1 Peter Ch 4

[Elhanan]

]

IIam not saying that all future sins are automatically forgiven. I am saying that all future sins are paid for by Jesus on the cross. They have been dealt with and the blood of Jesus covers them all. Forgiveness must still be appropriated. But to say that there are sins that the blood of Jesus hasn't covered is not supported by any Scripture.

Based on your clarification I think we agree that future sins are not automatically forgiven as forgiveness must first be sought. I never said that there are sins that are not covered by the blood. But out of curiosity, do you think that a believer who commits suicide is forgiven as obviously the opportunity to seek forgiveness is nonexistent?

No, it is not red herring. It fits with the context of the conversation. As I stated, God's standard for perfection is 100%. There is no margin for error. If what you do affects your salvation, then one sin is all it takes. It only took one sin for Adam to be separated from God.

You are confusing the payment required to atone for sin with the commission of sins. The payment required was 100% perfection - a lamb without blemish - Christ himself. To say that 100% perfection is required of us would entail no sin on our part which would conflict with 1 Jn 1:10. And while it is true that the commission of one sin resulted in Adam's separation, it is bad hermeneutical practice to cite an exception as in Adam's case and generalize it to the rest of humanity especially when 1 Jn 1:9 plainly states that we receive God's forgiveness when we confess.

The New Covenant is not between God and man. The New Covenant is between the Father and Jesus. They are the only guarantors of the Covenant. This is typified in the Abrahamic covenant when God did not allow Abraham to walk between the animals halves with Him. God alone walked between the halves and thus the full responsibility for the stipulations of the Covenant was God's alone. In the same way, God did not allow man to make covenant with Him. The Father and Jesus made the New Covenant nothing we can do can break their covenant. We are nothing beneficiaries of the New Covenant. Our good deeds are the fruit of salvation, not the means of obtaining salvation.

The New Covenant is indeed between God and man. To claim that the Father and Son are the only parties to the Covenant and man is not involved in the Covenant ignores scripture that specifically declares Christ as the mediator – not a party as you speculate. According to Heb 9:15: “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” By definition a mediator is an intermediary between at least two parties; also a mediator cannot negotiate on his own behalf. It is also questionable to say that the Abrahamic Covenant did not have any stipulations directed at Abraham. Note that Gen 17:9-14 states: “Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Even if one considers the requirement of circumcision to be part of the original covenant or a separate covenant, it's irrelevant as Abraham and his offspring were/are required as part of this covenant to be circumcised. Therefore to say that the New Covenant is typical of the covenants(s) God made with Abraham containing no stipulations which can lead to breaking the covenant is without merit.

I mean that you can be a Christian and live out of fellowship with Jesus. Being out of fellowship means that one is not walking as close to the Lord, not studying the Scriptures, not spending time in prayer. It doesn't mean that they are necessarily out living in sin. I agree that those living in habitual sin show themselves not to be genuine believers, but simply living out of fellowship with God doesn't mean that one is living a wicked lifestyle.

Agreed that living “out of fellowship” may include not walking closely as you so describe. So while it does not necessarily mean that one is living a wicked lifestyle, it does not preclude that possibility either. I would also say that out of fellowship could even go as far as apostatizing from the faith as 1 Tim 4:1 states: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,.”

The Bible does not teach that. In fact, the only place the Bible mentins the confession of sin to God is 1 John and it is only referring to cleansing of the conscience, not the cleansing of the heart. If unconfessed sin keeps you out of heaven, then no one is saved becaue I doubt anyone of us can claim that we have absolutely NO unconfessed sin. I can imagine that there are sins you may have forgotten about that never got confessed. You cannot guarantee otherwise.

I don't know how you arrived at the distinction between cleansing of the heart vs. conscience as the text itself makes no such distinction unless you prefer to read something else into it. Furthermore, your claim that the heart is not cleansed puts you at odds with Heb 10:22 “ Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”

If we cannot have any unconfessed sins, and that sends us to hell, then having an unconfessed sin is a sin in and of itself and if it sends us to hell, then we are saved by works and not by grace. Your position on salvation is internally inconsistent. You are claiming that we are not saved by works but are claiming that we must confess our sins to God in order to remain saved. You cannot have it both ways.

I did not claim that no one has unconfessed sin as you assume. Rather, I meant that if one is harboring known sin in one's life and refuses to confess one's sin, there is no assurance of salvation. You have not addressed the question of unrepented sin. I maintain that known habitual sin in a believer's life that is not repented of may result in loss of salvation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Based on your clarification I think we agree that future sins are not automatically forgiven as forgiveness must first be sought. I never said that there are sins that are not covered by the blood. But out of curiosity, do you think that a believer who commits suicide is forgiven as obviously the opportunity to seek forgiveness is nonexistent?

