"Christian's Don't Sin" part 2

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: This is where we differ and I guess it reflects in a number of our beliefs.

HP: Thanks Ann. You are indeed correct in your logical deductions, starting from the premise of a literal payment. As you correctly understand, I do feel the premise is in grave error, subsequently our disagreement over many other related issues. What I cannot understand is why men like DHK cannot see, or refuse to accept, the necessitated ends of the premise of a literal payment when they logically stare us in the face at every turn.

I personally believe that Scripture and logic depict a far different view of the atonement than you see. I see Christ’s atonement being general in nature, making it ‘possible’ for God to forgive sins under certain stated conditions, yet no actual or individual sins being remitted until the conditions God has set forth for forgiveness are met, which are repentance and faith. I believe Christ built the bridge by which all can be saved, and all sins can be forgiven, but no individual sin is remitted or forgiven until we meet the stated conditions, without which no individual salvation is possible.

In the atonement God saw the sufferings and death of Christ as a sufficient substitution for the penalty before hand exactly inflicted upon the breaking of God’s law. God made a way, via Christ’s atonement on the cross, to suffer ‘in our place’ as our substitute, IF we are willing to fulfill the mandated conditions to receive that substitution. God has mandated in His Word that in order for our sins to be covered by the substitutionary act of Christ, man must repent, exercise faith, and remain in obedience to the end, without which no hope of eternal life will in the end be realized.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann, IF the literal payment theory is correct, you are also forced to accept the notion of double predestination, a notion reprehensible to Scripture and reason.

 

[annsni]

HP: Thanks Ann. You are indeed correct in your logical deductions, starting from the premise of a literal payment. As you correctly understand, I do feel the premise is in grave error, subsequently our disagreement over many other related issues. What I cannot understand is why men like DHK cannot see, or refuse to accept, the necessitated ends of the premise of a literal payment when they logically stare us in the face at every turn.

I personally believe that Scripture and logic depict a far different view of the atonement than you see. I see Christ’s atonement being general in nature, making it ‘possible’ for God to forgive sins under certain stated conditions, yet no actual or individual sins being remitted until the conditions God has set forth for forgiveness are met, which are repentance and faith. I believe Christ built the bridge by which all can be saved, and all sins can be forgiven, but no individual sin is remitted or forgiven until we meet the stated conditions, without which no individual salvation is possible.

In the atonement God saw the sufferings and death of Christ as a sufficient substitution for the penalty before hand exactly inflicted upon the breaking of God’s law. God made a way, via Christ’s atonement on the cross, to suffer ‘in our place’ as our substitute, IF we are willing to fulfill the mandated conditions to receive that substitution. God has mandated in His Word that in order for our sins to be covered by the substitutionary act of Christ, man must repent, exercise faith, and remain in obedience to the end, without which no hope of eternal life will in the end be realized.

See, I totally agree with all that you wrote. Possibly the difference is that I feel that man cannot make this choice on their own. This is the "total depravity" of Calvinism. Man CANNOT choose and WILL not choose Christ on their own. The Scriptures say that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them.

As for "double predestination", I do not believe in that. Since I'm running out to church (if these kids will ever finish getting ready!), I'll let R.C. Sproul discuss this for me. LOL

http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: Possibly the difference is that I feel that man cannot make this choice on their own.

HP: In a sense I can say that I agree with you. What I do not believe is that one has to accept and swallow all the false notions the literal payment theory genders in order to accept your statement above.

We both agree that all have sinned and came short of the glory of God. We would both agree that nothing a sinner can do, in and of itself has any merit by which salvation can be earned. We would also agree that there is no inherent goodness in man that would indicate that man, in and of himself apart from any and all influences from God, would choose to seek or turn to God. Where we begin to differ is whether or not God has enabled all men with the 'abilities' to turn to Him if in fact they have the opportunity to hear the gospel. I would say that all men(that are moral agents and responsible for their subsequent moral intents) possess every natural ability to respond to God’s influences upon them. I believe the heathen who have never even heard the gospel message have God’s influences upon them,and are in possession of all the natural abilities needed to obey the light of God's law they have been given thus far and to respond to the gospel message when it is presented to them. Apart from those God given abilities, moral accountablity would be illogical, unfair, and contrary to love.

