Question for Calvinists

[Third_Day]

I have been told by other Calvinists that they are one of the “elect” and therefore no sin can separate them from the love of God

Here is my question.
Could you, as one of the elect, commit the sin of adultery or fornication or murder or rape, or homosexual relations, and without confessing and repenting of that sin still be absolutely assured that you will enter eternal life with God?

If your answer is yes, please provide a scripture that proves your belief.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I have been told by other Calvinists that they are one of the “elect” and therefore no sin can separate them from the love of God

Really? I’ve never met a Calvinist who ever claimed to know for certain that he/she is among the elect. But if you have, we’ll that is interesting.

Here is my question.
Could you, as one of the elect, commit the sin of adultery or fornication or murder or rape, or homosexual relations, and without confessing and repenting of that sin still be absolutely assured that you will enter eternal life with God? If your answer is yes, please provide a scripture that proves your belief.

I would answer that such a person has absolutely no legitimate expectation to eternal life with God and that Scripture warns such people that those who practice such things are in fact not of the kingdom and will be eternally lost. What Scripture does not allow us to affirm is that such persons were ever brought into a saving relationship with God in the first place.

Any “Calvinist” who claims to know with certitude that he/she is among the elect and can therefore sin with impunity is, by that very attitude, living proof that he/she is almost certainly not among the elect.

 

[Third_Day]

=Miguel Sastre;7671817]Really? I’ve never met a Calvinist who ever claimed to know for certain that he/she is among the elect. But if you have, we’ll that is interesting.

Every Calvinist I have met claims they are one of the Elect and that is why their salvation is assured.

I would answer that such a person has absolutely no legitimate expectation to eternal life with God and that Scripture warns such people that those who practice such things are in fact not of the kingdom and will be eternally lost.

If someone “backslides” into sin does that mean they were never saved in the first place?

What Scripture does not allow us to affirm is that such persons were ever brought into a saving relationship with God in the first place.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. If a person who believes they are “saved” commits one sin of adultery and does not confess or repent are they still saved?

Any “Calvinist” who claims to know with certitude that he/she is among the elect and can therefore sin with impunity is, by that very attitude, living proof that he/she is almost certainly not among the elect.

Do you agree or disagree with Pastor Charles Stanley who writes in his book Eternal Security:

“If you have placed your trust in Christ’s death on the cross as payment for your sin, you are an eternal member of the family of God. Acting like God’s child didn’t get you in. Not acting like one won’t get you tossed out. God’s unconditonal love is eternal. Salvation is forever.”

" You have been sealed…The moment you trusted Christ as your Savior, God sealed you…how then can we lose our salvation? To be unsaved would mean to remove the seal."

"We must understand what exactly sends a person to hell…sin alone isn’t enough. Heaven will be full of people who committed all kinds of sin. It takes more than sinning to get to hell…It’s not lying, cheating, stealing, raping, murdering, or being unfaithful that sends people to hell. It is rejecting Christ, refusing to put their trust in Him for the forgiveness of sin…Salvation occurs at a moment in time when we by faith accept God’s free gift. At that point in time God declares us “not guilty.”

 

[StTommyMore]

I used to be a Fundamental Baptist, and though not purely Calvinist, they definitely had Calvinist tendencies. For my community sin had no effect whatsoever on salvation. If you said the “Sinner’s prayer” and meant it, you were among the elect. Nothing you could do would separate you from the love of God. Ever. :twocents:

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Every Calvinist I have met claims they are one of the Elect and that is why their salvation is assured.

Are you sure they’re “Calvinists”? Do they claim to be Reformed? Or are they OSAS (“once saved, always saved” Evangelicals?)

If someone “backslides” into sin does that mean they were never saved in the first place?

That calls for discernment. 1 John 2:19 says that those who “went out from us” were in fact “never of us” in the first place. But it is also true that we all “stumble” in many ways, but not so as to “fall.” So putting all that information together, I would say this: When you observe another Christian (ore even better, when you observe yourself!) “backsliding,” it is important to call him/her (yourself) back to repentance. If the person never does repent, and dies, then only then can we safely assume that this person was probably not among the elect. But in the present moment, we lack the vantage point to know how this person’s story finally turns out. I fear that perhaps you’re only looking at this from the human point of view. But there is also the fact that God is in no way neutral here; rather it is God who will make sure his elect are brought safely and finally into the kingdom. Our trust, therefore, is in Him and His promise to save; it is not in ourselves. Were I to look to myself, I would be forced into despair, since I could never with any confidence claim to be able to live my life sufficiently within God’s will by my own resources.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. If a person who believes they are “saved” commits one sin of adultery and does not confess or repent are they still saved?

