Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Bible Highlighter]

Alright. If folks cannot provide for me an honest and good real world example, I am afraid I will have to take my leave.

In any event, may God bless you all.
And may His love shine upon you.


....

 

[nobdysfool]

I believe a saint can still be saved despite them having sins in their life that do not lead unto spiritual death.

Backpedaling a little, are we? You're changing your view. I know you'll deny it, but it's there for all to see.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Backpedaling a little, are we? You're changing your view. I know you'll deny it, but it's there for all to see.

It's not backpeddling. I did not just recently come to believe this. I am merely saying that my opponent's accusation that states, me saying: "I am sinless" is incorrect even based on their faulty interpretation on 1 John 1:8. For I still believe that 1 John 1:8 is talking about sin that needs to be confessed in order to be forgiven of such sin (1 John 1:9). Why does one need to confess sin? Is it because somebody is sinning every minute of every day of their life those types of sins that lead unto spiritual death? No. 1 John 1:8 is written to the person who denies the existence of sin or the punishment of sin's effects.

This lines up with what is said in the surrounding context. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4).

Side Note:

Again, for clarification: It was suggested that I was claiming to be sinless which is a denial in your view of 1 John 1:8. However, this is not true. I was speaking from my opponent's perspective on that verse and how it is not true. They are saying I am claiming to be sinless. Yet, I am not denying there may hidden or secret faults in my life that are not serious sins like murder, theft, hate, adultery, etc. But I do not believe my opponents position on 1 John 1:8 is correct, though. I still believe that verse is taking about how one is denying sin's existence or the punishment of sin in some way.


....

 

[Marvin Knox]

This is not a real world example. This is you reading the Bible and making an interpretation upon it. A real world example is a universal truth in every day life that people would be familar with. For Jesus used real world examples all the time to illustrate spiritual truth. These are called parables. For what was true in the physical world was real for the spiritual. In other words, what you have to do is create a real world example that would not be something said from the Bible but it is an example of a moral lesson or spiritual truth taken from real life. For even the Canaanite woman was able to expound upon Jesus's real world example and add to it by saying something that is true in the real world, as well.....

This is an absolutely accurate and infallible recounting of an actual person and their sin and the Holy Spirit's opinion of it.

It took place in a real place (Thessalonica) in the middle of the first century.

An entire Christian congregation was well aware of this sin. The Apostle Paul was even well aware of this sin.

The Holy Spirit commented on the sin and the way the church dealt with it. He also commented on the status of the person involved in the sin (even as he was still doing it).

The Holy Spirit calls him a brother even as he is still sinning and totally unrepentant.

This is a real world example of a real world man from a real world place.

It simply doesn't get any more real world than this example.

We are even blessed in this case with God's commentary on the subject of the eternal status of the man as he was in sin.

If you won't accept this real world example it is only because of one reason IMO.

Your doctrine is incorrect and you will not repent and cease teaching it.

Repent Jason - the Kingdom of God is at hand.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Backpedaling a little, are we? You're changing your view. I know you'll deny it, but it's there for all to see.

JASON - Give us a "real world" example that proves your doctrine.

Then we will know what you mean by your challenge and perhaps take you up on it.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Jason,

Although it may be casting my pearls before swine - here’s a "real world" example of what I believe.

A couple desires to adopt a troubled little boy from a local orphanage.

They pay all that is required for the adoption. They comply with every stipulation of the law concerning legal and permanent adoption.

They take the boy home and proclaim him a “brother” to all of their other children.

They set up certain boundaries for the boy just as they have for their other children. They tell him, among other things, that he is not to, under any circumstances, take any money that they leave around the house and spend it on himself.

He is tempted and he willingly disobeys the parents. There are many reasons why he was tempted to take money – not the least of which was peer pressure from his delinquent friends. But there is, of course, no excuse for his disobedience to his loving parents.

He repays them by sinning against them in spite of their loving kindness and their clear directions concerning what is and is not allowed for him to do.

