For Those Who Fear They've Committed The Unpardonable Sin

[Guest Butero]

BUTEROYou are saying you can't go an hour without committing sin. That to me is bondage.

TINKYIt's a fact of every Christian's life. Until we go to glory, we will struggle with our old nature.

BUTEROYou asked me a question about how many times I have been saved and lost and re-saved? Since I first became a Christian over 30 years ago, I have no way of answering that question.

TINKY I have confidence to say, I was saved once. And that's enough. The work of the cross is finished.

BUTERO You can have all the confidence in the world, but that doesn't make what you believe true. I believe that if you committed willful sins after you got saved, you were lost, until you repented. Based on what you have said about your life, I suspect you have been saved and lost and re-saved many times over, but just don't accept it.

That is an interesting question to me, because I have often wondered why Jesus would die on a cross at all? Remember that God himself set the rules. He made the system whereby it would require his own Son suffer and die to redeem us. Why do that in the first place?

TINKY It's because God is Holy, Butero. And since He is Holy, His standard for anyone to get into His heaven is perfection. Sinless perfection in thought, word, and deed. If you commit even one sin, you are disqualified. God's punishment for sin is death. And the reason why sin warrants the death penalty, is because sin is so offensive to a Holy and righteous God. It is so heinous, His eyes cannot even look upon it.

That's why Jesus had to come and die in our place. He is our advocate. The perfect sacrifice. The Lamb of God without spot or blemish. That's why His shed blood is so precious. It is the blood of the Holy living God, and it has the power to cover the sins of the whole world.

BUTERO I understand the theological position you described, and it is true. I mean, God could have avoided all of this by simply making the decision not to put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, and by keeping the serpent out of the garden. I don't believe that he was unaware of what happened, and that Adam's sin caught him off guard.

BTW, Jesus said, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15:14. That is conditional.

TINKYAnd what is commanded? To repent and have faith. Not a laundry list of rules. The Law was nailed to the cross. It's only purpose was to drive us there. The Law was given to prove that we are incapable of keeping it. To show once and for all that we cannot be good enough to earn redemption. To reveal that our only option for salvation is complete surrender to Christ and His finished work at Calvary.

BUTERO That is not true Tinky. Just go to the sermon on the mount. He commanded us to do a lot of things. We were told not to take oaths. We were told not to call out brother a fool. We were told how to pray. We were told not to divorce and re-marry unless fornication is involved. In that one sermon, there are many commandments from the Lord. He said we must do whatsoever he commands us, and that is a lot.

TINKY What kind of salvation offer would allow us to bounce back and forth between the devil and Jesus?

BUTERO This is a good question too. In reality, that doesn't happen. Let me explain. God knew our beginning and ending before we were created in the womb, just as he knew Jeremiah before he was created in the womb. God knew who were the real children of God and who were the real children of the devil from the start. We don't have that knowledge. He knew what seed would fall on good ground, and would remain, and what seed would fail to endure because it didn't fall on good ground. With God, nobody is going back and forth, because our destiny has been set.

TINKYButero, if you lose your salvation with a single willful sin, as you advocate, you lose all privileges associated with salvation - including God adopting you as His child into His family. Thus, you would automatically go back to being a child of the devil, until you repented and got saved again. Because, as you believe, if a saved person dies just after they commit a willful sin, they are cast straight into hell, as you affirmed in the following quote:

BUTERO I did say that, but I said it had to be a "willful" sin. I don't accept Shiloh's assertion that all sins are willful.

TINKY Can you actually accept a scenario where a person could be saved, but just before they suffer a fatal accident and die (such as being struck by a car) they commit a single sin and are thus cast into hell?

BUTERO If it is a wilful sin, yes.

I stand by that statement, but I didn't say every sin. I said it has to be a willful sin. It has to be pre-meditated.

Based on that standard, anyone that claims they got saved as a result of praying a sinner's prayer shares in God's glory, because it was an act on their part that saved them.

TINKYNo, Butero. It's not an "act" that saves a person when they repent, because the saving part isn't coming from their own power. It comes directly from God. Even the very desire for salvation is a gift from Him.

