OSAS #1: Can sinners enter Heaven?

[Ben johnson]

Hi Ben -

Yea I knew what you meant - but the point I'm trying to make is that you will use "looser" definitions of Calvinism in your classifications as well - and that just isn't going to fly.

Calvinists themselves do not agree on everything; and even with their own positions. I stated several positions Calvinists here have had, and they were furious (charging me with "misquoting/misrepresentation"); but later they said exactly the same position that I'd stated. Some think "God predestines sin", others say "man is responsible for his OWN (though he could not choose else)".

When you start classifying things into specific categories - particularly when you start looking at sets of beliefs - its important to get them right - to truly be able to understand them.

I've not met anyone who thinks one can be in "Sinning-fellowship" with Christ; but fellowship or not ("not" being "relationship only, not fellowship"), the position still assert "sinningly-SAVED". If you have a better word, I'll appreciate it...

In other words - if you are going to use historical terms for this - use the actual historical definitions - not your own, as you have done with antinominism.

I researched the word, and it has several definitions; one is "saved relationship, but fellowship is not necessary; nor is lack of willful continual sin."

I'm actually trying to help you out - if you want me to listen to what you have to say about this stuff - particularly your rejection of Calvinism - then show me at least that you know what it is you are rejecting before telling me why. When you get something wrong - be willing to accept correction from those who are more knowledgeable of this stuff - or this thing is never going to get off the ground.

I appreciate you, Behe; and, please understand that it can be confusing --- when the Calvinsts here do not all agree on the same things. Is there such a thing as "double-predestionation"? Do sanctification and justification and regeneration all precede belief? Questions like these will garner different answers, even in the same group.

 

[Ben johnson]

Did you sin yesterday Ben? [be honest now]...are you practicing sin Ben?

"Practicing", is "doing the same thing over and over"; it is unrepentance.

Which, by definition, is "not abiding in Christ".

Did you sin today Ben? [be honest now]...are you practicing sin Ben?

No. Honestly.

Will you sin tommorow Ben? [be honest now]...that would be three days running...are you practicing sin Ben?

Perhaps; but if I do, my heart will be grieved, and I will turn to Him for the strength to resist.

Are you practicing sin Ben? [be honest now]

Moonbeam --- do we agree on the difference between "walking in sin (and not walking in Christ)", and "walking in Christ" (and not walking in sin)?

 

[Ben johnson]

The truth of Jesus' Gospel is that we cannot walk in sin, while having the indwelt-fellowship that is salvation.

Thats not salvation, that is delusionary thinking..

Hi, "Savedbygrace". I give you 1Jn1:6-7, 1Jn1:3, and John17:3; where do you find an error in my perception?

 

[moonbeam]

"Practicing", is "doing the same thing over and over"; it is unrepentance.
Which, by definition, is "not abiding in Christ".

Your definition is flawed...inaccurate.

To be indwelt of the Spirit constitutes abiding in Christ.

No. Honestly.

Your self analysis is also flawed...that made clear by your findings. [honestly...your examination of your self was not "honest" enough]

Perhaps; but if I do, my heart will be grieved, and I will turn to Him for the strength to resist.

Perhaps.

Moonbeam --- do we agree on the difference between "walking in sin (and not walking in Christ)", and "walking in Christ" (and not walking in sin)?

Only if you agree with the following.

Do you agree that the distinction between walking in Christ as opposed to not walking in Christ...is the presence [or not] of the indwelling Holy Spirit in a person?

 

[Ben johnson]

Your definition is flawed...inaccurate.

To be indwelt of the Spirit constitutes abiding in Christ.

Correct. "He who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him." 1Jn4:16

Your self analysis is also flawed...that made clear by your findings. [honestly...your examination of your self was not "honest" enough]

Specifically, why?

Perhaps.

We are to be perfect, even as He is perfect; through Him we are the righteousness of God. Do you believe that? (2Cor5:21, Matt5:48)

Only if you agree with the following.

Do you agree that the distinction between walking in Christ as opposed to not walking in Christ...is the presence [or not] of the indwelling Holy Spirit in a person?

Agreed. Can the Holy Spirit, who once indwelt someone, cease to indwell?

