"Christian's Don't Sin" part 2

Let the reader carefully note that once again we see OSAS inserted as a presupposition, unfounded by the word of God. Amy here tries to tell us that Noah was in a right standing before God in his drunken stuper, which is nowhere substantiated in Scripture. Only as one approaches the story holding firmly the ‘presupposition’ that Noah was still in a right relationship with God in spite of anything or everything that he did or could possibly do, does one conclude that “a righteous person can commit terrible sins and still remain saved” as Amy here establishes with the help of the notion, not in any way established by Scripture, the unbiblical and unfounded presupposition of OSAS.

 

HP: I agree fully with that verse, but that does not substantiate the point made that he was in a right relationship with God as a saved individual when he was in his drunken stupor. He might have well been, not knowing what he understood concerning neither the drink he was drinking nor the evil effects of alcohol, innocent in his behavior. God alone knows all the facts. It is totally possible that he acted in complete ignorance, not understanding the deceitfulness of alcohol.

The point I am making is that Scripture in no wise proves that a “a righteous person can commit terrible sins and still remain saved” as Amy stated. He could have backslid, rejecting the faith he once had. Scripture does not indicate to my knowledge either possibility. One has to approach the passage from a presupposition of OSAS to see it as a proof text for such. I have confidence that regardless of his standing before God in that act, he repented and was right with God in the end.

 

HP: Sure, but God had not yet came to the knowledge at that point that all any man’s righteousness was a filthy rags……… right? :tonofbricks:

 

HP: You know I am kidding, or so I should at least hope so. I hear at every turn that ‘all man’s righteousness is as filthy rags, and here you quote a verse that shows that God honors and rewards righteous behavior. I was simply trying to get some to consider the truth concerning how God really views and rewards righteous behavior in a somewhat humorous fashion, in direct opposition to simply viewing it as merely and only as 'filthy rags' as some would in error believe.

 

HP: You are an offense to reason DHK in that personal attack and completely false suggestion. That is completely and totally defrauding your brother of any semblance of a just interpretation of their words.

 

HP: Faith is indeed involved in any righteous act, but that does not negate the fact that faith is an act of the will. Noah did something that God deemed as righteous that many other men had obviously failed to do. God saw something in that man, in his voluntary intents of the heart as he trusted God by faith, that pleased God.

 

HP: I have witnessed yo-yo salvation in my lifetime. It comes at the hands of false doctrines, doctrines that teach there is no condemnation if you have once believed, without the Scriptural notion that follows that promise, “IF” ye walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

Let me tell you how the yo-yo works. A person comes to the Lord and comes into a hope of eternal life. After some time they fall into sin and the inevitable condemnation that the Spirit sends their way. At first they try hard to deny that their heart is not right. Pressed by the Holy Spirit with convicting power, they know full well that they cannot stand before God with a pure heart. Now they are in a doctrinal pickle. If they confess they are not right with God they deny the OSAS they are sworn to, but they cannot deny the convicting power that warns them of impending doom if they are to stand before a Holy God, so here is their familiar testimony I have personally witnessed after having walked with the Lord at one time. “I just figured out today that I was never really saved, but today I am certain of my salvation.”

In reality, without denying the often litmus test of fellowship, i.e., OSAS, what else can they say given the climate of OSAS and the opposition to any testimony to the contrary??

So here we have the yo-yo salvation in vivid action that you speak of, developed as a direct product of the doctrine you profess eliminates such yo-yo activity. I say the dogma of OSAS is no assurance at all. I have seen it fail those that once held to it by their own testimonies, having held to OSAS before and then subsequently claiming to having never been saved. There is no security in OSAS, rather only the mirage of it.