Is Sinning on Purpose Willful Sin ?

[chessman]

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/12/03/woman-who-lost-lottery-ticket-about-to-get-50-million/

 

[Ricko]

Yes.

I resisted if for many, many years but after visiting and revisiting this subject here in this forum over the last two years it is impossible for me to honestly explain away so many plain scriptures that show that we can.

I Disagree. I'd say that if a person professes to accept Christ, then later rejects Christ, they never really accepted Christ as savior in the first place. A person may look and act like a Christian on the outside but never be saved. 1 John 2:19 tells us they were not really saved. If they were, they would have stayed.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I Disagree. I'd say that if a person professes to accept Christ, then later rejects Christ, they never really accepted Christ as savior in the first place. A person may look and act like a Christian on the outside but never be saved. 1 John 2:19 tells us they were not really saved. If they were, they would have stayed.

I agree that if you're going to argue for OSAS that you can NEVER argue that you do not have to keep your faith to the very end to be saved because John plainly said those who live in unrighteousness are not born again. He does not say that the person who lives unrighteously is still saved despite their unrighteousness. He says they are NOT born again. But so many right here in this forum argument vehemently that the unrighteous person who is (supposedly) born again is still saved even though they live the life of unrighteousness that John says is the life of a NOT born again person.

OSAS will then say (as you are doing) that the person who lives unrighteously was never born again to be begin with. Non-OSAS, on the other hand, says the person who lives unrighteously--whom John says is not born again--may have been at one time, but isn't now. If they were born again, but aren't now, it's because they no longer have faith in Christ they once did.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

It's sad that the horrible, illogical use of this passage is one of the things that props up the OSAS doctrine in the Protestant Church.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I thought we had agreed that one must REJECT it?

If I understand what you were saying you were differentiating between 'losing' salvation and 'rejecting' salvation. Losing salvation meaning you had it, but now you don't, while rejecting it meant you never received it to begin with. Correct my understanding of what you were driving at if it is wrong.

If you were making this kind of differentiation then I must fall on the side of losing salvation, not simply rejecting and never receiving it.

 

[Ricko]

I agree that if you're going to argue for OSAS that you can NEVER argue that you do not have to keep your faith to the very end to be saved because John plainly said those who live in unrighteousness are not born again. He does not say that the person who lives unrighteously is still saved despite their unrighteousness. He says they are NOT born again. But so many right here in this forum argument vehemently that the unrighteous person who is (supposedly) born again is still saved even though they live the life of unrighteousness that John says is the life of a NOT born again person.

OSAS will then say (as you are doing) that the person who lives unrighteously was never born again to be begin with. Non-OSAS, on the other hand, says the person who lives unrighteously--whom John says is not born again--may have been at one time, but isn't now. If they were born again, but aren't now, it's because they no longer have faith in Christ they once did.



It's sad that the horrible, illogical use of this passage is one of the things that props up the OSAS doctrine in the Protestant Church.

I'm not sure how one could lose their salvation. Paul told the Corinthians test yourself to see if you are in the faith, not to see if you are still in the faith. Even the apostles had to test themselves. In the upper room when Jesus told them that one of them would betray Him, how did they respond? That all thought that they could have. Finally Peter told John to ask Him who it was. I bet they were testing themselves then.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm not sure how one could lose their salvation. Paul told the Corinthians test yourself to see if you are in the faith, not to see if you are still in the faith.

But is it really reasonable to rely on this vague interpretation over and above the plain passages of scripture that warn us not to lose our faith but to keep believing? And we already know from John that there's no such thing as being in a lifestyle of unrighteousness and being saved at the same time.

 

[Deborah13]

I Disagree. I'd say that if a person professes to accept Christ, then later rejects Christ, they never really accepted Christ as savior in the first place. A person may look and act like a Christian on the outside but never be saved. 1 John 2:19 tells us they were not really saved. If they were, they would have stayed.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

I believe that in 1, 2, and 3 John, John was addressing a very particular group of false teachers and the doctrine that they were professing in the church at Ephesus. He calls them anti-Christs. He says that they were teaching that Christ had not come in the flesh of a man. That He was a spirit, or a manifestation of a spirit or an illusion. That He could appear to be in the flesh but was not. They believed this about Christ because they believed all matter was evil so therefore He could not have been flesh (matter).

