[kosta50]

Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth.

Big deal.  What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?

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.

Because they say that the departed is in a "better places" or "at home with God" or "in heaven" etc. And because Paul indented the idea that the spouse of a believer is automatically saved, along with children, even if the other spouse is not a believer.

Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.

That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?

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.

Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children. Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world. Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.

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

Obviously because what we do doesn't matter. Whether you drown five children or kill six million Jews and three million Poles, and a few millions others, or whether you perform 1,000 fornications a day (the example given by Luther) it doth not matter as long as you believe. By the time you die you will be "glorified." In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.

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.

It is a religion because they share basic tenets common to all of them, namely the authority of the same Bible, same core beliefs, that one is saved by faith alone, "justified", glorified", etc. Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with he world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That make sit as religion.

Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth.

Big deal.  What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?

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.

Because they say that the departed is in a "better places" or "at home with God" or "in heaven" etc. And because Paul indented the idea that the spouse of a believer is automatically saved, along with children, even if the other spouse is not a believer.

Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.

That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?

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.

Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children. Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world. Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.

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

Obviously because what we do doesn't matter. Whether you drown five children or kill six million Jews and three million Poles, and a few millions others, or whether you perform 1,000 fornications a day (the example given by Luther) it doth not matter as long as you believe. By the time you die you will be "glorified." In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.

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.

It is a religion because they share basic tenets common to all of them, namely the authority of the same Bible, same core beliefs, that one is saved by faith alone, "justified", glorified", etc. Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with he world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That make sit as religion.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth.

Big deal. What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?

Frankly, nothing. :) But what must be remembered is that it is NOT the threat of temporal punishment or the assurance of salvation that motivates us to change our ways. What motivates us is God's unmerited grace given to us which changes our hearts. So, the motivation to change our ways is already there before we are even aware of our assurance of salvation.

FK: Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.

That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?

Good question. He could, He doesn't, and I have no idea. For some reason it simply serves His purpose that some number of the elect spend time here on sinful earth first. I truly look forward to learning the answer.

FK: 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.

Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children.

I don't see any contradiction. God determines the times of death for the saved and lost alike. When God ordered the deaths of children we cannot know if it was as a matter of judgment or salvation. God only disciplines believers, so if the children were young enough then having them killed could not have been a matter of discipline.

Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world.

I am one who cringes when I hear pastors claiming to know for sure the reasons behind such things as what we call natural disasters or epidemics or famines, etc.

Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.

Well, since the Fall there have been no true innocents aside from Christ. In any case, though, I think instruction could have easily played a part in it. Surely the fear of God among the Israelites and others grew as the stories spread, at least for a time. Now, accounts such as the Flood help to show us the nature of God. But I don't think it was an exclusive reason. As for improvement I'm not sure how we are supposed to judge that. Sure, we still sin just as they did in the OT, but all of God's actions in the OT led to the coming of Christ. That is certainly an improvement. :)

In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.

In terms of their natures at conception, they ARE all equally "innocent". All have need of a Savior and none is deserving. If we want to compare them all we can do is make reasonable guesses based on the confessions they have made backed by the fruit they have borne. That makes Mary look very good and the others not so much. :) Of course God alone holds the discretion to save whomever He wants.

Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with the world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That makes it as religion.

I have to disagree because I think it's axiomatic that there are plenty of professing "Christians" who go through the motions of performing "religious acts", but really have no direct relationship with Christ on a personal level. (I am talking about people belonging to all Christian faiths, including Protestants.) They go to church because they "have to" or they say they believe in Christ because "why not, if it's real that's the side to be on". These are people who do not really bear the fruit of a changed heart because there is no relationship. Anyone can PRACTICE a religion, but that is different in my mind from LIVING a faith.

In addition, describing Christianity as a religion puts it in the same bucket as any other of the world's religions. I would say this is wrong because a core tenet of Christianity is its exclusivity as the one true faith in the one true God. The Bible describes many who had a direct and personal relationship with God Himself, and so also do Christians today. I am unaware of another faith that makes the same claim in the same way. That's why I make the distinction.