 

[moonbeam]

Agreed. Can the Holy Spirit, who once indwelt someone, cease to indwell?

Ben....Did Jesus speak these words as recorded in scripture.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (john 14:16)

Yes or No?

 

[Ben johnson]

Of course; but how does "that He may abide with you forever", remove the possibility of "faithlessness"?

In Rom11:29 God Paul affirms God's perspective that He will never repent/revoke our calling, or the gift of salvation. But this in the same chapter that says "do not be arrogant and think you cannot fall".

Now --- please look at Heb10:20; here is a man who was sanctified.

Can a person be "sanctified", without being indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No.

Does the Holy Spirit still indwell such a man? No.

We see then that verse 29 is the consequence of verse 26 --- if WE continue sinning willfully after having received saving-knowledge of the truth, then we will be that man...

 

[frumanchu]

Calvinists themselves do not agree on everything; and even with their own positions. I stated several positions Calvinists here have had, and they were furious (charging me with "misquoting/misrepresentation"); but later they said exactly the same position that I'd stated. Some think "God predestines sin", others say "man is responsible for his OWN (though he could not choose else)".

And no matter how many times it's explained that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, you continue to treat them as though they are. You have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to even attemtp to accurately represent Calvinism, as evidenced by your repeated misstatement of our positions even in the face of our explicit explanations.

Let's not forget that you are the person who publicly admitted that you rarely take the time to read many of our posts, Ben.

I appreciate you, Behe; and, please understand that it can be confusing --- when the Calvinsts here do not all agree on the same things. Is there such a thing as "double-predestionation"? Do sanctification and justification and regeneration all precede belief? Questions like these will garner different answers, even in the same group.

No, the truth is that they will generally garner the same answers explained different ways, and in your continual campaign of Anti-Calvinism you manufacture disagreement by manipulating people's words.

You cannot say to people to their face that you appreciate them while accusing them behind their back of unethical activity, Ben. It is shameful to the cause of Christ.

 

[holdon]

And no matter how many times it's explained that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive

Two concepts:
Sinning is the will of God
Sinning is not the will of God


How are they not mutually exclusive?

 

[frumanchu]

Now --- please look at Heb10:20; here is a man who was sanctified.

Can a person be "sanctified", without being indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No.

Strictly speaking, yes, since the word "sanctified" simply means to be "set apart." The entire nation of Israel was "sanctified" well before the events of Pentecost.

We see then that verse 29 is the consequence of verse 26 --- if WE continue sinning willfully after having received saving-knowledge of the truth, then we will be that man...

And no matter how much you wish to ignore it, the author plainly states that we "are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls."

 

[frumanchu]

Two concepts:
Sinning is the will of God
Sinning is not the will of God

How are they not mutually exclusive?

No, holdon...the two concepts are "God predestines sin" and "man is responsible for his sin." The two are not mutually exclusive.

Despite whatever satisfaction you may derive from it, manufacturing contradiction by putting words in people's mouths is intellectually dishonest and certainly not appreciated.

 

[holdon]

No, holdon...the two concepts are "God predestines sin" and "man is responsible for his sin." The two are not mutually exclusive.

Despite whatever satisfaction you may derive from it, manufacturing contradiction by putting words in people's mouths is intellectually dishonest and certainly not appreciated.

No need to be so feisty. Keep your calm.

"God predestines sin" is your claim. Then God must will sin, no?

 

[Ben johnson]

In Heb10:29, the man was "sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ". He was saved.

The NT "sanctification", coexists with "justification" and "regeneration". See 1Cor6:11...

 

[frumanchu]

In Heb10:29, the man was "sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ". He was saved.

Actually, that's not what it says. Quotes and boldface print can't change the words of Scripture, Ben, no matter how hard you try.

What it says is, "the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified." That is a very important difference, Ben.

Of course this is all moot point since anyone with basic reading comprehension knows that the author of Hebrews was employing the hypothetical to demonstrate his point (an irrefutably frequent Biblical reality which you still refuse to admit even exists).

The NT "sanctification", coexists with "justification" and "regeneration". See 1Cor6:11...

That they are inseparably tied is no excuse to blur the lines of distinction between them. Sanctification has its initiation at the point of faith, but it is progressive unto its completion in glorification.