They discover his transgression before he is able to confess or repent. Indeed they catch him while he is still spending the money on himself.

The father punishes the boy for his sin. The boy suffers what he considers in the end to be even more loss than what it would have been to not even have had the money to spend on his self at all. It is a net loss for the boy in the long run and he knows it all too well in the end.

Even in the short run there is a strain on the fellowship between him and his loving father that has resulted from his transgression.

But in the end – all is well. There has been some loss and there has also been some gain in the form of lessons learned by the boy and the entire family as they watched it all happen.

This situation turns out to be more beneficial for the boy's education concerning transgression than any other imaginable treatment would have been.

The couple does not take the boy back to the orphanage. In fact they could not do so because of an oath and a binding contract that they had entered into (not that they wanted to – they loved the boy very much, even beyond words).

That’s a real world example of my doctrine concerning salvation.

My real world example of your doctrine is somewhat different. The main glaring difference is the fact that, with your doctrine, in the end the boy’s father broke his word to the authorities, broke his word to the boy, broke his word to the other children, and disowned the boy as his son. In fact, in the end the father burned the little boy in fiery torment for eternity because he caught him in an un-confessed and un-repented of transgression.

How’s that?

I wouldn't trade my good news for your bad news for all the gold in all the world.

 

[EmSw]

Jason,

Although it may be casting my pearls before swine - here’s a "real world" example of what I believe.

A couple desires to adopt a troubled little boy from a local orphanage.

They pay all that is required for the adoption. They comply with every stipulation of the law concerning legal and permanent adoption.

They take the boy home and proclaim him a “brother” to all of their other children.

They set up certain boundaries for the boy just as they have for their other children. They tell him, among other things, that he is not to, under any circumstances, take any money that they leave around the house and spend it on himself.

He is tempted and he willingly disobeys the parents. There are many reasons why he was tempted to take money – not the least of which was peer pressure from his delinquent friends. But there is, of course, no excuse for his disobedience to his loving parents.

He repays them by sinning against them in spite of their loving kindness and their clear directions concerning what is and is not allowed for him to do.

They discover his transgression before he is able to confess or repent. Indeed they catch him while he is still spending the money on himself.

The father punishes the boy for his sin. The boy suffers what he considers in the end to be even more loss than what it would have been to not even have had the money to spend on his self at all. It is a net loss for the boy in the long run and he knows it all too well in the end.

Even in the short run there is a strain on the fellowship between him and his loving father that has resulted from his transgression.

But in the end – all is well. There has been some loss and there has also been some gain in the form of lessons learned by the boy and the entire family as they watched it all happen.

This situation turns out to be more beneficial for the boy's education concerning transgression than any other imaginable treatment would have been.

The couple does not take the boy back to the orphanage. In fact they could not do so because of an oath and a binding contract that they had entered into (not that they wanted to – they loved the boy very much, even beyond words).

That’s a real world example of my doctrine concerning salvation.

My real world example of your doctrine is somewhat different. The main glaring difference is the fact that, with your doctrine, in the end the boy’s father broke his word to the authorities, broke his word to the boy, broke his word to the other children, and disowned the boy as his son. In fact, in the end the father burned the little boy in fiery torment for eternity because he caught him in an un-confessed and un-repented of transgression.

How’s that?

I wouldn't trade my good news for your bad news for all the gold in all the world.

In your example, who would be the orphanage?

How does the adopted boy get a new nature?

What if the adopted boy, even after punishment, wouldn't stop stealing money and spending it upon himself?

What if the adopted boy got worse, and tried to kill his adopted parents time and time again?

 

[nobdysfool]

In your example, who would be the orphanage?

How does the adopted boy get a new nature?

What if the adopted boy, even after punishment, wouldn't stop stealing money and spending it upon himself?

What if the adopted boy got worse, and tried to kill his adopted parents time and time again?

None of that is relevant to the story.