The sin is not forgiven, but the believer will still go to heaven. If you commit any sin and die five seconds later and thus failed to seek forgiveness for it, it doesn't mean that you will go to hell. For a Christian, failing to repent of sin has a lot of negative consequences, but losing salvation is not one of them

You are confusing the payment required to atone for sin with the commission of sins. The payment required was 100% perfection - a lamb without blemish - Christ himself. To say that 100% perfection is required of us would entail no sin on our part which would conflict with 1 Jn 1:10.

There is no confusion on my part at all. The point I was making is that because God requires 100% sinlessness, and we cannot live 100% sinless, there is no hope for us apart from a redeemer. Jesus came and lived a sinless life which is why He was, in part, qualified to be our Redeemer.

I was responding to the point that our sin has an affect on us but the point was that sin affects our fellowship with God, our spiritual growth, etc. I was making the point that if our sin affected the security of our salvation, then there is not one of us who would ever remained saved beyond a few hours. We mess up a lot; probably more than we generally like to admit. I was addressing the clear indication that sin causes us to lose salvation. The blood of Jesus on the cross and the death of Jesus on the cross are eternal. I am secure in my salvation because of an unbreakable blood covenant that was cut in the preciuos and sinless blood of my Redeemer, Jesus. I don't add anything to that. I don't work to maintain my salvation. Jesus is my all sufficient sustainer. It is not a case of Jesus being my Redeemer 2000 years ago. He is still my Redeemer today.

And while it is true that the commission of one sin resulted in Adam's separation, it is bad hermeneutical practice to cite an exception as in Adam's case and generalize it to the rest of humanity especially when 1 Jn 1:9 plainly states that we receive God's forgiveness when we confess.

It's not bad hermeneutics at all. It's the truth. Without Jesus, one sin is all it takes. On his own, man cannot maintain a right relationship with God. 1 Jn 1:9 is not for God's benefit. God's justice was perfectly and fully satisfied at the cross. So God doesn't need us to confess in order to satisfy Him. Confession of sin is for the cleansing of our conscience to keep us from coming under condemnation. Confession of sin allows us to appropriate the blood of Jesus prevents the enemy from using our sin to paralyze our walk with God. Satan cannot bring up our past when it has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

The New Covenant is indeed between God and man. To claim that the Father and Son are the only parties to the Covenant and man is not involved in the Covenant ignores scripture that specifically declares Christ as the mediator – not a party as you speculate. According to Heb 9:15: “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” By definition a mediator is an intermediary between at least two parties; also a mediator cannot negotiate on his own behalf.

You don’t understand. Jesus is considered the “mediator” because on man’s behalf He satsified the claims of God upon man. He sastisfied God’s justice on man’s behalf. He is not mediating a covenant between God and man. He was man’s federal head on the cross, just as Adam was man’s federal head in the Garden, hence Jesus is called the last Adam in I Corinthians 15. It appears that you misunderstand in what sense Jesus is a mediator. The New Covenant is NEVER once in Scripture depicted as being between God and man. If you read vv. 16-17 of Hebrews 9 it points to the fact that Jesus’ death was what was necessary to set the New Covenant in motion. It was not cut in the blood of sinful men. It was the Father making covenant with in Jesus Christ. God the Father and God the Son made covenant together and Jesus too the place of mankind. The New Covenant can’t be broken because the only two parties were Jesus and the Father. Man is NEVER said in the New Testament to be in covenant with God and the Scripture you provided doesn’t demonstrate your point.

It is also questionable to say that the Abrahamic Covenant did not have any stipulations directed at Abraham. Note that Gen 17:9-14 states: “Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Even if one considers the requirement of circumcision to be part of the original covenant or a separate covenant, it's irrelevant as Abraham and his offspring were/are required as part of this covenant to be circumcised. Therefore to say that the New Covenant is typical of the covenants(s) God made with Abraham containing no stipulations which can lead to breaking the covenant is without merit.

The Abrahamic Covenant is Genesis 15, not Genesis 17. The covenant of Circumcision is different.

Agreed that living “out of fellowship” may include not walking closely as you so describe. So while it does not necessarily mean that one is living a wicked lifestyle, it does not preclude that possibility either. I would also say that out of fellowship could even go as far as apostatizing from the faith as 1 Tim 4:1 states: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,.”

No, out of fellowship is not the same as apostasy. You are trying awfully hard to redefine terms to suit your bad theology. Being out of fellowship doesn't indicate that a person has rejected the Lord. In fact, a true Christian won't apostasize. There are a lot of people with religion out there who masquarade as Christians, but they usually end up worse off than they were at the first. There are a lot of "cultural Christians" who live in a form of Christianity that doesn't have Christ in it. Genuine followers of Jesus don't reject the Lord. They may have dry wilderness periods in their lives, but they don't ultimately reject Christ.

