Is Sinning on Purpose Willful Sin ?

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
What Scripture says that one must confess their sin to be saved? I'm not aware of any verse that says that. otoh, there are many verses that say that one is saved by faith. Not confession.

Luke 13:3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

I asked what verse says that one must confess sin to be saved. Your verse says nothing about confession. Repentance isn't confession. They are not the same. Repentance is literally "change of mind". People perish when they don't believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Son of God who died for their sins and gives eternal life to those who believe in Him.

iow, it takes a change of mind to be saved. Not confession.

Do you have an example of a verse that says that confession of sin is required to be saved?

 

[Ricko]

Do you have an example of a verse that says that confession of sin is required to be saved?

It almost sounds like your telling me can use your salvation as a license to continue living in sin. I'm backing down freegrace. I don't have a verse.

 

[Deborah13]

What do you do after you sin then?
1 John 1:3~~the definition of Christian fellowship.

1 John 1:4~~result of Christian fellowship

1 John 1:5~~Christian fellowship analogy

1 John 1:6~~worldly contradiction to Christian fellowship

1 John 1:7~~True Christian fellowship basis

1 John 1:8,10~~ True Christian fellowship destroyed

1 John 1:9~~True Christian fellowship restored.

Do you believe John was using second person verbiage in verses 8 and 10 in 1 John?

Jer 3:13-14~~13‘Only acknowledge your iniquity,
That you have transgressed against the LORD your God
And have scattered your favors to the strangers under every green tree,
And you have not obeyed My voice,’ declares the LORD.

14‘Return, O faithless sons,’ declares the LORD;
‘For I am a master to you,
And I will take you one from a city and two from a family,
And I will bring you to Zion.’

Not second person,
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

There was a problem, there were people who were Not in fellowship [partnership] with the apostles, they weren't agreeing with what the apostles preached about Christ and His blood shed for sin.
John states the message and the problem with what these people who were not in fellowship [partnership] or agreement with what the apostle preached.
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

What did these people who were not in fellowship [partnership] with the apostles not agree with?
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

There is not one single born again believer that believes they have no sin. If they believed they had not sinned, had no sin, they would not believe they needed a Redeemer, a Savior.
But the people who John says don't have fellowship [partnership] with the apostles didn't believe they sinned. Therefore, they were not saved, they were walking in darkness (lost).
1Jn 1:9 If we confess [agree, give assent] our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
There were those who said they had not sinned. Not Ever sinned. Therefore, they had not repented and believed what the apostles taught about Christ.

I'm not sure that 1John 1,2, and 3 were epistles to any particular church but are three parts of a book where John addresses these false teachings. He addresses other beliefs of this group or groups and calls these people false teachers, anti-Christs. They lived sin filled lives because of this belief, that they did not sin.

Is confession [agreement, assent] that one had sinned a part of salvation? Yes, of coarse it is. If one doesn't believe they have sinned, why would they believe they need the Christ as their sacrifice for Sin?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It almost sounds like your telling me can use your salvation as a license to continue living in sin.

That's exactly what he's saying even if he does not realize it. I've been saying this all along. Last I time I brought it up he didn't see the connection between grace not being a license to sin, but being the power to do right, and the OSAS argument.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I keep asking for any verse that plainly says that salvation is based on continued faith, and you have failed to provide any.

Are you really that absorbed in your own defense of OSAS that you really can't recall the many times they have been provided? Or is claiming they haven't been provided just your way of saying that those passages don't really say salvation is based on the condition of a continuing faith in Christ?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus!"

JESUS through his sacrifice had remitted the sins already!!!

The unmerciful servant had his debt forgiven, too. But he had it reinstated when the king saw he was trampling the free gift he had begged for by showing careless contempt for that free gift. Jesus said that is how it is in the kingdom, and that his Father will treat each of us the same way if we do what the unmerciful servant did.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is the Key Jethro......do you think your faith has MERIT?

It does not have merit as a work of the law that earns justification. But that hardly means it isn't something I must do to be justified. The 'doing' of believing is NOT included in the works that Paul says can not justify. But if you want to show me in Paul's faith/ works teaching where believing--if I continue to do it--is somehow included in the works that can not justify I'm all ears.

Why is being required to believe not a damnable work, but being required to continue to believe is?

 

[jonahmano]

Back up to v.18. The point is that because Christ died for all sin, He is the perfect sacrifice and returning to the OT sacrifices won't work now.
You are welcome to your opinion.

Again you got it wrong. The matter is not with that sacrifices won't work but the matter is Christ was already sacrificed and there remains no sacrifice anymore. When you say sacrifices won't work then what type of sacrifice you are meaning. Paul was talking to saints of God and he knew very well that the church doesn't believe in sacrifices. So your point in saying that sacrifices won't work is not in line rather it is said that repeated offenders are just mocking God's sacrifice and that's what that sentence means.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
Do you have an example of a verse that says that confession of sin is required to be saved?

It almost sounds like your telling me can use your salvation as a license to continue living in sin.

