Having Your Future Sins Forgiven BEFORE You Sin

[The_GreyPilgrim]

There is no word in the New Testament which means eternal. The word that is translated eternal is aionion, the root of which simply means “age.” There are a couple of simple observations, which make the “eternal” translation impossible: 1) you cannot pluralize eternity (i.e. eternities is nonsensical), yet the words (mis)translated eternal are often pluralized in the Old and New Testaments. 2) Eternity cannot end. Again, in both the Old and New Testaments “eternites” come to an end. 3) An adjective cannot be “more” than the noun on which it is based:

Noun - Year
Adjective - Yearly

If I told you a year was 365 days, approximately 52 weeks, or 8760 hours, you’d probably be in general agreement.

If I then turned around and said, yearly means occurring every 1200 days, 1 million weeks, or 24 hours, you would quite rightly look at me like I had two heads.

Yet, this is what has been done when translators translate aion as age and aionion as eternal.

The word “aionion” is also used when describing the life we receive from Christ-“everlasting”(aionion) life. You cannot have it both ways. The same word fits into a belief that you hold(eternal heaven) and a belief that you don’t want to hold(eternal hell). So either the text is incorrect, or the method of interpretation is incorrect.

Just because you, as well as many supposedly enlightened modernist interpreters of scripture, don’t want to accept the eternal punishment of hell, doesn’t make what you believe true. True biblical interpretation is exegesis(reading out of), not eisegesis(reading into).

Infinite punishment for finite offenses is not Justice by any measure.

Why? Because you say so? Is heaven your posession to give?

Second, hell’s punishemnts are eternal, but not infinite. Only God is infinite. Souls, sin, punishment are all finite. Just as one saint is more saintly, that is more able to contain God’s joy in heaven than another, and in this sense is naturally “higher” in heaven than another, so one sinner is 'lower" in hell than another(i.e. more deep-set in despair and pride and hate). There are limits.

I’ll take you one step further and say that no sane person could possibly be happy with the knowledge that fellow human beings are suffering “eternal” torment. However, if the knowledge of punishment was that it was remedial, then heaven could indeed be a happy place.

We know that there will be no sadness in heaven, though we may not know how God manages this.

In whatever way God manages not to be sad, even though people He created and loves are in hell-however He mananges to do this, we will learn from and share in this way. God is infinite love and infinite joy, even though some go to hell. It can be done: God does it. If God does it, He will teach us how to do it.

Some clues as to how are in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats(Matt 25:31-46) and His response to some who call Him “Lord”: at the end, He says to the damned “I never knew you.”(Matt 7:23). He does not know and see and worry about the damned. This sounds like ignorance; but that cannot find its place in Omniscience. What does it mean?

It is not falsity, it is truth. The damned have lost their true reality(God-heaven). Heaven is the standard of reality; it is not only the standard of all joy and all goodness, it is the standard of all realness. The damned are like ashes, not like wood. They have lost their true reality. The blessed in heaven, like God, do not mourn over what the damned once were-real wood, real men and women-because they do not live in the past.

Hell is a place of eternal death, not eternal life; and what goes to hell is what was once a human being, but is now “remains”(see C.S. Lewis “The Problem of Pain”, chpt 9).

Nor are hell and heaven parallel worlds-you can’t go from one to the other(Luke 16:26). Your implicit assumptions of your objection are false.

Even if all those answers are inadequate, here is a more practical one. If there are people who you cannot possibly see yourself without, even in eternity, as if they were a very part of you, then one of the jobs God may have put you on earth for is for you to do everything you can for their salvation as well as your own. If it was God’s providence that arranged this love and closeness between you, then God will honor the prayer from the heart that tells Him that it would be impossible for you to be eternally happy in heaven without that person/those people and that He jus thas to arrange for their salvation as He has arranged for yours because your friends are a real part of you and God saves people as wholes and not parts.

This is not a “blackmailing” prayer, just a presentation of the facts, like Mary’s “They have no wine.”

The second sentence begs the question.

You have not proven, or even supported for that matter, this assertion with this response.

