Is Sinning on Purpose Willful Sin ?

[chessman]

(1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)
From the passage we see the Corinthians are saved.

From the following passages, we see that there were Corinthians among them that were NOT saved.

1 Cor 5:13, 6:11, 7:12, 7:14, 10:27, and 15:12

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+5%3A13%2C+6%3A11%2C+7%3A12%2C+7%3A14%2C+10%3A27%2C+15%3A12&version=LEB

The following modifications would have to be made to the actual Scripture of this letter for Paul to be writing to and about a church 100% full of saved Corintians:

1 Cor 5:13 (JB) But those outside God will judge. Remove the evil person from among yourselves.

[If there were no Corinthians there among them that are outside God (or evil) then why the need for them to be removed? One must strike that verse out of this letter, to believe all the Corinthians were saved.]

6: 11 And some [all] of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

[Why does Paul say only some, and not all, were washed, etc. ??? Umm, because only some were washed, that’s why. There were some among them un-washed by the Spirit.]

7: 12 —if any brother has an unbelieving [believing] wife and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

[Nope. No unbelieving wives in this there church.]

7:14 For the unbelieving [believing] husband is sanctified by his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the brother, since otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

[No unbelieving husbands in Corinth either]

10: 27 If any of the unbelievers [Corinthians] invites you, and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, asking no questions for the sake of the conscience.

[Paul must be confused. There’s no unbelievers there, right? Umm, Wrong.]

15: 12 Now if Christ is preached as raised up from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

[Is Paul’s wrong about there being some there that didn’t even believe in resurrection of the dead.]

15: 33 Do not be deceived! “Bad company corrupts good morals.” 34 Sober up correctly and stop sinning, for some have no knowledge of God—I say this to your shame.

Oh, and the modification necessary to 15:1-2;

Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, 2 by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose.

 

[gr8grace3]

Did I ever have an awakening experience? Did I ever have an “Aha!” moment? I can’t say that I have or at least I can’t define a year, month, day, hour, or minute when I felt the Holy Spirit come upon me but here’s what I can tell you.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the son of the living God. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt. 3:17 NKJV.

I believe that I am a sinner. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom. 3:23

I believe that I deserve death. For the wages of sin is death. Rom. 6:23 NKJV

Despite my sinful nature and my deserving of death, I believe that I can be saved through the Christ, Jesus. But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 6:23 NKJV

I believe that Jesus died and rose again for my sake, to make atonement for my sins. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 NKJV

I believe that salvation comes through Him and Him alone. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6 NKJV Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 NKJV

I believe that He is Lord and Master over me. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil. 2:9-11 NKJV

Finally, I believe that when it comes time for me to leave this earth, I will be in heaven.

Your saved. Thank You for your explanation.

 

[gr8grace3]

I showed you in scripture a gift of God being revoked. But you say that a gift of God, by virtue of it being a gift, can not be revoked. Your gross error is not considering the context in which Paul said "the gifts and the calling are irrevocable". And ignoring plain scripture where we see that a gift of God can and will be revoked in the kingdom.

James 1:17~~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.(unchanging)

New American Standard Bible
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:23

New American Standard Bible
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Eph 2:8

 

[chessman]

I showed you in scripture a gift of God being revoked. But you say that a gift of God, by virtue of it being a gift, can not be revoked. Your gross error is not considering the context in which Paul said "the gifts and the calling are irrevocable". And ignoring plain scripture where we see that a gift of God can and will be revoked in the kingdom.

First, at least now you're interacting with the positive case that's been made for OSAS.

Secondly, your 'interaction' with FreeGrace 's two point positive case for OSAS (1. Eternal Life is a Gift from God made to every “Christ is Lord” believer and 2. God's gifts are irrevocable) is to essentially make two counter points of you own;
1. Paul wasn't describing a universal attribute of God’s gifts (such as the Eternal Life gift) when Paul said “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” because he was specifically talking about (and therefore only talking about) the “gifts and callings” God made to the Jews (Israel) and to them ONLY.
2. Matt 18:21-36 (The parable of the unmerciful servant) is within context of salvation (or loss thereof).