Because of this doctrine they believed that they did not sin even when they participated in immoral acts in the flesh. Therefore, they didn't need to repent of sin or be forgiven because they really believed they did not sin. These were Gnostic beliefs.

In order to be a Christian one Must believe they have sinned. If they don't why would they need a Redeemer?
John says if they didn't believe that they had sinned then they did not have the truth (Christ) in them. They were not saved.
So when he says 'they went out because they were not of us' that's exactly what he meant. They were not Christians and they were actually anti-Christs.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So when he says 'they went out because they were not of us' that's exactly what he meant. They were not Christians and they were actually anti-Christs.

Absolutely correct.

The problem comes in when one now decides that this means, categorically and without exception, that everyone who 'does not remain' in any and all situations and circumstances and matters concerning faith in Christ were never saved to begin with.

It is a logical fallacy to say that these people who went out from John, but who did not remain with John were showing themselves to be anti-christs, therefore, everyone, anywhere, in any and all circumstances who does not remain is an unsaved anti-christ and always has been.

 

[Deborah13]

If I understand what you were saying you were differentiating between 'losing' salvation and 'rejecting' salvation. Losing salvation meaning you had it, but now you don't, while rejecting it meant you never received it to begin with. Correct my understanding of what you were driving at if it is wrong.

If you were making this kind of differentiation then I must fall on the side of losing salvation, not simply rejecting and never receiving it.

Well there is only two options for a position in Christ's righteousness.
In Christ vs not in Christ
In light vs in darkness
In truth vs in lies

If we believe that Christ will never, ever, forsake us or leave us then the only way to not be in Him would be to reject Him. Correct?

 

[Deborah13]

Absolutely correct.

The problem comes in when one now decides that this means, categorically and without exception, that everyone who 'does not remain' in any and all situations and circumstances and matters concerning faith in Christ were never saved to begin with.

It is a logical fallacy to say that these people who went out from John, but who did not remain with John were showing themselves to be anti-christs, therefore, everyone, anywhere, in any and all circumstances who does not remain is an unsaved anti-christ and always has been.

I agree.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well there is only two options for a position in Christ's righteousness.
In Christ vs not in Christ
In light vs in darkness
In truth vs in lies

If we believe that Christ will never, ever, forsake us or leave us then the only way to not be in Him would be to reject Him. Correct?

True, so rejection doesn't have to only mean, or connote, having never accepted him in the first place. Were you suggesting it did? Just asking for the sake of clarity.

 

[Deborah13]

True, so rejection doesn't have to only mean, or connote, having never accepted him in the first place. Were you suggesting it did? Just asking for the sake of clarity.

No, I wasn't.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, I wasn't.

Clarification complete.

 

[FreeGrace]

Everyone who believes has eternal life. But you have to stay in the faith until the Day of Redemption to keep it. Just as you have to keep the winning lotto ticket, that you surely do have now, until the day you redeem that ticket. The lotto winner can hold up his winning ticket and say, "See? I have never-ending riches!" But he must retain that ticket until the day it gets redeemed for him to keep those riches.

The problem with your view is that you view salvation/eternal life as an object that can be lost, misplaced, forfeited, etc.

That is impossible, because eternal life isn't an object. It's a permanent condition of LIFE, which is eternal. If eternal life can be "returned", taken away, it really wasn't eternal in the first place.

I don't believe you've ever addressed this. How do you respond to the fact that salvation, which is eternal life, isn't an object. It is LIFE, and there is no suggestion from Scripture that God will kill the life that He gives those who have believed.

That is right. If you do not TRUST HIM TO KEEP YOU, you have fallen from the faith and will not be saved on the Day of Wrath. You can't be saved by a Jesus you no longer are trusting in.