Universalism is incompatable with Christianity because:

1. It denies free will. We may be free to choose between one road or another, but we are not free to choose destiniations or directions on that road-forward vs. backward, up vs. down, good vs. evil. Scratch the idea of free will and you will find underneath it the necessity of hell.
   2)If there is no hell to be saved from, then Jesus is not our Savior, but only a teacher, prophet, guru or model. And if Jesus isn’t who He claimed He was, then He is not even a good man but a bad man, a liar, or a lunitic.
   3)If salvation is automatic, Christ’s sacrificial death was not what Christ Himself said it was: necessary, planned, the culmination of His whole earthly life and His reason for coming from heaven to earth.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The word “aionion” is also used when describing the life we receive from Christ-“everlasting”(aionion) life. You cannot have it both ways. The same word fits into a belief that you hold(eternal heaven) and a belief that you don’t want to hold(eternal hell). So either the text is incorrect, or the method of interpretation is incorrect.

Just because you, as well as many supposedly enlightened modernist interpreters of scripture, don’t want to accept the eternal punishment of hell, doesn’t make what you believe true. True biblical interpretation is exegesis(reading out of), not eisegesis(reading into).

Why? Because you say so? Is heaven your posession to give?

Second, hell’s punishemnts are eternal, but not infinite. Only God is infinite. Souls, sin, punishment are all finite. Just as one saint is more saintly, that is more able to contain God’s joy in heaven than another, and in this sense is naturally “higher” in heaven than another, so one sinner is 'lower" in hell than another(i.e. more deep-set in despair and pride and hate). There are limits.

We know that there will be no sadness in heaven, though we may not know how God manages this.

In whatever way God manages not to be sad, even though people He created and loves are in hell-however He mananges to do this, we will learn from and share in this way. God is infinite love and infinite joy, even though some go to hell. It can be done: God does it. If God does it, He will teach us how to do it.

Some clues as to how are in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats(Matt 25:31-46) and His response to some who call Him “Lord”: at the end, He says to the damned “I never knew you.”(Matt 7:23). He does not know and see and worry about the damned. This sounds like ignorance; but that cannot find its place in Omniscience. What does it mean?

It is not falsity, it is truth. The damned have lost their true reality(God-heaven). Heaven is the standard of reality; it is not only the standard of all joy and all goodness, it is the standard of all realness. The damned are like ashes, not like wood. They have lost their true reality. The blessed in heaven, like God, do not mourn over what the damned once were-real wood, real men and women-because they do not live in the past.

Hell is a place of eternal death, not eternal life; and what goes to hell is what was once a human being, but is now “remains”(see C.S. Lewis “The Problem of Pain”, chpt 9).

Nor are hell and heaven parallel worlds-you can’t go from one to the other(Luke 16:26). Your implicit assumptions of your objection are false.

Even if all those answers are inadequate, here is a more practical one. If there are people who you cannot possibly see yourself without, even in eternity, as if they were a very part of you, then one of the jobs God may have put you on earth for is for you to do everything you can for their salvation as well as your own. If it was God’s providence that arranged this love and closeness between you, then God will honor the prayer from the heart that tells Him that it would be impossible for you to be eternally happy in heaven without that person/those people and that He jus thas to arrange for their salvation as He has arranged for yours because your friends are a real part of you and God saves people as wholes and not parts.

This is not a “blackmailing” prayer, just a presentation of the facts, like Mary’s “They have no wine.”

The second sentence begs the question.

Universalism is incompatable with Christianity because:

1. It denies free will. We may be free to choose between one road or another, but we are not free to choose destiniations or directions on that road-forward vs. backward, up vs. down, good vs. evil. Scratch the idea of free will and you will find underneath it the necessity of hell.
   2)If there is no hell to be saved from, then Jesus is not our Savior, but only a teacher, prophet, guru or model. And if Jesus isn’t who He claimed He was, then He is not even a good man but a bad man, a liar, or a lunitic.
   3)If salvation is automatic, Christ’s sacrificial death was not what Christ Himself said it was: necessary, planned, the culmination of His whole earthly life and His reason for coming from heaven to earth.

B4 I jump in lets see if i got this right. ckempston, you do not have a religion is this right or wrong

 

[ckempston]

The word “aionion” is also used when describing the life we receive from Christ-“everlasting”(aionion) life. You cannot have it both ways. The same word fits into a belief that you hold(eternal heaven) and a belief that you don’t want to hold(eternal hell). So either the text is incorrect, or the method of interpretation is incorrect.

It doesn’t mean eternal. Period. The correct interpretation is age-abiding life. I am not interpreting “eternal life” as you suggest. An “aion” and “aionion” is a period of time with a beginning, a limited duration, and an end.

Just because you, as well as many supposedly enlightened modernist interpreters of scripture, don’t want to accept the eternal punishment of hell, doesn’t make what you believe true. True biblical interpretation is exegesis(reading out of), not eisegesis(reading into).