 

[nobdysfool]

It's not backpeddling. I did not just recently come to believe this. I am merely saying that my opponent's accusation that states, me saying: "I am sinless" is incorrect even based on their faulty interpretation on 1 John 1:8. For I still believe that 1 John 1:8 is talking about sin that needs to be confessed in order to be forgiven of such sin (1 John 1:9). Why does one need to confess sin? Is it because somebody is sinning every minute of every day of their life those types of sins that lead unto spiritual death? No. 1 John 1:8 is written to the person who denies the existence of sin or the punishment of sin's effects.

This lines up with what is said in the surrounding context. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4).

Side Note:

Again, for clarification: It was suggested that I was claiming to be sinless which is a denial in your view of 1 John 1:8. However, this is not true. I was speaking from my opponent's perspective on that verse and how it is not true. They are saying I am claiming to be sinless. Yet, I am not denying there may hidden or secret faults in my life that are not serious sins like murder, theft, hate, adultery, etc. But I do not believe my opponents position on 1 John 1:8 is correct, though. I still believe that verse is taking about how one is denying sin's existence or the punishment of sin in some way.....

Nope, sorry, not buying it. You're doing damage control because you know you are on shaky ground. I John 1:8 is very clear. It does not say what you're trying to spin it to say. For a long time you would not even admit that you still sin. Now you're trying to fob it off as "they're not serious sins like murder, or theft, or hate, or adultery", which amounts to minimizing your sins. That's not in keeping with your false doctrine. And, we've caught you in a sin you refuse to repent of, that of bearing false witness against those here who take issue with your false doctrine, and are trying to help you to see things correctly. You remain unrepentant about that. So the word hypocrite applies.

Do we need to confess our sins? Of course! They result in broken fellowship with God, and separate us from Him. But when you sin, you do not lose your salvation. The fellowship has been affected, but not the relationship. That is irrevocable. The fear of Loss of salvation is a ruse by the devil to get you working so hard trying to keep yourself saved, that you can't hear the Holy Spirit, and be taught and guided by Him. Fear is not from God. You have been duped!

 

[EmSw]

None of that is relevant to the story.

Says who?

 

[nobdysfool]

Says who?

Sez me. You got a problem with that? How are your questions relevant to the real world example (a story)? They're not.

.

 

[EmSw]

Sez me. You got a problem with that? How are your questions relevant to the real world example (a story)? They're not.

.

Yes, I have a problem when you set the rules.

The story isn't relevant at all with adoption. You got a problem with that?

 

[nobdysfool]

Yes, I have a problem when you set the rules.

The story isn't relevant at all with adoption. You got a problem with that?

Marvins' story, Marvin's rules, Marvin's the one you want to talk to about it. My issue is you trying to change the rules, other wise, not my circus, not my monkeys....

.

 

[Marvin Knox]

In your example, who would be the orphanage?

How does the adopted boy get a new nature?

What if the adopted boy, even after punishment, wouldn't stop stealing money and spending it upon himself?

What if the adopted boy got worse, and tried to kill his adopted parents time and time again?

My natural reply to your post would be something like, "What a complete idiot!"

It was just a parable that I came up with because Jason insisted on having one. You know - a "parable" - something to lay along side of and parallel to a real teaching that will help in a worldly way to illustrate spiritual truth.

But being the patient man that I am and being willing to play along with you, at least for this one post - I'll try to answer as best I can. Not that you asked in the right spirit or that you really wanted to know the answers.

The orphanage would be this lost, cursed, Satan controlled world which we all needed to be rescued from.

The boy's new identify is the equivalent of a new nature.

If the adopted boy would not stop his activities, the father would have determined that he be turned over to the world "for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" - to coin an appropriate parallel phrase from the scriptures.

In keeping with the spiritual truths that Jason was really asking for illustration of with the parable - no one has ever tried to kill the Father that I know of. Therefore what you asked is not a relevant illustration of truth.

If you continue to push this silliness as far as I believe you are capable of judging from past contact with you - I may revert to my natural impulses and say something like, "What a complete idiot."