The problem with this view is that it is in direct opposition to Eph 1:13 and 4:30. Those who have believed are sealed for the Day of Redemption. That is a promise or pledge from God. But apparently you don't believe in the promise of God to seal His children for the Day of Redemption.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem with your view is that you view salvation/eternal life as an object that can be lost, misplaced, forfeited, etc.

That is impossible, because eternal life isn't an object. It's a permanent condition of LIFE, which is eternal. If eternal life can be "returned", taken away, it really wasn't eternal in the first place.

When you get your immortal body then let's talk about permanent, irreversible eternal life. Until then what we have is everything that eternal life is in this life and the promise of what it will be in the future. A promise conditioned on faith: No faith--no promise of that which is to come. And John plainly said the person who lives in unrighteousness is not born again. So it's impossible for you to argue that no longer having faith doesn't mean a person can not still be born again and that they still have eternal life.

I don't believe you've ever addressed this. How do you respond to the fact that salvation, which is eternal life, isn't an object. It is LIFE, and there is no suggestion from Scripture that God will kill the life that He gives those who have believed.

I thoroughly resent when people read what you post and then completely disregard it to the point that they say what you have shared from the scriptures does not represent even the suggestion that what you say is true. If that were true we would not even be having this discussion.

The problem with this view is that it is in direct opposition to Eph 1:13 and 4:30. Those who have believed are sealed for the Day of Redemption. That is a promise or pledge from God. But apparently you don't believe in the promise of God to seal His children for the Day of Redemption.

What I don't believe is that by definition 'sealed' means 'unable to be unsealed' in the Bible but does not mean that in every other context unless one specifically adds that qualification to it. That's an unreasonable and illogical argument. It's impossible to honestly accept that as a defense for irreversible salvation. You can't pre-qualify sealed as meaning 'not able to be unsealed' just because it suits your argument. That's unreasonable.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
The problem with your view is that you view salvation/eternal life as an object that can be lost, misplaced, forfeited, etc.

That is impossible, because eternal life isn't an object. It's a permanent condition of LIFE, which is eternal. If eternal life can be "returned", taken away, it really wasn't eternal in the first place.

When you get your immortal body then let's talk about permanent, irreversible eternal life.

What a dodge!! Your view is that salvation or eternal life is treated as an object rather than a condition. Until you realize that eternal LIFE is exactly that, it seems you cannot really understand the issue.

Salvation is not a coin, which can be lost. My immortal body has nothing to do with the permanence of salvation.

Until then what we have is everything that eternal life is in this life and the promise of what it will be in the future.

No, what we have NOW is eternal life. Jesus said so in Jn 5:25. It's not something that God "finally" doles out at the end.

A promise conditioned on faith: No faith--no promise of that which is to come.

Again, the problem with your view is that there are no warnings that loss of faith means loss of salvation. You're making an argument that the Bible does not make. One is saved WHEN one believes. And there are clear verses that guarantee the permanence of that salvation, but you continue to dismiss them.

And John plainly said the person who lives in unrighteousness is not born again.

Please quote the verse that you think says that, because he never ever wrote such a thing. Solomon ended his life living in unrighteousness, and there is no indication that he isn't in heaven. Same thing for King Saul. In fact, Samuel came back from the dead to tell Saul that he would join him the next day. We all know where Samuel went after death, and Saul joined him.

So it's impossible for you to argue that no longer having faith doesn't mean a person can not still be born again and that they still have eternal life.

In fact, the opposite is the reality. Your view cannot argue that salvation is a temporary condition that is based on continual faith. Many of the verses about faith and salvation use the verb for belief in the aorist tense. Maybe you aren't aware of the significance of that, but when Paul answered the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved, Paul said to believe in the aorist tense. That tense isn't about duration, but rather a point in time. There was no indication from Paul that he had to continue to believe. If he did believe that, he screwed up and used the wrong tense.

