Having Your Future Sins Forgiven BEFORE You Sin

[deb1]

I came across this on another thread. It was posted by area 52, I think

***God in His mercy no longer count any of my sins (past, present, or future (after being born again)) against me ***

---

I have come across this line of thinking in SOME Protestants here in the southeast. Certainly, most Protestants do not hold area 52’s views.

Some Christian denominations teach that if you become saved, God will either not see or hold your future sins against you. I certainly believe that God will forgive all sins but you have to acknowledge those sins and ask for forgiveness. If you committ adultery, for example, then God will not simply ignore the adultery, although if you are repentent God will forgive you.

Have any of you come across area 52’s manner of thinking and if so, how did you respond? I don’t know how anyone could read the Bible and believe that God will ignore your future sins unless they are distorting and taking out of context, many Bible verses.

By the way, I don’t want this thread to turn into a Catholic against Protestant discussion. Many Protestants would be as confused as I am by area 52’s words.

 

[ckempston]

I came across this on another thread. It was posted by area 52, I think

***God in His mercy no longer count any of my sins (past, present, or future (after being born again)) against me ***

---

I have come across this line of thinking in SOME Protestants here in the southeast. Certainly, most Protestants do not hold area 52’s views.

Some Christian denominations teach that if you become saved, God will either not see or hold your future sins against you. I certainly believe that God will forgive all sins but you have to acknowledge those sins and ask for forgiveness. If you committ adultery, for example, then God will not simply ignore the adultery, although if you are repentent God will forgive you.

Have any of you come across area 52’s manner of thinking and if so, how did you respond? I don’t know how anyone could read the Bible and believe that God will ignore your future sins unless they are distorting and taking out of context, many Bible verses.

By the way, I don’t want this thread to turn into a Catholic against Protestant discussion. Many Protestants would be as confused as I am by area 52’s words.

Sounds to me like your friend is simply Calvinistic. If you’re not familiar with TULIP, do a search on it and read up. It seems to me that your friend’s claim is a necessary consequence of Irresistable Grace and Perseverence of the Saints.

 

[deb1]

Sounds to me like your friend is simply Calvinistic. If you’re not familiar with TULIP, do a search on it and read up. It seems to me that your friend’s claim is a necessary consequence of Irresistable Grace and Perseverence of the Saints.

I didn’t know that followers of Calvin thought that their future sins would be automatically forgiven.

Also, I’ve come across Christians who held the view that their future sins were forgiven who would not have identified themselves as Calvinists. I wonder if they were influenced by Calvinism without realizing it.

 

[NDfan]

I came across this on another thread. It was posted by area 52, I think

***God in His mercy no longer count any of my sins (past, present, or future (after being born again)) against me ***

---

I have come across this line of thinking in SOME Protestants here in the southeast. Certainly, most Protestants do not hold area 52’s views.

Some Christian denominations teach that if you become saved, God will either not see or hold your future sins against you. I certainly believe that God will forgive all sins but you have to acknowledge those sins and ask for forgiveness. If you committ adultery, for example, then God will not simply ignore the adultery, although if you are repentent God will forgive you.

Have any of you come across area 52’s manner of thinking and if so, how did you respond? I don’t know how anyone could read the Bible and believe that God will ignore your future sins unless they are distorting and taking out of context, many Bible verses.

By the way, I don’t want this thread to turn into a Catholic against Protestant discussion. Many Protestants would be as confused as I am by area 52’s words.

Deb I most certainly have. I just had an interesting conversation with someone who was a follower of OSAS for around 27 years. He believed that once he was saved nothing mattered regarding sin because he was already saved by Christ. Needless to say he told me he struggled with this for a long time and realized how false the doctrine was. He came to our church last weekend emotionally a wreck. All he wanted to do was get back in touch with his faith and start serving the Lord again. GOD will never ignore sin. But HE will forgive it.

 

[ckempston]

I didn’t know that followers of Calvin thought that their future sins would be automatically forgiven.