Hopefully you'll just let it go and it won't come to that - since I went to the trouble of explaining things to you in spite of the silliness of your questions.

By the way - "adoption" is completely relevant to the discussion. Read your Bible.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It has been sad to read through the last 4-5 pages of this thread seeing the words of those who seek justification based on their obedience to the law, but it completely makes sense that they would downplay their own sinfulness. They have to.

A Christian living in light of the gospel can be honest about his sin because he knows that his righteousness if found in Christ, not himself. His weakness does not bother him. It's expected. But one living by and under the law has nowhere to go with his sin, he has to turn a blind eye to it because it condemns him, so he does one of two things, and usually vacillates between the two. One, he becomes proud when he sees himself living inline with God's law, and two, he becomes despondent and defeated when he doesn't.

The main trick he uses, and he has a few, is that he keeps his eyes on others rather than on the actual law of God. His measuring stick is others, not the law. This is why he is judgmental and condemning. He has to be in order to bolster himself up.

The second trick of one living under the law is that he lowers the bar of the law to make it achievable. He fools himself into thinking that he is either without sin or that he sins only very occasionally because he has taken the glory out of the law. He has lowered the bar and fools himself into thinking that he is walking in compliance with the law. Along the same lines, he makes other laws about things such as drinking alcohol or watching certain movies. . . This helps him in his self-deception to live (in his mind) in obedience to the law.

Lastly, a common theme with the few people posting in this thread who are imagining themselves with very little sin is that they only see sin as wrongdoing; however, they fail to also see it as a lack of right-doing. They fail to see that not meeting their neighbor's needs with all of the immediacy, concern and resources that they meet their own is the same as lying or theft.

The reason I know so much about these types of people is that I used to be one of them. Praise Jesus that He forgave me the arrogance and insult to Him and His grace. Thank Christ that He rescued me from such a life. He saved me from trying to justify and sanctify myself. What joy, peace, and gratitude have replaced fear, condemnation and judgment of others. . .

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is an absolutely accurate and infallible recounting of an actual person and their sin and the Holy Spirit's opinion of it.

It took place in a real place (Thessalonica) in the middle of the first century.

An entire Christian congregation was well aware of this sin. The Apostle Paul was even well aware of this sin.

The Holy Spirit commented on the sin and the way the church dealt with it. He also commented on the status of the person involved in the sin (even as he was still doing it).

The Holy Spirit calls him a brother even as he is still sinning and totally unrepentant.

This is a real world example of a real world man from a real world place.

It simply doesn't get any more real world than this example.

We are even blessed in this case with God's commentary on the subject of the eternal status of the man as he was in sin.

If you won't accept this real world example it is only because of one reason IMO.

Your doctrine is incorrect and you will not repent and cease teaching it.

Repent Jason - the Kingdom of God is at hand.

No. You are not getting it. You are reading the Bible and making an interpretation upon it. This is not like the parables that Jesus Christ had told. The parables or real world examples that Jesus told are every day real life stories that EVERYONE can relate to. For example: In the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price, we learn that a man discovers a pearl of great price, he then hides it and sells all that he has to buy that field. The truth revealed here is that Jesus Christ (and the rewards in knowing Him) is that pearl of great price. For Christ's disciples who had forsaken all they had will be rewarded greatly (See Matthew 19:27-29).

In other words, it is a generic story from the real world that is both true in the physical world and in the spiritual world without having to know any exact names, dates, places, etc. It is a universal truth that the common man can accept in the real world.

Anyways, it appears that you finally understood what I was trying to say here and you made a real world example just recently. So thank you. Granted, I do not agree with it, but the effort is appreciated none the less.