I don't know how you arrived at the distinction between cleansing of the heart vs. conscience as the text itself makes no such distinction unless you prefer to read something else into it. Furthermore, your claim that the heart is not cleansed puts you at odds with Heb 10:22 “ Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”

The believer's heart was already cleansed when they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. That has already been dealt with once and for all time. The confession of sin by a believer is not a recleansing of the heart, but a means of keeping us out of condemnation. It is the cleansing away of all those things that hinder fellowship with the Lord. If it were the cleansing of the heart, it would entail having to be re-saved every time we sin. Heb. 10:22 is the result of salvation, not of a constant confession of sin. When I came to the Lord, my heart was sprinkled clean by His blood, so I don't see how that conflicts with anything I have said.

I did not claim that no one has unconfessed sin as you assume. Rather, I meant that if one is harboring known sin in one's life and refuses to confess one's sin, there is no assurance of salvation. You have not addressed the question of unrepented sin. I maintain that known habitual sin in a believer's life that is not repented of may result in loss of salvation.

Yeah that is some really sloppy theology where salvatoin is concerned. The Bible says nothing about harboring known sin as resulting in the loss of salvation. Assurance of salvation is not based on me confessing sin. If it did, confession is a work and we are not saved by works. Salvation is not dependent on me doing or not doing anything. Salvation is Jesus plus nothing else. If you say otherwise you are promoting a false gospel and are under a curse, per Galatians 1. Your position makes salvation conditional on some aspect of human behavior and as such denies the sufficiency of Christ.

[Elhanan]

The sin is not forgiven, but the believer will still go to heaven. If you commit any sin and die five seconds later and thus failed to seek forgiveness for it, it doesn't mean that you will go to hell. For a Christian, failing to repent of sin has a lot of negative consequences, but losing salvation is not one of them.

You have said that future sins are not automatically forgiven as forgiveness must still be appropriated. Yet when one someone commits the sin of suicide obviously there is no opportunity to seek forgiveness since the person who commits this sin is already dead. How is it possible to seek forgiveness after a person has killed themself? You cannot have it both ways. Since you obviously feel that losing your salvation is not possible, then in order to be consistent in your view, you or any other saint would not have any problem accepting the mark of the beast would you? After all, once saved always saved, correct?

There is no confusion on my part at all. The point I was making is that because God requires 100% sinlessness, and we cannot live 100% sinless, there is no hope for us apart from a redeemer. Jesus came and lived a sinless life which is why He was, in part, qualified to be our Redeemer.

Can you show me in all of Scripture where it states that “God requires 100% sinlessness” on our part as you so assert? I don't recall coming across any scriptures which support your assertion.

I was responding to the point that our sin has an affect on us but the point was that sin affects our fellowship with God, our spiritual growth, etc. I was making the point that if our sin affected the security of our salvation, then there is not one of us who would ever remained saved beyond a few hours. We mess up a lot; probably more than we generally like to admit. I was addressing the clear indication that sin causes us to lose salvation. The blood of Jesus on the cross and the death of Jesus on the cross are eternal. I am secure in my salvation because of an unbreakable blood covenant that was cut in the preciuos and sinless blood of my Redeemer, Jesus. I don't add anything to that. I don't work to maintain my salvation. Jesus is my all sufficient sustainer. It is not a case of Jesus being my Redeemer 2000 years ago. He is still my Redeemer today.

As I have said before that your contention that if our sins affected the security of our salvation, then none of us would remain saved beyond is a red herring or false proposition because no one is making such an exaggerated claim. When we sin, we repent and ask God to forgive us – simple as that. However, if we continue to habitually indulge in known sin at a certain point it becomes questionable whether we have really repented since our rebellious actions do not reflect any repentance on our part. Scripture contains various warnings such as Phil 2:12 and other verses that admonish or encourage believers to remain attached to the vine and to finish the race and fight the good fight. Is a lifestyle of obedience required or is that simply an option in the Christian's life. What about Christians who are knowingly and habitually disobedient? No loss of salvation for them either according to your view because what we do or don't do doesn't matter since Christ has it all paid for. I believe your view is antithetical to the plain reading of scripture. Heb 5:9- “And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” This verse makes it clear that contrary to your opinion, obedience and salvation are indeed inextricably linked. Eternal salvation is only promised to those who choose to be obedient; no such assurance of salvation is given to those who choose disobedience.

It's not bad hermeneutics at all. It's the truth. Without Jesus, one sin is all it takes. On his own, man cannot maintain a right relationship with God. 1 Jn 1:9 is not for God's benefit. God's justice was perfectly and fully satisfied at the cross. So God doesn't need us to confess in order to satisfy Him. Confession of sin is for the cleansing of our conscience to keep us from coming under condemnation. Confession of sin allows us to appropriate the blood of Jesus prevents the enemy from using our sin to paralyze our walk with God. Satan cannot bring up our past when it has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

Again would you care to offer up any scriptures that support your opinion? You have already stated that forgiveness must be appropriated when one sins – enlighten me on just how God's forgiveness is appropriated absent confession and repentance? Your claim that one does not need to confess is wholly unsupported by Scripture.

