dolfan wrote:dawgs10 wrote:there is scripture that covers this as well. my little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. in other words if we sin and repent after salvation there is a advocate. the first sentence i wrote in my last post is simple. those that defend osas uses two toughts normaly. the first is you can be saved live however you want and the blood of Jesus covers sins, past, present, and future. the other view is if you are saved (really saved you never sin, so if you sin you were never saved to start with). this is equally wrong and not found to be true in the word of God. there is to much teaching to churchs found in the book of rev. telling them to repent to believe that you can not sin after salvation. is it right to sin after salvation (no) does it happen, we all know the answer is yes in some cases.
So, which is it? We have an advocate if we sin after salvation, but no more sacrifice? I mean, you've said it both ways, here.
And, I am just going to have to disagree on what "OSAS" "normally teaches". There is not one credible Christian leader, teacher, pastor, scholar, etc. who teaches that if you are saved you can then live however you want and the blood of Jesus has got your eternal fate sewn up to be with Him forever. There's just not. And, while I agree that the letters to the Asian churches in Revelation certainly addressed their need for repentance, those letters are nowhere near standing for the proposition that any sin after salvation means you need to be saved again.
Look, I've gotten off into a rut on this topic. I am not going to turn this thread into a defense of eternal security of the believer or an attack on Arminianism or whatever. My original point was to respond to Scooter's connection of the Pa. shooter's insane, wrong and hellish lie to the doctrine of eternal security. There is no connection. What that guy wrote, and what he thought, was way off base. If anyone teaches as you say they do, "repent then live like the devil" kind of thing, then that person is a heretic. Avoid them, I don't care what their label is. I can tell you one thing, though: John Calvin wouldn't have anything to do with that doctrine of devils.There are also those who are doubly frantic, who hold, under this pretense, that, everything is lawful to the faithful, that is, because John says that they cannot sin. They then maintain that we may follow indiscriminately whatever our inclinations may lead us to. Thus they take the liberty to commit adultery, to steal, and to murder, because there can be no sin where God's Spirit reigns. But far otherwise is the meaning of the Apostle; for he denies that the faithful sin for this reason, because God has engraven his law on their hearts, according to what the Prophet says (Jeremiah 31:33.)
John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles
Let me add this question: Which is more permanent: God's unity with His children or a man's unity with his wife? Here's my reason for that question. There is a considerable percentage of people who post and lurk here who believe that marriage is intended to be and, in fact, is one man, one woman for life. They believe that human, civil divorce does not destroy the one-flesh-ness of the marriage bond once that bond is made. How is it, then, that God can "divorce" a believer? I say He doesn't; He is more faithful to His own calling of us and His own redemption of us to Himself than we are to Him or to one another. I say that if a person is truly converted, really actually born again, he is a new creature and doesn't become the old creature again. That doesn't mean the new creature is perfect and never misses the mark; we know better. That does mean, though, that the newly born person is a different kind of person, and that as he grows into the character of Christ, he becomes less and less the person that inhabits this corruptible and more and more like the One who has already put on the incorruptible. Comparing ourselves with one another on this is, as Paul said, "not wise". Comparing where a man is now to where he was before he was born again .... now that's another matter. If there's no difference, there's a reason ---- he ain't been changed. If he isn't changed, he isn't a follower of the Lord.
NOTE: Please do not read into the above anything about my views about the permanency of marriage. I'm married to the one woman I married 21 years ago, and I lose her for any reason, then I've made up my mind that that's all she wrote on me and marrying. I don't want anyone else. If you're in a different situation, that's between you, God and your church. My views are strictly mine. There's no intent in that analogy to conclude anything about marriage vows. But, it is interesting that those who decry the permanency of God's union with us tend to treat that union as less than the one between a man and his wife.
i agree with a lot of statements in this post. i think that the facts that can be laid out from scripture says this. we are saved thru faith in Jesus Christ. We are asked by scripture to live right. if we wilfully sin the sacrifice of Christ is no longer there for us. if we repent he is faithful and just to forgive and recieve us back. its the story of the prodical. the book of rev. states that we will be removed from the book of life if we are in a place of wilfull sin or (backsliding) state. its that simple. i am not pointing this at you. i simply seen statements that was made and wanted to discuss it. end of my part of this post. i will say that the Grace of God goes beyond human understanding so there is much to learn.
These are USUALLY the same Christians who say to one another, "Did you hear about so and so?" 
If you drink Coke instead of Pepsi you have passed judgement. 
![[amer-ribbon90.gif]](/images/amer-ribbon90.gif "Remember our veterans and troops currently serving today.")