Oh, and on another matter: Please stop telling me to "repent." There is abolutely zero chance that such a thing will ever happen. I do not believe your belief is Biblical in any way shape or form. I see your belief as the opposite extreme of what I believe in the fact that it goes against the Bible and real life. In fact, I consider your belief to be exceptionally wrong for two reasons. One, you believe in a form of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) that makes an allowance for sin (on a small level) by the fact that you hold to the idea that a believer will sin on occasion the rest of their life (with them confessing that sin). I see this an excuse for a person to sin the rest of their life when the Scriptures teach us that we can partake of the Sanctification process and overcome sin in this life by God's power instead. In other words, the Bible teaches we can stop sinning, but yet you are teaching that we cannot stop sinning. Two, you believe in Calvinism that paints God in a bad light by Him foreordaining evil and sin. I believe God is good and that there is no darkness in Him. God does not plan for evil to take place as if that was the only choice available for his creation. Yes, God knew what was going to happen, but man had free will to choose otherwise. Man is responsible for all the evil and sin you see in this world (Not God).


.....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It has been sad to read through the last 4-5 pages of this thread seeing the words of those who seek justification based on their obedience to the law, but it completely makes sense that they would downplay their own sinfulness. They have to.

A Christian living in light of the gospel can be honest about his sin because he knows that his righteousness if found in Christ, not himself. His weakness does not bother him. It's expected. But one living by and under the law has nowhere to go with his sin, he has to turn a blind eye to it because it condemns him, so he does one of two things, and usually vacillates between the two. One, he becomes proud when he sees himself living inline with God's law, and two, he becomes despondent and defeated when he doesn't.

The main trick he uses, and he has a few, is that he keeps his eyes on others rather than on the actual law of God. His measuring stick is others, not the law. This is why he is judgmental and condemning. He has to be in order to bolster himself up.

The second trick of one living under the law is that he lowers the bar of the law to make it achievable. He fools himself into thinking that he is either without sin or that he sins only very occasionally because he has taken the glory out of the law. He has lowered the bar and fools himself into thinking that he is walking in compliance with the law. Along the same lines, he makes other laws about things such as drinking alcohol or watching certain movies. . . This helps him in his self-deception to live (in his mind) in obedience to the law.

Lastly, a common theme with the few people posting in this thread who are imagining themselves with very little sin is that they only see sin as wrongdoing; however, they fail to also see it as a lack of right-doing. They fail to see that not meeting their neighbor's needs with all of the immediacy, concern and resources that they meet their own is the same as lying or theft.

The reason I know so much about these types of people is that I used to be one of them. Praise Jesus that He forgave me the arrogance and insult to Him and His grace. Thank Christ that He rescued me from such a life. He saved me from trying to justify and sanctify myself. What joy, peace, and gratitude have replaced fear, condemnation and judgment of others. . .

There are two wrong extremes when it comes to salvation. On one end of the spectrum we have Antinomianism, which is an ignoring of God's Law on some level. On the other opposite extreme we have Man Directed Works Based Savlationism. Some jump from one wrong extreme and into the arms of the other opposite extreme. But neither extreme is Biblical in any way shape or form, my friend.

Antinomianism is the belief that you can live in sin on some level the rest of your life and still be saved. It is an ignoring of God's moral goodness or laws. In this view, some believe they can sin all the time the rest fo their life and still be saved; And others believe they can sin only on occasion the rest of their life (while they confess of such sins with the thinking they are saved). To me, this is the most dangerous view because one has to turn off their moral compass in order to believe it. For when you turn on the news and or watch a movie, you know the good guys from the bad guys by what they do and not based on what they believe. Our actions determine if one is evil or good or what's in a person's heart. For even in our own culture we know somebody who ignores morality or has no mental acknowledgment towards morality is called a "sociopath." So being sociopathic is not an admirable trait to have. God is good and He desires His people to be good, too. For it is written, be not deceived, he that does rightoeusness is righteous (1 John 3:7). He that commits sin is of the devil (1 John 3:8). For everyone who does evil hates the light (John 3:20). The problem I see in this belief (also known as OSAS or Once Saved Always Saved) is that people can hear a message from one of these preachers that says: "Jesus is your righteousness and salvation is not in anything you do" as meaning that they now have a "license to sin" because they have a belief on Jesus as their Savior. For whether one teaches that one must live holy afterwards at some other time (Which is a message they could miss), the damage is already done. They could think they can sin and still be saved on some level. In other words, people have committed suicide thinking they are saved because of OSAS. Also, a man who believed in OSAS had murdered many people and himself thinking he was saved (See this link here). This all sounds very similar to what Jim Jones did (of which you can read about here).