It's like if you were in an accident and rushed to the hospital. You saying to the doctor, "please, help me" doesn't make you healed - it's the actions of the doctor that gets you fixed up

BUTERO Thank you Tinky. I can think we can find some agreement here. It is God that gives you the desire to get saved. If he didn't do that, you wouldn't accept Jesus, which is why I have said all along that if you are saved, it is because God chose you. You didn't really choose God. If you chose God, you do have a hand in your own salvation.

TINKYWell Tinky, I am not going to play the gotcha game with you as some have with me

It's not a "game" Butero. I simply pointed out an inconsistency on your part when you said nobody who continues to sin is actually a Christian, and you said earlier that you are not claiming a sinless life for yourself.

BUTERO I wasn't referring to you as the one playing the gotcha game. I was speaking of the person who kept refusing to accept when I told them I meant one thing, even when it appeared I meant something else. You weren't the one doing that. BTW, I am sorry if this post comes out kind of messy looking. I can't get it to post correctly. I am not sure if the problem is with my computer or WB, but this is the best I could do for now.

[Guest Butero]

The sins that are not under the blood covering are wilful sins.

ALL sin is under the blood.nf

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us ALL our sins." (Colossians 2:13)

All means every single one, Butero

He did forgive us all tresspasses when we came to him as a sinner, but that has nothing to do with what we do after we are initially saved.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Heb 10:26

What that means is that the initial blood covering isn't automatically applied to wilful transgessions you commit after that salvation experience. You are lost again, and the only way to be saved is to confess those sins and repent. The idea that when you get saved, all past, present and future wilful sins are under the blood is not Biblical. It is a false doctrine that Satan has been peddling, and sadly, a lot of people are going to wind up in hell because they believe it.

It doesn't mean that at all. It means that if we remain inpenitent and continue to deliberately remain living in sin, there is no sacrifice available. Read the context. You are mistaken. The blood of Jesus covers ALL sin.

And what exactly am I supposed to say in response to a comment like that? You know I don't agree with you, so all I can say is that you are mistaken.

Or you could show me where I am wrong in my assessment of the grammatical structure of Heb. 10:26. How about that?

You are the one who told me I was wrong. I am under no obligation to show you were wrong. As you like to say, the burden of proof is on you.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

It is plain for anyone to see that the word wilfully is the manner in which the person sins. It is a pre-meditated offense.

I have already provided the proof. Anyone on the boards with any basic grammar skills will agree that the word "sin" is being used as a verb and not as a noun. Even you should be able to see that. You feel no obligation to show me where my assertion is wrong because you have grounds to do so. You can't show me where it is wrong, because it isn't wrong. "willfully is used as an adverb and that is as true as 2+2=4. You can't deny so you pretend that you can keep telling me it is wrong with no obligation to explain why it is wrong. That is just you protecting your pride because my handling of the grammar demonstrates the falsitity of your assertions about "wililful sins."

First of all, I was looking into taking on-line courses towards a degree, and I scored a 95 on the English portion, so I think I understand the proper way to interpret the text. Then we come back to your usual style of rebuttle. There is more disagreement, along with accusations. Now it is that I am prideful. How do I respond to that? By saying that you are once again mistaken. You know so little about the book of Hebrews, you think it was written to unbelievers, and at the same time, you claim I am taking the verse in question wrong. I stand by my interpretation as the correct one.

Okay so show me where my explanation of how verbs and adverbs is wrong. Your interpretation depends on there being a kind of sin called "willful sins." My point has been that it is a needless category because all sins are willfu. To create a special category called "willful sins" is superfluous. It is unnecessary because all sins are acts of opren rebellion against God. You can't rebel on accident. .

The difference between us is that I can take you to the text and show you why your are mistaken. All you can do is deny everything I said, but you can't show me why I am wrong in how I handle the text. You cannot show me why my assertions about verbs and adverbs in the text are wrong. You can deny and stonewall, but you can't form an actual argument. The fact is it is talking about sinning, not sin. It is using sin as a verb not a noun. If it was using it as a noun, you could make the case about "willful sins." But as it is, the text clearly does not speak of a special kind of "wilful sin."

