Transgressing the Law

No but apparently he believe OLAL (Once lost always lost). After a fall for irremissible sin.

Which is what Heb. 6 says:

Hbr 6:6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

BBob,

 

HP: The problem of reading many men is that it is almost impossible to tell at times what was written at the start of their writings, or that which was later believed some time later after years of study and thought. Often these men clearly contradicted themselves in their writings as well, making it hard at times to tell exactly what they believed.


This conversation brings to mind yet another twist to this discussion over sin and it’s penalty. In the OT there were sins and then there were ‘highhanded sins.’ As I recall there was absolutely no sacrifice for any high-handed sins whatsoever. Once committed there was only the fearful looking. "Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Although I do not agree with some points Brother Bob is making, I none the less see some room for the use of the word ‘sin’ as distinguished from that which of necessity brings forth eternal separation from God. For instance, in training children we often depict things ‘that are not in reality’ as we say, yet which can ‘potentially be.’ One might point to a cold stove top and tell a child ‘Hot!’ Some might call that a lie on this list, but is it? Is it not common in many instances to depict things as they have potential to be when in actuality at the time they are in reality, or at least not now, as we address them as?

Is it within the realm of possibility that even Scripture might denote some things under certain instances as ‘sin’ that in reality are simply denoted as that at the time to serve as a warning of the potential of such a formed intent or the act?

 

We have two troubling ideas in competition on the issue of sin and transgression of the law and the penalty for doing so. One would say that it is impossible for a believer to sin ‘the big ones,’ and if one did in fact break say one of the ten, that it is proof that they have never been born again. On the other hand we have those that take the position that believer’s sin every day as a normal way of life and regardless of the sin, big or somehow seen as miniscule, they are all forgiven long before they were ever committed, so in spite of repentance, no sin can separate them from their eternal reward. As I have stated in the past, I see both stated positions in error, although if I were to choose between the two, I would favor the first position, for at least sin is not coddled nor the penalty removed.

It would appear to me that in our generation with the news spread as fast as it is, and the details of many of those that have fallen in the limelight of public view via the media, that the first position would be clearly accepted as in error if nothing more than by clear example. Who is the one to tell us that some of the televangelists that have came up through the ranks of the church, who have walked with God and built some of the largest missionary networks the church has seen, were simply never saved or entertained a certain hope of eternal life at one point in their life. That is simply a preposterous position as I see it. Even on a smaller scale, who has not witnessed believers in their own families or churches fall into a sinful lifestyle and leave their first love. If you have not, you either haven’t been paying attention or you are so new to the faith that you have been spared thus far that tragedy. The position simply does not hold water.

On the other hand, the questions that have gone unanswered on this discussion list stand as a stark example of the absolute ludicrousness of ushering into a pure and holy kingdom those in an unrepentant state who die in their sins. Scripture without question denies that any that die in their sins will inherit eternal life. The thought that all sins have been literally and specifically paid for before they ever were committed, and that believers have a blank check that automatically insures forgiveness for any present or future sins regardless of meeting the condition of repentance or not, clearly sets the stage for the notion of a limited atonement and irresistible grace, notions many on this list give lip service of disdain for any such notions. In vain do they try to distance themselves from those false notions, for they are nothing more or less than the logically necessitated ends of the positions they adamantly state they hold to.

Again, both positions are untrue, one due to the fact that sin would be impossible to enact as a believer (at least the ten that is) and the other due to the fact that such a position removes the stated penalty for sin, a penalty not removed apart from the condition of repentance according to Scripture. Both positions are nothing more than false attempts to cover for the real underlying error they both imbibe, i.e., the false notion of OSAS. When one starts from a false unsupported position and holds the position of OSAS as a presupposition, and then uses that position as a sieve to filter all other doctrines through, it is no wonder the confusing positions that are developed as cover for the initial presupposition that in this case is indeed the source of the error.

 

Let me add a little to the first position, if I may. Even though I believe that someone, even though he has built massive churches, with the widow's mite, I have yet to see one who did after years of seemingly serving the Lord, fall back into grevious sins, I have yet to see such a one fully recover from that fall and become a propereous Christian again, or become a Christian.
Even though I believe in eternal security, scripture gives us in Hebrews 6 a condition that if it were possible for one to fall, what the outcome would be. Seeing they have put God to an open shame, to renew them again to repentance is impossible. This position seems to fall in line with the early church doctrine of remissible and irremissible sins. the remissible sins apparently fell under the "chastisement" and were not sins unto death. The irremissible sins were sins such as adultery by believers and were "sins unto death" which would fall in line with Hebrew 6.
I am not saying I agree with this outcome, but for some reason we were given the possible fall and outcome.