You’re the one who’s reading something into scripture here. I just take it as it is plainly written. Correctly interpreting aion as age and aionion as age-abiding resolves many conflicts with, as you brought up, God’s Justice, and the fact that Jesus is the Savior of the World, but somehow “especially” the Savior of the elect.

Why? Because you say so? Is heaven your posession to give?

LOL. No logical response, eh?

Second, hell’s punishemnts are eternal, but not infinite. Only God is infinite. Souls, sin, punishment are all finite. Just as one saint is more saintly, that is more able to contain God’s joy in heaven than another, and in this sense is naturally “higher” in heaven than another, so one sinner is 'lower" in hell than another(i.e. more deep-set in despair and pride and hate). There are limits.

No, they can’t possibly be eternal. You can argue over semantics all you want, but you’re wrong. I’ll rephrase it: Eternal punishment for temporal sins is not Justice.

We know that there will be no sadness in heaven, though we may not know how God manages this.

The only way it would be possible is if God took away everything that made us individuals and removed all memory of our earthly life (at least with the Catholic view of Hell).

In whatever way God manages not to be sad, even though people He created and loves are in hell-however He mananges to do this, we will learn from and share in this way. God is infinite love and infinite joy, even though some go to hell. It can be done: God does it. If God does it, He will teach us how to do it.

Exactly. He’ll teach us that he is reforming those souls, not just fulfilling a grudge.

Some clues as to how are in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats(Matt 25:31-46) and His response to some who call Him “Lord”: at the end, He says to the damned “I never knew you.”(Matt 7:23). He does not know and see and worry about the damned. This sounds like ignorance; but that cannot find its place in Omniscience. What does it mean?

What a crock. Jesus is saying he never “knew” them, as in they were never his friends, not that he never had knowledge of them. Your butchering that verse.

It is not falsity, it is truth. The damned have lost their true reality(God-heaven). Heaven is the standard of reality; it is not only the standard of all joy and all goodness, it is the standard of all realness. The damned are like ashes, not like wood. They have lost their true reality. The blessed in heaven, like God, do not mourn over what the damned once were-real wood, real men and women-because they do not live in the past.

What a bunch of bunk. Got any scriptures to back up these assertions?

Hell is a place of eternal death, not eternal life; and what goes to hell is what was once a human being, but is now “remains”(see C.S. Lewis “The Problem of Pain”, chpt 9).

As I already pointed out, clearly demonstrated, and you have not refuted, there is no word in the Old or New Testament that means “eternal” in the sense that you are describing.

Nor are hell and heaven parallel worlds-you can’t go from one to the other(Luke 16:26). Your implicit assumptions of your objection are false.

The “Rich Man” will one day appear before the Judgment Seat of God. His suffering will have been suspended, at least temporarily. Obviously, it’s not eternal.

Even if all those answers are inadequate, here is a more practical one. If there are people who you cannot possibly see yourself without, even in eternity, as if they were a very part of you, then one of the jobs God may have put you on earth for is for you to do everything you can for their salvation as well as your own. If it was God’s providence that arranged this love and closeness between you, then God will honor the prayer from the heart that tells Him that it would be impossible for you to be eternally happy in heaven without that person/those people and that He jus thas to arrange for their salvation as He has arranged for yours because your friends are a real part of you and God saves people as wholes and not parts.

It is not a matter of an emotional attachment. Eternal torment is not Justice.

This is not a “blackmailing” prayer, just a presentation of the facts, like Mary’s “They have no wine.”

The second sentence begs the question.

Which question would that be?

Universalism is incompatable with Christianity because:

1. It denies free will. We may be free to choose between one road or another, but we are not free to choose destiniations or directions on that road-forward vs. backward, up vs. down, good vs. evil. Scratch the idea of free will and you will find underneath it the necessity of hell.

This is like saying we do not have free will because we cannot choose to not die. Ridiculous.

2)If there is no hell to be saved from, then Jesus is not our Savior, but only a teacher, prophet, guru or model. And if Jesus isn’t who He claimed He was, then He is not even a good man but a bad man, a liar, or a lunitic.

I never said there was no Hell, and Universal Restoration teaches no such thing. Strawman.

3)If salvation is automatic, Christ’s sacrificial death was not what Christ Himself said it was: necessary, planned, the culmination of His whole earthly life and His reason for coming from heaven to earth.

Never said Salvation was automatic either. Whose posts are you reading, exactly? Being saved from sin, and saved from Hell, both certainly qualify as salvation. The only difference in Universal Restoration with regard to Hell are duration and purpose.