Yes I can Shiloh. It would be like this. I have a son, and I say that he is a willful child. That means he by nature willful. Being that way is just part of who he is. In another instance, I say that my son willfully disobeyed me when I told him to take out the trash. The word willfully describes a single action where my son disobeyed my orders. If the text said, "if we are a willful sinner," rather than saying, "if we sin willfully" it would support your position, because it would mean we are by nature still a sinner. By saying, "If we sin willfully," you are speaking of a single action. When I say, "my son is willful," that means he is a rebellious child. If I simply say, "he willfully disobeyed me," it can be a single action. Those are not under the initial blood covering. You can't sin "willfully," if there is no such thing as a "willful" sin. In the OT, it spoke of doing something "presumptuously." That would mean a single willful sin. I am referring to a passage in Numbers 15:22-31. It speaks of sins done by ignorance as opposed to those done presumptuously. There was a possible atonement for those done through ignorance, but those done presumptuously would lead to the offender being cut off from Israel. BTW, my computer wouldn't let me separate this into 2 paragraphs. I know it should be separated. A gremlin is gumming up the works tonight.

[Guest Butero]

BTW, why isn't everyone saved, if that scripture means what you say it does? Is God incapable of making his will come to pass? God is using our struggles to show the difference between good and evil, and that his ways are the right ways. What is taking place is a testimony to his whole creation that righteousness is superior to unrighteousness.

God has a perfect will and a permissive will. He allows things to happen that He hates. God’s perfect will is that no one should commit murder, but He allows murder to happen. God’s perfect will is that all should come to repentance, but His permissive will allows people to reject His offer of salvation.

Love, by nature, doesn’t force itself on others. Love is meaningless if there is no choice involved. The value of love is that it is given freely without coersion. When someone has a choice and they could have picked anyone else, but they chose you, that is when love shines the brightest. God could have created a bunch of automotons if He that’s what He wanted, but He chose to create us with the ability to choose to love Him.

I have heard ministers speak of this "permissive will of God," but that is not found in scripture. It is a man made doctrine, and is completey false.

It is demonstrated in Scripture over and over. God allows a lot of things that He commands people not to do. What is unbiblical is your view that God promotes sin by wanting people to rape and murder, molest children, lie, steal, etc. Your view is that God's will is for people to disobey Him and that is really a very grave heresy.

And what am I supposed to say to a comment like that? You are mistaken. God created vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor.

LOL, that is referring to service. The point Paul was making is that it the potter that determines how he will use the clay to serve His purposes. A lump of clay can become an exquisite vase in Buckingham palace or it be formed into a common pitcher or bed pan. God calls some to higher demensions of service than He calls others to. It is God's right to use us as He wills. It is not Paul's point at all in the overall context, that God creates people to be murderers or rapists. You have left the realm of Scripture and entered the realm of false teaching.

To say that God promotes sin by creating people to be rapists and stuff is really down right heretical. It appears that you have taken the hypersoveriegnty position and it really has a lot of theological problems as you have so aptly demonstrated.

I haven't found any problems with my position. You can claim it is "leaving the realm of Scripture and entered into the realm of false teaching," and you can claim it "is down right heretical," and my reply will be that you are mistaken because you don't understand the scriptures, and the extent of God's control over his creation.

You don't think claiming that a 100% holy God who hates sin and commands us to be perfect as He is perfect (Matt. 5:48), who commands us to be holy as He is holy (I Pet. 1:15,16) is the same God who also wills for people to be raped and to commit murder, adultery, etc. is a problem?? You see absolutely no fundamental contradiction in that at all?? Really??

Why would God go to the trouble to tell us to be holy if in fact, every sin we commit is what He wanted to happen in the first place? The Bible doesn't tell us that God's control over creation extends to micro-managing every action, controlling every person to the extent that He even causes them to sin.