I would answer that this way: King David was elect from all eternity. Yet not only did he commit adultery, he also committed murder. And yet he was “saved” still because it was God’s will to bring him to repentance. Nothing happens outside of the will of God. David’s sins did not change his elect status. The tradeoff, however, is that neither David nor anyone else at the time, could possibly know his eternal destiny. Only God was privy to that and we only know what it was because of Scripture. So from David’s point of view, it would have been possible to see himself as “lost,” not knowing that God was faithful to fulfill is promise to him, even though David himself was faithless for a time. Certainly David never made the inference that because he had the “joy of his salvation,” that he could thereby sin with impunity and Evangelicals who do make this inference are simply in error.

Do you agree or disagree with Pastor Charles Stanley who writes in his book Eternal Security: “If you have placed your trust in Christ’s death on the cross as payment for your sin, you are an eternal member of the family of God. Acting like God’s child didn’t get you in. Not acting like one won’t get you tossed out. God’s unconditonal love is eternal. Salvation is forever.”

I agree with some of this. For example, salvation is forever and God’s love is unconditional. I also believe that if you are truly in God’s family, you won’t ultimately be disinherited. Witness Kind David. That said, I don’t think we can know this side of eternity if we are. The mere fact that someone claims to have put his trust in Jesus, etc, isn’t proof positive of anything more than a “conversion experience.” The trust in question isn’t a one-time event, but a way of life. Belief and trust are present tense verbs in Greek and therefore imply ongoing, habitual action. Does not the parable of the seed tell us this much? A person who receives the word with joy and then gets withers for lack of roots isn’t, in my view, a true member of God’s family.

" You have been sealed…The moment you trusted Christ as your Savior, God sealed you…how then can we lose our salvation? To be unsaved would mean to remove the seal."

The “seal” metaphor is definitely Biblical (Ephesians 1 and 4) and it is “unto the day of Redemption.” But once again, this only describes the true believer. The same Paul who says this of the believer also says this to the Ephesians:

19 They [the Gentiles] have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

In other words, Paul is writing to communities with both believers and unbelievers in them–perhaps some close to belief, but not quite there yet. Elsewhere he tells us to “examine ourselves” to make sure we’re in the faith, (2 Corinthians 13:5). So there isn’t a magic formula such as “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior” that makes one a Christian; rather I think it is the person who truly has “put off the old self” and otherwise meets Paul’s description of a Christian that can plausibly claim to have been sealed by the Spirit unto the day of redemption. It’s not those who made an “altar call” or had some kind of cathartic experience at the youth retreat, only to go back to being the exact same person they were prior to it.

"We must understand what exactly sends a person to hell…sin alone isn’t enough.

Heresy. Sin is the only reason for going to hell. Sin is a rejection of Jesus.

 

[William_Pitts]

Five-point Calvinists, the full-fledged version, summarize their doctrine using the acrostic “TULIP” which stands for :

T otal depravity: Because of the Fall, humans are completely incapable of doing anything to save themselves or of meriting God’s favor in any way. ‘All of our righteousness is as filthy rags’. All human beings are culpable for our sins and justly and condinely condemned to Hell.

U nconditional Election: God acts out of His Own sovereign free will to elect some to be saved from Hell by the sacrifice of His Son on our behalf. This choice is made not based upon the merits of any person nor arbitrarily but for God’s own good purposes.

L imited Atonement: God acts to save only some of the human race. He is under no obligation to save any but acts in grace and mercy to save some that His mercy may be revealed in them, whilst His justice is shown in those whom He does not act to save.

I rresistable Grace: Those whom God elects will ultmately come to Him through His Son. Those who do not receive His Grace will never truly call upon Him or accept Him because they are by nature at enmity with Him.