You don’t understand. Jesus is considered the “mediator” because on man’s behalf He satsified the claims of God upon man. He sastisfied God’s justice on man’s behalf. He is not mediating a covenant between God and man. He was man’s federal head on the cross, just as Adam was man’s federal head in the Garden, hence Jesus is called the last Adam in I Corinthians 15. It appears that you misunderstand in what sense Jesus is a mediator. The New Covenant is NEVER once in Scripture depicted as being between God and man. If you read vv. 16-17 of Hebrews 9 it points to the fact that Jesus’ death was what was necessary to set the New Covenant in motion. It was not cut in the blood of sinful men. It was the Father making covenant with in Jesus Christ. God the Father and God the Son made covenant together and Jesus too the place of mankind. The New Covenant can’t be broken because the only two parties were Jesus and the Father. Man is NEVER said in the New Testament to be in covenant with God and the Scripture you provided doesn’t demonstrate your point.

You persist in making up definitions to fit your theology. Can you show me where the Bible says God and Jesus are the sole parties to the New Covenant as you suggest? Of course Jesus' death set the covenant in motion – that is precisely what a mediator does; he brings both parties together – he is the mediator between God and man. Heb 9:24 states that Christ's sacrifice was made on our behalf. The covenant agreement was well known throughout history as a “suzerain/vassal” pact. In order to establish a covenant, the greater person, known as the suzerain—our heavenly Father in this case—initiates and specifies the particular conditions of the covenant He is making with the lesser person, in this case, an individual or people group. The Suzerain/vassal covenant is conditional in nature. It can be broken if one of the parties fails to fulfill their part of the terms of the covenant. God’s Word testifies that our Father will never fail to uphold His part of the Covenant. But as sin-tempted human beings, we are capable of breaking the covenant terms through our willful disobedience. This is why throughout the Bible you find so many "ifs" in passages referring to man's responsibility for obedience to God and His commands:

“Now if you obey Me fully and keep My covenant, then out of all nations you will be My treasured possession” (Exodus 19:5).

“If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep His covenant of love with you, as He swore to your forefathers” (Deuteronomy 7:12).

“If you love Me, [then] you will obey what I command” (John 14:15);

“If you obey My commands, [then] you will remain in My love, just as I have obeyed My Father’s commands and remain in His love” (John 15:10);

The Abrahamic Covenant is Genesis 15, not Genesis 17. The covenant of Circumcision is different.

Of course the covenant of circumcision is different – it contained the stipulation that Abraham and his descendants be circumcised. I will copy and paste what I already wrote: “Even if one considers the requirement of circumcision to be part of the original covenant or a separate covenant, it's irrelevant as Abraham and his offspring were/are required as part of this covenant to be circumcised. Therefore to say that the New Covenant is typical of the covenants(s) God made with Abraham containing no stipulations which can lead to breaking the covenant is without merit.

No, out of fellowship is not the same as apostasy. You are trying awfully hard to redefine terms to suit your bad theology. Being out of fellowship doesn't indicate that a person has rejected the Lord. In fact, a true Christian won't apostasize. There are a lot of people with religion out there who masquarade as Christians, but they usually end up worse off than they were at the first. There are a lot of "cultural Christians" who live in a form of Christianity that doesn't have Christ in it. Genuine followers of Jesus don't reject the Lord. They may have dry wilderness periods in their lives, but they don't ultimately reject Christ.

Eternal security adherents are fond of claiming that “Christians” weren't believers in the first place. That is true in some cases - but not all. The fact is apostatizing by definition means to fall away, abandon or forsake a previously held faith or belief. Therefore how can someone fall away from something that they had no allegiance to in the first place? By simple logical definition only a true Christian can apostatize.

The believer's heart was already cleansed when they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. That has already been dealt with once and for all time. The confession of sin by a believer is not a recleansing of the heart, but a means of keeping us out of condemnation. It is the cleansing away of all those things that hinder fellowship with the Lord. If it were the cleansing of the heart, it would entail having to be re-saved every time we sin. Heb. 10:22 is the result of salvation, not of a constant confession of sin. When I came to the Lord, my heart was sprinkled clean by His blood, so I don't see how that conflicts with anything I have said.

The New Testament affirms that the Covenant our Father offers us through Jesus can be broken—and the consequences are dire:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, IF they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace” (Hebrews 6:4-6).

Yeah that is some really sloppy theology where salvatoin is concerned. The Bible says nothing about harboring known sin as resulting in the loss of salvation. Assurance of salvation is not based on me confessing sin. If it did, confession is a work and we are not saved by works. Salvation is not dependent on me doing or not doing anything. Salvation is Jesus plus nothing else. If you say otherwise you are promoting a false gospel and are under a curse, per Galatians 1. Your position makes salvation conditional on some aspect of human behavior and as such denies the sufficiency of Christ.

