Is Sinning on Purpose Willful Sin ?

[Jethro Bodine]

It is my view that those are them that believed in vain. They were never really sons. They may have thought they were. The may have acted like it for some time, but they were not saved. That is why they could not enter the kingdom.

At the very least this is what OSAS should be arguing (though this argument has it's own problems). But several OSASer's in this forum insist you can walk away from Christ, go back to your life of unrepentant, willful sin and still be saved. Problem being John says those who live in their sin are not born again, and that no one who lives in sin will ever enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[FreeGrace]

As I was saying, and which you are proving, the passages I shared have to be creatively interpreted and explained in order to derive OSAS out of them. Simply reading them for what they plainly say is not enough to get OSAS out of them.

Yes, they are plain enough to understand OSAS. The so-called "creatively interpretation" is on your side. For example, you see loss of salvation when loss of reward is in view.

But, regardless, Paul nailed OSAS in Romans. In 6:23 he described eternal life as a gift, and in 11:29 he said that God's gifts are irrevocable. Period.

But…you believe that God does revoke His gifts. All without any Scripture at all.

 

[FreeGrace]

Problem. The Bible says those who practice sin won't be allowed in the kingdom:

"27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it" (Revelation 21:27 NASB)

For those who understand context, Rev 21 occurs after the GWT judgment, where all who never had eternal life are thrown into the lake of fire. Every time you sin, you are practicing, whether you understand that or not. So your view logically concludes that God will be alone in eternity, with only the elect angels around.

But you say those who are unclean, and who practice abominations, and lie shall come into the kingdom as long as they once believed somewhere along the line.

Where have I said that?? You are again demonstrating your "creative interpretation" of what I have actually said.

Your view lacks the ability to discern how God handles His disobedient children. They lose out on blessings while on this earth, and rewards in eternity. God's plan may not satisfy your "sense" of justice, but His plan is based on grace, unlike yours.

So you have wicked people, who at one time believed, being allowed into the kingdom while the Bible plainly says people who do wicked things are NOT allowed to come into the kingdom.

You have sorely misunderstood Rev 21. There will be a NEW earth and the New Jerusalem on the new earth. I believe the disobedient children will not be allowed into the city, called the New Jerusalem. This is seen in 22:14,15. Reward for the faithful children by entering the city through the gates and have the right to the tree of life, but the disobedient children will be outside the city. That is the plain meaning of the text and context.

Do we need more creative OSAS interpretation and explanation to make what John said not really mean what he said?

I just gave you the direct meaning of what John said.

Again, eternal life is a gift (Rom 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). Your view is undefendable.

 

[FreeGrace]

Besides what I've already shared, the following passage plainly shows us the believers in the Hebrew church--sanctified by the blood of Christ--being warned not to insult the Spirit of grace by trampling the Son of God underfoot and treating the blood as something unclean, or else suffer the punishment of God's enemies.

Yes, they WILL suffer punishment from God for insulting the Spirit of grace. But where in this passage or any other do you read the words "loss of salvation"? Nowhere is where. Quit inserting your opinion into passages that DO NOT teach that salvation can be lost. Rewards, absolutely. But salvation? It is a gift from God and His gifts are irrevocable.

Not the chastisement and loving discipline of the children of God in this age, but the punishment being reserved for the enemies of God:

"26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? " (Hebrews 10:26-29 NASB capitals in original)

Is this yet another passage of scripture that has to be explained and interpreted by OSAS so it does not really mean what it plainly says?

Please point out the exact words that you assume mean that salvation can be lost.

The phrase about "dies without mercy" by setting aside the Law of Moses refers to physical death, not eternal death. Or were you completely unaware of capital punishment under the Law of Moses??

So, the word "consume the adversaries" is related to physical death. In this case, God has the perogative to end the physical life of any children who disobey. It's all taught in the doctrine of the "sin unto death".

And don't forget; eternal life is a gift and God's gifts are irrevocable.