 

[ckempston]

B4 I jump in lets see if i got this right. ckempston, you do not have a religion is this right or wrong

LOL, no that is not right. I was born and raised in a Catholic family and became a member of the ICOC in 1997. I began considering reversion fairly recently, but I have many issues with Catholic doctrine, including the claims on authority which is really the cornerstone. If that issue were resolved for me, the rest would be easily resolved.

 

[Bill_Pick]

LOL, no that is not right. I was born and raised in a Catholic family and became a member of the ICOC in 1997. I began considering reversion fairly recently, but I have many issues with Catholic doctrine, including the claims on authority which is really the cornerstone. If that issue were resolved for me, the rest would be easily resolved.

WELL CKEMPSTON, You do know its in the bible do you read the Bible,do you read any thing about the Church fathers… I,m leaving now but I think you can find some one to help you,keep in touch and let me know how you come out have a good night,I know I will,God bless you.PEACE.
ps. IF YOU DO NOT GET YOUR ANSWERS HERE TALK TO A PRIEST HE WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU

 

[ckempston]

WELL CKEMPSTON, You do know its in the bible do you read the Bible,do you read any thing about the Church fathers… I,m leaving now but I think you can find some one to help you,keep in touch and let me know how you come out have a good night,I know I will,God bless you.PEACE.
ps. IF YOU DO NOT GET YOUR ANSWERS HERE TALK TO A PRIEST HE WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU

I read the Bible daily, and have read the Church Fathers pretty extensively, which is what actually led me to consider reverting; however, I’ve hit several significant snags, as I mentioned, and I’m not confident in a priest’s ability to answer my questions, especially with some of the wacky stuff I hear Catholics saying about their priests on this forum (unapproachable, not teaching Catholic doctrine, etc.)

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

It doesn’t mean eternal. Period. The correct interpretation is age-abiding life. I am not interpreting “eternal life” as you suggest. An “aion” and “aionion” is a period of time with a beginning, a limited duration, and an end.

You’re the one who’s reading something into scripture here. I just take it as it is plainly written. Correctly interpreting aion as age and aionion as age-abiding resolves many conflicts with, as you brought up, God’s Justice, and the fact that Jesus is the Savior of the World, but somehow “especially” the Savior of the elect.

“Aion”, according to standard koine’ Greek interpretation, can mean many things. You may read into the verses that which you want to believe, but that is your opinion, not an end-all interpretation. I would rather believe in accord with the author’s intent, along with the hundreds of years of sages and theologians who back up this belief, than some so-called “enlightened” modernists interpretation.

No, they can’t possibly be eternal. You can argue over semantics all you want, but you’re wrong. I’ll rephrase it: Eternal punishment for temporal sins is not Justice.

Eternity is not quantitative. It is not more time, or even endless time. It is another dimension than time, just as time is another dimension than space. Whatever we make of ourselves in time is destined to be “fleshed out” into the dimension of eternity. To use a crude image, if we make squares of ourselves in time, we are cubes eternally; temporally blueprinted triangles go to the sculptor to become eternal pyramids. The relation between earthly choices and eternal rewards or punishments is not like the relation between crimes and prison sentences, but like the relation between a foundation and a building. It is not external but internal. In a sense, heaven or hell is the same thing as earth; the same life, the same person, only with another dimension—somewhat as life after birth is the same life, the same person, but with more dimensions. Souls in time are like boats on a river, all destined for the ocean of eternity. It is a structural internal necessity, not an imposed external reward or punishment.

The only way it would be possible is if God took away everything that made us individuals and removed all memory of our earthly life (at least with the Catholic view of Hell).

This begs the question.

Exactly. He’ll teach us that he is reforming those souls, not just fulfilling a grudge.

This presupposes that God replaced justice with mercy. He did not. It also presumes that God exacts revenge on the disobedient, this is false. God does not cast us into hell, we do this ourselves by our own free will. God merely respects our decision to separate ourselves from Him. Sin by its very nature is its own punishment, it is internal, not externally exacted by some “vengeful god.”

What a crock. Jesus is saying he never “knew” them, as in they were never his friends, not that he never had knowledge of them. Your butchering that verse.

This begs the question.

What a bunch of bunk. Got any scriptures to back up these assertions?

Are we having a philosophical discussion or are you a Protestant who needs scripture references for everything?

As I already pointed out, clearly demonstrated, and you have not refuted, there is no word in the Old or New Testament that means “eternal” in the sense that you are describing.