As I already pointed out, obedience is required but I suppose obedience unto the Lord makes for sloppy theology according to your opinion. I suppose harboring unforgiveness poses no problem for you either. Matt 6:14-15 states “ For IF you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but IF you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” This verse is conditional in nature and plainly states that God's forgiveness is predicated upon us not harboring unforgiveness toward others. But that poses no problem for you since you have already stated that not having God's forgiveness does not preclude a person from being saved. I would not be so quick to accuse me of promoting a false gospel when the very heart of the gospel involves forgiveness and reconciling man to God through Christ.

Edited May 21, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< Formatting... >

[*Zion*]

Okay, let's take a look at how the Lord Jesus preached the gospel:

Matthew 4:17

From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Why must we repent? Well God had already said beforehand:

Isaiah 59:1-2

59 Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened,

That it cannot save;

Nor His ear heavy,

That it cannot hear.

² But your iniquities have separated you from your God;

And your sins have hidden His face from you,

So that He will not hear.

I think the core issue here is the level of repentance. How much we see sin as God sees it: as actual sin. How much we despise it and turn away from it. I used to be a very critical and judgemental person, pointing fingers and blaming all the time. I didn't realise it, but I was enjoying it. It made me feel like I was better than everyone else, as I wasn't concentrating on my own flaws, but just everyone else's. But then I read in God's Word about judgement and condemnation, and although a part of me still wanted to be puffed up in the flesh by it, I repented and laid it aside. This didn't just happen in one day. I had to continue to make this decision, because I kept slipping up; but as God dealt with my sin, so I let it go, and then I was able to see what He wanted to show me (I wasn't paying attention before - too busy criticizing) how damaging it can be, and how painful it was. I was using it as a shield against my own hurt, not thinking how I was hurting others all the more. Now, all I want to do is encourage others, and that in itself encourages me. I have seen my sin for what it is, and have allowed to work on it. God still wants to work on the rest of me, and as long as we submit every area of our beings and lives to Him and fulfill that obedience, our repentance will bear good fruit.

Be encouraged: repent!!! The only time you don't have to is when you're perfect!

[Guest shiloh357]

You have said that future sins are not automatically forgiven as forgiveness must still be appropriated. Yet when one someone commits the sin of suicide obviously there is no opportunity to seek forgiveness since the person who commits this sin is already dead. How is it possible to seek forgiveness after a person has killed themself? You cannot have it both ways. Since you obviously feel that losing your salvation is not possible, then in order to be consistent in your view, you or any other saint would not have any problem accepting the mark of the beast would you? After all, once saved always saved, correct?

Uh, I didn’t say anything about a person seeking forgiveness for the sin of suicide. I think you are trying to refute an argument I didn’t raise. My point is that if a believer commits a sin and dies without repenting or asking for forgiveness, they will not go to hell.

As for the mark of the beast… I don’t think a genuine Christian would take the mark of the beast. Furthermore, you are misrepresenting the doctrine of Eternal Security. This doctrine isn’t about a believer being able to sin as much as they want without consequence. The doctrine assumes that one is a genuine believer. Eternal Security is about the faithfulness of God. I am eternally secure because is faithful and isn’t going to change His mind about salvation tomorrow and decide to rescind His offer of eternal life. In addition, because God is faithful, He isn’t going to toss us aside when we fail. God is a lot more gracious than we generally give Him credit for being. God has plenty of ways of dealing with us and setting us back on the right track and rescinding salvation is not one of them.

Salvation is not as simple as God having a ledger with unbelievers on the left column and Christians on the right. It isn’t like we are simply moved from one side of the ledger to the other when we get saved. Salvation is an inner transformation of the heart that is made completely new with a new set of desires, not the least of which is a desire to serve the Lord. We may stumble in a sincere attempt to serve the Lord, but we have His grace to pick us back up. There are times of discipline, which are not pleasant, but His discipline is designed to sharpen us, to help us grow. God is slow to anger and rich in mercy toward us and His “program” if you will, is to restore us back to Himself. He isn’t interested in dooming people to hell. He is not like humans who have short tempers and hair trigger reactions to our shortcomings and failures. God wants us. He really does love us and losing us is not something He desires. It is sinful carnality of human flesh that says, “You messed up; now you will go to hell.”

Can you show me in all of Scripture where it states that “God requires 100% sinlessness” on our part as you so assert? I don't recall coming across any scriptures which support your assertion.

God is holy. His holiness is absolute with no trace of sin whatsoever and we are commanded to be holy as He is holy

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:14-16)

Jesus commanded to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48) The word for “perfect” in the Greek is “telos” which means goal or end. Jesus is setting before us the goal of becoming like our heavenly Father. God is the standard we are commanded to strive for. We are not to measure ourselves against others or against some unrealistic standard we have contrived in our own minds. God’s holy perfection is the goal Jesus sets before us.