Where in the Bible, specfically did you find Scripture that caused you to arrive at the conclusion that:

• God creates people to destroy them
  
• God chooses people to go to hell
  
• God controls every action and thus every sin committed was according to God's will and that no one can do anything (including murder, rape, child molestation, etc) that God didn't want them to do.
  

Would you provide the Scriptures that led you to those beliefs?

There are so many, it is hard to know where to begin? Lets first go back to the OT. God ordered the children of Israel to kill every man, woman and child in certain instances. In others, he allowed them to save alive the virgins, but kill everyone else. When the people of Sodom and Gommorah sinned, he destroyed them with fire and brimstone. He destroyed the entire world with a flood, with the exception of Noah and his family. He sent plagues on Israel because of a sin David committed, in calling for a census. God specifically told Rebekkah all about the children she was carrying, and how the older would serve the younger. This was ordained of God, and he knew everything they would do when he created them. God sent a famine that was so terrible, people turned to cannibalism. God gave Joseph a dream about how his brothers and Father would all bow to him, and to make this happen, led his brothers to sell him into Egypt. God desired Israel go into Egypt for a period of time to grow into a mighty nation, and used a terrible famine to lead them there. To get the children of Israel to desire to leave Egypt, he raised up an evil Pharoah that killed the Hebrew children, and put them in bondage. God states in the law that he places the plague of leprosy on people's homes. In one instance, God had a prophet tell a future King how he would commit terrible atrocities against people. The thing about that is that God is the one that created that man, and knew what he was going to do all along, and could have stopped him anytime he wished. There are so many examples and so many instances in scripture that make it clear that God created everyone knowing what they would do, both good and bad, I don't even think this is debatable? God himself doesn't do the tempting, but he created the devil, knowing what he would do. God never tempted Job, but he let Satan tempt him, and even destroy his life. Yes, God restored Job, but he still let Satan destroy his family and take away his possessions. God uses people, the devil and evil spirits to do bad. In one place, a lying spirit is sent by God to tempt Ahab to go to battle in Ramoth-Gilead and be killed. I just started back through the Bible again, and I am sure I can find many more examples to add? God is in control of everything that happens. You can deny it all you want, but it is still true.

BTW Shiloh, I know you probably haven't heard anyone but unbelievers say things like this. The difference is that I am not angry at God, and am not attacking God. I fully accept the fact he is in control of his creation. I am but clay, and he is the potter. He can do anything he wants with his creation.

[Guest Butero]

I am going to respond to the portion of this that is actually dealing with something I didn't already address in another response, and that is more than you simply claiming I am wrong. Those kind of comments are of no value, because I will simply turn around and say you are wrong.

How can you expect anyone to believe you know what you are talking about when you say something so utterly ridiculous? Of course this letter was written to believers. You can see that throughout the text. In chapter 13:18, he asks them to pray for him. Would he make such a request of unsaved people? His instructions aren't that they get saved, but they are instructions of how to conduct themselves. He calls them brethren in chapter 13:22.

The book of Hebrews is written to Jews. It is not written to a particular church. There are no greetings to any congregation and there are no mentions of farewells at the end. It is addressed to Jews in general. The letter is anonymously written unlike letters to churches and the reference to "brethren" indicates tha the author is a Jew, himslef. This reads more like dissertation and draws heavily on the temple culture that Jews would have been intimately familiar with. That is not to say it wans't distributed to believers, but there is nothing it the text to indicate that the primary audience was intended to be Christians. That is written to Jews and distributed to those who were not bleievers in particular doesn't provide a problem at all. If there was ANY group you would want to read the book of Hebrews, it is unbelieving Jews.

It isn't addressed to a single church, but it is obvious it was written to Christians.

I happen to believe that Christ frees us from the bondage of sin. I don't believe we have to commit sin each and every day of our lives, at least not intentional sin.

But why would God free you from the bondage of sin, only to cause you to keep on sinning? Every sin you commit, according to you, is because God intended it. According to your views, nothing happens that God didn't want to happen. So every "willful sin" as you call it is really God's will. Why would God go to the trouble of telling you to be holy as He is holy but then cause you to sin??? I am interested in how you reconcile that.