Man, even in a sinful condition, does not need ‘ability’ to turn to God, but rather only needs to exercise their will in response to the gospel message when it is heard and understood. It is not ability to turn that sinful man needs. It is willingness to exercise their wills in accordance to that message that they need. Certainly I believe that man possesses a free will, enabling him to choose whether to respond to the message of salvation when heard, or to reject it and in the end suffer the consequences.

If you start from the premise I hear you accepting, that man lacks the ability to do right or the ability to choose God’s message of salvation until such a time as God grants to them the needed abilities, then you are logically forced (even though you say you do not beleive in double predestination) to accept the logical consequence that God predestines the damned to an eternal hell as a direct result of God’s choosing to do so, for God has withheld the very abilities from them that are necessary to escape their fate. I cannot see how you can hold man accountable for failure to accept that which, if your theory is correct, would exclude them from all possibility of being saved until God grants to them the ability that you admit (as I understand you) is irresistible and coerced in the direct favor of some to the exclusion of all others.

Not even R.C. Sproul cannot help you out from the blight such a literal payment theory paints upon the character of a Loving and Just God. Double predestination is in grave but necessitated error (once the literal payment is assumed to be true) and is at total and complete antipodes with reason and Scripture. It makes a mockery out of justice, love and any and every notion of morality or moral accountability. The literal payment theory establishes a necessitated system of fatalism, in spite of all the good men and women that try to dance around its logically necessitated ends.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is a post I wrote some time agao on a thread concerning 'Absolute Christian Perfection" which I believe needs to be re-examined in light of the continual notion that there is 'therfore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.'

The Calvinist claims to be void of condemnation, yet claims to sin every day in thought word and deed, or so I have heard. My question is what tells them that are sinning if they have no condemnation?

It would be my understanding that if there was no condemnation, nothing that warns them of evil and selfish intents, that all their actions of necessity would be accepted by God as benevolent and just as testified to them by a conscience such as Paul had, a conscience void of offense.

Is it not the Calvinist honestly the one promoting absolute perfection, a life completely void of all condemnation?

 

[steaver]

BBob: Listen Ann; The church I belong to is several thousand stretched from Mich to Fla and they all believe as I do, that God's children are kept by Him, therefore we cannot do those evil sins of rapist, pedophiler etc. We have been in existance for hundreds of years and have always believed that. It is not just something BBob believes.

BBob, could you provide documentation that the "Old Regular Baptist" as a denomination holds your views about this?

I have researched this and found this...

The Old Regular Baptists is an early American group from the New Salem Association of United Baptists, which was formed in Kentucky in 1825. The association changed its name to Regular United (1854), then to Regular Primitive (1870), and then to Regular Baptist (1871). In 1892, the group finally settled on “Old Regular.” http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=1077

Further research stated this...

The Regular Baptists established the Philadelphia Association and held to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. http://thoughtsactions.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/who-are-the-regular-baptists/

Upon reading this 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith I found this under "perserverance of the Saints"....

3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter17.htm

It appears to me that you are preaching contrary to your denominations written positions. Or maybe the denomination has revised their statements on this issue. Could you please give documentation?

:jesus:

 

[Brother Bob]

BBob, could you provide documentation that the "Old Regular Baptist" as a denomination holds your views about this?

I have researched this and found this...



Further research stated this...



Upon reading this 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith I found this under "perserverance of the Saints"....



It appears to me that you are preaching contrary to your denominations written positions. Or maybe the denomination has revised their statements on this issue. Could you please give documentation?