Man Directed Works Salvationism is the belief that over-emphasizes man's involvement in the salvation process above God. I have talked with others before who say that the weight or burden of doing God's work is on them alone. One person I talked with had even denied the Substitionary Atonement because of his overemphasis on man's part involving salvation. Some folks I have talked with believe in baptismal salvation. Others believe that one has to speak in tongues in order to be saved. I have talked with others who deny that it is useless to preach the plan of salvation to a man who is dying in a hospital bed (because he needs works to save him). Others believe we have to go back and obey the Law of Moses or at least certain Commands in order to be saved (Like obeying the Saturday Sabbath, etc.). In this view, I have witnessed how others can be judgmental towards others and have a hateful and critical spirit (just as I have witnessed the same thing for those who believe in Antinomianism or OSAS, i.e. Once Saved Always Saved).

However, the right view of salvation is that God saves us by His mercy and by the washing and regeneration of the Holy Ghost. This means that when a man believes in Jesus as His Savior or when he repents of his sins and accepts Jesus into their heart by way of prayer they are born again spiritually. They will have new desires spiritually. However, the believer here cannot take the credit for any good work done in his life, though. Jesus will then live within them and do the good work in their heart and lives when they continue to submit to God and His Word. For it is why the 24 elders had cast their crowns down before Jesus. It was Christ working in them. The right view of salvation teaches that one must have a Godly sorrow over their sin whereby they seek forgiveness of their sin with God and they then turn away from that sin (Whereby they will overcome it with God's help). The right view of salvation teaches that it is God working in them and that God will help them to keep His laws and statues (See Ezekiel 36:26-27). These are the Commands or Laws exclusively in the New Testament (and not the Old Testament). For the ordinances that were against us have been nailed to the cross. Only the prophecies from the Law have yet to be fulfilled in the future (Hence, why Jeus said he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it). For the Law has been referred to as the "Law and the Prophets." Anyways, the right view of salvation is that a believer is saved by God's grace right here and right now by his mercy and they are led into paths or righteousness (Under those commands in the New Testament) for His name sake. These types of believers love and pray for their enemies. These types of believers believe in God''s goodness and morality. They stand up for what is right and good within God's Word. They believe that a saint can stop sinning. But they point to Jesus as to why they have stopped sinning. They uphold God's laws in the New Covenant but they do not teach that salvation is in a set of rule keeping in and of itself alone because one goes to Jesus to get their hearts right with God and not by going out and doing a bunch of works instead. God first cleanses us and then He moves within our hearts and lives.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

JASON - Give us a "real world" example that proves your doctrine.

Then we will know what you mean by your challenge and perhaps take you up on it.

I have already provided two of them within this thread that disprove OSAS (i.e. Once Saved Always Saved - Which is a part of Calvinism).

Please see my posts here:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...with-calvinism.7914236/page-120#post-69113481

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...with-calvinism.7914236/page-117#post-69101361

Side Note:

Oh, and please take note: The second real world example I provided in the second link is in the last paragraph of my post. Anyways, may God bless you and please be well.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope, sorry, not buying it. You're doing damage control because you know you are on shaky ground.

It doesn't matter if you believe me or not. It is still the truth. My belief has not changed in regards 1 John 1:8. I still believe 1 John 1:8 is saying that a person is denying the existence of sin or they are denying the punishment of sin in some way. I am merely saying that from my opponents perspective or view on 1 John 1:8, they are still wrong. Again, this is not a new revelation for me. I have said this same exact discussion before a long time ago on another forum.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason,

Although it may be casting my pearls before swine - here’s a "real world" example of what I believe.