WRT your 1. I disagree and here’s why:

“With respect to the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [Gentile believers] sake”​

You do realize that the reason Paul even brought up Israel was to show how God still had a plan for all nations, yes including Israel and yes non-Israel. How one can miss that point (if you actually read Romans 11 is beyond me to understand). The partial hardening of Israel (as a nation/people) is indeed an example Paul’s using within his context, in which verse 29 appears. Therefore I say, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be!

Paul describes how God has a firm plan (which He’s executing within history and the future), not just for Israel, but also for the Gentiles. Yes, Paul uses the Israel people/nation as an example to illustrate his point. But what’s Paul’s point? It most certainly is NOT simply about Israel as your point #1 implies it is. But rather he was making an enlightening point to non-Israel by using the example OF Israel. And Rom 11 is surely about "salvation coming to the Gentiles" just as much, if not more, than it is about Israel.

25 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you will not be wise in your own sight, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in…​

But by their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles, in order to provoke them to jealousy.​

And his conclusion to his point at the end of this chapter also refutes your idea that Romans 11’s gifts and callings are only concering Israel (not also about salvation to others, to any-and-all His people including the Gentile believers):

“For from him and through him and to him are all things.To him be glory for eternity! Amen.”​

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable! is a universal and eternal attribute of God and His salvation come to every nation (Jew and Gentile), which is definitely worth signing about, in my opinion and it seems Paul’s as well. According to your ideas of this passage’s so called by you ‘context’, you’d have us like a Corinthian, signing about God acting like an angry man-king when things don’t go his way. Rather than what God’s really like. Unsearchable in His judgments and ways.

WRT your counter point #2; Am I to understand your counter point #2 methodology correctly here? We should be rejecting Romans 11:29’s ‘irrevocable gifts and calling’ as a truly eternal life irrevocable gift, by you refereeing to the 'salvific' context permeating through Matt 18:21-36, instead? Is Matt 18:21-36 really "plainly", I think was your words, about (within context according to you) the free gift of salvation being revoked? Even though Matt 18:21-36 neither mentions salvation, eternal life or God’s free-gift, yet Romans 11 does? Really? That's your position and you're sticking to it?

You find a parable where Jesus is answering Peter’s question about how many times we Christians are supposed to forgive fellow brothers that sin against us using a fictional story/example/situation (parable) involving of a man-king and a unmerciful servant more applicable to who/what God might do with His Eternal Life gift than Romans 11:29 is? That’s odd, and very, very inconsistent coming from someone that just got through saying Romans 11 is not really about irrevocability of God’s gifts, salvation and certainly not to a non-Jew.

The man's debt in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB was forgiven for free.

Can you point out where the servant’s debt to the man-king was/is comparable to our sin debt owed to God or how this parable has anything whatsoever to do with salvation? Stay within the context of this parable, now you hear.

Firstly, Jesus is teaching Peter and others (Jews, by the way) about a brother forgiving another brother, not about how to gain or lose salvation. It’s not a parable about salvation in the first place (Jesus didn’t teach salvation using parables). It’s about answering Peter’s question on how brothers are supposed to forgive other brothers. Talk about context being important! If you mean that, use it and stick with it.

Secondly, I see where this man-king (which you, for some unknown reason, capitalize BTW) wanted to settle accounts/loans. When’s the last time you promised God to repay a loan (and equate that to your salvation) by you working on your salvation (and your wife and kids too, BTW) with labor for 60 million days (166,666.666… years)? Is your salvation worth that much to you or is it more worth like 100 days labor?

... we see in scripture that the King will indeed withdraw the free gift of forgiveness and reinstate the debt of the person who acts like the unmerciful servant in the kingdom.