That is simple Shiloh. Those who are freed from sin don't continue in willful sin. If you are continuing in willful sin, God never set you free. You don't like the notion of unintentional sins, but you allow for mistakes. I had a Pastor once that said he hadn't sinned since the 1950s when he got saved, but he had made mistakes. At the time, I didn't understand what he meant, but I think I do now? He meant he hadn't committed willful sins since that time, because God had broken he bondage of sin in his life. God can set you free where you won't continue to willfully violate God's laws. Imagine this? A married man is tempted by a beautiful woman to commit adultery. If you truly can't resist a willful sin, why find fault in him when he cheats on his wife? The reason we find fault is because we know he is capable of saying no. There is no reason for anyone to ever commit a willful sin.

And again, this is no differen't than saying I must maintain my American citizenship by not commiting a felony. It is not like I live in fear I might commit a felony, because I obey the laws of the land. For that reason, my citizenship is safe.

But you have repeatedly stated that one intentional sin and salvation is lost. You might not have committed a single "intentinoal sin" for the last 25 years and served God faithfully, and yet lose everything over one intentional sin and then die 10 seconds later before being able to repent of it. In your theology, your heavenly citizenship is lost forever. That is where your analogy breaks down.

What breaks down there? That is what I said, and what I meant. That person was never really chosen to be saved, which is why they fell before they died.

What I am finding in this thread is the idea that all Jesus was able to do for us was allow us to remain in a sinful state, but escape the flames of hell. I don't accept that.

I don't think that is a claim anyone has made, but I can see that it won't stop you from putting the lie in our mouths and then argue against it in order to deflect from your inabiility to post Scripture to support your heretical claims.

Yes someone did. Tinky did. I gave her a chance to say I took her wrong, and she didn't. Ask her directly if you don't believe me. I will still accept it if she says I am wrong. I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. You have just lied about me. Go back and look at what Tinky said. I will put out the question right now. Tinky, do you believe that God will deliver us from the bondage of sin, to where we don't have to commit willful sins, or does he leave us in a sinful state but just deliver us from hell? I will accept it if you say I took you wrong.

[Guest Butero]

'Tinky' timestamp='1368728462' post='1951849

And no Christian can commit the unpardonable sin for the simple reason that on the matter of salvation, the issue is settled, his sins are already pardoned. Jesus paid the whole price. All of a Christian's sins have been forgiven - past, present, and future.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here Tinky. I use to think that "no" Christian could commit the unpardonable sin but this is what changed my mind. The scripture in...... Romans 10:13 says........"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".........The "WHOSOEVER" in this verse of scripture literally means anybody without respect of persons that God will forgive them for there tresspasses and sins. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Now notice the words that Jesus spoke in the scripture found in - - Matthew 12:31-32 says - - Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin - - and - - blasphemy "Shall" be forgiven unto men: - - but - - the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost "Shall Not" be forgiven unto men. And "WHOSOEVER" - speaketh a word against the Son of man - it - "Shall" be forgiven him: - - But - -"WHOSOEVER"- speaketh against the Holy Ghost, - it - "Shall Not" - - be forgiven him, - - neither in this world, - - neither in the world to come.

That is an excellent point. Others use the word whosoever and claim it means salvation is for everyone, so why wouldn't it apply here?

[Guest Butero]

I have to respectfully disagree with you here Tinky. I use to think that "no" Christian could commit the unpardonable sin but this is what changed my mind. The scripture in...... Romans 10:13 says........"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".........The "WHOSOEVER" in this verse of scripture literally means anybody without respect of persons that God will forgive them for there tresspasses and sins. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Now listen to the words that Jesus spoke in the scripture found in - - Matthew 12:31-32 says - - Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy "Shall" be forgiven unto men: - but - the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost "Shall Not" be forgiven unto men. And "WHOSOEVER" - speaketh a word against the Son of man - it - "Shall" be forgiven him: - - But - -"WHOSOEVER"- speaketh against the Holy Ghost, - it - "Shall Not" - - be forgiven him, - - neither in this world, - - neither in the world to come. (sorry for the continued underlining here it seems that my bold, underline and shift down buttons are stuck???) - - - - - - - -But getting back to the subject the word "whosoever" literally means just that, if any one including Christians and sinners alike. For if anyone commits the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost then they "will not" ever be forgiven for doing so in this world and in the world to come.