 

[gr8grace3]

As I was saying, and which you are proving, the passages I shared have to be creatively interpreted and explained in order to derive OSAS out of them. Simply reading them for what they plainly say is not enough to get OSAS out of them.

So the Greek language is a "creative" interpretation? The Greek plainly has eternal security in most of the verses that you used. They plainly,even in the English, do not have loss of salvation,loss of eternal life,Off to the lake of fire with you,no longer a child of God,no longer a son,your seal is now broken, the holy Spirit is taken from you or Christ is no longer able to keep you saved. These are all "creatively" read into these verses because they are not there.

What do these plainly say?

John 10:28~~New American Standard Bible
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
Psalm 37:23–24 (NASB95)
23 The steps of a man are established by the Lord,

And He delights in his way.

24 When he falls, he will not be hurled headlong,

Because the Lord is the One who holds his hand.


For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory blameless with great joy…” “To the only wise God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory now and forever. Amen.” (Jude 24-25)

James 1:17 (NASB95)
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

Ephesians 2:8–9 (NASB95)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 

[FreeGrace]

So the Greek language is a "creative" interpretation? The Greek plainly has eternal security in most of the verses that you used. They plainly,even in the English, do not have loss of salvation,loss of eternal life,Off to the lake of fire with you,no longer a child of God,no longer a son,your seal is now broken, the holy Spirit is taken from you or Christ is no longer able to keep you saved. These are all "creatively" read into these verses because they are not there.

What do these plainly say?

John 10:28~~New American Standard Bible
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

It's interesting how one must twist verses to "say" what they want them to say. Jn 10:28 is clear enough. The "no one" means "no person", yet Jethro thinks he can snatch himself from the hand of God. Unless he can prove that he isn't a person, I can't imagine how he handles this verse.

I guess his view is that the phrase "no one" really means "no one else". Yep, he certainly does "creatively interpret" the Scriptures, in order to get them to say what he believes.

But the real bottom line is that eternal life is a gift (Rom 6:23), as well as salvation is described as a gift (Eph 2:8), and the gifts of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). His creative interpretation of these verses is amazing to see.
What he doesn't understand is how he applies his biased view to these verses.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But, regardless, Paul nailed OSAS in Romans. In 6:23 he described eternal life as a gift, and in 11:29 he said that God's gifts are irrevocable. Period.

Not so fast. The unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB had his free gift of forgiveness revoked. Jesus said this is how it is in the kingdom of God, and that his Father will treat each of us the same way the unmerciful servant got treated if we act like him. How does OSAS explain and interpret the passage so that the plain words of Jesus don't mean what they really mean?

And are you just choosing to ignore that it is not the Israelites who did not believe, and who were cut out of the tree as a result, who will be grafted back into the tree, but a future generation of Israelites alive at the time of Christ's return?

 

[gr8grace3]

But several OSASer's in this forum insist you can walk away from Christ, go back to your life of unrepentant, willful sin and still be saved.

And the Legalist thinks they do not live like this in any area of their lives.

 

[gr8grace3]

It's interesting how one must twist verses to "say" what they want them to say. Jn 10:28 is clear enough. The "no one" means "no person", yet Jethro thinks he can snatch himself from the hand of God. Unless he can prove that he isn't a person, I can't imagine how he handles this verse.

I guess his view is that the phrase "no one" really means "no one else". Yep, he certainly does "creatively interpret" the Scriptures, in order to get them to say what he believes.

But the real bottom line is that eternal life is a gift (Rom 6:23), as well as salvation is described as a gift (Eph 2:8), and the gifts of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). His creative interpretation of these verses is amazing to see.
What he doesn't understand is how he applies his biased view to these verses.

I agree. And what is even more interesting/frustrating about the false teaching of loss of salvation. The power of God,His Character,His nature and His integrity gets lost. Just speaking of John 10:28. the Hand of God is just some inanimate open palm, waiting for the child to jump off. The hand of God has no power or role in keeping us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

For those who understand context, Rev 21 occurs after the GWT judgment, where all who never had eternal life are thrown into the lake of fire.