So the free gift of salvation is taught in Matt 18, huh?
1. The text says man-king, not the King.
2. The servant owed the man-king money. There’s nothing “free” about the debt being a "free-gift" in this parable. (Yes I know Jesus said the man-king forgave the debt of money owed Him). We don't owe God money.
3. So you are telling me that I maintain my salvation by working for the Lord to pay off a financial debt, huh? And what’s more, once you pay off that debt, you’re freed, right?
3. Do you think a man’s salvation (or loss thereof) depends upon how much he forgives his brother from his heart? I don’t. If you do, what justification do you have for that view?
4. Do you think God, throws people into prison (de-saving them by your non-justified implication) based on their un-forgiving habits toward other people? And what’s more, God supposedly does so only until those de-saved people earn enough money to pay Him back on His loan? (until he would repay everything that was owed?) I don’t. If you do, what justification do you have for that?
5. Do you think some people owe God 10,000 talents (60 millions days of labor) for their salvation and others owe God only 100 denari (100 days labor)? Is it this same salvific forgiveness of sins (i.e. salvation, according to you that’s found in Matt 18) that’s worth 100 days labor for some relatively good people and worth 60 million days for relatively bad/un-forgiving people?
6. Do more un-forgiving people owe God more labor to maintain their salvation than others do? I know lot's of very forgiving Atheists.

Finally (if your still reading, I know it’s long), you see no contradiction/inconsistency whatsoever in you calling the premise of FreeGrace argument “God’s gifts are irrevocable” grossly out of context (I think were your words) in Romans 11, yet you yourself are trying to use this parable (which is clearly stated to be a teaching about brothers forgiving other brothers, using an man-king to illustrate it and working out debts on very dissimilar financial scales (even though we all know the debt of sin is death) and the man-king selling wives/children to help pay for that debt) is more within the context of salvation (or the lose thereof)? Really? No it's not.

It’s amazing the lengths some people will take to hold on to their ideas about how to loss of their salvation (though it's typically about the loss of other's salvation, not their own). Simply amazing, to me.

If you need a loan to pay off your salvation debt (or think you wife/children can help you out) within your Theology and Soteriology, you’re in big trouble.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

God's calling and gifts are to believers only; not the nation of Israel.

"From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. " (Romans 11:28-29 NASB)

You're saying the gifts and the calling Paul refers to in this sentence have nothing to do with the Israelites spoken about in this sentence and that this is another case where what the passage says is not really what it means. How many scriptures is that now in OSAS doctrine that don't really mean what they say?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You showed a parable. Hardly doctrine.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't really mean the kingdom of heaven can be compared to the parable of the unmerciful servant, even though that's what he said? And His Father won't really do the same to each of us as he did to the unmerciful servant if we act like he did, even though that's what he said?

So we have yet another passage of scripture that doesn't really mean what it says. I'm going to have to take my shoes and socks off to keep count of all these passages that OSAS says don't really mean what they say. I've run out of fingers.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"God's calling and gifts are to believers only; not the nation of Israel."

"From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. " (Romans 11:28-29 NASB)

You're saying the gifts and the calling Paul refers to in this sentence have nothing to do with the Israelites spoken about in this sentence and that this is another case where what the passage says is not really what it means.

Wrong. I proved that 11:29 is about believers from Rom 1:6,7, where Paul addresses his audience as "called". He wasn't addressing the nation of Israel here. Or anywhere else.

Where is your evidence that Israel was ever "called" or were given specific gifts? I can't find any.

How many scriptures is that now in OSAS doctrine that don't really mean what they say?

Nonsense. Chessman provided a very detailed explanation of why your view is inaccurate regarding Paul's mentioning of Israel.

 

[FreeGrace]

Are you saying that Jesus didn't really mean the kingdom of heaven can be compared to the parable of the unmerciful servant, even though that's what he said? And His Father won't really do the same to each of us as he did to the unmerciful servant if we act like he did, even though that's what he said?

Here's what I did say: Jesus didn't use parables to teach doctrine. Again, read Chessman's excellent explanation of that parable, which is about believers forgiving others. No connection with salvation.

So we have yet another passage of scripture that doesn't really mean what it says.

No, that's what your view does, repeatedly. Paul opened his epistle to the Roman Gentile (for the most part) believers by identifiying them as "called", and wrote that eternal life is a gift, AND that God's gifts AND calling are irrevocable.

It is your view that takes Scripture and twists it into something it DOESN'T say.

I'm going to have to take my shoes and socks off to keep count of all these passages that OSAS says don't really mean what they say. I've run out of fingers.

