Perseverance of the saints

In Reviewing this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints

It states the following, “The central tenet of the Arminian view is that believers are preserved from all external forces that might attempt to separate them from God, and further that God will not change His mind about their salvation, but that these same believers can themselves willingly repudiate their faith (either by a statement to that effect, or by continued sinful activity combined with an unwillingness to repent). Thus, their salvation is conditional on remaining faithful.

Traditional Calvinists do not dispute that salvation requires faithfulness, and the point of difference between these Calvinists and Arminians is over whether God allows true Christians to fall away. Free Grace advocates agree with traditional Calvinists that salvation cannot be lost but with the Arminians that true Christians can backslide or fall away. However, the Free Grace advocates and the Arminians do not define repudiation in the same way: the former sees backslidden believers as merely “carnal,” hindering their sanctification process, whereas the latter sees them as having fallen from the saving grace they once possessed.”

My personal opinion is probably close to Armianism but more targeted. Grace is freely offered to all BUT one must choose to accept the grace; One must WANT the life that God offers (we must knock then he opens the door; grace is freely given but we must choose to recieve) and not just use grace as licence.  To me “backsliding” or the sin of believer is covered by grace because that person desires the life God offers. If a person states “I don’t care what God wants I’m going to do what I want. Forget Gods way of doing life, I want to do life the way the rest of the world does it”, and this is truly the condtion of thier heart then I would say it is possible they are not covered unless they later (prehaps sometime later) come back and ask for grace in earnest.

Additionally are we truly preserved from all external influence? Of course not! There are daily challenges to our relationship with God.However no external force on its own can separate us from God. It would be only of our own volition.

Practically this has issues; if a person says they’re done with God, they walk outside after ’sinning’ and get hit by a bus; are they saved? My answer is that only God knows the true condition of their heart and THAT is what he will judge.

An even more difficult situation would be the one where an person is incarcerated for their faith and tortured, or worse made to be addicted to mind altering drugs; and there by renounces their faith or does sinfulacts while under the influence. What of this person? How then will they be judged? If evil men were to “break” a believer, would this man in fact be saved? Or since in some way the man might have acquiesced, is he then responsible for his own actions? It maybe then that only God can know the answers to these questions since it is he that will judge the heart.

And of cource this immediatly goes back into the freewill discussion about how much frewill do you have, and if God is pursing you can you still tell him no etc. But hey, food for thought.

Dew drops like radiant sapphires cling to the morning grass.
The tranquil moment is disturbed by the scintillating caress of a cool morning breeze.
A man stands in the midst of a field, eyes closed, enraptured in an introspective moment.
The crash of an airliner casts sonic dispersions below.

The man drops his denim clad knees to the moist earth, the Sapphires burst.
The wind increases its bite; whipping leaves… wet denim chills the flesh below.
Time breaks, shatters and reforms in the gasp of this one wily moment.
The unavoidable, inconvenient, and absurd; it is decided; it happens today.

My Relpy to an ex-coworkers My Space post.

—————– Bulletin Message —————–
From: Franklin Carpenter

Date: Nov 29, 2007 1:07 PM
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I
pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In
order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the
distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because
I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no
problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other
hand, have a problem with helping someone do drugs, while I work. . . .
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to
pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if
you agree or simply delete if you don’t. Hope you all will pass it
along, though . . . Something has to change in this country — and
soon!

——————–My Reply————————–

Interesting thought. I’m not sure that I agree with that entirely but I’ll add these two thoughts.

1) Not everyone that has a job has to take urine tests. And, quite frankly I’d be a bit insulted if I was getting an outstanding job performance rating and then asked to take a drug test.
My question would be if my employer does not have a cause have to issue me a test for business reasons why should they at all? (this is in reference to random/regular drug testing not for initial employment, which is more justified, being that they don’t know you yet.) While I don’t support drug use anyway, the implied accusation/suspicion is upseting.

2) I’m not sure I like the idea of the government administering drug tests to people without probable cause; makes it seem like your guilty until proven innocent.
HOWEVER, I could see this for someone that is applying for welfare, and has prior convictions (felony or misdemeanor) for possession or what not.
Also, would these drug tests be grounds for a criminal/misdemeanor charge or just suspension of benefits? And for how long? One screw up and you can never get benefits again? or is the cooling off period a month, a year…? Putting this type of legislation in place would have to involve a careful examination of how it would impact those it is supposed to be helping. For example, a family where the father does drugs but the mother is clean and there are kids involved for instance, do you cut off the whole family because dad’s a deadbeat? Do you call CPS based on this positive test?

3) Okay 3 points then. Finally, this is why I question the validity of the government being involved in “charity” like this in the first place. If this were a private organization; they could place whatever rules they deem to be necessary for to ensure a proper disribution of benefits. With the end of the of the welfare state and the presumed reduction in taxes we (as a nation), would have more disposable income to donate to the aforementioned charities. Those charities that one believes will distribute the funds in a manner that one believes to be proper, would receive ones donations. This puts you in control of how your money is charitably distributed. But that’s the libertarian in me =)