fathers discretion as to how that inheritance is distributed, is it not? This only brings back to square one: what is the value of an inheritance that is rendered rewardless due to a lack of works?

If you are saved you are an heir to the kingdom, whether you are a prodigal son or not.

You may be an heir (which is debateable), but your inheritance may not be of value.

 

[Philthy]

Odell,

The only way you can claim that when a person sins they are rejecting Christ’s sacrifice, is to claim a “works salvation”.

Gonna go 'round in circles…I’ll stick with we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” to refute this claim of yours.

By that I mean, you would have to claim that salvation is not a one time event, but a constant repenting - and reinstating of your position as a “saved” person.

It could be a one-time event or it might involve a re-instatement. It is not works which are the issue, but a rejection of Christ through sin.

Or, in other words, that to maintain a certain level of righteousness would secure your salvation.

Absolutely - we need the righteousness of Christ. That requires "remaining"in him(cf John 15:7, et al) Let me ask you a question: When Adam and Eve were created, were they in possession of eternal life? Yes or No, please. When we are born are we in possession of eternal life? Yes or No, please.

I am confident that my explanation of the Catholic view of salvation is accurate as Catholics say salvation is “faith, and works”.

Hmmm. Would you mind providing a single Catholic theologian as a reference with whom you have consulted to verify your “confidence”?

If a person sins, you claim they are rejecting the sacrifice of Christ… but, your argument is self-defeating. If a person is striving for righteousness… and that person sins, they are actually rejecting “righteous living”, or “morality”.

They are rejecting God’s grace under trial. To claim otherwise is, again, to claim that 1 Cor 10:13 doesnt promise that God will give us the grace to persevere under trial.

But (they are) not rejecting Christ or His sacrifice because the sacrifice is the factor that “atones” for that sin.

IMHO you haven’t quite articulated your position enough for me to fully understand it. Simply because Christ’s “sacrifice is the factor that atones for that sin” does not mean that it cant be rejected - it absolutely can be and is rejected by many. Right? So you need to fill in some blanks as to why you make the above claim. Unless, of course, you are claiming that Christ’s sacrifice atones for rejecting Christ (“that sin”). Im pretty sure you don’t mean that because you have already said that rejecting Christ is why people are sent to hell.

You can’t have it both ways Odell… you either have to claim “experimental religion” and OSAS, or you have to claim salvation is ALL works and is never complete.

John

I dont see how you arrive at this - you introduced 2 new terms in a conclusion and put forth a condition that is not, of necessity, required by the entire discussion you have offered.