You have not “clearly demonstrated” anything. You have merely given your opinion based on bad modernists interpretations.

The “Rich Man” will one day appear before the Judgment Seat of God. His suffering will have been suspended, at least temporarily. Obviously, it’s not eternal.

This begs the question.

It is not a matter of an emotional attachment. Eternal torment is not Justice.

See above…

Which question would that be?

You said:

However, if the knowledge of punishment was that it was remedial, then heaven could indeed be a happy place.

The statement begs the question; How do you know that heaven could be a happy place only if the knowledge of punishment was that is was remedial?

This is like saying we do not have free will because we cannot choose to not die. Ridiculous.

The above statement ignores the fact of original sin. I will not go into the theology of it now. The fact is that we can choose to die and choose not to die. It merely depends on what you mean when you say “death.” Regardless it does not remove free will.

I never said there was no Hell, and Universal Restoration teaches no such thing. Strawman.

Never said Salvation was automatic either. Whose posts are you reading, exactly? Being saved from sin, and saved from Hell, both certainly qualify as salvation. The only difference in Universal Restoration with regard to Hell are duration and purpose.

I apologize, its hard to pin down what certain people who believe in Universalism, or as you call it Universal Restoration, because it seems that the tenets are subjective. You seem to believe in those which you like and discard those you don’t. Sort of like your method of interpretation of scripture.

Salvation is not about saving us from something but saving us for someone. We are saved to share in God’s life-which is eternal, not temporal. If the life we receive from God is eternal life, then the life we reject is eternal death.

Hell is not purgatory. The difference between the two are clear. By definition purgatory is good; it purges and purifies. By definition, hell is evil. Demons live and work in hell; angels work in purgatory.

I would ask you that since you believe in a Universal Restoration then do you believe that demons or even Satan himself will be saved?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I think this thread has gotten highjacked. Could a Mod please split this thread?..

 

[dianaiad]

that sounds like what many of us have said to some extent or another, so I don’t know how we are being unfair.

Perhaps you have. However, I didn’t write that YOU were unfair. I wrote that both positions were sometimes portrayed unfairly. They are.

Even here I see it, come to think of it; the idea that somehow the OSAS and hyper-Calvinist folks think that once they are ‘saved’ they can go out and do pretty much any heinous thing they want to and not be condemned for it…sort of like an all encompassing indulgence.

I’m simply saying that as far as I can tell from those who hold to these ideas, those who are truly saved simply will not commit the sort of sin that has everybody here all up in arms. They might struggle with minor ones; habits or stray thoughts, but they won’t be evil. They can’t be.

Now me?

I don’t believe in the “Once saved, always saved” idea AT all. Nor do I believe in predestination.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My response to OSAS(this also goes along with the sola fide argument) is this:

We know that the bible says that “God desires all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth.” We also know that in Jesus’ sacrifice He “died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

So imagine a very large circle. Everyone within this circle respresents the redeemed.

Second, we also know from the bible that when Jesus spoke of His sacrifice and the shedding of His blood for the forgiveness of sins, He did not say “all” but “many”:

Matt 20:[28] even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt 22:[14] For many are called, but few are chosen."
Matt 26:[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (cf Mk 14;24).

So there are those redeemed by Christ’s action and those who are saved. The misunderstanding by many Protestants is that the meaning of these words are interchangable(redeemed=saved). The truth is that they’re not.

Imagine now a smaller circle that is inside the larger circle of the redeemed. This smaller circle would contain those who are redeemed & saved.

The question then becomes what is the difference between the two? What is the difference between the "redeemed’ and the “redeemed & saved”? Is it something God does or is it something we do?

The next question(more relevent to our topic here) is if one can move from from the “redeemed circle” into the “redeemed & saved” circle can one go in reverse? Can one go from the “redeemed & saved” circle to merely the “redeemed” circle, most likely by sin?

The orthodox answer is and will always be “yes.”

The OSAS answer is “no.”

They affirm free will in that one must make an “act of faith” to become “saved”, yet reject any notion that that same free will can affect a separation from God once the one person wilfully sins.

God lives in eternity, and yes he knows what our sins will be because His understanding of us is so full He knows our decisions before we make them. In this He understands us and is always open to us when we seek Him for forgiveness after we fall.

This does not mean that our future sins are already forgiven, that is pridefull presumption. We only have assurance that He will forgive our sins when we commit and then repent of them.

That is legalism ​

We do not have automatic forgiveness merely because we believe that we are “the elect.” That is simply false.