Also, I’ve come across Christians who held the view that their future sins were forgiven who would not have identified themselves as Calvinists. I wonder if they were influenced by Calvinism without realizing it.

Maybe, but it’s probably also a result of English speakers being ignorant of the subtleties of their language. To those who spoke Greek in the early centuries, it was obvious that salvation is spoken of in the past, present, and future tense in different ways. To Calvinists, once you’re saved, you’re always saved. That’s “perseverance of the saints” and “eternal security.” Both certainly Calvinist concepts, and both completely wrong.

 

[NDfan]

Sounds to me like your friend is simply Calvinistic. If you’re not familiar with TULIP, do a search on it and read up. It seems to me that your friend’s claim is a necessary consequence of Irresistable Grace and Perseverence of the Saints.

This isn’t Calvinistic beliefs. Calvinists believe future sins will be forgiven but would never claim GOD ignores sin. They hold firmly to the necessity to persevere over sin. Perhaps you are referring to OSAS followers which many confuse with Calvinism.

 

[NDfan]

To Calvinists, once you’re saved, you’re always saved. That’s “perseverance of the saints” and “eternal security.” Both certainly Calvinist concepts, and both completely wrong.

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.

 

[ckempston]

This isn’t Calvinistic beliefs. Calvinists believe future sins will be forgiven but would never claim GOD ignores sin. They hold firmly to the necessity to persevere over sin. Perhaps you are referring to OSAS followers which many confuse with Calvinism.

First of all, you’re simply wrong. Second of all, there are probably as many degrees and variants of Calvinists as there are grains of sand on the seashore; so, admittedly, not all Calvinists believe this. “Once Saved Always Saved” comes directly from the notion of eternal security, which is related to the “P” in TULIP - Perseverence of the Saints. Different Calvinists interpret Calvinism differently, but this idea that sins are forgiven regardless of repentance is certainly a result of Calvinist theology.

 

[ckempston]

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.

Are you one of the Elect?

 

[Gertabelle]

A comment I heard on Christian radio once was that since we could never have earned our salvation through our own works, we can never lose our salvation through our actions.

I stopped listening at that point – what a load of rubbish.

 

[deb1]

Okay, now my head hurts.

When I was Protestant I was taught a different form of OSAS. Once you are saved you recieve the gift of Grace that prevents you from wanting to sin. I was not taught though that God would just ignore my future or present sins. I was taught that I wouldn’t want to commit any big sins.

 

[Soutane]

Deb I most certainly have. I just had an interesting conversation with someone who was a follower of OSAS for around 27 years. He believed that once he was saved nothing mattered regarding sin because he was already saved by Christ. Needless to say he told me he struggled with this for a long time and realized how false the doctrine was. He came to our church last weekend emotionally a wreck. All he wanted to do was get back in touch with his faith and start serving the Lord again. GOD will never ignore sin. But HE will forgive it.

ND,how did this person come to this realization or revelation?To be convicted of something for 27 years(although struggling)especially something so (deceptively)comforting as OSAS and to change one’s mind requires real courage.
I’ve often thought that OSAS would be so comforting but that it would negate Christ’s admonition to pick up one’s cross anf to follow Him.

I wonder if OSAS has it’s roots in Gnosticism?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

When I was Protestant I was taught a different form of OSAS. Once you are saved you recieve the gift of Grace that prevents you from wanting to sin. I was not taught though that God would just ignore my future or present sins. I was taught that I wouldn’t want to commit any big sins.

Deb,

I think that is one of the great ironies of OSAS. The problem seems to become that certain individuals do sin and sin big. Or, certain individuals convert to another faith, even a non-Christian one! or even (gasp!) Catholicism.

The only option then is to question whether or not theyactually were saved to begin with! Thus, the crucial bit of OSAS seems to be the OS (once saved), and it is the most difficult to figure out.

That is the irony. The “eternal security” really is an “insecurity” – since no one knows if one is really saved. It seems to me (although I could be misapprehending it) that when someone goes off the rails the response is that they weren’t really saved to being with. But if they weren’t and didn’t know it, and no one knew it, how can anyone in the OSAS system be sure of their own salvation?