P erserverance (or Preservation) of the Saints: The Elect will ultimately persevere, through the preserving power of God, though they may at times be disobedient or out of God’s will.

The idea of ‘once-saved-always-saved’ is derived from Calvinism. Some call this ‘whiskey Calvinism’, because it emphasizes only one-fifth of the tenets of Calvinism. Many Calvinists are four-point Calvinists who reject either the idea of Limited Atonement or of Irresistable Grace. On the other extreme are hardshell or hyper-Calvinists who teach double-predestination: God explicitly wills not only that some be saved but that all others are damned.

Cafeteria Calvinism it seems is common. Pick and choose what you want to believe. Each group has their own traditions and beliefs and each pastor is their own pope.

Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines."

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The idea of ‘once-saved-always-saved’ is derived from Calvinism. Some call this ‘whiskey Calvinism’, because it emphasizes only one-fifth of the tenets of Calvinism. Many Calvinists are four-point Calvinists who reject either the idea of Limited Atonement or of Irresistable Grace. On the other extreme are hardshell or hyper-Calvinists who teach double-predestination: God explicitly wills not only that some be saved but that all others are damned."

Don’t forget the “Christmas Calvinists.” Noel. Get it? No “L”. (Yuks.)

I’m glad you say “derives from” Calvinism because I don’t think OSAS is a fair representation of Calvinist beliefs. The crucial difference, it seems to me, is this: The OSAS crowd largely assumes that they are among the elect and so immediately claim that their own salvation cannot be lost, which implies that they themselves are “saved.” The classic Calvinist, on the other hand, is far more cautious. We don’t claim to know who the “elect” are and we interpret personal salvation as “apparent” and therefore subject to testing and examination. That, however, doesn’t destroy the possibility of a high degree of “assurance.” I actually think the Catholic position of “moral certitude” is probably the best articulation of the kind of “assurance” we can have. Yeah for Rome!

 

[jericho777]

I have been told by other Calvinists that they are one of the “elect” and therefore no sin can separate them from the love of God

Here is my question.
Could you, as one of the elect, commit the sin of adultery or fornication or murder or rape, or homosexual relations, and without confessing and repenting of that sin still be absolutely assured that you will enter eternal life with God?

If your answer is yes, please provide a scripture that proves your belief.

Hi Third Day
Your first reference is from Rom 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And yes there is nothing that can separate the elect from His love. He first loved us.

Sin at any level is not healthful for those who profess a love for Christ. As scripture says when we sin on one point of the law we are guilty of breaking the whole law. We are called to live a life of holiness no buts. At the very least our sin brings shame upon the name of Christ and the worst we deceive ourselves possibility to the point of possibly never having been saved in the first place. No matter what sins we commit. God hates all sin. I think there also is a misconception there is a lack of restraint from those whom God has elected. That they feel they do not have to refrain from sin or they have a license to sin with no consequence. That simply is not true according to scripture. God disciplines His children to bring them back to fellowship. Heb 12:6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

I think you miss the point for those God has elected, it is He who will see them through to the end. Rom 8:29-33 ** For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son,** that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. **30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. **31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? **33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. **

Just as we see in scripture those the Lord has called He facilitated all that is needed for their salvation in spite of their sins. He made the way for them ultimately to be saved David, Abraham, Jacob, the eleven apostles, Paul and Rahab the harlot to name a few. I think you get the idea. He will fulfill the promise of election to those He has called.

 

[guanophore]

I have been told by other Calvinists that they are one of the “elect” and therefore no sin can separate them from the love of God

Here is my question.
Could you, as one of the elect, commit the sin of adultery or fornication or murder or rape, or homosexual relations, and without confessing and repenting of that sin still be absolutely assured that you will enter eternal life with God?

If your answer is yes, please provide a scripture that proves your belief.

This is true, and is consistent with the Teaching of the Apostles.

What you, and they, are confusing here is that being loved by God somehow equates to being saved, or spending eternal life with Him. He loves every person He creates. that does not mean all of them will enter eternal life.

Every Calvinist I have met claims they are one of the Elect and that is why their salvation is assured.

If someone “backslides” into sin does that mean they were never saved in the first place?