What would make somebody a swine or a pig? It would be some-one who is living in sin (of course). For the Prodigal Son was forced to eat with the swine because of his riotous and sinful living. Anyways, I believe casting pearls before swine is telling an unbeliever or atheist deep truths within God's Word. Another example would be telling unbelievers or aheists and even certain professing believers of how God has personally worked in your life in miraculous ways (When you know they will not believe you). So I believe your use of the phrase here is not exactly correct, my friend. Especially when Jesus spoke his parables openly to all people.

A couple desires to adopt a troubled little boy from a local orphanage.

They pay all that is required for the adoption. They comply with every stipulation of the law concerning legal and permanent adoption.

They take the boy home and proclaim him a “brother” to all of their other children.

They set up certain boundaries for the boy just as they have for their other children. They tell him, among other things, that he is not to, under any circumstances, take any money that they leave around the house and spend it on himself.

He is tempted and he willingly disobeys the parents. There are many reasons why he was tempted to take money – not the least of which was peer pressure from his delinquent friends. But there is, of course, no excuse for his disobedience to his loving parents.

He repays them by sinning against them in spite of their loving kindness and their clear directions concerning what is and is not allowed for him to do.

They discover his transgression before he is able to confess or repent. Indeed they catch him while he is still spending the money on himself.

The father punishes the boy for his sin. The boy suffers what he considers in the end to be even more loss than what it would have been to not even have had the money to spend on his self at all. It is a net loss for the boy in the long run and he knows it all too well in the end.

Even in the short run there is a strain on the fellowship between him and his loving father that has resulted from his transgression.

But in the end – all is well. There has been some loss and there has also been some gain in the form of lessons learned by the boy and the entire family as they watched it all happen.

This situation turns out to be more beneficial for the boy's education concerning transgression than any other imaginable treatment would have been.

The couple does not take the boy back to the orphanage. In fact they could not do so because of an oath and a binding contract that they had entered into (not that they wanted to – they loved the boy very much, even beyond words).

That’s a real world example of my doctrine concerning salvation.

My real world example of your doctrine is somewhat different. The main glaring difference is the fact that, with your doctrine, in the end the boy’s father broke his word to the authorities, broke his word to the boy, broke his word to the other children, and disowned the boy as his son. In fact, in the end the father burned the little boy in fiery torment for eternity because he caught him in an un-confessed and un-repented of transgression.

How’s that?

I wouldn't trade my good news for your bad news for all the gold in all the world.

Well, for one, I do not believe in Eternal Concious Torment. I believe the wicked will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire. For the Lake of Fire is called the Second Death for a reason; And the last enemy to be destroyed will be death (Which suggests that there are other enemies of God that wil be destroyed before that). For Jesus says fear not the one who can destroy the body, but fear the one who can destroy both body and SOUL in Gehenna (i.e. the Lake of Fire).

Two, how would unconfessed sin translate into the real world? It would be like a man who cheats on his wife and doesn't care to say to her that he is sorry to her in what he is doing. For the man must say that he is sorry to his wife if there is any kind of healing to begin and he is truly serious in reconciling their relationship. But in your analogy, if the son had murdered half of the family, and he confessed of his sin and then later just killed even more of their family, then he is not truly going to be welcomed in their home as a son anymore (regardless of whether he was adopted or born of their own blood). In other words, even though God's grace is bountiful (He forgives 70 times 7), there is a limit to God's grace. We cannot continue in sin and think we can just keep confessing it as if it was some kind of magic rabbit's foot. True confession is done with a Godly sorrow whereby one does not want to sin ever again (Whereby they take action with God's help to overcome it). If not, then one has not truly repented of their sins. For the global flood was an example for all who live ungodly. One can live ungodly even if they commit sin on occasion or if they indulge in just one sin every once in a while.

Side Note:

Oh, and I also would never trade my belief for any gold or riches this world has to offer, either. My belief in Christ and His Word are what I find to be the true treasures in this life.


....