Redemption: Being saved or born again

[Diogenes]

Nobody forced you to make any reply to this thread.

That doesn't answer the questions and you seem to be running out of tricks as this is at least the second time you've referenced Hogg's novel.

The paranoia is strong with this one!

Given that what I stated happened, it's not paranoia.

One of the themes of Hogg's novel is the notion that once saved always saved as found in extreme Calvinism theoretically permits the believer to do what they will.

Yes, it's called antinomianism. Salvation is not a license to sin and doesn't permit it the believer to do what they will. Perhaps you should read the Bible or at least a primer article like this one instead of novels.

[Diogenes]

Fin - most definitely is not in order.

I'm somewhat tired of being strawmanned. As I now recall, we've discussed this before when it was more topical. It was helpful in the formation of my position against the commonly cited Junia passage being support for women clergy. As I said multiple times here, the acceptance of women clergy per se is not hard line of disfellowship for me but I don't recognise them as such.

Private associations of churches are free to establish and enforce criteria of association and churches are free to leave as they no longer wish to maintain common tenets of an association and create new private associations. It's called freedom of association.

And yes, I certainly believe a fin in in order.


Fin.

[tabibito]

So - back to the OP.

Hypatia_Alexandria

In other words, is being saved/born again all that is required to believe that an individual will get to heaven?

Born Again is no more than getting the slate wiped clean, so the person can start afresh. With diligence and hard work, it is possible to attain to a state where sin is overcome. That isn't an overnight fix - in many cases it takes decades. Of course, if the person falls for the story that it can't be done, the chances are that it won't be done. Also of course, it takes quite a bit of diligence to not allow the story to influence a person's outlook - the first hurdle demands quite a leap.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That doesn't answer the questions and you seem to be running out of tricks as this is at least the second time you've referenced Hogg's novel.

It is a very interesting novel - regarded by some as the first psychological novel as it predates Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde by some sixty years.

Given that what I stated happened, it's not paranoia.

I remind you again, no one forced you to make any replies to this thread.

Yes, it's called antinomianism. Salvation is not a license to sin and doesn't permit it the believer to do what they will. Perhaps you should read the Bible or at least a primer article like this one instead of novels.

I am fully aware of the term antinomianism but if we consider the Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination, and if the Elect have been selected by the deity from before the beginning of time, how can members of that Elect group be culpable for their actions i.e. sin? Theoretically they have free to act as they wish.

[Diogenes]

I am fully aware of the term antinomianism but if we consider the Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination, and if the Elect have been selected by the deity from before the beginning of time, how can members of that Elect group be culpable for their actions i.e. sin? Theoretically they have free to act as they wish.

The elect, whomever they may be as no one merely human would know, are not free to act as they wish. Perhaps instead of reading novels you should read the Bible.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The elect, whomever they may be as no one merely human would know, are not free to act as they wish. Perhaps instead of reading novels you should read the Bible.

Of course humans being human, there is always the risk that some believe themselves to be one of the Elect. And that can potentially be very dangerous.

[Diogenes]

Of course humans being human, there is always the risk that some believe themselves to be one of the Elect. And that can potentially be very dangerous.

I agree there's a danger of hubris. As it's said, pride comes before a fall. To repeat, salvation is not a license to sin. Your novel seems more a critique of antinomianism rather than support so it's strange you bring it up.

[tabibito]

The elect are those who have heeded the call to repent and acted to purify themselves.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I agree there's a danger of hubris. As it's said, pride comes before a fall. To repeat, salvation is not a license to sin. Your novel seems more a critique of antinomianism rather than support so it's strange you bring it up.

The elect are those who have heeded the call to repent and acted to purify themselves.

The question I posed in the OP remains. Is heaven guaranteed simply because the individual has been born again/saved? The replies I have received are rather confused

[tabibito]

The question I posed in the OP remains. Is heaven guaranteed simply because the individual has been born again/saved? The replies I have received are rather confused

The short answer is: no.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The short answer is: no.

That is certainly a more modest, one might even suggest humble, belief.

[mossrose]

I am fully aware that you "never said that". My reply was a question.

Given some of the comments in the replies you have made to me it appears that you have tripped yourself up.

You admit to committing sins "in thought, word, or deed" and also write that "scripture is also clear that "once saved always saved" does not give us license to sin.". How do you square those two comments? And how do they relate to your belief that:

God's word is clear that His children can have assurance that "nothing can pluck them out of His hand".

Those comments are "squared" by the very fact that believers are still human, not yet perfected, still battle the sin nature, still sin, but we leave HABITUAL sin. We turn away from sinful lifestyles that we may have once held, but we get angry, we argue with each other, we argue with those who seek to trip us up, etc.

But the Spirit gives us recognition of those sins and we confess them. None of that removes our salvation.

If a person claims to be a believer and continues living in a lifestyle that is contrary to God's word, then I have reason to question their faith.

[mossrose]

The question I posed in the OP remains. Is heaven guaranteed simply because the individual has been born again/saved? The replies I have received are rather confused

The thief on the cross believed and was told by the Lord that he would be with Him in Paradise. The thief did no works, wasn’t baptized, never helped the needy, but he did confess both his sin and his belief. That’s pretty clear cut and simple.

Perhaps you think the replies you are getting are confusing because the only one with a differing opinion on the subject in the thread is tabibito, and he’s unorthodox in his theology.

As I, and Diogenes suspected, you aren’t here with a sincere question but are simply seeking, once again, to trip us up and create division. I have answered your questions and it isn’t my fault that you refuse to understand them.

As Diogenes said, go read a Bible instead of crap written by men who think just like you do.

Oh, and by the way, repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

IMG_0704.jpeg

[mossrose]

The short answer is: no.

So you have no assurance of your salvation. Very sad.

[Sparko]

Put very simply, yes. Some Christians believe that if you sin after becoming "saved", you lose your salvation until and unless you repent. I grew up in a denomination that taught that. I had no assurance of my salvation and lived in fear of losing it until well into my 20’s, when I started delving into scripture. God's word is clear that His children can have assurance that "nothing can pluck them out of His hand".

Christianity is the only "religion" that is not works-based. I can do nothing to gain salvation, and I can do nothing to lose it. All that is required of anyone is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sin. The Holy Spirit does the rest.

All of our sins were in the future when Christ died for them. And God knows what you will do in your own future, so why would he save you from your "past" sins, but not your future ones too? That's my take on it.

If Jesus knew when you asked to be saved, that 10 years from then you would commit some sin that would "unsave" you and you would die in that state, why would he save you in the first place? He knows you will live and commit that sin in 10 years. So what would even be the point to "save" you for 10 years, knowing you will lose your salvation before you die anyway?

Once God saves you, you are saved and you HAVE eternal life, not potential eternal life.