You're pushing the "whosoever" thing a bit too far. In both cases, the word "whosoever" is referring to sinners/unbelievers. Why would Christians call on the Lord to be saved, as they are already saved. The offer is made to unbelievers in that whosoever among them calls upon the Lord will be saved. In the same way, the "whosoever" in Matt. 12 is referring to unbelievers. It makes no sense to include believers in either passage you cite above.

Explain this: Why would a Chrisitan blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the first place?? How could a person filled, indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit blaspheme the same Holy Spirit? Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an attempt to slander God's reputation. It is rooted in unblief. So how could a believer commit a sin that is rooted in denying the very one He believes in?

"Whosoever" denies and speaks out against the power (works) that God did through his only begotten Son will be eternally lost because of their own profession.

That is a common mistake people make. In the context of Matt. 21, the "speaking against the Holy Spirit" is referencing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. You need to follow the line of thought. Secondly, the reason it is unforgiveable is because the kind of person who would commit such a sin is irretrievably wicked. They have no moral compunction no shame or remorse for their sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit stems from a heart that is caught in a determined and inmovable rejection of Jesus.

That wasn't a mistake. Speaking against is explaining what blasphemy means. To simply speak a word against the Holy Spirit is an unpardonable sin. Any professing Christian is capable of doing this, but once again, I said "professing" Christian. Those people that were predestined to be saved and have eternal life naturally won't commit an unpardonable sin, but someone who simply claims to be saved could commit that sin. They could do it by accusing a minister who is casting out a devil of doing it by the power of the devil when it was actually the work of the Holy Spirit. Of course, if the person is a fraud, they haven't committed that sin, but one must be very careful about making those kind of accusations. This was a very good point, and I didn't think of it? If you are going to claim that whosoever means anyone can be saved, then whosoever means anyone can commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to say that whosoever doesn't mean everyone can commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then whosoever doesn't mean everyone really has the opportunity to be saved.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes I can Shiloh. It would be like this. I have a son, and I say that he is a willful child. That means he by nature willful. Being that way is just part of who he is. In another instance, I say that my son willfully disobeyed me when I told him to take out the trash.

But those are two different things. In the first instance, you are using willfully as an adjective to describe a noun (your son). In the second instance, you are using willfully as an adverb to modify the verb "disobeyed." So you are not really talking about the same thing. The second part is what we have in Heb. 10:26.

The word willfully describes a single action where my son disobeyed my orders.

No, it is an adverb that modifies the verb. . Adverbs are verb modifers that explain the manner in which an action takes places. "The man drives recklessly." Drives is the verb. Recklessly is the adverb.

If the text said, "if we are a willful sinner," rather than saying, "if we sin willfully" it would support your position, because it would mean we are by nature still a sinner.

No,it wouldn't support my position because my position has nothing to do with being a wilful sinner. My piosition is that the phrase willfully sin is not describing a type of sin, but the manner in which sin is carried out/acted upon. My position is that you have an adverb modifying verb. Your position is that willful is an adjective describing a noun and you are 100% wrong on the basis of your faulty handling of basic English grammar.

By saying, "If we sin willfully," you are speaking of a single action.