Show me where it says only those who NEVER had eternal life are thrown into the lake of fire.

Every time you sin, you are practicing, whether you understand that or not.

If that were true then nobody is born again.

"9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. " (1 John 2:9 NASB)

So, until you acknowledge an obvious difference between sinning and practicing sin, it's actually your doctrine that has God all alone in eternity. The important point being, you say John is wrong and that the sin he's talking about does NOT mean you are not born again. And, as I've shown, a point he reiterates in Revelation where he says no one who practices sin will be in the city, but outside and thrown into the lake of fire. But you insist you can go back to your lifestyle of sin and you are still born again and will reside in the city, just minus some kind of reward.

Where have I said that?? You are again demonstrating your "creative interpretation" of what I have actually said.

You have plainly said a person can never become unsaved, even if they go back to their sins. John says the person who sins is NOT born again, and will not be allowed to enter into the city. But you say they are born again, and that they will enter the city. John even specifically cites the 'unbelieving' as not getting the inheritance, their part being the lake of fire, but you say it is impossible for unbelief to rob you of salvation.

Your view lacks the ability to discern how God handles His disobedient children. They lose out on blessings while on this earth, and rewards in eternity. God's plan may not satisfy your "sense" of justice, but His plan is based on grace, unlike yours.

This has nothing to do with my sense of justice. I'm simply going by what the Bible says--minus the OSAS spin. Only overcomers and believers inherit the kingdom, not failed under-comers and those who go back to unbelief as you insist:

7 "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:7-8 NASB)

Of course you will rehash your argument that this only about loss of rewards within the kingdom, but the passage plainly says not being in the kingdom means being in the lake of fire, not in some place in the kingdom absent of rewards. Read it, church. Don't be deceived.

Like I say, non-OSAS just goes by the plain words of scripture. It is OSAS that has to add interpretation and explanation to make what is plainly written not really mean what it so plainly says.

You have sorely misunderstood Rev 21. There will be a NEW earth and the New Jerusalem on the new earth. I believe the disobedient children will not be allowed into the city, called the New Jerusalem. This is seen in 22:14,15. Reward for the faithful children by entering the city through the gates and have the right to the tree of life, but the disobedient children will be outside the city. That is the plain meaning of the text and context.

The plain text says that outside the city are the ones who's part is the lake of fire.

27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:26-27 NASB)

"15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15 NASB)

Again, eternal life is a gift (Rom 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). Your view is undefendable.

Until you explain how it is that dead unbelieving Israelites will be grafted back in to the tree, and how the unmerciful servant didn't really lose the free gift of forgiveness we have no choice but to go with non-OSAS that reads the words in context and sees that what is irrevocable is God's overall plan for Israel, not that dead, unbelieving Israelites will be saved despite the fact they died in their unbelief.

 

[gr8grace3]

Problem. The Bible says those who practice sin won't be allowed in the kingdom:

"27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it" (Revelation 21:27 NASB)

But you say those who are unclean, and who practice abominations, and lie shall come into the kingdom as long as they once believed somewhere along the line. So you have wicked people, who at one time believed, being allowed into the kingdom while the Bible plainly says people who do wicked things are NOT allowed to come into the kingdom. Do we need more creative OSAS interpretation and explanation to make what John said not really mean what he said?

Revelation 21:27 (NASB95)
27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Believers are identified as clean:

1 Cor 6:11~~New American Standard Bible
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

John 13:10~~,New American Standard Bible
Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."

Our identity is in Christ, not our sins. Unbelievers are identified as unclean and by their sins.

IMO, teaching loss of salvation is practicing abomination and practicing lying. But the true believers identity is in Christ(clean), not his sin or lying.

I believe eternal security, but the same goes for me if I am wrong. I am identified as clean in Christ, not by my sin or lying.