This is the common Calvanist position. Since God preserves those who He saves, those who fall into sin must not be among the elect. The good tree bears good fruit, and the bad tree, bad fruit. Bad fruit = bad tree.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. If a person who believes they are “saved” commits one sin of adultery and does not confess or repent are they still saved?

According to Calvanism, sin no longer separates a person from God.

Do you agree or disagree with Pastor Charles Stanley who writes in his book *Eternal Security:*

“If you have placed your trust in Christ’s death on the cross as payment for your sin, you are an eternal member of the family of God. Acting like God’s child didn’t get you in. Not acting like one won’t get you tossed out. God’s unconditonal love is eternal. Salvation is forever.”

Charles Stanley is one of the main sources of the heresy that equates God’s eternal and unconditional love with salvation. God so loved the whole world that He sent His son, so that while we were yet sinners, He would die for us. He does not only love the elect, and not all the world will be saved, and no Calvanist will tell you salvation is universal.

One need only read Scripture to find that His love does not mean the one loved will be saved:

Mark 10:21-22
21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 22 When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

He loves us enough to let us walk away.

" You have been sealed…The moment you trusted Christ as your Savior, God sealed you…how then can we lose our salvation? To be unsaved would mean to remove the seal."

There are two errors in this statement. The first is that the seal occurs in baptism. There is nothing in scripture that says we are sealed “the moment you trusted”. The second is that people who are sealed cannot be lost. They can be, and they are.

Being sealed places one’s name in the Book of Life.

Rev 3:4-6
4 Yet you have still a few persons in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes; they will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels. 6 Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

Why would Jesus talk about “not” blotting a name out, if it were not possible?

"We must understand what exactly sends a person to hell…sin alone isn’t enough. Heaven will be full of people who committed all kinds of sin. It takes more than sinning to get to hell…It’s not lying, cheating, stealing, raping, murdering, or being unfaithful that sends people to hell. It is rejecting Christ, refusing to put their trust in Him for the forgiveness of sin…

There is nothing uncatholic in this statement. We are all born into a state of separation from God due to original sin. Those who come to faith in Him can escape the punishment of original sin.

Mark 16:16-17
16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

.Salvation occurs at a moment in time when we by faith accept God’s free gift. At that point in time God declares us “not guilty.”

This statement also contradicts the Holy Scripture. There is no support for salvation occuring in “a moment in time”.

 

[guanophore]

Are you sure they’re “Calvinists”? Do they claim to be Reformed? Or are they OSAS (“once saved, always saved” Evangelicals?)

Are there OSAS Evangelicals that do NOT espouse Calvanism?

 If the person never does repent, and dies, then only then can we safely assume that this person was probably *not* among the elect.

On what basis can, or should, such an assumption be made? How can any such assumption be in any way “safe”?

But there is also the fact that God is in no way neutral here; rather it is God who will make sure his elect are brought safely and finally into the kingdom.  Our trust, therefore, is in Him and His promise to save; it is not in ourselves.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

 Certainly David never made the inference that because he had the "joy of his salvation," that he could thereby sin with impunity and Evangelicals who do make this inference are simply in error.

By what authority do you determine that this is an error?

 For example, salvation is forever and God's love is unconditional.  I also believe that if you are *truly* in God's family, you won't ultimately be disinherited.

Here is another good example of equating God’s eternal and unconditional love with salvation.

It is not a matter of being “disinherited”, but rather, the person who has been made a member of the family walking away from the inheritance.

 The trust in question isn't a one-time event, but a way of life.  Belief and trust are present tense verbs in Greek and therefore imply ongoing, habitual action.  Does not the parable of the seed tell us this much?  A person who receives the word with joy and then gets withers for lack of roots isn't, in my view, a *true* member of God's family.

It is Catholic that it is a way of life. However, when you look at the parable of the seeds, you see that 75% of them sprouted. This means, according to Jesus, the Word was received and began to take root. Such an event cannot occur unless a person is sealed. Unless one is born again, one canot “see” the Kingdom.

The “seal” metaphor is definitely Biblical (Ephesians 1 and 4) and it is “unto the day of Redemption.” But once again, this only describes the true believer. The same Paul who says this of the believer also says this to the Ephesians:

You seem to believe that a person who has been sealed cannot then fall from the faith.

 In other words, Paul is writing to communities with both  believers and unbelievers in them--perhaps some close to belief, but not quite there yet.