God is holy and just in an absolute way. There is not one speck of imperfection or sin in Him. And yet we called to be holy and perfect, as He is. That’s a big problem for us. And that’s where Jesus comes in. God’s grace doesn’t mean that God lowers His standards or compromises His holiness to accommodate our weakness. Rather, it is through Jesus living in us in the Person of the Holy Spirit who meets God’s standard. Rom. 8:4 teaches that the righteousness of God is being fulfilled within us who walk after the Spirit. So for those of us who are genuine followers of Jesus, the standard of perfection needed is met within us. I cannot, in my own power be holy as God is holy, but Jesus can do that in me. I cannot achieve God’s standard of perfection, but Jesus can, because Jesus is God. The Christian life is not about me trying to live it out in my own strength. Rather it is about me relying on God to do through me what He commands of me. It is about me surrendering to His will and letting Him live out His life through me. One thing I have learned is that the height of God’s commandments are balanced by the depths of His grace. With God, every commandment is accompanied by the divine power to see it through to completion.

As I have said before that your contention that if our sins affected the security of our salvation, then none of us would remain saved beyond is a red herring or false proposition because no one is making such an exaggerated claim.

I am not attributing that claim to anyone. My point was that our sins as believers don’t affect the security of our salvation

When we sin, we repent and ask God to forgive us – simple as that. However, if we continue to habitually indulge in known sin at a certain point it becomes questionable whether we have really repented since our rebellious actions do not reflect any repentance on our part. Scripture contains various warnings such as Phil 2:12 and other verses that admonish or encourage believers to remain attached to the vine and to finish the race and fight the good fight. Is a lifestyle of obedience required or is that simply an option in the Christian's life. What about Christians who are knowingly and habitually disobedient? No loss of salvation for them either according to your view because what we do or don't do doesn't matter since Christ has it all paid for.

Which is a mirepresentation of what I have said. I never said that what we do or don’t do doesn’t matter. I said that our salvation is not secure or lost based on what we do or don’t do. I also said that our sins negatively affect our fellowship and walk with the Lord. Sin has built in consequences and those consequences can be very devestating. So to claim I said our works don’t matter demonstrates that you are not framing my position correctly at all.

Phil. 2:12 is not a warning. It is an exhortation to “work out our salvation.” “Work out” doesn’t mean, “work for.” It means to live out, to put on display. We are to exhibit our salvation before the world. We are to live it out in front of them. We do so with godly fear and trembling, but not in fear that we are living on the edge of a knife as if we could lose salvation at any moment. Salvation is not a reward for obedience. It is free gift (Rom. 6:23.) Our obedience is or should be an act of gratitude. It is the fruit of our salvation, not the condition for being or remaining saved. If you are obeying in order to procure or maintain salvation, you are not an authentic follower of Jesus. You are trusting in works, not grace.

I believe your view is antithetical to the plain reading of scripture. Heb 5:9- “And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” This verse makes it clear that contrary to your opinion, obedience and salvation are indeed inextricably linked. Eternal salvation is only promised to those who choose to be obedient; no such assurance of salvation is given to those who choose disobedience.

Genuine followers don’t choose disoedience in the first place. We may stumble in our walk, but we are living in disoebedience and nothing I have said contradicts Hebrews 5:9. The problem here is with your continued mispresentation of my comments. It seems you are reading into my words what you want them to mean. You erect strawmen just to have something to knock down.

Again would you care to offer up any scriptures that support your opinion? You have already stated that forgiveness must be appropriated when one sins – enlighten me on just how God's forgiveness is appropriated absent confession and repentance? Your claim that one does not need to confess is wholly unsupported by Scripture.

I never said that God’s forgiveness was appropriated absent confession. I never said we don’t need to confess our sins to God.

What I said that confession of sin AFTER salvation is not for the purpose of satisfying God’s justice. God’s justice was satisfied by Jesus on the cross. There is nothing that confession of sin can do for us in that regard that Jesus hasn’t already done. Confession of sin is something we should do because it prevents us from coming under condemnation. If I am confessing my sin because I am afraid that I must do so to stay saved, then I am trusting in something I must do, rather than trusting wholly in Jesus.

You persist in making up definitions to fit your theology. Can you show me where the Bible says God and Jesus are the sole parties to the New Covenant as you suggest? Of course Jesus' death set the covenant in motion – that is precisely what a mediator does; he brings both parties together – he is the mediator between God and man. Heb 9:24 states that Christ's sacrifice was made on our behalf. The covenant agreement was well known throughout history as a “suzerain/vassal” pact. In order to establish a covenant, the greater person, known as the suzerain—our heavenly Father in this case—initiates and specifies the particular conditions of the covenant He is making with the lesser person, in this case, an individual or people group. The Suzerain/vassal covenant is conditional in nature. It can be broken if one of the parties fails to fulfill their part of the terms of the covenant. God’s Word testifies that our Father will never fail to uphold His part of the Covenant. But as sin-tempted human beings, we are capable of breaking the covenant terms through our willful disobedience. This is why throughout the Bible you find so many "ifs" in passages referring to man's responsibility for obedience to God and His commands:

Where is man mentioned as a party with God in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is not patterned after the suzerain treaty, so you can forget about that. The New Covenant is a blood covenant between two representatives, two individuals. The New Covenant is typified by the Abrahamic Covenant where God alone walked between the halves in the middle of the blood. The covenant made in Genesis 15 is the model for the New Covnenant. The fact that Jesus suffered alone and did so on our behalf and that only His blood was shed for our sins demonstrates that we are not in any way, guarantors of this covenant. Man had already proven that He was incapable of being in covenant with God, hence the need for a new and better covenant.

