Replies

Before you even ask, I have no idea how the concept of time applying or not applying "applies" to all this. :)

Let's just chuck it as traditions of men. :)

—o0o—

We are positionally sanctified because of what Christ did, and our following faith, NOT because anyone becomes sinless upon belief.

Sorry, FK, it would be very easy to show that Paul and his ideological buddy who wrote 1 John imply that the believers are as good as sinless, because God doesn't see their sins any more. So, whether the elect sin or not, is irrelevant. In the Protestants' God's eyes, Andrea Yates' is as holy and free of sin as Mary.

—o0o—

By their deeds Paul considers everyone to be unfit for the kingdom of Heaven: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", ... "the wages of sin is death".

But the totality of his theology teaches that God is "blind" to the sin of the "elect" because he has committed their sins to oblivion and "remembers them no more." What is so preposterous about Protestantism is that what the "elect" do on this earth simply does not matter to God. It may matter to Paul, but not to the God he created.

Whether you are Andrea Yates or Adolf Hitler, as long as you believe, you are as holy as it gets in God's eyes. The Big Daddy in the sky simply does not see the terrible things his little monsters are doing. To him, they are his pristine little angels. Is there a religion more narcissitic than Protestantism?

—o0o—

Therefore, he cannot be referring to sinless people here or it would be pointless.

It is pointless, because God has decided from before the foundation of the world that some of his human creatures will be excused no matter what. They are sinless in his eyes.

—o0o—

I'm not sure what Protestant rituals you are referring to, but whatever they are they in no way make us more or less fit for Heaven.

Are they waving to God so he can see them? :)

So, whether the elect sin or not, is irrelevant. In the Protestants' God's eyes, Andrea Yates' is as holy and free of sin as Mary.

Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth. I have no credible information that leads me to think that Andrea Yates is/was saved (elect) so I'm not sure why you would think Protestants make such an assumption about her. We do not take profession as proof of belief.

What is so preposterous about Protestantism is that what the "elect" do on this earth simply does not matter to God. It may matter to Paul, but not to the God he created.

Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin. We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.

Salvation is not earned by racking up enough points by doing works. Grace through faith is what matters.

Is there a religion more narcissistic than Protestantism?

I think most Bible-believing Protestants would say that their faith is not a religion at all but rather a relationship. That is an important distinguishing characteristic.