BBob,

 

I have many times. Perhaps you close your eyes to it; don't believe it or don't want to believe it; are too skeptical of it when it happens, or as usual--automatically assume that the person could never have been saved in the first place. Here is a good example. Will you believe it?

Was he saved or not Bob?
He did commit grievous sins, did he not?
Then one must ask you Bob: Who art thou to judge thy brother?
The Lord asks that of you.

 

Was he ever saved to start with. As you said, I am not his judge. Are you his judge, so as to judge him saved to start with? His works sure are a sign of what he is or is not. Who gave you the right to judge him saved? Did he have a whiskey in his hand when he came and told he was now saved? Might help sell a book.

Anyway, I spoke of what I have seen, not what you have seen, if you really saw it, or is it a story you heard? Has a lot of drama to it, as if someone is using it to draw attention to himself.
Did you really see this, or is it something that you heard of. Do you have any way of knowing if he was saved in the first place or not? I mean, as you say, you are not the judge whether he was saved or not saved, in the beginning or the end. I will repeat, I have not seen many fruits from someone who put God to an open shame.

When I was a very young preacher, I told a "drama" story about a boy returning home and his father waiting for him, of whom he had been astranged from. I fell flat on my face with the story, it was seen very quick as a "tool" to try and draw in the crowd. That is why I wonder when I hear "drama" stories. I don't do that any more.

I have put 2 and 2 together and have guessed your approximate age, and it is only in the 40's if that old. Am I right? I had a 4 year old when I was in my twenties. You add twenty to that for a grandson, would make you in your forties.

BBob,

 

Such terrible cynicism and unbelief. He testifies that he was in the pulpit about to preach the gospel, and with great sarcasm you suggest he has a whiskey bottle. Is that what you think of the pulpit and the Bible, Bob?

I speak of what I see, of what I read, of what I hear, of what I know. Knowledge is a good thing, Bob. It is true that not everything outside of the Bible that is read and heard is true, but much of it is. I could post scores of such testimonies as that one. Many a young person has trusted Christ as Saviour, and like the prodigal has gone and sown their wild oats. But like the prodigal, they still remain a son of their father. Or don't you believe that either? Why is named the "prodigal son"? He was a son, and never lost the status of a son. The sins he committed were grievous. (Or do you believe that a person must be born again and again and again?)
God's children often go astray.
Lot went astray? If Lot lived today you would judge him as unsaved and on his way to Hell in spite of the fact that God declared him just and righteous.

That is between you and God. It is your decision. And you are right in that they can be used with the wrong motive. That doesn't mean that "The prodigal son" should be torn out of the Bible. It too is a "drama story," along with the "Good Samaritan." The Bible is full of great drama. It happened in both OT and NT. What makes you think that life right now is all dry and boring? It isn't.

 

Yea, but the prodigal son, is scripture.

Its none of my business what you read and believe DHK;, I am not going to condemn something I know nothing about. doubt if you do either. How do you know what you read is true or not? My point is, that I am sure he sold many more books by using drama. True or not, who knows.

Bbob,

 

HP: Before I comment, is OSAS the real underlying truth you are here trying to establish with the two examples you mention?

 

I can't believe you consider the prodigal son as "saved" when he left home for rioteous living, and as you put it "sow his wild oats". What in the world is being preached to people today. It really bothers me the doctrine that people are hearing today. How can they repent, when told they are already saved.
Stand ye in the ways and inquire for the "old path".

BBob,

 

Luke 15:11-12 And he said, A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

No matter what you think Bob, Christ calls both of these men "sons." That means that they were both children of the Father. The fact that one obeyed and one did not immediately obey is irrelevant. What is relevant is that both were sons, and both had an inheritance because they were sons. In other words they were both children of God, as the parable teaches.
Both of these men sin. It shows how all sin is the same.
Sin is a transgression of God's law.
One man goes and spends his portion of the inheritance in a wanton manner. In fact he spends it all in an ungodly manner until he has lost it all, and is found in a pig pen eating of the same food as the pigs.
He returns home to his praying father, who rejoices to see him. His prayers are answered. His wayward son has returned home. In his joy he holds a feast, and young calf is butchered for the occasion of this feast given on behalf of his wayward son. (Don't get things wrong. Today he rejoices; tomorrow he will start work again.)
At this point in time his brother is jealous. His jealousy leads to anger. He becomes upset with his father. All of this is sin on the part of this son, and God doesn't differentiate. His sin is just as bad as his brother. For anger is as the sin of murder. Because of the pent-up jealousy and anger the father must now go and reconcile the older brother who has now become out of fellowship with the father, just as the first son was.
Sin causes a believer to become out of fellowship with God.
There is your lesson. It happened to both of them.