There is absolutly no biblical evidence that this statement has any validity whatsoever.

 Elsewhere he tells us to "examine ourselves" to make sure we're in the faith, (2 Corinthians 13:5).  So there isn't a magic formula such as "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior" that makes one a Christian; rather I think it is the person who truly has "put off the old self" and otherwise meets Paul's description of a Christian that can plausibly claim to have been sealed by the Spirit unto the day of redemption.

It is true that a committed disciple of Christ has, indeed, put off the old self. However, you still seem to be assuming that a sealed person cannot be lost.

All one need do is read the letters to the seven Churches in Revelation to be clear that believers can be lost.

 

[Nine_Two]

Don’t forget the “Christmas Calvinists.” Noel. Get it? No “L”. (Yuks.)

I’m glad you say “derives from” Calvinism because I don’t think OSAS is a fair representation of Calvinist beliefs. The crucial difference, it seems to me, is this: The OSAS crowd largely assumes that they are among the elect and so immediately claim that their own salvation cannot be lost, which implies that they themselves are “saved.” The classic Calvinist, on the other hand, is far more cautious. We don’t claim to know who the “elect” are and we interpret personal salvation as “apparent” and therefore subject to testing and examination. That, however, doesn’t destroy the possibility of a high degree of “assurance.” I actually think the Catholic position of “moral certitude” is probably the best articulation of the kind of “assurance” we can have. Yeah for Rome!

While it has been a year or so since I had to read the Institutes for class, I seem to recall he very clearly taught the elect could not be brought to sin in the eyes of God and those who were not among the elect could do nothing but sin, even their “good” deeds were ultimately sinful.

 

[guanophore]

Sin at any level is not healthful for those who profess a love for Christ.

I should say not! That is why the Apostle calls some of them “mortal” (unto death)

it is He who will see them through to the end. Rom 8:29-33 ** For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son,** that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. **30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. **

I think another problem those who have fallen prey to Calvanism have is that they take these passages out of the past tense and bring them into the present tense. Though the Apostles is writing about saints who are already in heaven, it is applied to those who have not yet finished the race.

Just as we see in scripture those the Lord has called He facilitated all that is needed for their salvation in spite of their sins. He made the way for them ultimately to be saved David, Abraham, Jacob, the eleven apostles, Paul and Rahab the harlot to name a few. I think you get the idea. He will fulfill the promise of election to those He has called.

This also assumes that all who are called are also elected, and all that are elected are saved. On the contrary, the Apostles address the letters to the “elect” (church) and the letters contain passages that indicate all those “elect” being addressed will not be saved.

 

[Third_Day]

=Miguel Sastre;7673050] When you observe another Christian (ore even better, when you observe yourself!) “backsliding,” it is important to call him/her (yourself) back to repentance. If the person never does repent, and dies, then only then can we safely assume that this person was probably not among the elect.

You seem to be saying that repentance is necessary for one to be of the elect. If one is saved by faith alone why would repentance be necessary?

I would answer that this way: King David was elect from all eternity. Yet not only did he commit adultery, he also committed murder. And yet he was “saved” still because it was God’s will to bring him to repentance. Nothing happens outside of the will of God. David’s sins did not change his elect status

.
Didn’t David have to freely cooperate with God’s grace to come to repentance? I wouldn’t say it was because of God’s will that David repented. Rather, God foresaw that David would accept His grace to repent.

The mere fact that someone claims to have put his trust in Jesus, etc, isn’t proof positive of anything more than a “conversion experience.” The trust in question isn’t a one-time event, but a way of life. Belief and trust are present tense verbs in Greek and therefore imply ongoing, habitual action. Does not the parable of the seed tell us this much? A** person who receives the word with joy and then gets withers for lack of roots isn’t, in my view, a true member of God’s family**.

The parable in Luke 8 tells us that the belief spoken of is one of saving faith.

Luke 8;12 “Those by the wayside are they that hear, then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
The Greek word there is pisteuo and in context it is clearly a believing unto salvation, "lest they should believe and be saved."

In verse 13 it says that those on the rock received the word with joy and believe ( pisteuo) for awhile and fall away.