:jesus:

ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE
SARDIS ASSOCIATION

Year 2006

ARTICLE 1. We believe in only one true and living God; the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost; and these three are one, equal in power, essence and glory.
ARTICLE 2. We believe the scripture of the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible are the written words of God and are the only rules of faith and practice.
ARTICLE 3. We believe in the doctrine of election by grace, for by grace are ye saved through faith.
ARTICLE 4. We believe in the doctrine of original sin and of man's inability to recover himself from the fallen state he is in by nature, therefore the Saviour is needed for our redemption.
ARTICLE 5. We believe that sinners are called to repentance and believe in the Gospel and regeneration of the soul and sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, and none shall fall away and be lost.
ARTICLE 6. We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
ARTICLE 7. We believe that baptism is the ordinance of God's Church on earth and the mode IMMERSION, back foremost, so as to cover all over.
ARTICLE 8. We believe that the Lord's Supper is the command of the Saviour, and that by use of bread and the fruit of the vine, and feet washing should be kept up until his second coming by his believers.
ARTICLE 9. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust, and that the joys of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked shall be eternal.
ARTICLE 10. We believe that no Minister has the right to administer the ordinances and commands of the Gospel except such as are regularly ordained and baptized, and that by immersion by a legal administrator of the Gospel comes under the hands of a regularly chosen presbytery of the Church.
ARTICLE 11. We believe it to be the duty of all Church members to contribute for defraying all reasonable expenses of the Church, never forgetting the poor according to their several abilities.
ARTICLE 12. We believe that every doctrine that goes to encourage or indulge people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving faith in Christ for salvation is erroneous, and such doctrine shall be rejected by us.
ARTICLE 13. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is a congregation of faithful believers in Christ who have obtained fellowship with the Lord and one another, and have given themselves to the Lord and have agreed to keep up a Godly discipline according to the rules of the Gospel.
ARTICLE 14. We believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the government thereof is upon His Shoulders.
ARTICLE 15. We believe that a sanctioned marriage of God is between a man and a woman only. Also, we believe in receiving members into our fellowship that follow the natural dating relationship that leads to holy matrimony between a man and a woman only: thereby, preserving the family unit of father, mother and children. Ephesians 5:22,23 and 28, St. Mark 10:6,7,8 and Romans 1:26 and 27.
ARTICLE 16. None of the above Articles shall be considered as to hold with particular election and reprobation so as to make God partial, directly or indirectly, nor to injure any of the children of men, nor shall any of those Articles be altered without legal notice and free consent.

You think you know the Church that I have belonged to for over 36 years better than I do. That figures.

BBob,

 

[steaver]

ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE
SARDIS ASSOCIATION

Year 2006

ARTICLE 1. We believe in only one true and living God; the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost; and these three are one, equal in power, essence and glory.
ARTICLE 2. We believe the scripture of the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible are the written words of God and are the only rules of faith and practice.
ARTICLE 3. We believe in the doctrine of election by grace, for by grace are ye saved through faith.
ARTICLE 4. We believe in the doctrine of original sin and of man's inability to recover himself from the fallen state he is in by nature, therefore the Saviour is needed for our redemption.
ARTICLE 5. We believe that sinners are called to repentance and believe in the Gospel and regeneration of the soul and sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, and none shall fall away and be lost.
ARTICLE 6. We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
ARTICLE 7. We believe that baptism is the ordinance of God's Church on earth and the mode IMMERSION, back foremost, so as to cover all over.
ARTICLE 8. We believe that the Lord's Supper is the command of the Saviour, and that by use of bread and the fruit of the vine, and feet washing should be kept up until his second coming by his believers.
ARTICLE 9. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust, and that the joys of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked shall be eternal.
ARTICLE 10. We believe that no Minister has the right to administer the ordinances and commands of the Gospel except such as are regularly ordained and baptized, and that by immersion by a legal administrator of the Gospel comes under the hands of a regularly chosen presbytery of the Church.
ARTICLE 11. We believe it to be the duty of all Church members to contribute for defraying all reasonable expenses of the Church, never forgetting the poor according to their several abilities.
ARTICLE 12. We believe that every doctrine that goes to encourage or indulge people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving faith in Christ for salvation is erroneous, and such doctrine shall be rejected by us.
ARTICLE 13. We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is a congregation of faithful believers in Christ who have obtained fellowship with the Lord and one another, and have given themselves to the Lord and have agreed to keep up a Godly discipline according to the rules of the Gospel.
ARTICLE 14. We believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the government thereof is upon His Shoulders.
ARTICLE 15. We believe that a sanctioned marriage of God is between a man and a woman only. Also, we believe in receiving members into our fellowship that follow the natural dating relationship that leads to holy matrimony between a man and a woman only: thereby, preserving the family unit of father, mother and children. Ephesians 5:22,23 and 28, St. Mark 10:6,7,8 and Romans 1:26 and 27.
ARTICLE 16. None of the above Articles shall be considered as to hold with particular election and reprobation so as to make God partial, directly or indirectly, nor to injure any of the children of men, nor shall any of those Articles be altered without legal notice and free consent.

