Future Sins Forgiven Already - Once Saved Always Saved

[thessalonian]

So last night and this morning, in preparation for my debate, I was reading Mr. JM's book and I was suddenly struck by the lack of concern that sin does to those around us with this once saved always saved mentallity, it's just between God and I. There ain't no consequences! Tell that to the woman and children that who you are married to that have to deal with a one time indiscression with another woman. I hear alot on Protestant radio about homosexuality, abortion, etc. etc. and yes there are help programs out there for "those sinners" who are alcoholics, but very little reflection about "MY SINS". Very little reflection on personal sin. Maybe I'm doing some filtering. But I have to ask, why should future sins be forgiven? Yes, past and present but why future? It's like walking up to your neighbor and saying "I broke you window will you forgive me" and then right in front of him throwing a rock through it.

James says there are no consequences for sins already forgiven. How can he possibly say that? We and those around us suffer in some fashion for every sin we committ. The anger at a wife and children that is unjust damages our relationship for instance. Alcoholism and even one time drunkeness causes effects on our families and our jobs. These "punishments" are by God's designs. In heb 12 he says he chastises those whom he loves. James says there is no chastisement.

[4] In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
[5] And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? -- "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
[6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives."
[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
[8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
[9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
[10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
[11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

[geetarplayer]

In my opinion, it makes sense that future sins would be forgiven, since God is all-knowing and beyond time and space. That doesn't make it okay to sin, though.

As for no punishment, this just sounds presumptuous to me. If you think about the greatness and absolute goodness of God versus the mortality and weakness of man, how could one expect pardon? How could one expect favor? Yes, God is love, and we are called to love Him. But He is also a fair judge. Jesus commands us to take up our cross and follow Him. Don't tell me that isn't a call to embrace suffering.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've never got an adequate reply to this, and i've asked some pretty formidable prot apologists: if we are already forgiven, why do we say "forgive us our trespasses" when we often, beyond the iitial supposed forgivenss, pray to God?

also... never reply to the seeds on bad soil passage. other than for them to say you were never saved to begin with. this leads to a believing murderer if taken to its end. www.justforcatholics.org, says that a beliving murderer is not saved truly, but you can't say they're saved if they are living life generally bad... he's actually making the argument that catholics would make, ie they are not saved. so,,, if it's "by faith alone, but faith is never alone" then it's not OSAS,,, it's that you can fall away or if you're sinful too much you were never saved to begin with at least,,,, you're not necessarily entitled to forgiveness.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't like the idea of arguing about how your sins affect others as a means to say that you're not OSAS.... cause they'd say if you're sinning too much and affecting them, you were saved to begin with. and if you're living a life of virtue, "faith alone but faith is never alone", then you're not affecting others too much,,, and in any theology a sinner causes bad effects yet they are saved in the end if they live the life of virtue.

[dairygirl4u2c]

but i aguess in my last post i am assuming that one wouldn't allow theologically "believing murderer" to be saved.
if he would allow that,,, then, your concerns abotu the effects on others are justified, cause it just doesn't seem like something God would allow and then save the person too, as much anyway.

i mean,,, i often put myself into considering luther, calvin, and catholic... as they have some decent reasoning to them.
none of them to my understanding would allow for a beliving murderer to be saved in ther theology,,, but surely some could go that far, and i shouldn't rule it out especially if that's the nature of the preson you are debating.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1634599' date='Aug 22 2008, 12:42 PM']i've never got an adequate reply to this, and i've asked some pretty formidable prot apologists: if we are already forgiven, why do we say "forgive us our trespasses" when we often, beyond the iitial supposed forgivenss, pray to God?[/quote]

Because we need to [b]ask[/b] for forgiveness. We have to admit that we sinned and ask God to forgive us for what we have done to Him (and to others). It's all well and good to say "Oh, God knows in five years that I'll probably tell a lie, but it's okay because He'll forgive me" but we have to remember that we need to ask for this forgiveness. Otherwise, if God just forgave us automatically like that, nothing would prevent us from sinning. If we don't have to ask for forgiveness, knowing that it's automatically granted, then we won't believe that there's a possibility of going to Hell, thus no reason to fear God in this respect.

