Having Your Future Sins Forgiven BEFORE You Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter deb1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
always_gr8ful said:
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?”
Click to expand...
Well, I didn’t even get out of the first chapter you recommended (Hebrews 10) without running into an explicit refutation of OSAS:

How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

What do we gather from this verse?

-There is a man.
-He was sanctified.
-Yet he trampled the Son of God underfoot.

Question: what happens to this man? The answer is of course found in a preceding verse:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

Conclusion: a man who was once sanctified, but continues to sin will meet with the raging fire that consumes the enemies of God.

OSAS Refuted 101.
 
ckempston said:
Well, I didn’t even get out of the first chapter you recommended (Hebrews 10) without running into an explicit refutation of OSAS:

How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

What do we gather from this verse?

-There is a man.
-He was sanctified.
-Yet he trampled the Son of God underfoot.

Question: what happens to this man? The answer is of course found in a preceding verse:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

Conclusion: a man who was once sanctified, but continues to sin will meet with the raging fire that consumes the enemies of God.

OSAS Refuted 101.
Click to expand...
Good post but you do know that cathloic do not believe the teaching of OSAS
 
humble_in_doubt said:
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:D
Click to expand...
He did teach that atonement precedes spiritual regeneration…but the hyper-Calvinists (who take this considerably further than the ‘run-of-the-mill’ sort of Calvinist) believe that it doesn’t matter whether the ‘elect’ ever find out that they are 'elect." In fact, said ‘elect’ could go out and murder, rape and practice other mayhem, and it doesn’t matter…if at any time in his or her life he WOULD HAVE BEEN ‘saved,’ then he was saved already.

Once he realizes his saved state, he will not continue to behave wickedly, of course…which is a little backwards from what is proposed in this thread, but he’s still saved even if the last thing he does in life is murder someone.

It is why hyper-Calvinists believe that some infants are born to be damned and others to be saved–no matter that they are precisely alike in their physical innocence.

It was presented to me as a beacon of hope; those who are of the elect may not know it, but will be with Him anyway…and those who have figured out that they are of the elect need not worry about anything: in spite of their complete unworthiness to be with Him (and they themselves admit that they are no different in any way from their damned brethren) they will be with Jesus in Heaven.

I heard it as a paean to complete and utter futility and despair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top