VC

 

[Filioque]

I had a co-worker who was raised Baptist, met his family at a company picnic. Even though he was now “proudly” openly gay, and admitted to having no problem with keeping multiple sexual partners, he had rejected Jesus and any Church. His family, and he all agreed that since he made his “decision for Christ” at age 12, he was saved, and could not get out of it. I on the other hand having been born into a Jewish family, and converted to Catholicism was going to hell if I did not repent.

An extreme example, I know. But they really believed in what they said. The brother of my co-worker, who was a church organist, living off the parents at age 45, and womanizing among the congregation, told me I worshiped a cookie, (Actually Death Cookie, thanks to his spiritual formation from the Jack Chick tracts he read) mom and dad agreed, but where not rude about it.

I would not paint all OSAS believers as being this adimate, but would not be suprized. The other observation of OSAS believers I have noticed, is that with someone as described above, they become the arbitrator who can proclaim, “Well they where never really saved in the first place.” and explain away how you can accept Jesus, but not really accept Jesus.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Filioque,

Yes, you’ve described what I was saying above. Your example of the openly gay person is the flip-side of the OSAS.

It seems when faced with manifest sin you can either grit your teeth and grimly take hold of the AS in OSAS, or you can deny that there was an OS.

What do others think? Is this impression correct?

VC

(p.s. I’ve heard the term “backsliding” – how does this inform the question above? Is there a limit to “backsliding”? Can someone backslide so much as to either make the OS questionable or make the AS seem unreasonable?)

 

[NDfan]

First of all, you’re simply wrong. Second of all, there are probably as many degrees and variants of Calvinists as there are grains of sand on the seashore; so, admittedly, not all Calvinists believe this. “Once Saved Always Saved” comes directly from the notion of eternal security, which is related to the “P” in TULIP - Perseverence of the Saints. Different Calvinists interpret Calvinism differently, but this idea that sins are forgiven regardless of repentance is certainly a result of Calvinist theology.

No I am not wrong Chip. You have no idea what you are talking about. OSAS is not part of TULIP. They are completely separate doctrines and are foreign to traditional Calvinists. TULIP was defined at the Synod of Dort and had no definition at all related to OSAS. Eternal security as it relates to the “P” in TULIP is consistent with the meaning that one can have the assurance of eternal life by trusting in Christ. But it does not include the true meaning which is perseverance or continuance in faith until the end. OSAS totally ignores this. I just spoke with a former die-hard OSAS believer of 29 years who believed his sin was inconsequential because he was already saved. He finally realized that this belief was ridiculous.

Your statement with regard to forgiveness without repentance just demonstrates your lack of understanding of what repentance means. The word repent simply means to make a turn. We are to repent or turn away from sin and then become baptized into Christ. Calvinists would never deny the need for repentance nor would they discount the severity of sin. Calvinists believe that part of persevering in the faith is not committing sin. Not just declaring that since now you are elect there are no more worries because once saved always saved.

 

[NDfan]

Are you one of the Elect?

This is a silly question since I’m not a follower of traditional Calvinistic views. I don’t believe for one second that GOD only chooses certain people to be saved. I believe GOD wants to be with all HIS children and gives each of us the ability to choose Christ. But I most certainly believe that it’s only by GOD’s initial grace that I’m able to do this.

 

[NDfan]

ND,how did this person come to this realization or revelation?To be convicted of something for 27 years(although struggling)especially something so (deceptively)comforting as OSAS and to change one’s mind requires real courage.
I’ve often thought that OSAS would be so comforting but that it would negate Christ’s admonition to pick up one’s cross anf to follow Him.

I wonder if OSAS has it’s roots in Gnosticism?

Thanks for the question. Apparently he had a few life changing events that caused him to re-evaluate his faith. He works as an industrial mechanic and fell off of a lift that was 25 feet in the air head first. He said he thought for sure he was dead. Someone actually caught him and broke his fall. Sometime later on he had a 250 pound sheet of metal fall and basically graze his back. He said almost like you see in a cartoon. He did not tell me what the 3rd event was but apparently after it happened he felt that GOD sparing his life each time was a push to think differently about his faith. All I know is that in conversing with him his outlook and line of thinking seemed to be much different.