Actually, you've run out of reasons (edited, ToS 2.4, Obadiah.) for holding to your view.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said this:
"God's calling and gifts are to believers only; not the nation of Israel."

Wrong. I proved that 11:29 is about believers from Rom 1:6,7, where Paul addresses his audience as "called". He wasn't addressing the nation of Israel here. Or anywhere else.

Where is your evidence that Israel was ever "called" or were given specific gifts? I can't find any.

I'm confident that when I show you, you will make them 'go away' and not mean what they say, thus adding more scriptures to the OSAS list of scriptures that don't really mean what they say. I'm going to have to start counting them on someone else's fingers and toes, too, besides my own.

Chessman provided a very detailed explanation of why your view is inaccurate regarding Paul's mentioning of Israel.

I don't read his posts, but let me guess, whatever passages of scripture he talked about don't really mean what they say, right?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here's what I did say: Jesus didn't use parables to teach doctrine. Again, read Chessman's excellent explanation of that parable, which is about believers forgiving others. No connection with salvation.

You insisted that the 'gifts' in Romans 11:29 NASB were all inclusive, but somehow the free gift of forgiveness of debt in the kingdom is not in that all inclusive list, right? As I said before, we don't even need to debate whether Matthew 18:23-35 NASB is about forgiveness of sin and salvation to see the passage directly contradicts your claim that a free gift--any and all free gifts--can not be taken back. As usual in OSAS doctrine, we will be told that the passage doesn't really mean what it so plainly says in order to evade the obvious contradiction taking it for what it plainly says creates with other passages that OSAS claims proves OSAS. I'm too honest to do that.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

John 4:13-14;
"Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever this water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life".

Jesus brings out the contrast which temporarily quenches thirst and that which does so permanently.
How can someone who will never thirst again go back to water that will make them thirst?
That doesn't make sense.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jesus brings out the contrast which temporarily quenches thirst and that which does so permanently.
How can someone who will never thirst again go back to water that will make them thirst?

I don't know. Each of us has to examine ourselves and ask ourselves why we do that.

We taste the goodness of God on Sunday morning, and by Monday morning we sometimes find ourselves drinking from the pig trough again thinking we need to do that to feel better.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I don't know. Each of us has to examine ourselves and ask ourselves why we do that.

We taste the goodness of God on Sunday morning, and by Monday morning we sometimes find ourselves drinking from the pig trough again thinking we need to do that to feel better.

I don't experience that so I can't relate.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't experience that so I can't relate.

Every time you have turned to, or now turn to something sinful other than Christ for deliverance from boredom, discontentment, fear, etc. you are drinking from another cistern. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I mean that, but we ALL do it. Hopefully, as we grow up in Christ we do that less and less.

 

[FreeGrace]

I'm confident that when I show you, you will make them 'go away' and not mean what they say, thus adding more scriptures to the OSAS list of scriptures that don't really mean what they say.

I'm real tired of your false claims here. I've given you solid evidence of HOW your view doesn't work in context. For example, the gifts and calling of God in Rom 11:29 cannot refer to Israel, as your view claims, because there are NO verses that speak of Israel receiving either gifts OR a calling. otoh, Paul opened his letter to the Romans by describing his audience as "called", thus setting the stage for 11:29. Plus he specifically says that eternal life is a gift. It is your view that tries in vain to make these verses "go away" by your unsubstantiated claim that "gifts and calling" refers to Israel.

 

[FreeGrace]

You insisted that the 'gifts' in Romans 11:29 NASB were all inclusive, but somehow the free gift of forgiveness of debt in the kingdom is not in that all inclusive list, right?

Where, within the context of Romans do you find this "debt in the kingdom"? And, since you don't read Chessman's posts, you conveniently avoid his very excellent explanation of that passage in Matt. The forgiveness concept is about forgiving others, not about salvation forgiveness.

As I said before, we don't even need to debate whether Matthew 18:23-35 NASB is about forgiveness of sin and salvation to see the passage directly contradicts your claim that a free gift--any and all free gifts--can not be taken back.

My point is about what Paul wrote to Roman believers. He began his letter by describing them as "called", went on to say that eternal life is a free gift, and then that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable. All clearly in the same context. Your vain attempt to pull in Matt 18 as relevant falls flat.