The “seal” metaphor is definitely Biblical (Ephesians 1 and 4) and it is “unto the day of Redemption.” But once again, this only describes the true believer.

How do you know that “seal” isn’t a reference to baptism?

In other words, Paul is writing to communities with both believers and unbelievers in them–perhaps some close to belief, but not quite there yet.

Aren’t you assuming that Paul is addressing unbelievers in that community? Paul says they were sealed and yet tells them "But immorality and all impurity …must not even be named among you…no immoral or impure man…has any inheritance in the kingdom of God…let no one deceive you."

Sin is the only reason for going to hell. Sin is a rejection of Jesus.

Is one sin like adultery a rejection of Jesus? I have been told only “habitual” sin is a rejection of Jesus.

 

[Third_Day]

=jericho777;7673945]
Your first reference is from Rom 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And yes **there is nothing that can separate the elect **from His love. He first loved us.

Deadly sin cannot separate one from the love of God?

Sin at any level is not healthful for those who profess a love for Christ.

Are you saying that adultery is not healthful and it is not a deadly sin?

As scripture says when we sin on one point of the law we are guilty of breaking the whole law. We are called to live a life of holiness no buts.

And if you don’t live a life of holiness, then what?

At the very least our sin brings shame upon the name of Christ and the worst we deceive ourselves possibility to the point of possibly never having been saved in the first place. No matter what sins we commit. God hates all sin.

This should require a simple yes or no. If you committed murder and did not confess or repent are you still saved?

I think there also is a misconception there is a lack of restraint from those whom God has elected. That they feel they do not have to refrain from sin or they have a license to sin with no consequence. That simply is not true according to scripture.

Agree, but what is the consequence you are referring to? Hell?

God disciplines His children to bring them back to fellowship. Heb 12:6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

We suffer pain as a means of sanctification and so that we will turn to Him.

I think you miss the point for those God has elected, it is He who will see them through to the end.

God knows who the Elect are. You and I don’t. But if you believe that no sin can separate you from God’s love that I would have to believe that you have been deceived. If we sin, only through confession and repentance can we be restored to His love.

Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment

1 John 2:3-4:
And by this we may know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says “I know Him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[guanophore]

Deadly sin cannot separate one from the love of God?

No.

Rom 5:6-8

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person — though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.

God created us out of Love, and He loves every soul He creates. While our sins can separate us from eternal life with Him, they do not separate us from His love for His creation. While we were still dead in our trespasses and sins, He died to save us.

And if you don't live a life of holiness, then what?

It seems that one would not fulfill the works of righteousness that God has prepared from before the foundation of the world.

Agree, but what is the consequence you are referring to? Hell?

No. Calvanists believe that God gives us temporal chastizements to cause us to repent.

God knows who the Elect are. You and I don’t. But if you believe that no sin can separate you from God’s love that I would have to believe that you have been deceived. If we sin, only through confession and repentance can we be restored to His love.

I think it is more proper to say that we are restored to right relationship with Him (a state of grace). He loves us so much He allows us to walk through the gates of hell, if that is our choice.

Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment

1 John 2:3-4:
And by this we may know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says “I know Him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Even the fearful prospect of judgment does not mean He stopped loving us. He judges us BECAUSE He loves us.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

You seem to be saying that repentance is necessary for one to be of the elect. If one is saved by faith alone why would repentance be necessary?

I don’t understand the question. It seems like you’re using a definition of “faith alone” that would exclude repentance. As far as I know, no Protestant holds that position. At least I don’t. Repentance is the evidence of faith. Further, “faith alone” is, properly speaking, with respect to “justification,” not “salvation.”

“Didn’t David have to freely cooperate with God’s grace to come to repentance?”

Where does the text say anything about “freely cooperating?”

I wouldn’t say it was because of God’s will that David repented. Rather, God foresaw that David would accept His grace to repent.

So God “reacts” to what he sees in the future and thus our actions determine God’s? Is that your view?

The parable in Luke 8 tells us that the belief spoken of is one of saving faith. Luke 8;12 “Those by the wayside are they that hear, then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”

Yes. It seems the Word needs to “take root” as it were before it can do it’s job of bringing us to salvation. So apparently it isn’t enough to just “hear” the word. One has to also respond to it and the fact that some do not can be attributed directly to the work of Satan. I have no problem with this because there is no reason to suppose that they were saved and then lost their salvation because the Devil took it away. If you hold this view, then how do you explain Jesus’ words that “nobody” can snatch the sheep from Jesus’ hand that we read about in John 10?

