  |
|
Metaphysics
|
 The Persistent Fault The statement "once saved always saved" may also be examined. By our last page we asserted that fogiveness was extended over the interval t2-t1 wherein x as at fault before God. We may infer that for forgiveness to be extended there must at some point be a "t2". For if there was never a t2, then the fault f would by definition be perpetual, rather than meriting forgiveness and becoming inconsistent. We would equate t2 to the moment of "repentance" as also that of forgiveness. (Given eternal life we would also wish our judgement before God to be just, if we have yet a few faults left!) However, for a fault 'f' that is (continually) repeated or recurrent we should ask whether redemption still applies. If the individual 'x' really "struggles" with the same fault 'f' upon which forgiveness is repeatedly extended then we may write that there is some last moment before 'x' finally repents of 'f', otherwise it is not possible for 'x' to be saved. (Once saved always saved is a dichotomy.) We would state in that case that a moment of forgiveness (there exists a t(n)) would become a moment of condemnation (there is plausibly only a t(m) where 'm' tends to infinity) : If forgiveness then were as perfect to justify someone as the condemnation upon them, (but we know it is greater). We could have a series where forgiveness overrides the condemnation, for forgiveness is greater to a saving God. Likewise we could also show that forgiveness is fully intact from the first fault in f with the series (t2-t1) + (t3-t1 - (t2 - t1)) +(t4 - t1 - (t3-t1 - (t2 - t1))) +... = t(n) -t1 Either way, forgiveness would override the condemation of f as simply as would the perfect redeeming example that for any interval t2-t1 we may put t2=t1 for "perfection" and the redemption is still a solid concept. Likewise if there is never a t(n) at which f at t(n-1) is not repented of, then x is at fault, or f(x) from t(n-1) onward. There is no justification for "once saved always saved" if an individual is clearly yet at fault, and forgiveness is contingent upon repentance. But then salvation is contingent upon redemption: but is redemption also contingent upon the choice of all "f"? This is not strictly correct. All "f"'s are chosen so that to the perfect individual x with all virtue, x will have no complaint in keeping all the commandments f. Those same "f" do not make the example perfect since it is not the keeping of the law that makes "f" inconsistent but the virtue of x that t2-t1=0 always. However what is an "f"? That would be best answered by scripture: yet we argue that for God to be a perfect and saving God, the virtue that t2=t1 always, for any perfect 'x' will keep any just set of commandments that God will issue as "f"'s. |
 |
|