 

[FreeGrace]

Not so fast. The unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB had his free gift of forgiveness revoked.

Who said he had a free gift. If he received eternal life, and Matt 18 teaches that it was revoked, then why believe ANY part of the Bible? Are you comfortable with Scripture contradicting itself? Because God's gift of eternal life CANNOT be revoked, your understanding of Matt 18 is wrong. That should be obvious to you.

Jesus said this is how it is in the kingdom of God, and that his Father will treat each of us the same way the unmerciful servant got treated if we act like him. How does OSAS explain and interpret the passage so that the plain words of Jesus don't mean what they really mean?

First, there isn't anything there that teaches that this servant goes to hell. You just imagine that. You keep putting your non-OSAS bias into every verse that you can, when none of them teach what is CONTRADICTORY to Scripture.

In order to avoid obvious contradiction within Scripture, we must understand that being delivered "to the torturers" cannot mean eternal punishment in hell. But you seem quite comfortable with Scriptural contradiction. But the phrase is indicative of the severity of the divine discipline that falls on an unforgiving child of God in this life. See also 1 Cor 11:30-32 and Heb 12:5-11 for context of God's divine discipline towards His children.

The debt is remembered at another level - a level dealing with the Christian's practice, not his position in Christ. That's what you keep missing. iow, as long as a child of God is unforgiving towards others, they will experience God's displeasure in this life.

And are you just choosing to ignore that it is not the Israelites who did not believe, and who were cut out of the tree as a result, who will be grafted back into the tree, but a future generation of Israelites alive at the time of Christ's return?

It appears you are referring to Romans 11:17-24. The context is CLEARLY that Israelites had been "broken off" because of unbelief (v.20) and is contrasted with the Gentiles, to whom Paul was addressing, who "stand by faith" (v.20).

So your opinion of the passage is wrong from the start. The whole point of that passage is about being used by God, which requires faith. The Israelites, who lacked faith, were not being used by God, and thus, were "broken off". Why you or anyone else sees "loss of salvation" here is baffling.

Consider the time in which they lived, an agricultural economy. They were quite familiar with trees and dead branches. Such branches were of no use to the farmer, and were cut off. The same example is found in John 15 where Jesus spoke of throwing such branches into the fire. They were discarded, and described in agricultural terms.

What your view does is to spiritualize these examples. Everyone at that time understood the need to cut branches off a tree that weren't producing. Why? Because they were of no use to the farmer. Unless one has faith, they are of NO USE to God. That is the point; the whole point. Which you keep missing.

You read "loss of salvation" in passages that aren't even about salvation. In Rom 11, the issue is being of use to God, not getting or staying saved.

Now, I've explained clearly one of your so-called proof texts. You can either understand or continue to reject.

 

[FreeGrace]

I agree. And what is even more interesting/frustrating about the false teaching of loss of salvation. The power of God,His Character,His nature and His integrity gets lost. Just speaking of John 10:28. the Hand of God is just some inanimate open palm, waiting for the child to jump off. The hand of God has no power or role in keeping us.

Correct. And quite sad that those who espouse loss of salvation cannot see that.

 

[FreeGrace]

Show me where it says only those who NEVER had eternal life are thrown into the lake of fire.

I have, and will again. Rev 20:15. Those who's names are NOT in the book of life. They don't have eternal life, and never had it. Which is why they are cast into the lake of fire.

I am continually amazed at your view when you can't provide any verse to support your opinion that one can lose eternal life, which is a gift form God that is irrevocable.

If that were true then nobody is born again.

That was my point. Obviously your view is wrong. Or nobody is born again if you are correct.

"9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. " (1 John 2:9 NASB)

This verse speaks about the regenerated human spirit, which is what is actually being referred to as what is born again.

When Adam sinned, his human spirit died immediately (on the day that…you will surely die). Since he didn't drop dead physically when he bit into the fruit, it wasn't his body that died, but his human spirit.