Also, in addition to the aorist tense, he said that the jailer would be saved in the future tense. So, in a point in time, when you believe, you will be saved in the future. Your view just cannot defend itself against Paul's answer.

I said this:
I don't believe you've ever addressed this. How do you respond to the fact that salvation, which is eternal life, isn't an object. It is LIFE, and there is no suggestion from Scripture that God will kill the life that He gives those who have believed.

I thoroughly resent when people read what you post and then completely disregard it to the point that they say what you have shared from the scriptures does not represent even the suggestion that what you say is true. If that were true we would not even be having this discussion.

Well, it is true, and we are having this discussion.

Also, you again disregarded my challenge to your view. My post is in response to what you post. If you don't consider salvation to be an object, then you need to be much more clear about your view, because that's how your view treats salvation, like an object that can be lost.

What I don't believe is that by definition 'sealed' means 'unable to be unsealed' in the Bible but does not mean that in every other context unless one specifically adds that qualification to it.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the seal in Ephesians. You can't "unseal" the Holy Spirit, and you haven't given any examples from Scripture that would indicate that He can be "unsealed".

We know that David prayed that God would not remove His Holy Spirit. But why did Jesus promise the Holy Spirit to His disciples (believers) as a future occurrence if all believers from David's time had the Holy Spirit. So the obvious conclusion is that the Holy Spirit didn't indwell very many believers before Jesus' time. But after Christ's resurrection, all believers have been given the Holy Spirit. And Jesus was clear that He would be with us forever, which you cannot refute.

I said this:
The problem with this view is that it is in direct opposition to Eph 1:13 and 4:30. Those who have believed are sealed for the Day of Redemption. That is a promise or pledge from God. But apparently you don't believe in the promise of God to seal His children for the Day of Redemption.

That's an unreasonable and illogical argument. It's impossible to honestly accept that as a defense for irreversible salvation. You can't pre-qualify sealed as meaning 'not able to be unsealed' just because it suits your argument. That's unreasonable.

It is a perfectly logical and reasonable argument. And you haven't refuted it in any way. Disagree, yes. But you've not provided any meaningful refutation of it. When you do, I'll consider it thoughtfully.

And I didn't pre-qualify anything. I simply took Paul's words at face value. All believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the Day of Redemption. That is a promise of God.

It is obvious that you think the Holy Spirit can be removed from a believer. So, please provide some evidence for that view from the New Testament. I've already demonstrated that David's prayer isn't applicable for believers today.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said this:
The problem with your view is that you view salvation/eternal life as an object that can be lost, misplaced, forfeited, etc.

That is impossible, because eternal life isn't an object. It's a permanent condition of LIFE, which is eternal. If eternal life can be "returned", taken away, it really wasn't eternal in the first place.

What a dodge!! Your view is that salvation or eternal life is treated as an object rather than a condition. Until you realize that eternal LIFE is exactly that, it seems you cannot really understand the issue.

Salvation is not a coin, which can be lost. My immortal body has nothing to do with the permanence of salvation.

The immortal body comes AFTER the FINAL judgment. It has everything to do with the day salvation is permanent. It is then and only then that you or I will actually, literally possess eternal life in a physical kingdom.

No, what we have NOW is eternal life. Jesus said so in Jn 5:25. It's not something that God "finally" doles out at the end.

Brother to brother, perhaps you're biggest problem is you do not 'listen'. If you did you would know there is no argument here. When you believe you receive exactly what eternal life is in this age, and the promise of what it is in the future. Eternal life is a quality of life as much as it will be a permanence of physical life after the coming Judgment when we receive the redemption of our bodies.

Joy, for example, is not an object like a coin, yet we both know that sometimes you gots it, sometimes you don't, and that it is dependent on something you do, or don't do. So enough of this talk that I don't understand the nature of eternal life. There is a good chance, because of my background, that I understand it better than you.

Again, the problem with your view is that there are no warnings that loss of faith means loss of salvation. You're making an argument that the Bible does not make.