[MakeYouThink]

God forgives sins in the present as we pray for forgiveness.

God wants us to enter into his rest, so we will stop sinning. It isn't about so much not sinning, because we can't stop sinning, but relying on him for everything, trusting him for everything, so that are needs are fulfilled so much we don't have to sin.

And trust me, this is easier said than done!

[HisChildForever]

I have a feeling we'll end up dominating this debate, too.

[thessalonian]

Mr. McCarthy says that there is no such thing as mortal and venial sins and if you are sinning in any kind of a habitual way you were probably never saved in the first place. So if your in the habit of eating a bit too much and are fat then you weren't really saved in the first place? If you get a bit angry from time to time for the last 10 years, or 5 years or two years you were never really saved. How long does this habit of anger or over eating have to go away before you know whether the sinners prayer really took or not. At this point the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine becomes complete nonsense for me. At least his version of it.

[geetarplayer]

So I guess he doesn't believe there is a difference between sanctifying grace and actual grace.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i see where you are coming from. but,,, i don't think he'd claim to know if a certain person is saved or not. if it's minor sins, then that wouldn't mean they were never saved to begin with. there's a spectrum of sins, quality and quanity, that we simply coudln't know for sure if it's so seiarous, the combination, that they'd never be saved to begin with.
that a person habituatlly curses a little, probably isn't enough, though.

there's issues about whether a person has to increase as per like a rate, to really be ased, continually getting better. i'd think it implied that that'd happen, and if not then not saved. but that's not the doctrine that's defined in prot or catholic circles,, necessarily, though again almsot implied.
so in that sense, maybe the habitual sins are doomsful, if you have no intention of ever stopping.

that's one issue i never figured out in catho etc. you have "fundamental option" from the grave sin point of view as not working with ctholics. but from the other side,,, of venial sins,,, can you have a fundamental option and not have any desire to change a specfric small sin while generally prefering God?

[dairygirl4u2c]

"i see where you are coming from. but,,, i don't think he'd claim to know if a certain person is saved or not"

and not just claims to know... bt also whether they are objectively saved or not, based on a certain random small sin X.

oh wait, i may need to rethink what i said,,, cause you said there's no venial sins to him. he probably menas,,, all sins kill the same,,, but some are such that they could be something a christian would do and not be a beliving murderer. you'd have to ask him.

the whole of you debate, i bet,,, is just fiuring out each other's unspoken premsies, i'm not sure how much you'll get into debating the positions all that welll.

[HisChildForever]

I don't think I can be a part of this debate. I can't really understand what you're saying, Dairy - I don't mean your context, but the way you type. Sorry.

[thessalonian]

No Dairy I don't think I misunderstood him. His whole thing was that "light sins" as he quoted out of context, the catechism, were just as bad for your eternal destiny as any sin. He critcized the Churches position on magnatude of the sin, will, and knowledge and then said there is no mortal and venial sin. Then he said if you keep on sinning then you were'nt really saved in the first place. I will read it again and if I have it wrong will let you know but I don't think I am misrepresenting him.

Thanks for your input. It is helpful.

God bless

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1634732' date='Aug 22 2008, 02:05 PM']Mr. McCarthy says that there is no such thing as mortal and venial sins and if you are sinning in any kind of a habitual way you were probably never saved in the first place. So if your in the habit of eating a bit too much and are fat then you weren't really saved in the first place? If you get a bit angry from time to time for the last 10 years, or 5 years or two years you were never really saved. How long does this habit of anger or over eating have to go away before you know whether the sinners prayer really took or not. At this point the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine becomes complete nonsense for me. At least his version of it.[/quote]

I have to agree with you on this. These once saved always saved people are really bothersome. They don't understand what grace really is. I'm not saying you can live anyway you want and sin without abandon, God forbid.

But, to think, God can't show mercy to those who desperately ask for it because they are woeful that they have sinned, and know that they can't live without God's mercy, well. . .

The once saved always saved who prays to God and says, I don't sin like that person sins, and the woeful sinner who acknowledges his sins and says, God have mercy on me because I am a sinner, who goes home more justified!