You think you know the Church that I have belonged to for over 36 years better than I do. That figures.

BBob,

The part you boldened says nothing about the issue. Nobody is advocating encouragement to sin, that's a nobrainer. Are you saying those quotes I gave are bogus?

 

[Brother Bob]

The part you boldened says nothing about the issue. Nobody is advocating encouragement to sin, that's a nobrainer. Are you saying those quotes I gave are bogus?

I am not going to argue with you what we believe. Because you do not what the following means, does not mean that we do not know.

indulge people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving faith in Christ for salvation is erroneous,

It means to indulge someone in adultery and cause them to settle down on anything short of saving faith, you indulge someone and keep them and not put them away from you, you could cause that person to miss Heaven altogether, by being a hypocrit. We would exclude you, if you indulged someone in adultery and did not put them away from you, even if you were the moderator of our Association. If you did such a thing, we would as a Association deal with you.

Yes it does go to what we been talking about.

When you as a church say, we will work with you and help you get over committing adultery and keep your membership, you sir are indulging that person in sin, and he will never get right. Now do not tell me what it means, I live with it, you do not, but are someone telling a church what it believes, how ignornant can you get Steaver.


I can tell you this, no one has ever committed adultery and kept their membership, if it became known.

Now you can either believe it or not. I really do not care, Got it!

Quote:
The Regular Baptists established the Philadelphia Association and held to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. http://thoughtsactions.wordpress.com...ular-baptists/

Upon reading this 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith I found this under "perserverance of the Saints"....


Quote:
3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/16.../Chapter17.htm

It appears to me that you are preaching contrary to your denominations written positions. Or maybe the denomination has revised their statements on this issue. Could you please give documentation

BBob,

 

[steaver]

You said your denomination has been around for hundreds of years...

Is the quotes I posted bogus? if so can you provide resources as to the foundation of your denomination that I may know what your denomination believes and teaches?

 

[steaver]

It means to indulge someone in adultery and cause them to settle down on anything short of saving faith, you indulge someone and keep them and not put them away from you, you could cause that person to miss Heaven altogether, by being a hypocrit. We would exclude you, if you indulged someone in adultery and did not put them away from you, even if you were the moderator of our Association. If you did such a thing, we would as a Association deal with you.

That is fine, but it has nothing to do with whether or not a Christian can commit adultery. I guess by this article you are suggesting the person who committed the act is not a CHristian and should be put out of the church.

I want to know about your denomination's stated positions on perserverance of the siants. Are the articles I posted bogus? If so where can I find your denominations office site that explains these doctrines?

 

[Brother Bob]

That is fine, but it has nothing to do with whether or not a Christian can commit adultery. I guess by this article you are suggesting the person who committed the act is not a CHristian and should be put out of the church.

I want to know about your denomination's stated positions on perserverance of the siants. Are the articles I posted bogus? If so where can I find your denominations office site that explains these doctrines?

Apparently you did not read the Articles of Faith, which plainly say we believe in the perserverance of the saints.
What we question is whether you are a saint or not.