When a person believes in Christ, God regenerates their dead human spirit, which is where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit resides. Unless you want to argue that the Holy Spirit resides in your corrupt body/soul. Do you?

That said, when one functions from the power of the Holy Spirit, residing in the regenerated human spirit, one CANNOT sin. Only when one is functioning outside the human spirit, from the corrupt body/soul does one sin. That was John's point. The phrase "His seed" is a reference to the regenerated human spirit, and it CANNOT sin. Sin comes only from the corrupt body/soul complex.

So, until you acknowledge an obvious difference between sinning and practicing sin, it's actually your doctrine that has God all alone in eternity. The important point being, you say John is wrong and that the sin he's talking about does NOT mean you are not born again.

I never said John was wrong. I said your opinion is wrong about what John said. And I've just explained it all to you, so you have no excuse for not understanding what he meant.

And, as I've shown, a point he reiterates in Revelation where he says no one who practices sin will be in the city, but outside and thrown into the lake of fire.

Your timing is quite off. The casting into the LoF happens as the end of Rev 20. Those "outside" is in context of those "in the city". Context is king and you keep ignoring the context. Just read Rev 22:14-15 and you'll see the connection.

But you insist you can go back to your lifestyle of sin and you are still born again and will reside in the city, just minus some kind of reward.

You keep misunderstanding my view. I never said what you claim that I insist. Those with eternal life will be on the new earth, but not in the city.

You have plainly said a person can never become unsaved, even if they go back to their sins.

Because the gift of eternal life is irrevocable. Why can't you understand that?

John says the person who sins is NOT born again, and will not be allowed to enter into the city.

Where does he say such a one is not born again? Please quote the verse and cite the address.

But you say they are born again, and that they will enter the city.

Nope. I've never said that.

John even specifically cites the 'unbelieving' as not getting the inheritance, their part being the lake of fire, but you say it is impossible for unbelief to rob you of salvation.

Please cite an actual verse that says what you claim here. It isn't the unbelieving that don't get the inheritance, but believers who lose the inheritance.

This has nothing to do with my sense of justice. I'm simply going by what the Bible says--minus the OSAS spin. Only overcomers and believers inherit the kingdom, not failed under-comers and those who go back to unbelief as you insist:

7 "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:7-8 NASB)

Go back to Rev 2 and 3 to learn about what John means by "overcomers". These are believers who persevered, were obedient and faithful. In 1 Jn 5:4, that overcoming refers to the fact that our faith overcomes everything. That is different that the overcoming in Rev 2 and 3.

Of course you will rehash your argument that this only about loss of rewards within the kingdom, but the passage plainly says not being in the kingdom means being in the lake of fire, not in some place in the kingdom absent of rewards. Read it, church. Don't be deceived.

I'm tired of your tired argument. When the Bible speaks of unbelievers, it means those who never believed. Why? Because eternal life is an irrevocable gift, that you keep denying. When one believes, they immediately become a child of God, and as such, have God's life, which is eternal, and cannot die.

Your view has eternal life dying in the second death. How absurd.

Like I say, non-OSAS just goes by the plain words of scripture.

No, your view denies the clear words of Scripture. Eternal life cannot die, because it is God's life. And the gift of eternal life is irrevocable and you deny that.

Until you explain how it is that dead unbelieving Israelites will be grafted back in to the tree, and how the unmerciful servant didn't really lose the free gift of forgiveness we have no choice but to go with non-OSAS that reads the words in context and sees that what is irrevocable is God's overall plan for Israel, not that dead, unbelieving Israelites will be saved despite the fact they died in their unbelief.

I did that in this post.

Fact of Scripture: eternal life is a gift from God which is irrevocable.

You have not proven otherwise because you cannot.

Your view is in direct contradiction with Scripture. That would bother me a whole bunch.

 

[gr8grace3]

This verse speaks about the regenerated human spirit, which is what is actually being referred to as what is born again.