 

Amen. :applause:

That is my favorite parable. I am the prodigal daughter.

 

Are you saying you were lost after becoming a believer Amy. I am not sure what you are saying?

Luk 15:24For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Luk 15:32It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

So you and DHK do believe in a fall from Grace. I didn't know that.

Are little children "sons and daughters" of the Lord, before the Law enters them and they sin and become lost?

I too was a prodigal son, but then I accepted Christ and He saved me. I was never saved and then lost and then saved again.

I mean that God knows where you are at all times, whether you are saint or sinner, to be lost is to sin and be separated from God and in need of a Saviour, Jesus Christ.

As Apostle Paul said:

Rom 7:9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Paul became a prodigal son also.



BBob,

 

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Luk 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together [his] friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

I can't seem to find where this Father ever left His other son or anyone and went to find His lost son, can you?

Now, if this son, had of been a "sheep", the Father may have went and looked for him.


Are we not all "sons" by creation. You do believe that all men can be saved don't you?



Mal 2:10 ¶ Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

Prodigal son came to the age of accountability and went out in sin. Had to be the shedding of blood to receive him back. Is Jesus going to die again and again.

This lesson was certainly not "the growth and course of sin" and "the growth and course of repentance"; but simply that "there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwprodigal.htm

God so loved the "whole" world. His Son died for us all and purchased us by His blood. Thats makes us all His's by creation and blood. Come unto me all ye ends of the earth and be ye saved.
Whats makes you think God loves you more than sinners who Jesus died for?

BBob,

 

Hmm. You have a point. I do not believe one can fall from grace and lose and their salvation. I'll think about what you've said.

 

You were nothing of the sort Bob. You were not a prodigal; you were nowhere near being a child.
You were a child of the devil (John 8:44)
You were "dead in trespasses and sins (Eph.2:1)
You were a child of disobedience (not of God) Eph. 2:2.
You were a child of wrath just as others (not of God) Eph. 2:3.
You walked according to the prince of the power of the air--the devil himself (Eph.2:2)--not a child of God.
You were not born again. "Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3)

You were unsaved, and on your way to hell. There is no possible way that you were a child of God before you were saved.

But these two sons were children of the Father. They were saved, and had sinned. The testimony of the one is very clear:

Luke 15:18-19 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

Unsaved people don't address their prayers to God as their Father, for God isn't their Father. This prayer of repentance was not one of salvation, but one of restoration. Their was great remorse here. His father restored him to his rightful place in the family, in spite of the sin that he had been in. He had been lost in sin; lost from the father; lost in his fellowship from God; but never lost his salvation. The father had never disowned him. He was always a part of the family.

 

The prodigal son was not a "backslid" Christian when he was in the mud with the pigs. Were he to represent that, the father would not have said: 'For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. (Luke 15:24)"

Similarly, we are:
" alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:11)

Also:
Paul was not a prodigal after he was saved. His words in Romans 7 are in reference to himself before he was saved.

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Rom 7:9)

The law "slew" him and brought him to Christ.

"And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (Rom. 7:10-12)

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 7:24-25)

 

It is a parable--an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. You are trying to make it walk on all fours. It doesn't work that way.
He was glad that his son was alive--physically alive. If you make this refer to a spiritual rebirth, then the consequent theology of your belief is:
"You must be born again and again and again...."

That is not the teaching of the parable.
He was already a son of the Father. The Father never disowned him. Once a child of God, always a child of God.

 

So, you are saying he was "physically dead". There was a death and you say it was not spiritual, that only leaves physical and he was eating with the hogs and talking, so I don't think he was physically dead. He was lost, but scripture tells us it was known where he was at all times physical, so that only leaves spiritual.

He (the Father) never did leave the ninety nine and go after the son. Seems he never even gave him any thought until he saw him coming.

Yes we are all children by creation. Who do you think we belong to. Who created us, some unknown alien?

Paul too, was at one time a child without imputed sin. Therefore "spiritually alive", but then he died, the same as we.

Everyone I know who gets a "newborn", say look what the Lord gave us.

BBob,

 

The father had "lost" his son: lost him in fellowship; lost him to the world; lost him to sin; lost him as in being separated from him (the meaning of death). But he had not lost his salvation. He was still a son. He was given an inheritance. He was a child of the Father, given an inheritance just like the child of a king.

There isn't a commentary anywhere that would refer to this lost sheep as an unsaved one. That is unthinkable. He was one of the 100. He was not a goat. If the one was unsaved, then they all were unsaved. They were sheep--believers. Christ knows his own, and they are sheep. The unsaveed are usually termed as goats, not sheep. He went after the sheep who had gone astray. The story is plain.

This verse you take out of context many a time.