No, I'm NOT saying that, One cannot "use" their salvation. It is a condition, not an object. Can some abuse grace? While sinning is an abuse of grace, they aren't going to get away with it. The Bible is full of warnings of loss of blessings on earth and reward in eternity. It is very sad that this fact doesn't seem to impress some people.

I'm backing down freegrace. I don't have a verse.

Thank you for your honesty. There isn't any verse that ties confession to being saved. We are saved by grace through faith.

 

[FreeGrace]

That's exactly what he's saying even if he does not realize it. I've been saying this all along.

I answered Ricko in #109.

Last I time I brought it up he didn't see the connection between grace not being a license to sin, but being the power to do right, and the OSAS argument.

I've never suggested that grace is a license to sin, ever. The Bible warns us clearly about those who think it is and live that way. They will lose out on earthly blessings and eternal reward.

The phrase "and the OSAS argument" doesn't fit the sentence or make sense. Could you re-phrase?

 

[FreeGrace]

Are you really that absorbed in your own defense of OSAS that you really can't recall the many times they have been provided?

I recall that all the verses you provided do NOT say that continued faith is required for continued salvation. I'm still waiting.

Or is claiming they haven't been provided just your way of saying that those passages don't really say salvation is based on the condition of a continuing faith in Christ?

I claim you haven't provided any verse that says that one must continue in the faith to be saved. Period.

 

[FreeGrace]

Again you got it wrong. The matter is not with that sacrifices won't work but the matter is Christ was already sacrificed and there remains no sacrifice anymore.

Which was exactly my point!!

When you say sacrifices won't work then what type of sacrifice you are meaning.

The audience of the writer of Hebrews were returning to the Law and its sacrifices.

Paul was talking to saints of God and he knew very well that the church doesn't believe in sacrifices.

That isn't the point. They were returning back to the OT sacrifices in order to avoid persecution from the Jews.

So your point in saying that sacrifices won't work is not in line rather it is said that repeated offenders are just mocking God's sacrifice and that's what that sentence means.

I disagree with your assessment. Check out the history of Hebrews and why it was written.

Here's a sample from my study Bible:
"Pdersecution is a real threat to the church at Rom. This persecution causes many Jewish belivers, who have died to their legalistic, Judiac ways, to take some steps backward. The author uses this occasion to express the freedom that Christ has given to all believers, and asserts that with Christ there is no need to any of the rituals ofrers by Judaism."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The phrase "and the OSAS argument" doesn't fit the sentence or make sense. Could you re-phrase?

Last I time I brought it up he didn't see the connection between 1) grace not being a license to sin, but being the power to do right, and
2) how that fits into the matter of OSAS.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So your point in saying that sacrifices won't work is not in line rather it is said that repeated offenders are just mocking God's sacrifice and that's what that sentence means.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

There is no sacrifice for sin available for purposely rejecting the one and only sacrifice for sin that there is. You can't have the benefit of a sacrifice for sin that you won't trust in. A trust that is evidenced by a sincere desire to not do that sin anymore. And if you do sin, to come back to that one and only sacrifice for sin.

The sanctified by the blood of Christ believers in the Hebrew church were being warned not to walk away from the one and only sacrifice for sin that there is. The consequence of which, the author tells them, is to lose that one and only sacrifice, and to suffer the damnation of the enemies of God.

 

[FreeGrace]

Last I time I brought it up he didn't see the connection between 1) grace not being a license to sin, but being the power to do right, and
2) how that fits into the matter of OSAS.

I still don't understand what you are saying. But never mind.

My conviction about salvation being guaranteed is based on these 5 Biblical principles, which you've not addressed.

1. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would be with each believer forever. Jn 14:16
2. Paul said the indwelling Holy Spirit is a pledge or guarantee for the day of redemption.
3. Paul said that even if we (believers) are unfaithful (lack faith), God remains faithful. 2 Tim 2:13
4. God cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim 2:13
5. The Holy Spirit indwells everyone who has believed and seals them for the day of redemption.

If one follows each point here, there is no other conclusion than when one believes they are guaranteed salvation on the day of redemption.

 

[Deborah13]

Again you got it wrong. The matter is not with that sacrifices won't work but the matter is Christ was already sacrificed and there remains no sacrifice anymore. When you say sacrifices won't work then what type of sacrifice you are meaning. Paul was talking to saints of God and he knew very well that the church doesn't believe in sacrifices. So your point in saying that sacrifices won't work is not in line rather it is said that repeated offenders are just mocking God's sacrifice and that's what that sentence means.

imo, he is absolutely right. Try to imagine what it was like for those brought up in Judaism, because that is the audience here.
The HEBREWS had come out of Judaism and all the OT laws, including the ceremonial laws of the blood of bulls and goats for atonement.
Paul was talking to the Jewish people in this whole correspondence.
They were going through terrible persecution from their fellow Jews. Paul is encouraging them to stand fast, not to return to the temple in order to protect themselves from further persecution.
The Jews that were persecuting them were not All necessarily doing it out of evil intent. What I mean is, is that some of them were like Saul/Paul and believed they needed to crush this Jewish sect of believers that followed the man Jesus and they taught this new covenant. They believed that what they were doing was God's will. This new covenant had divided families, friends, and whole congregations at the synagogues.
So Paul is convincing them about all things about their Messiah and the new covenant. He tells them that if they go back there is no more sacrifice for sin other than that found in the blood of Jesus Christ. If they willingly reject their Messiah's sacrifice for them, they have no where else to turn. They would be apostate.

