A Question

Like I said, someone is trying to justify themself, IMO.

Ed

 

Good post, Helen. We are actually agreed totally, for a change.

Ed

 

HP: Now according to some on the list, the best we could hope for is that she would be a Christian so as to assure not being punished for her sin. Being a believer would insure that she would not be 'punished' would it not?

 

HP: If the individual is a believer, are you sure about this? According to many on this list, has not God already judged sin on the cross and decided to grant them a pardon regardless of what they do, whether or not it is immorality in general or adultery? What could possibly be left to judge for? Possibly you meant that God might have some 'suggestions' for them instead of judging them.

 

Is this another thing that Christians do that I am not aware of?

Where is the Grace of God in such a case?

I believe we are given the grace to be righteous and not just 'covered'

 

I agree it is adultery.

but I will give you this - in the scripture the point is typically a restriction against a man (married or not) having relations with another man's wife.

I don't think I have found a single case where the Bible highlights an unmarried woman having relations with "Another woman's husband" and then calls it sin.

I don't say that to imply that such immorality is right - I am just noting the documentation and the way scripture addresses it.

I am guessing that the reason is because unfaithful wives and men (married or not) seeking them out was the primary problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

4 point Calvinists would argue that for her to be obedient to God as a saint is heaven and open rebellion is simply "more heaven".

I am not sure what the Arminians who reject perseverance of the saints would say.

I never can figure them out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

HP: To me it is a fine line between perseverance of the saints and OSAS. I believe one can separate the two, but it can still be far more confusing than the old Arminian’s position. They would simply say that if you die in your sins without repenting, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. One thing is for certain, they would not be in favor of passing out rewards early for disobedience.

 

Indeed - I and my church are of the Arminian camp that rejects OSAS and DOES hold to Perseverance of the saints.

But most Arminians on THIS board cling to OSAS no matter how it contradicts the basic Arminian model and I think some of them even reject perseverance of the saints... making them look more and more like 4 point Calvinists if you ask me.

I just can't follow their logic (in the case of Arminians that cling to OSAS and reject the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints) - so I can not predict what they would say in this case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I suspect they would say that a person who would do such a thing has never received the blood of Christ and is mistaken in her conversion. I suspect they would say that she does not have nor ever had the mind of Christ and does not have the indwelling Holy Ghost.
If it were possible that she were saved, of which I do not believe she was, but if it were possible and she had been partaker of the Holy Ghost and were to commit such an act with the Holy Ghost indwelling her, that to renew her to repentance again is impossible, seeing she hath put God to an open shame.
Again though, I think they would say that she never was saved to start with.

Matthew 5:16, KJV
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

John 14:23-24, KJV
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Romans 6:1-4, KJV
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 12:1,2, KJV
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Ephesians 5:2, KJV
2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

 

HP: Can you give me an example of one Arminian on this board that is as you say? OSAS is at direct antipodes with any all Arminians I have ever met or read about. I have seen some inconsistet Calvinists on this board, but to call them Arminian would be a stretch IMO.

 

HP: Immorality is a violation of moral law. Moral law is a rule of action with sanctions. If the sanctions of law have been removed for the believer, due to the fact that all future sins have been paid in full, and the prescribed penalty of the law met on the behalf of those sins, it is ludicrous to believe that at some future time God is going to re-judge the believer for something already forgiven, is it not? Are we to suppose to believe that the shed blood of Christ could not accomplish it’s intended object, i.e., to atone for all our sins, once for all?

If those on the list honestly believe that all future sins of the believer have been paid in full, would they not have to reject any and all notions of any future judgment concerning them as well, making the verse in question null, void, and of no effect concerning the believer?

 

All Baptist Arminians I have met are OSAS. (I may have missed on that is not).

For example - I think Steaver and Bro Bob would classify themselves as non-Calvinist (and possibly Arminian). But this is pretty common for Arminians on this board to be OSAS while also being Arminian.

I don't think Bro Bob and Steaver reject Perseverance however - I will ask that we let them speak for themselves.

All Adventists are Arminian and non-OSAS so as far as that goes I meet a lot of them. But out on the open airwaves I don't meet many outside of Adventists.

Non-OSAS Arminian means that we DO believe a person comes to Christ - has assurance of salvation and perseveres firm until the end. But we ALSO believe in the Matt 18 Forgiveness revoked, John 15 cast out of the vine of Christ - scenario as a real life fact that does happen to some people as well.



In Christ,

Bob

 

HP: BR, I have always considered anyone believing in the literal payment theory as a Calvinist. I have never heard any Arminian hold to such a notion. Is not the idea of a literal payment part and parcel to Calvinism and at the very heart and soul of that system of thought? Am I incorrect in believing that you hold to the literal payment theory as well? Please forgive me if I am wrong concerning your beliefs.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "literal payment".

As I have stated on the "Atonement threads" God is not "getting appeased" or being "propitiated" by the suffering of Christ. Rather "God so LOVED that HE GAVE His son".

"Our Certificate of Debt" for each and every sin comitted (as the NASB words it in Col 2) was nailed to the cross. The DEBT of suffering owed as defined by the Law of God. The suffering of the 2nd death.

But in God's system this is not a "flat payment" but an "Atonement" that is made. that means that the entire "PROCESS" defined in Lev 16 has to take place - it does not end when the Lamb is slain-- it must ALSO include the UNIQUE High Priestly work of Christ.

The DEBT of Payment is the Atoning Sacrifce paid ONCE and in FULL at the Cross. (1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and NOT for ours only BUT FOR the sins of the WHOLE WORLD").

That is absolutely literally true and completed at the cross for THE WHOLE WORLD not just saints. But the High Priestly work of Christ that is ALSO included in the ATONMENT PROCESS is still going on. Many downsize the term "Atonement" from what God defined as a PROCESS in Lev 16 - so that it ONLY includes the death of Christ on the cross which John calls the "Atoning Sacrifice". In that game of REDEFINING the term from what God gave - SDAs would agree that IN that narrow definition it WAS completed at the cross. But going back to GOD's definition of the entire PROCESS as HE defined it in Lev 16 we would admit to the obvious fact that Christ's High Priestly ministry is STILL going on ... as Hebrews points out.

Recall that in Romans 2:13-16 Paul bluntly states the the future judgment done by Christ is PART of the Gospel as he said "According to MY GOSPEL Christ WILL Judge".

In Dan 7:22 we see that Christ's judgment is "passed in favor of the saints".

In Matt 7 Christ said that those who ARE saints will be SEEN to be saints -- many here have speculated "what if Christ is wrong" in their "deny perseverance" doctrinal models.

But many Arminians believe that Christ was actually right on that point.

And when it comes to "perseverance" so do 3Pt and 5Pt Calvinists think He was right.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The OP originall states:

Since this question has been sufficiently answered, and the thread has now been derailed in a C/A debate, it will now be closed.