If the elect can be lost, there is a problem. God is not able to save his own. If he could, he would be able to do so even despite their sins. Such a God is weaker than the devil - he can’t save, he can’t overcome sin, he is at the mercy of man’s will, he is unable to keep the promises he makes. Instead, triumph belongs to satan, because his malice & power are great enough to pluck even the elect out of God’s hand What sort of good news is that ? Why bother with God at all, if he is so powerless ? A God who cannot save, cannot forgive - he’s no good to anyone ​

 

[deb1]

Perhaps you have. However, I didn’t write that YOU were unfair. I wrote that both positions were sometimes portrayed unfairly. They are.

Even here I see it, come to think of it; the idea that somehow the OSAS and hyper-Calvinist folks think that once they are ‘saved’ they can go out and do pretty much any heinous thing they want to and not be condemned for it…sort of like an all encompassing indulgence.

I’m simply saying that as far as I can tell from those who hold to these ideas, those who are truly saved simply will not commit the sort of sin that has everybody here all up in arms. They might struggle with minor ones; habits or stray thoughts, but they won’t be evil. They can’t be.

Now me?

I don’t believe in the “Once saved, always saved” idea AT all. Nor do I believe in predestination.

There are different forms of OSAS. Some do teach that you can sin all you want after salvation. and some teach that God can no longer see your sin after you are saved.

As I wrote before, I was taught that once you are saved, you receive Grace that keeps you from wanting to commit a big sin. That is the type that you are familiar with.

But simply because you haven’t come across the first two types does not mean that it is not taught. An example of the first type of OSAS would be my neighbor, who told me that she was at peace about her atheist sister’s salvation due to the fact that at nine her sister was saved. I did not argue with her because who wants to hurt another person?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

In Calvinism, especially hyper-Calvinism, one doesn’t even have to be ‘saved’ first. If you were predestined to be saved, then you are saved–whether you ever figure out that you are or not.

I think you’re wrong. John Calvin believed there is always witness of election i.e. faith and the obedience that flows from faith. He simply stated (as Paul does) that Christ died for the elect while they still dead in their transgressions. In other words atonement precedes spiritual regeneration.

If you’re looking for the best interpretation of scripture then Calvin is the man. If you want great commentary on Aristotle, then Aquinas is your man. If you want the best understanding of how creation really happened, then look to Darwin and his progeny

 

[always_gr8ful]

No no no this is absolutely false. Calvinistic theology does not hold to OSAS. There are some Calvinists that have gravitated to OSAS but that would also include some baptists and non-denoms. Perseverance of the saints has nothing to do with OSAS.

The question was “Have your future sins been forgiven before you sin?”
All this “they were taught to believe this, and they were taught to believe that, and that can’t be right as you know because that’s not what we believe” is giving me a headache too!

The answer to the question is yes. How do I know? Because the Bible tells me so. God breathed it and I believe it.

Do you really want to know? Because at the most, your salvation could depend on your knowing. At the least, your relationship with God the Father and Jesus the Son.

If you really want to know, read Hebrews chapters 10 - 13 and Romans chapters 5 - 8. In there you will also find the answer to “once saved, always saved?”

 

[ckempston]

I think this thread has gotten highjacked. Could a Mod please split this thread?..

I’d love to continue, but I was just thinking the same thing. My apologies.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

That is legalism ​

Ho so?

If the elect can be lost, there is a problem. God is not able to save his own. If he could, he would be able to do so even despite their sins. Such a God is weaker than the devil - he can’t save, he can’t overcome sin, he is at the mercy of man’s will, he is unable to keep the promises he makes. Instead, triumph belongs to satan, because his malice & power are great enough to pluck even the elect out of God’s hand. What sort of good news is that? Why bother with God at all, if he is so powerless ? A God who cannot save, cannot forgive - he’s no good to anyone.​

Notice I put the phrase “the elect” in quotation marks. I was using a Calvinistic term.

But your objection is worth looking at.

God is not able to save his own. If he could, he would be able to do so even despite their sins. Such a God is weaker than the devil - he can’t save, he can’t overcome sin, he is at the mercy of man’s will, he is unable to keep the promises he makes.

How easily we forget the Fall?! God made all of future creation subject to one man’s(Adam) decision-to eat or not to eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden. Man failed and the world and everything in it were changed. Does this mean that God was somehow weak or that He couldn’t maintain creation despite man’s sin? Of course not! God is able to take all of our failures and make even greater goods come out of them.