In verse 13 it says that those on the rock received the word with joy and believe ( pisteuo) for awhile and fall away.

Yes, apostasy. But “believing for a while,” isn’t the same as salvation because “salvation” is determined by election. There is nothing here that requires us to hold that the faith described where was ever genuine. As I said before, it’s not the cathartic experience or the response to an “altar call” that saves; rather it is genuine faith and this must be discerned over time.

How do you know that “seal” isn’t a reference to baptism?

How do you know it is? Paul nowhere connects the idea of “sealing” to baptism in Ephesians and in any event the sealing is “unto the day of Redemption,” which would make it irrevocable. If this is baptism, then Paul is saying the baptized person cannot fail to go to heaven, which would contradict Rome’s view that salvation can be lost. Or can we “unseal” what the Holy Spirit has sealed?

Aren’t you assuming that Paul is addressing unbelievers in that community?

I think every epistle is addressing communities with both believers and unbelievers in them. That is why there are so many warnings and exhortations to holy living–not because salvation can be lost; rather because one can mistakenly think one is a believer when in fact he/she is not.

Is one sin like adultery a rejection of Jesus? I have been told only “habitual” sin is a rejection of Jesus.

Is Jesus God? Is sin a rejection of God. How many sins did it take for Adam and Eve to reject God. Were they in the “habit” of picking forbidden fruit. Or was one pick enough?
Put me on record as disagreeing with all those Evangelicals who think that they can be simultaneously saved and sin with impunity. I’d say the evidence of the sin is a sign that they might not have been saved in the first place.

That said, do you think David’s murder and adultery caused him to loose his salvation? How can that be if he was elect from all eternity? And does not the fact that God restored him prove that “no one” had snatched him from God’s hand, not even his own sin?

 

[StTommyMore]

I have never seen a more blatant rationalization of Calvinist heresy than what I have seen on this thread. The Calvinist “arguments” have no merit whatsoever.

 

[Third_Day]

=guanophore;7674743]No.God created us out of Love, and He loves every soul He creates. While our sins can separate us from eternal life with Him, they do not separate us from His love for His creation. While we were still dead in our trespasses and sins, He died to save us.

I’m glad to see that you believe that sin separates us from eternal life with God. Yes I believe that God will always love us but if we commit a mortal sin and do not repent He will allow us to go to hell.

Even the fearful prospect of judgment does not mean He stopped loving us. He judges us BECAUSE He loves us.

If we commit a mortal sin and do not repent and confess that sin are we still saved?

 

[Third_Day]

=Miguel Sastre;7675149]I don’t understand the question. It seems like you’re using a definition of “faith alone” that would exclude repentance. As far as I know, no Protestant holds that position. At least I don’t. Repentance is the evidence of faith. Further, “faith alone” is, properly speaking, with respect to “justification,” not "salvation

."
Repentance is more than just evidence, it is necessary for salvation and since repentance is necessary then how can one be saved by faith alone? I’m not taking about confessing one time but every time you sin.

"

Didn’t David have to freely cooperate with God’s grace to come to repentance?"

Where does the text say anything about “freely cooperating?”

You think David had no choice? To believe that God’s grace is irrestible is unbiblical.

2 Cor. 6:1
Working together with him, then, we urge you not to accept the grace of God in vain

So God “reacts” to what he sees in the future and thus our actions determine God’s? Is that your view?

God has already seen the future. Everything is in the present. Our free will choice was seen by Him from the foundation of the world and He includes our free will choice in His plan of salvation

Yes. It seems the Word needs to “take root” as it were before it can do it’s job of bringing us to salvation. So apparently it isn’t enough to just “hear” the word. ** One has to also respond to it** and the fact that some do not can be attributed directly to the work of Satan.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Didn’t David have to freely respond?

I have no problem with this because there is no reason to suppose that they were saved and then lost their salvation because the Devil took it away.

Don’t ignore the parable in Luke 8. Jesus tells us that the belief was a saving faith but that person still fell away. That is clearly saying one can have a saving faith and fall away.