Jesus is the one upholding what would have been OUR end of the covenant. Jesus work on the cross is eternal and He not only died but was raised again to enforce the terms of the covenant. He is keeping our end of this. Jesus and the Father are the only ones maintaining this covenant. Only arrogance and vanity would assume that man is capable of being an equal member of a blood covenant with a sinless and holy God. Your blood was not shed, you are nont saved or justified by anything you do. You can do nothing to secure or maintain this covenant. No one is good enough to be in covenant with God. This is proven over and over again.

Of course the covenant of circumcision is different – it contained the stipulation that Abraham and his descendants be circumcised. I will copy and paste what I already wrote: “Even if one considers the requirement of circumcision to be part of the original covenant or a separate covenant, it's irrelevant as Abraham and his offspring were/are required as part of this covenant to be circumcised. Therefore to say that the New Covenant is typical of the covenants(s) God made with Abraham containing no stipulations which can lead to breaking the covenant is without merit.

Ah, but you are subtley misrepresenting me again. I did not say that the New Covnenant was typified by the “covenants” God made with Abraham. I was referencing only ONE covenant. I referencing Genesis 15 only and I made that clear. You are trying to make it appear that I was talking about any other covenant that God made with Abraham and that is an intentional and dishonest tactic on your part. You need to stop twisting my words to mean something I didn’t intend. It is getting really old

Eternal security adherents are fond of claiming that “Christians” weren't believers in the first place. That is true in some cases - but not all. The fact is apostatizing by definition means to fall away, abandon or forsake a previously held faith or belief. Therefore how can someone fall away from something that they had no allegiance to in the first place? By simple logical definition only a true Christian can apostatize.

No, it is true in all cases. Genuine followers of Jesus don’t apostasize. They may go through bad times in their lives and even be angry at God during seasons of discouragement but they never ultimately apostasize. Peter, in II Peter chapter two, talks about dogs who return to their vomit and pigs who return to the mud pit. He is illustrating those who lived within the framework of the Christian lifestyle, but end up returning to their former sinful ways because they were changed. A dog returns to His vomit because that is what a dog does. Sinners return to their sin because that is what sinners do. That they return to their sinful lifestyle proves that they were never transformed, they were never the new creations they were meant to become.

The New Testament affirms that the Covenant our Father offers us through Jesus can be broken—and the consequences are dire:

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, IF they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace” (Hebrews 6:4-6).

You need to read the verses that precede that passage all the way back to chapter five because they form part of a single line of thought with the first six verses of chapter six:

About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 5:11-6:6)

The complaint being leveled by the writer of Hebrews has nothing to do with apostasy. If you follow the line of thought from the last four verses of chapter five through to Heb. 6:6, the complaint is that they are stagnate and spiritually immature. He is not accusing them of apostasy, but of laziness. The phrase, “falling away” in verse 6 of chapter six is not the word for apostasy. It means to fall aside. It is talking about believers who fail to keep pressing on, but deviate from the path. Christians do that all of the time. They get caught up in worldly cares and their prayer life suffers, they don’t read their Bible, they allow themselves to get out of fellowship with other believers, they let their careers take over and suddenly they only attend church sporadically at best. That is what is being pictured in that word.

The writer of Hebrews in the first part of chapter six is telling them, “We can’t keep camping out on these elementary teachings. We need to move on. We can’t keep laying the same foundation over and over and over. We can’t keep going back over what you should have learned back when you were a new believer. It’s not like we can renew you to repentance over and over. The only way we could renew you to repentance would be for Christ to keep coming back and being re-crucified. So it is time to move on.”

Continued on next post

[Guest shiloh357]

As I already pointed out, obedience is required but I suppose obedience unto the Lord makes for sloppy theology according to your opinion. I suppose harboring unforgiveness poses no problem for you either. Matt 6:14-15 states “ For IF you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but IF you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” This verse is conditional in nature and plainly states that God's forgiveness is predicated upon us not harboring unforgiveness toward others. But that poses no problem for you since you have already stated that not having God's forgiveness does not preclude a person from being saved. I would not be so quick to accuse me of promoting a false gospel when the very heart of the gospel involves forgiveness and reconciling man to God through Christ.