If there is such a thing as a forum 'sin', it is this. Simply restating your argument with no supporting thought or evidence is the same as not responding except one has used up space in a post to do that. It adds nothing to refuting or disproving an argument.

One is saved WHEN one believes.

Once, again, brother, put your cyber ears on and start 'hearing' the argument: Everyone who believes is saved the moment they believe. Why do you drone on and on as if nobody has ever stated this to you before? There is no argument here. Move on to what is actually in debate.

And there are clear verses that guarantee the permanence of that salvation, but you continue to dismiss them.

How does saying this prove your argument? Why do you pretend like I have simply decided "oh, I don't believe that' and that I haven't taken the time to explain in detail why I have come to that conclusion"?

Please quote the verse that you think says that, because he never ever wrote such a thing. Solomon ended his life living in unrighteousness, and there is no indication that he isn't in heaven. Same thing for King Saul. In fact, Samuel came back from the dead to tell Saul that he would join him the next day. We all know where Samuel went after death, and Saul joined him.

Death. Saul joined Samuel in death. The grave.

Using your argument, every single evil king in Judah and Israel is with Jesus now because they eventually 'rested with their fathers'. I'm pretty sure your argument here falls under the category of logical fallacy. You've drawn an illogical conclusion from the evidence given.

In fact, the opposite is the reality. Your view cannot argue that salvation is a temporary condition that is based on continual faith. Many of the verses about faith and salvation use the verb for belief in the aorist tense. Maybe you aren't aware of the significance of that, but when Paul answered the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved, Paul said to believe in the aorist tense. That tense isn't about duration, but rather a point in time.

You understand the aorist tense only if you understand that point in time is historical, not irreversibly causative. That meaning would come from context, not from the definition of what 'arorist' is.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There was no indication from Paul that he had to continue to believe. If he did believe that, he screwed up and used the wrong tense.

Then John was a liar when he said that the person who lives in unrighteousness is not born again.

At best, the OSAS argument HAS to be that one who is saved can not shrink back to unbelief. But over and over again in this forum people argue that one does not have to live righteously through a continuing faith in God to be considered born again, in complete contradiction to what John said.

Also, in addition to the aorist tense, he said that the jailer would be saved in the future tense.

Obviously, when Paul said that to him he had not believed yet. How does this prove that he will be forever and irretrievably saved, except that you're projecting that pre-determined OSAS meaning of 'saved' onto the word again to defend that very point in debate.

So, in a point in time, when you believe, you will be saved in the future. Your view just cannot defend itself against Paul's answer.

You're doing it, again, just as so many before you have. You're automatically qualifying 'saved' as meaning 'forever without condition' to answer the question of whether 'saved' means 'forever without condition'. This is perhaps the biggest mistake OSAS makes. You can not say, "Paul said he would be saved, and saved means forever and irreversible, therefore, this proves that being saved means forever and irreversible."

But anyway, we learn the details about the nature of salvation from the rest of his writings. What you are doing, besides projecting a predetermined meaning onto 'saved' is un-rightly dividing this passage away from the rest of scripture.

I said this:
I don't believe you've ever addressed this. How do you respond to the fact that salvation, which is eternal life, isn't an object. It is LIFE, and there is no suggestion from Scripture that God will kill the life that He gives those who have believed.

This is not where the answer lies. Just because eternal life is both actual tangible things and non-tangible things doesn't decide whether it can be lost, or not.

And you are reasserting your position with no explanation as if that suddenly ends the argument. How does that prove your argument?

Well, it is true, and we are having this discussion.

How does saying, "Well, it is true" prove your argument? Help me out here.

Also, you again disregarded my challenge to your view. My post is in response to what you post. If you don't consider salvation to be an object, then you need to be much more clear about your view, because that's how your view treats salvation, like an object that can be lost.