If you hold this view, then how do you explain Jesus’ words that “nobody” can snatch the sheep from Jesus’ hand that we read about in John 10?

That verse is conditional. One must “hear” His voice and “Follow” Him. As long as we remain in the state of grace we will be His sheep and we will be saved.

Yes, apostasy. But “believing for a while,” isn’t the same as salvation because “salvation” is determined by election. There is nothing here that requires us to hold that the faith described where was ever genuine. As I said before, it’s not the cathartic experience or the response to an “altar call” that saves; rather it is genuine faith and this must be discerned over time.

Hebrews isn’t describing a genuine faith?
Hebrews 6:4–6
“For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have **tasted the goodness of the Word of God **and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away.”

How do you know it is? Paul nowhere connects the idea of “sealing” to baptism in Ephesians and in any event the sealing is "unto the day of Redemption which would make it irrevocable

,"
It’s called Sacred Tradition. We are sealed in baptism and confirmation but that doesn’t mean our salvation is irrevocable.

If this is baptism, then Paul is saying the baptized person cannot fail to go to heaven, which would contradict Rome’s view that salvation can be lost. Or can we “unseal” what the Holy Spirit has sealed?

We have the free will to reject God’s grace. Paul tells the Corinthians that they have been “washed, sanctified and justified”. That is a reference to baptism yet he warns these same Corinthians " 1 Cor. 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers…will inherit the kingdom of God"
.

I think every epistle is addressing communities with both believers and unbelievers in them. That is why there are so many warnings and exhortations to holy living–not because salvation can be lost; rather because one can mistakenly think one is a believer when in fact he/she is not.

So only the non-believers have to be warned? The believers have a free pass to eternal life? Clearly Paul is speaking to believers.
Even Paul had no assurance of salvation"
1 Cor: 9:27:
“No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be reprobate.”
Phil. 3:11-12
Thhat if possible I may attain the resurrection from the body. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.”

Is Jesus God? Is sin a rejection of God. How many sins did it take for Adam and Eve to reject God. Were they in the “habit” of picking forbidden fruit. Or was one pick enough?
Put me on record as disagreeing with all those Evangelicals who think that they can be simultaneously saved and sin with impunity. .

Then please answer this question with a simple yes or no. If you were to commit murder and not confess and repent are you still saved?

That said, do you think David’s murder and adultery caused him to loose his salvation?

Absolutely. Un-confessed and un-repented adultery and murder sends one to hell.

How can that be if he was elect from all eternity?

God knew David would confess and repent. God knew David would respond to His grace.

And does not the fact that God restored him prove that “no one” had snatched him from God’s hand, not even his own sin?

David responded to God’s grace and confessed and repented without which he would have been lost.

 

[jericho777]

I should say not! That is why the Apostle calls some of them “mortal” (unto death)

Could you list the sins we may commit that are healthful for those who profess a love for Christ? Also do you think a sin that leads unto death could be a civil judgment i.e. for murder?

I think another problem those who have fallen prey to Calvanism have is that they take these passages out of the past tense and bring them into the present tense. Though the Apostles is writing about saints who are already in heaven, it is applied to those who have not yet finished the race.

The past tense you are talking about was in eternity past when God predestined those to glory and was completed by Christ’s finished work on the cross. This is the promise to all who have been elected. Then in v31 he attaches it to the present applying it those whom he is speaking to in present tense.

This also assumes that all who are called are also elected, and all that are elected are saved. On the contrary, the Apostles address the letters to the “elect” (church) and the letters contain passages that indicate all those “elect” being addressed will not be saved.

First not all who are called are chosen. Mat 22:14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

Peter would say otherwise. He is saying it is God who elects and predestines. The Holy Spirit then sanctifies the believer.

1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

What does predestined, elected and chosen mean when God refers those He has/is going to save. It doesn’t make sense to use words that clearly mean one thing but you say mean something else. Why can’t He choose those He wants to save? I have counted 29 passages mostly NT that specifically say it is God who chooses those He will save. Never mind in the OT God makes no apology for saving only Israel not the whole world as you would like to believe. And in the NT He blinds the Jews for our benefit they are put aside until the times of the gentiles are complete.