The problem is when people live in mortal sin and ignorance(Nacy Pilosi, a professed Catholic, comes to mind). People who live glued to their sins and refuse to be separated from them do you honestly think that a God who is love will use force to separate the sin from the sinner? How far does one have to fall to sin before they eventually become the sin that they love most? Can God do anything for that person who loves their sin more than Him? God’s power and omniscience does not negate free will.

…he is unable to keep the promises he makes. Instead, triumph belongs to satan, because his malice & power are great enough to pluck even the elect out of God’s hand What sort of good news is that ?

It’s not that He is unable to keep His promises. It is those who love their sin more than Him who have, knowingly or ignorantly, rejected His promise. They trusted more in themselves, and what they love more than God, than in Him and what He has promised. The devil doesn’t pluck anything out of God’s hands; those who sin walk freely into the devil’s snares. They can walk back, if they repent.

Why bother with God at all, if he is so powerless ? A God who cannot save, cannot forgive - he’s no good to anyone

Have you ever looked at and meditated on the Cross? It is in God’s apparent powerlessness that He shows forth His infinte power and majesty, knowledge and wisdom. It’s not that He cannot forgive-the gift is always there to be given But what if that person doesn’t accept the gift even when it is offered? Passive rejection is still rejection.

 

[NDfan]

Ok, trying to figure out where we went wrong here. I agree for the most part with what you’re saying here, but I still contend that OSAS came about because people adopted Calvinism, and then saw the logical conclusion from belief in certain Calvinistic principles. I’m certainly not saying that all Calvinists believe OSAS (although I find them inconsistent for not doing so). I am simply saying that OSAS finds its roots in some Calvinistic philosophies. Not sure if that clears it up any.

Chip I think so. The biggest point I was trying to make was that pure Calvinism under the TULIP theology didn’t include OSAS. There’s no doubt that many Calvinists brought forth OSAS but we also see it among Baptists and non-Denoms. Were those folks originally Calvinistic? Maybe. It would make sense that OSAS fits into the concept of pre-destination but many OSAS believers don’t feel anything is required after accepting Christ. If you sin you sin so what. Sin doesn’t matter anymore is what I hear them say. Pure Calvinism would never be this bold as the “P” literally means persevering in the Faith until the end. That would mean repenting of sin. But I think we’re on the same page

That statement seems a little inconsistent. I think you just illustrated my point. To understand what repentance means, we have to look back at the Greek, but I would contend that it has a deeper meaning that just changing one’s mind.

True I guess in your post the connection you were making seemed a little off. Perhaps I misunderstood so I’ll just go with that.

My mistake, I was going off memory.

I think we’re good now.

Again, I’m not saying OSAS and TULIP are equivalent or 100% consistent with one another.

Right and I think we are on the same page now.

I agree that a strict “Calvinist” would disagree, but how many “strict” Calvinists are there? Seems to me that you’ve got various denominations, as you mentioned, that take a sprinkle of T a dash of U a pinch of L, etc. It’s like a salad bar.

Chip I agree 100%. There are some on these boards that appear to be strict Calvinists. They definitely refute OSAS as being part of their faith.

PEACE Brother.

 

[ckempston]

Chip I think so. The biggest point I was trying to make was that pure Calvinism under the TULIP theology didn’t include OSAS. There’s no doubt that many Calvinists brought forth OSAS but we also see it among Baptists and non-Denoms. Were those folks originally Calvinistic? Maybe. It would make sense that OSAS fits into the concept of pre-destination but many OSAS believers don’t feel anything is required after accepting Christ. If you sin you sin so what. Sin doesn’t matter anymore is what I hear them say. Pure Calvinism would never be this bold as the “P” literally means persevering in the Faith until the end. That would mean repenting of sin. But I think we’re on the same page

True I guess in your post the connection you were making seemed a little off. Perhaps I misunderstood so I’ll just go with that.

I think we’re good now.

Right and I think we are on the same page now.

Chip I agree 100%. There are some on these boards that appear to be strict Calvinists. They definitely refute OSAS as being part of their faith.

PEACE Brother.

Glad we got that all figured out.

 

[NDfan]

How can Calvinism (especially ‘hyper’ Calvinism) NOT be confused with the OSAS idea?

…except in one way, a rather important one, the results seem to be the same. In OSAS, once one is ‘truly’ saved (and that is a kicker, that one…) then one is always saved. Period. No matter what.

In Calvinism, especially hyper-Calvinism, one doesn’t even have to be ‘saved’ first. If you were predestined to be saved, then you are saved–whether you ever figure out that you are or not.