 

[gr8grace3]

Why is being required to believe not a damnable work, but being required to continue to believe is?

Acts 16:31 and the aorist tense. And believing is not a work. It is non-meritorious.

If one is counting on ones belief(instead of Christ) to keep one saved after one believes Acts 16:31(aorist tense,the moment one believes) that person has put merit on belief.

That belief has merit and keeps you saved, not Christ.

but being required to continue to believe is?

I have seen no one on this forum say,"If you continue to believe you are damned."

There is absolutely no merit to our belief after we have been saved. Since there is no merit in our believing, if we stop believing, the Merit of our savior Jesus Christ still saves us.

2 Tim 2:13~~New American Standard Bible
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

If we are counting on our belief to keep us saved, we are making it a work, we are putting merit to a non-meritorious system.After we have believed, there is no damnable work. The merit is in Christ to keep us saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

imo, he is absolutely right. Try to imagine what it was like for those brought up in Judaism, because that is the audience here.
The HEBREWS had come out of Judaism and all the OT laws, including the ceremonial laws of the blood of bulls and goats for atonement.
Paul was talking to the Jewish people in this whole correspondence.
They were going through terrible persecution from their fellow Jews. Paul is encouraging them to stand fast, not to return to the temple in order to protect themselves from further persecution.
The Jews that were persecuting them were not All necessarily doing it out of evil intent. What I mean is, is that some of them were like Saul/Paul and believed they needed to crush this Jewish sect of believers that followed the man Jesus and they taught this new covenant. They believed that what they were doing was God's will. This new covenant had divided families, friends, and whole congregations at the synagogues.
So Paul is convincing them about all things about their Messiah and the new covenant. He tells them that if they go back there is no more sacrifice for sin other than that found in the blood of Jesus Christ. If they willingly reject their Messiah's sacrifice for them, they have no where else to turn. They would be apostate.

 

[dadof10]

imo, he is absolutely right. Try to imagine what it was like for those brought up in Judaism, because that is the audience here.
The HEBREWS had come out of Judaism and all the OT laws, including the ceremonial laws of the blood of bulls and goats for atonement.
Paul was talking to the Jewish people in this whole correspondence.
They were going through terrible persecution from their fellow Jews. Paul is encouraging them to stand fast, not to return to the temple in order to protect themselves from further persecution.
The Jews that were persecuting them were not All necessarily doing it out of evil intent. What I mean is, is that some of them were like Saul/Paul and believed they needed to crush this Jewish sect of believers that followed the man Jesus and they taught this new covenant. They believed that what they were doing was God's will. This new covenant had divided families, friends, and whole congregations at the synagogues.
So Paul is convincing them about all things about their Messiah and the new covenant. He tells them that if they go back there is no more sacrifice for sin other than that found in the blood of Jesus Christ. If they willingly reject their Messiah's sacrifice for them, they have no where else to turn. They would be apostate.

Well, put. I think it is essential to the proper understanding of Paul's letters, especially the "faith vs. works" sections, to realize that he was responding to a certain heresy within the Church, possibly the first real heresy; i.e.,whether it was necessary for the Gentile converts were to embrace "the law", specifically circumcision. Without this understanding of the times Paul was writing in and the background (what he was responding to), any "exegesis" is flawed. This is where we get OSAS.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...believing is not a work.

""This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."" (John 6:29 NASB)

The point being, 'believing' really is something you DO. But I know, I know. Jesus didn't really mean believing is a work, right?

It is non-meritorious.

It is non-meritorious in that it is not successfully completed works of the law by which you are then deservedly given a declaration of righteousness. But 'believing' most certainly is something you do, but a work for which you do not then deserve a declaration of righteousness for, but instead are given it freely as a gracious, unmerited gift.

If one is counting on ones belief(instead of Christ) to keep one saved after one believes Acts 16:31(aorist tense,the moment one believes) that person has put merit on belief. That belief has merit and keeps you saved, not Christ.

Show me where I can not count on my believing as the vehicle through which I lay hold of the free gift of Christ's righteousness. Show me in the Bible where it's wrong to do that.

I have seen no one on this forum say,"If you continue to believe you are damned."

Oh, yes some have. Danus may be the most detailed in that belief. The thinking is, if I have to keep believing, as if it's a work that I must continue to do, then I have robbed salvation of it's totally free attribute, which then means it's a work, and everyone knows salvation is not by works. That's how the distorted argument goes.