As far as OSAS being rooted in Gnosticism I don’t believe that is true although who knows these days. OSAS definitely has more of a link to Calvinism although it was never defined at Dort. It’s a much newer doctrine that has spawned out of the notion of having eternal security once you become saved. The major difference as explained to Chip is that it lacks as you said quite well that it negates one taking up their own cross. The easy believer mentality. The P in TULIP which is perseverance means persevering in the faith until the end. That means taking up your cross and living your faith til the end gives one the assurance of eternal life.

PEACE

 

[orange_man]

I came across this on another thread. It was posted by area 52, I think

***God in His mercy no longer count any of my sins (past, present, or future (after being born again)) against me ***

---

I have come across this line of thinking in SOME Protestants here in the southeast. Certainly, most Protestants do not hold area 52’s views.

Some Christian denominations teach that if you become saved, God will either not see or hold your future sins against you. I certainly believe that God will forgive all sins but you have to acknowledge those sins and ask for forgiveness. If you committ adultery, for example, then God will not simply ignore the adultery, although if you are repentent God will forgive you.

Have any of you come across area 52’s manner of thinking and if so, how did you respond? I don’t know how anyone could read the Bible and believe that God will ignore your future sins unless they are distorting and taking out of context, many Bible verses.

By the way, I don’t want this thread to turn into a Catholic against Protestant discussion. Many Protestants would be as confused as I am by area 52’s words.

funny story. One of the claims of Johann Tetzel was that he had the authority to forgive sins not yet committed (even if the potential purveyor was contemplating the sin at the time he sought the indulgence). So a few Germans were talking with Mr. Tetzel one day & asked if they could pay him to forgive any sin they were planning on committing. Mr. Tetzel responded yes of course; and the men paid him for the indulgence.

Soon thereafter the men met Mr. Tetzel on an empty roadway, beat him up, and robbed him of his money. When Mr. Tetzel complained to the authorities the men said Mr. Tetzel himself had provided them with a certificate of forgiveness for the very sin he was now seeking justice for. The authorities saw the certificate, confirmed its authenticity, and accordingly let the men go.

 

[ckempston]

No I am not wrong Chip. You have no idea what you are talking about. OSAS is not part of TULIP. They are completely separate doctrines and are foreign to traditional Calvinists. TULIP was defined at the Synod of Dort and had no definition at all related to OSAS. Eternal security as it relates to the “P” in TULIP is consistent with the meaning that one can have the assurance of eternal life by trusting in Christ. But it does not include the true meaning which is perseverance or continuance in faith until the end. OSAS totally ignores this. I just spoke with a former die-hard OSAS believer of 29 years who believed his sin was inconsequential because he was already saved. He finally realized that this belief was ridiculous.

I didn’t say it wasn’t ridiculous, and I also didn’t say OSAS was a part of TULIP, I said it was developed from some of the concepts behind TULIP, so stop putting words in my mouth.

Your statement with regard to forgiveness without repentance just demonstrates your lack of understanding of what repentance means. The word repent simply means to make a turn. We are to repent or turn away from sin and then become baptized into Christ. Calvinists would never deny the need for repentance nor would they discount the severity of sin. Calvinists believe that part of persevering in the faith is not committing sin. Not just declaring that since now you are elect there are no more worries because once saved always saved.

LOL. Wow, that’s a good one. I know exactly what repentance means because I happen to know how to read Greek. Do you?

Another hoot - “Calvinists believe…not committing sin”, which is why Calvin was such a sainted man. TULIP has produced one thing: a whole lot of sin, because it lends itself to so much misunderstanding and contradictory interpretation (which illustrates another problem altogether). There are some “calvinists” who would heartily disagree with you anyway, and several examples have been provided that demonstrate this. So who’s right?