When Adam sinned, his human spirit died immediately (on the day that…you will surely die). Since he didn't drop dead physically when he bit into the fruit, it wasn't his body that died, but his human spirit.

When a person believes in Christ, God regenerates their dead human spirit, which is where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit resides. Unless you want to argue that the Holy Spirit resides in your corrupt body/soul. Do you?

That said, when one functions from the power of the Holy Spirit, residing in the regenerated human spirit, one CANNOT sin. Only when one is functioning outside the human spirit, from the corrupt body/soul does one sin. That was John's point. The phrase "His seed" is a reference to the regenerated human spirit, and it CANNOT sin. Sin comes only from the corrupt body/soul complex.

And to further substantiate you wonderful explanation here, John is actually talking about the believers immediate salvation experience,the moment they were born of God. The moment we believe, our human Spirit is regenerated and we are in that divine dynasphere(functioning from the power of the Spirit) and CANNOT sin as long as we stay in it. 1 John 1:9 is the believers way to get back to functioning in the power of the Spirit(divine dynasphere.)



“Anyone who is born from God does not commit sin [at that moment],”

Adams human spirit died immediately and He immediately was out of the divine dynasphere. The moment we are born of God, the human spirit is immediately regenerated and we are immediately back in that divine dynasphere and cannot sin while in it. The moment we choose to function outside of it, we break fellowship and are living in our corrupt body/soul.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And the Legalist thinks they do not live like this in any area of their lives.

Are you suggesting that continuing in faith is somehow legalism?

I personally have not gone back to my old life because of a rejection of Christ. But I know someone close to me who used to speak in tongues (trust me, it was for real) who has walked away from the faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

1 Cor 6:11~~New American Standard Bible
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

John 13:10~~,New American Standard Bible
Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you."

Our identity is in Christ, not our sins. Unbelievers are identified as unclean and by their sins.

Then why is it necessary for the disobedient man in the Corinthian church to be handed over to satan so the flesh can be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of Christ if, as you insist, he's already irretrievably save?

"...deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB)

It's pretty obvious that God is very much taking our sin into consideration and not just looking at a certificate of righteousness with our name on it. This man's flesh must come to destruction SO THAT he can be saved, but you say it does not.

 

[gr8grace3]

Then why is it necessary for the disobedient man in the Corinthian church to be handed over to satan so the flesh can be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of Christ if, as you insist, he's already irretrievably save?

"...deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB)

It's pretty obvious that God is very much taking our sin into consideration and not just looking at a certificate of righteousness with our name on it. This man's flesh must come to destruction SO THAT he can be saved, but you say it does not.

It is because you do not understand our POSITION in Christ and our CONDITION in this body and life.
Spiritually(position)~~The mans spirit is what is saved. It is his identification in Christ.

Physically(condition)~~Discipline. Simple as that. He was about to experience the ultimate discipline,the sin unto(physical) death. As you say though, He was still saved.

Give me ONE example where an unbeliever can have his flesh destroyed in order to be saved....please.

 

[gr8grace3]

Then why is it necessary for the disobedient man in the Corinthian church to be handed over to satan so the flesh can be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of Christ if, as you insist, he's already irretrievably save?

"...deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB)

It's pretty obvious that God is very much taking our sin into consideration and not just looking at a certificate of righteousness with our name on it. This man's flesh must come to destruction SO THAT he can be saved, but you say it does not.

Did his flesh come to destruction?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It is because you do not understand our POSITION in Christ and our CONDITION in this body and life.
Spiritually(position)~~The mans spirit is what is saved. It is his identification in Christ.

Physically(condition)~~Discipline. Simple as that. He was about to experience the ultimate discipline,the sin unto(physical) death. As you say though, He was still saved.

Give me ONE example where an unbeliever can have his flesh destroyed in order to be saved....please.

Ah, I see. Another 'it doesn't really mean what it says' interpretation.

"...deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB)

So, OSAS says he ISN'T being turned over to satan so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, even though that's what it plainly says?