The difference, if there is one to the believer, is one of choice. A OSAS believer may figure that it is his choice to come to Christ, or that we may all have the opportunity to do so, or that only those who HAVE come to Christ may be saved. The hyper-Calvinist (and to some extent all Calvinists) does not believe that we sinners have any say in the matter at all. Those who are predestined to be saved will be, and those who are not will not.

The kicker that I referred to is this: the ‘truly’ saved don’t, after all, commit the sins that God would have to ignore in order for the ‘saved one’ to be saved in spite of --and this is common to both OSAS and Calvinism. It’s not that God will ignore sins committed by the saved; it is that the saved simply will do their darnedest not to commit them in the first place. They may fail, but BECAUSE they are ‘saved,’ they will repent of them and work harder at making their lives more godly/Christlike.

Not because they want to be saved, but because they already are and it’s not in their nature to sin blithely on in the expectation that God will ignore it.

How does this work?

Well, if someone who is ‘saved’ goes out and screws up, then…he wasn’t ‘saved’ in the first place. If someone who has experienced a ‘born again’ experience and goes out and murders someone, or commits adultery, or does some other insanely wicked thing, then the conclusion isn’t that this sin will be forgiven no matter what. It is that the sinner wasn’t saved in the first place, or…he wouldn’t have committed the sin, especially once he knew it WAS a sin.

I think that’s where "perseverance of the saints’ comes in.

And no, I am not defending either OSAS or Calvinism, hyper or not. I disagree with both ideas intensely.

…but I do think that both ideas have been portrayed a little unfairly.

Diana OSAS is not a part of Calvinism and some of your thoughts here are incorrect. OSAS is a more modern doctrine and has nothing to do with Calvinistic theology. OSAS believers will contend that once you are saved nothing has to be done afterward. Sin doesn’t matter, nothing matters because you are saved. Calvinistic theology holds to the notion of persevering in the faith until the end.

Also Calvinism never states that a person may not know they are saved or are part of the elect. That’s the whole point of efficacious grace. That once GOD spiritually awakens you, you then cooperate with HIS plan for salvation. Under your premise GOD may not spiritually awaken someone to save them until they die. That makes no sense at all.

 

[NDfan]

I didn’t say that they were. Ultimately they are both acts of our loving God. What I did say is that their meanings in terms of what us Catholics call the “economy of salvation” they refer to different actions. Redemption comes from what Christ did on the cross for all men. Justification, “being saved” as Evangelical Protestants put it, has to do with our necessary response to Christ’s love and grace.

Yes I agree 100%. Your circle explanation seemed to suggest otherwise. I think what you are saying is that Christ came to redeem everyone but not everyone will be saved. Is that a fair statement?

Which is what I said above…

Right but again your example seemed to suggest something else. I’m in agreement with you now.

“Accepting” is a work of the brain, of the intellect.

Yes agree again

And I agree. I would only add that since the Body of Christ is the Church that it is the Church which cooperates with Christ in His work of saving souls for the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

Yes in agreement

The above statement is the theological notion of Universalism, that Christ redeemed everyone so no matter who dies, no matter what your spiritual state, you go straight to heaven.

I sincerely hope that is not what you meant to say…

No not at all. I was confused by your application of the circle example. If I understand your explanation now I believe you were saying that the circle represents everyone that Christ came to redeem, which is everyone. But not everyone in that circle is saved. I agree with that only I was making the connection between redemption and being saved. It seemed you were separating the two which is why I asked for clarification.

So are you saying that we don’t need to accept Christ?

Absolutely not. I think we’re on the same page.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

The question was “Have your future sins been forgiven before you sin?”
All this “they were taught to believe this, and they were taught to believe that, and that can’t be right as you know because that’s not what we believe” is giving me a headache too!

The answer to the question is yes. How do I know? Because the Bible tells me so. God breathed it and I believe it.

Do you really want to know? Because at the most, your salvation could depend on your knowing. At the least, your relationship with God the Father and Jesus the Son.

If you really want to know, read Hebrews chapters 10 - 13 and Romans chapters 5 - 8. In there you will also find the answer to “once saved, always saved?”

Always you’re probably preaching to the choir here with me. I believe our sins are forgiven if we believe in Christ. This would have to include future sins because I know that I will commit sin each day. No matter how hard I try as Paul states the very thing I don’t want to do I end up doing. No disagreement from me here. I think the conversation diverted towards OSAS and it’s basis in Calvinism.

I’m assuming from your post you are an OSAS follower??

PEACE