[QIUOTE]As usual in OSAS doctrine, we will be told that the passage doesn't really mean what it so plainly says in order to evade the obvious contradiction taking it for what it plainly says creates with other passages that OSAS claims proves OSAS.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Rom 11:29 means exactly what it says; God's gifts and calling are irrevocable, which refutes your notions. His audience of mostly Gentile believers were described as "called", and eternal life was described as a free gift. All before he noted that God's "gifts and callings" were irrevocable. Direct refutation of your loss of salvation view.

I'm too honest to do that.

If that were true, you'd admit that Rom 11:29 refutes your view directly.

Taking the parable of Matt 18 and trying to apply that to anything in Romans is futile. Apples and oranges.

 

[WIP]

Okay, guys, let's not make this personal.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Gents,
I stand amazed this conversation is on going for this long, but about the Romans passage:
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are (ch. 9:5; Deut. 7:8; 10:15) beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and See ch. 8:28 the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as (Eph. 2:2, 3, 11, 13; Col. 1:21; 3:7; Titus 3:3) you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God See ch. 3:9 has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

I have found it important to remember that there is a matter of history to remember when reading any passage of scripture and the history, in this instance is very important. In the beginning all Christians were Jewish by nationality and they, by and large, came from the Jewish Faith. God spread them out of Israel to do the work of making other disciples from other nations and from the Gentiles.

Paul, speaking, to the Romans, is speaking to both Jewish and to Roman believers. In one place in this letter to the Roman Church he speaks to the issue of making converts by expressing his desire to also have Roman converts ¿bank? into his account in Heaven. When using these verses it is essential to recall that that the local context of the verses is from Romans 1:1 through the last verse of Romans and that the general context is from Gen. 1:1 through the last Amen of Rev. 22.

None of these verses are stand alone shinning stars. Just as it takes billions of stars to make the Galaxy, so does it take all the verse to construct the Bible.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...the gifts and calling of God in Rom 11:29 cannot refer to Israel, as your view claims, because there are NO verses that speak of Israel receiving either gifts OR a calling.
[...]
It is your view that tries in vain to make these verses "go away" by your unsubstantiated claim that "gifts and calling" refers to Israel.

19 "I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the sons of Israel..." (Numbers 8:19 NASB)

"1 When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. " (Hosea 11:1 NASB)

Now watch as OSAS (address doctrine, not persons) makes these 'go away'. Or, watch as the scope of 'all inclusive' gifts is narrowed down to meaning only the gentiles and not the Israelites. But, brothers and sisters, let's not forget the passage in question here:

25 ...a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God** are irrevocable.
(Romans 11:25-29 NASB)

The OSAS claims being made in this thread are that the context of this passage is not the Israelites, and that Israel did not receive gifts or calling. As we plainly see both claims are so obviously erroneous.


**See Romans 9:3-5 NASB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And, since you don't read Chessman's posts, you conveniently avoid his very excellent explanation of that passage in Matt. The forgiveness concept is about forgiving others, not about salvation forgiveness.

For the third time now...

We don't have to even visit the issue of whether or not Matthew 18:23-35 is a salvation passage. The point is, it directly refutes the OSAS claim that an unmerited free gift can not be revoked. But OSAS claims that the gifts that can not be revoked in Romans 11:29 are all inclusive, meaning any and all gifts.

It's impossible to make that claim since Jesus explains to us that, in the kingdom, the free gift of forgiveness of debt will indeed be withdrawn if you act like the unmerciful servant did. We don't need to even visit any kind of debate as to whether or not Jesus is suggesting the person whom the Father treats this way is saved or not. The point is, it's a free gift that can and will be revoked in the kingdom of God.

Romans 11:29 NASB is not an all inclusive statement that says salvation can not be revoked after it is received because salvation is a gift, and the passage says gifts can not be revoked. It's impossible, because of other scripture where we see a gift being revoked, for it to mean that. Simply seeing the context of the passage shows us that what can not be revoked is Israel's destiny to one day be exactly what God promised Abraham it would be. THAT is what is irrevocable.