You are free to study my web site. There is a lot of History there, and some not yet collected.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/orb/orb/index.htm

BBob,

 

[steaver]

indulge people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving faith in Christ for salvation is erroneous

This isn't the topic. I am not talking about one person indulging another person in their sin. I am talking about wether or not a Christian can commit adultery in the first place.

Thus I ask, is the articles I posted bogus? If yes, then give me some link to the history of 'statements of faith' of your denomination.

 

[Brother Bob]

Are you dense, if we will not indulge Adultery, it should be plain, we don't believe a Christian can commit it in the first place, being we believe in OSAS.

ARTICLE 5. We believe that sinners are called to repentance and believe in the Gospel and regeneration of the soul and sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, and none shall fall away and be lost.

The problem is if someone is an adultereous, we do not believe he ever was a Christian. I think that seems to be the point you are missing.

BBob,
The Old Regular Baptists is an early American group from the New Salem Association of United Baptists, which was formed in Kentucky in 1825. The association changed its name to Regular United (1854), then to Regular Primitive (1870), and then to Regular Baptist (1871). In 1892, the group finally settled on “Old Regular.” In addition to observing a closed communion, these Regular Baptists also practice foot-washing.

There is the Regular Baptist, which seems to have its roots in Canada, and there is the Old Regular Baptist, which has its roots in the New Salem Association of Old Regular Baptist. Of course our roots go back farther than that but over the years there has been split after split, over such things as we are discussing, whether God is the author of sin, music, secret orders, Sunday Schools, you name it. I am telling you how we have lived since 1893 for sure. Our roots go back to Christ, who believes all that was believed in the beginning. If you want to go back far enough, they believed the Mill was going to be a 1000 years of fleshly pleasure. Of course we never held to that.

Also, it says we held to the London confession, but not exact.

The 2006 are our articles of faith. It is what we live by now, regardless of what the past held. There was a time we held to Primitive Baptist doctrine, but they begin to preach babies "lost" and God the author of sin, so we split from them.

Later Regular Baptist Groups

Eventually the name “Regular Baptist” became somewhat generic and no longer necessarily designated particular atonement beliefs. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to sort through all of the various groups. During the western expansion of America, so-called Free Baptists (remember: general atonement), held to a strict belief that baptism by immersion not only placed one into the local church membership but allowed the baptized new member to partake in communion. This “closed” communion teaching gave these churches a decided designation of “Strict Baptists.” These Strict Baptists also called themselves Regular Baptists because of their position. Moreover, their detractors began referring to these Strict Baptists as Hard-shell or even Primitive Baptists.[5] President Abraham Lincoln’s parents, Thomas and Nancy Lincoln, were members of a Hard-shell Baptist church in Kentucky, which was part of the Licking-Locust Association of Regular Baptists (see “Who Knew: Abraham Lincoln Was A Regular Baptist?”).

http://thoughtsactions.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/who-are-the-regular-baptists/

We are not the GARBC.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/61b5ec8f-e14a-4138-826b-8424874123f1/The-Letter

BBob,

 

[annsni]

OK - So the church sending someone out of the church membership for the purpose of separating them because of their sin means that they were not true believers or that they have now lost their salvation? If it's the first case, then the church was in error in receiving them into membership in the first place and in the second case, that is pretty arrogant, IMO. It is GOD who will decide who is saved or not - not us.

Yes, church discipline is vitally important and should be done to protect the body AND to chastise the one who is being disciplined and to remove them if needed in hopes of restoration at some point. But it is not the deciding vote of who is saved or not. Believers CAN do grievous sins IMO. I do not think that they can do it without guilt and without consequence and if they do it habitually, I would seriously counsel them to search themselves and see who is the Lord of their lives - them or Christ. Because one who has Christ as Lord of their live will not do such over and over again.