You are trying to have a debate with me over stuff I never said. Furthermore you are assigning values to me that I never expressed. I have never spoken against obedience at all. I am simply keeping it in its proper place as the fruit of genuine salvation, and not a religious act. The sloppy theology exists in making obedience a condition for remaining saved. I never said that not having God’s forgiveness doesn’t preclude a person from being saved. The minute you are saved, you are forgiven. I said that if you sinned and died before confessing that sin that it doesn’t keep you out of heaven.

We are not to harbor unforgiveness, because we hinder God being able to forgive us. When we harbor unforgiveness, it damages our walk with God. It puts us out of fellowship with Him. It doesn’t keep us out of heaven, but it will affect the degree of our reward when our works are tried by fire at the judgment seat of Christ.

[Elhanan]

Shiloh357 - It's obvious you and I interpret things differently. You are sincere in your beliefs and so am I but as they say we could be sincerely wrong, therefore room for grace is extended. I have not attempted to mischaracterize your argument in any way. If you feel I did, then I apologize. I can only go by the words you write and have to tried to interpret what you are trying to put forth. That's why I have continued to ask for scriptural substantiation for your arguments but have rec'd little. If we had a face to face discussion I'm sure communication would be easier and clarification more forthcoming but that is the nature/limitation of online forums.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - It's obvious you and I interpret things differently. You are sincere in your beliefs and so am I but as they say we could be sincerely wrong, therefore room for grace is extended. I have not attempted to mischaracterize your argument in any way. If you feel I did, then I apologize. I can only go by the words you write and have to tried to interpret what you are trying to put forth. That's why I have continued to ask for scriptural substantiation for your arguments but have rec'd little. If we had a face to face discussion I'm sure communication would be easier and clarification more forthcoming but that is the nature/limitation of online forums.

Yes, I think we are at an impass and yes, I feel you have failed to correctly frame my postions in your responses, albeit not from a malicious motive, but because you read into my words what you wanted. It's easy to do. You accused me saying things I didn't say or even imply. I think it was less about interpreting my words and more about assigning values to me in order for you to have something to debate about. You were trying to debate about arguments I didn't raise. I repeatedly sought to clarify what I said and correct your misstatements about my position. I provided plenty of Scripture everytime it was asked for, but then instead of engaging what Scripture I provided, you ignored all of it and now pretend that I provided nothing. In addition to providing Scripture, I also addressed the Scripture YOU raised and corrected your misinterpretations. So I dealt with the Scriptural issue rather handily even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.

In the end, I believe the Bible and I am sorry that you reject the plain statements of Scripture in deference for some rather peculiar and bizzare approaches to the text.

[GoldenEagle]

Well, I must say that this has been an interesting read.

[Elhanan]

Shiloh357 - It's obvious you and I interpret things differently. You are sincere in your beliefs and so am I but as they say we could be sincerely wrong, therefore room for grace is extended. I have not attempted to mischaracterize your argument in any way. If you feel I did, then I apologize. I can only go by the words you write and have to tried to interpret what you are trying to put forth. That's why I have continued to ask for scriptural substantiation for your arguments but have rec'd little. If we had a face to face discussion I'm sure communication would be easier and clarification more forthcoming but that is the nature/limitation of online forums.

Yes, I think we are at an impass and yes, I feel you have failed to correctly frame my postions in your responses, albeit not from a malicious motive, but because you read into my words what you wanted. It's easy to do. You accused me saying things I didn't say or even imply. I think it was less about interpreting my words and more about assigning values to me in order for you to have something to debate about. You were trying to debate about arguments I didn't raise. I repeatedly sought to clarify what I said and correct your misstatements about my position. I provided plenty of Scripture everytime it was asked for, but then instead of engaging what Scripture I provided, you ignored all of it and now pretend that I provided nothing. In addition to providing Scripture, I also addressed the Scripture YOU raised and corrected your misinterpretations. So I dealt with the Scriptural issue rather handily even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.

In the end, I believe the Bible and I am sorry that you reject the plain statements of Scripture in deference for some rather peculiar and bizzare approaches to the text.

Spare me the diatribe shiloh357. Can you not respond gracefully especially since you are so keen on espousing that God's grace covers all. Contrary to your self-assessment, I think you have not adequately laid out your position - neither scripturally or logically. I shouldn't have to ask you to provide scriptures to substantiate your argument – you should provide them at the outset so I and others don't have to guess or attempt to interpret what you mean. You make general statements and I am supposed to take your word for it? I'd like to believe that you are not ignorant of the fact that theologians and different denominations have had differences of opinion over these exact same issues for ages. Therefore civil discourse is possible but instead you resort to accusing me of being under a curse for promoting a false gospel, having sloppy theology and having peculiar and bizarre approaches to the text. If so, I guess I am in plenty of good company as many other Christians believe as I do. You say you believe in accepting the plain reading of Scripture? So do I, and I won't spend my time responding to your opinions anymore however I will leave you with this scripture since you believe that converts to the faith can never fall away and are safely kept from God's condemnation as you so claim. “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil” (1 Tim 3:6).

Edited May 22, 2013 by Elhanan