A decision is not an object. And just because it is not, that hardly means, categorically, that it can not be reversed. What gets disregarded is the plain scripture I've shared that shows that in the kingdom economy and way of doing things, an intangible decision to forgive someone--that we both agree results in both the spiritual and physical aspects of eternal life- will most certainly be revoked if the receiving party does not respond in accordance with the forgiveness he has received.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the seal in Ephesians. You can't "unseal" the Holy Spirit, and you haven't given any examples from Scripture that would indicate that He can be "unsealed".

The Holy Spirit is given when one asks for and receives forgiveness. Jesus himself said that his Father will treat any of us the same way the forgiven, but unmerciful servant was treated when he did not respond in the expected and obligatory way that being forgiven demands. But you insist no example has been, or can be given?

We know that David prayed that God would not remove His Holy Spirit. But why did Jesus promise the Holy Spirit to His disciples (believers) as a future occurrence if all believers from David's time had the Holy Spirit. So the obvious conclusion is that the Holy Spirit didn't indwell very many believers before Jesus' time. But after Christ's resurrection, all believers have been given the Holy Spirit. And Jesus was clear that He would be with us forever, which you cannot refute.

What you are ignoring is that the whole context of scripture plainly tells us that 'forever' is contingent, while in this body, on continuing to do what got you saved in the first place--believe. Surely you know the many scriptures that have been repeatedly posted to defend this such that they need not be reposted. .

I said this:
The problem with this view is that it is in direct opposition to Eph 1:13 and 4:30. Those who have believed are sealed for the Day of Redemption. That is a promise or pledge from God. But apparently you don't believe in the promise of God to seal His children for the Day of Redemption.

It is a perfectly logical and reasonable argument. And you haven't refuted it in any way. Disagree, yes. But you've not provided any meaningful refutation of it. When you do, I'll consider it thoughtfully.

Show me 'seal' means by definition irreversible and we'll have something to discuss. Until you do that we have no evidence to examine. You have decided that 'seal' means that. You haven't shown me that's what the word means. But you insist it does. The ball is in your court, not mine.

And I didn't pre-qualify anything. I simply took Paul's words at face value. All believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the Day of Redemption. That is a promise of God.

You're doing it again. You are automatically reading into the word that it means by definition 'sealed forever and without possibility of reversal'. It's the sin of the OSAS argument--circular reasoning. Which in this case says, "seal means forever and irreversible, therefore, that is the answer to whether or not 'seal' means forever and irreversible".

It is obvious that you think the Holy Spirit can be removed from a believer. So, please provide some evidence for that view from the New Testament. I've already demonstrated that David's prayer isn't applicable for believers today.

If you agree that the Holy Spirit is given in response to having faith in God then anywhere you see the warning to not stop believing, in the context of salvation itself, you have the warning to not lose the Holy Spirit. Is it really necessary to repost the scriptures, in the context of salvation, that have been posted many times now that have been used to defend this argument?

 

[Eugene]

That's an unreasonable and illogical argument.

Dear Brother Jethro Bodine, you say “That's an unreasonable and illogical argument.” Therein lies the fault in your theology. It is even the measure of faith in Rom 12:3 we have been given that produces the hope that is the product of Heb 11:1.

I do not have to understand the sense of something to believe what God has said. When Jesus said we have been given to Him according to Joh 10:29, I believe it, and it is by that very faith given me.

in Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (We did); and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. That means Jesus will not cast us out regardless the mistakes we make, and that’s Him saying it; not me.

To confirm in this, Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which He (Our Father) hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Oh surely that can’t be Jesus; Jethro says he can get away from you if he wants to. Jesus, did You really say you’re going to lose none of us to do the will of God?

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him (Our Father) that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Wow! Isn’t Jethro going to be surprised to find that it was not him that was so faithful, but Your power, grace, and mercy that kept him all along the way?

PS – Maybe one day we can get into the purpose of remaining faithful, and it is called fellowship; God desires us enough to have given Jesus to die for us.

 

[Ricko]

Then John was a liar when he said that the person who lives in unrighteousness is not born again.

John is no liar. The unrighteousness here is a person choosing to live in sin. He's not talking about repented sin, but failing to see your sin as sin, thus living unrighteously. That person is not saved.