 

[Brother Bob]

OK - So the church sending someone out of the church membership for the purpose of separating them because of their sin means that they were not true believers or that they have now lost their salvation? If it's the first case, then the church was in error in receiving them into membership in the first place and in the second case, that is pretty arrogant, IMO. It is GOD who will decide who is saved or not - not us.

Yes, church discipline is vitally important and should be done to protect the body AND to chastise the one who is being disciplined and to remove them if needed in hopes of restoration at some point. But it is not the deciding vote of who is saved or not. Believers CAN do grievous sins IMO. I do not think that they can do it without guilt and without consequence and if they do it habitually, I would seriously counsel them to search themselves and see who is the Lord of their lives - them or Christ. Because one who has Christ as Lord of their live will not do such over and over again.

Two things wrong with your post.

1. How could the church be in error? If someone says they are forgiven and want a home in the church, what does the church say "I don't believe you". Now if they are committing adultery and want membership, I don't think any church would take them, I know we would not. The church can't look in the heart and see if they are lying, but if they start committing adultery, it is a pretty evident fact, they were lying.

2. You cross your self, you say their sins, past, present and future are covered by the blood and cast into a sea never to be remembered against them again. Now you are saying, their sins will indeed be remembered in the future and they will be punished. I am sorry, but common sense, don't let that work.

Scripture teaches us they come in unawares and are false brethren, why be so surprised when one shows up?

I think you are doing that person a favor by withdrawing from them. They now can get right with the Lord and come in the "right" way.

How many times have you seen people join churh because their love one had died, and they are no more right than the drunk on the street, it is completely through sympathy. I have seen many and most will come to you later and tell you they made a mistake, to remove their name, some will stay in, but continue in greivous sins.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob(to Ann): 2. You cross your self, you say their sins, past, present and future are covered by the blood and cast into a sea never to be remembered against them again. Now you are saying, their sins will indeed be remembered in the future and they will be punished. I am sorry, but common sense, don't let that work.

HP:Brother Bob, you have brought up a good point that needs to be answered.:thumbs:

There has not been one post so far from anyone that has addressed this issue head on. DHK attempted to answer but his answer was far from a plausible explanation. He tried to liken it to a father/son relationship where the father disciplines the son without breaking off the relationship (something along that order) yet that in no wise speaks to the issue being asked about. When did a father PROMISE a son complete forgiveness for all future sins, and promise never to bring them up?? Even if the father only disciplined the son, he would be reneging on his word to set forth punishment or chastisement for something he vowed never to even remember. Sorry Ann and DHK, neither of you have in any way responded with a straight forward or even possibly plausible answer. Why does this question, in reality, go so unanswered??

I would like to hear Ann explain how she can avoid double predestination if in fact I understand her correctly to say that she believes in a limited atonement.

 

[Amy.G]

HP, what does it mean to be justified by God?

 

[annsni]

HP:Brother Bob, you have brought up a good point that needs to be answered.:thumbs:

There has not been one post so far from anyone that has addressed this issue head on. DHK attempted to answer but his answer was far from a plausible explanation. He tried to liken it to a father/son relationship where the father disciplines the son without breaking off the relationship (something along that order) yet that in no wise speaks to the issue being asked about. When did a father PROMISE a son complete forgiveness for all future sins, and promise never to bring them up?? Even if the father only disciplined the son, he would be reneging on his word to set forth punishment or chastisement for something he vowed never to even remember. Sorry Ann and DHK, neither of you have in any way responded with a straight forward or even possibly plausible answer. Why does this question, in reality, go so unanswered??

I would like to hear Ann explain how she can avoid double predestination if in fact I understand her correctly to say that she believes in a limited atonement.

All men are condemned to hell due to their own sin. God chooses to save those whom He chooses to. It's tough for us to understand why God does this but He does. It's Biblical. Read Romans 9 for more info.

As for the idea of our sins being forgiven and never to be remembered again - and yet God chastising us as His children, both are fully backed up in Scripture. It's not me you have an argument with - it's the Author Himself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: HP, what does it mean to be justified by God?

HP: To be pardoned from sins that are past. Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;