No I am nont and neither is the author of Heb. 10:26. He is talking about deliberately remaining in sin. The context is about remaining in the OT economy. The context is about rejecting Jesus' as the final sin offering and continuing to seek atonement under the sacrificial system. In chapters nine and ten of Hebrews, he is comparing the insufficiency of the blood and sacrifice of animals with the eternal sufficiency of the blood and saricifice of Jesus. He is comparing the Old Covenant which is obsolete with the New Covenant which is a better covenant built on better promises. It has better blood a better priesthood and a better sacrifice. "Wilfully sinning" in the context of Hebrews 10 is the willful deliberate and continued rejection of Jesus' final offering for sin in deference to the Old Covenant sacrificial sin offering. It is not talking just any kind of sin like lying or stealing. It is referring to continued rejection of Jesus. If they reject Jesus, he is the final sin offering there is no other sacrifice. God doesn't accept the blood of bulls and goats any more and so if you continue willfully under the old system, which is no longer in force, you are left with nothing but judgment. That is the point being made.

When I say, "my son is willful," that means he is a rebellious child. If I simply say, "he willfully disobeyed me," it can be a single action. Those are not under the initial blood covering. You can't sin "willfully," if there is no such thing as a "willful" sin. In the OT, it spoke of doing something "presumptuously." That would mean a single willful sin. I am referring to a passage in Numbers 15:22-31. It speaks of sins done by ignorance as opposed to those done presumptuously. There was a possible atonement for those done through ignorance, but those done presumptuously would lead to the offender being cut off from Israel. BTW, my computer wouldn't let me separate this into 2 paragraphs. I know it should be separated. A gremlin is gumming up the works tonight.

I know the feeling. My computer has been acting up lately as well. Presumptuous sins are done knowingly and willfully. All acts of rebellion are intentional. But there is no where in Scripture that says one intenntional sin means you have to go back and get re-saved. That is something you are penciling into the Scriptures.

[Guest shiloh357]

I happen to believe that Christ frees us from the bondage of sin. I don't believe we have to commit sin each and every day of our lives, at least not intentional sin.

And yet one sin is enough according to you, to send a person to hell. if they commit an intentional sin and die without the chance to repent of it, you claim that they go to hell. You make that claim without any biblical evidence. That is not preaching freedom. That is preaching bondage. In fact, it isn't biblical at all. It's just more home-made theology from you.,

That is simple Shiloh. Those who are freed from sin don't continue in willful sin. If you are continuing in willful sin, God never set you free.

You are perverting the concept of Christian freedom. We are set from the bondage of sin, but the sin nature is not eradicated. We are no longer under the curse of the law because God's justice has been fully satisified. That doesn't mean that if we sin we are not set free. That is not what the Bible says.

The very reason we have grace is becasue we still commit intentional sins. It would be like having car insurance that only insures you when you don't have an accident. If you cause a fender bender and your insurance company drops you because you messed up, what good is that insurance?? If the grace of God is only for people who don't mess up and drops you the minute you sin, what good is it. Your approach is the very antithesis of the nature and purpose of grace. It is there when you intentionally sin to say "I forgive you." If the minute you sin, you are on the way to hell, then God's grace is meaningless and the death of Jesus on the cross was an empty act.

I had a Pastor once that said he hadn't sinned since the 1950s when he got saved, but he had made mistakes. At the time, I didn't understand what he meant, but I think I do now? He meant he hadn't committed willful sins since that time, because God had broken he bondage of sin in his life.

He is only deceiving himself. I also heard a man say that he and his wife had never had an argument in 30 years of marriage. The problem was that he was abusive and she was terrified of him and so she never dared voice a disagreeing word. He painted a picture of a happy marriage, but in truth he was only deceiving himself.

God can set you free where you won't continue to willfully violate God's laws. Imagine this? A married man is tempted by a beautiful woman to commit adultery. If you truly can't resist a willful sin, why find fault in him when he cheats on his wife?

There is a difference between saying that if you are saved you will not willfully violate laws and saying that because you are redeemed you don't have to willfully violate laws. Resisting temptation is a choice and sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail. That is why we need grace. When we fail, it doesn't mean we are not saved or werent' set free. It means we are still human and are still at war with a sinful nature called "the flesh." Grace is for the genuine follower of Christ who stumbles from time to time in a sincere attempt to serve the Lord.

There is no reason for anyone to ever commit a willful sin.

But we all choose to sin from time to time. We all fail, including you, whether you have ability to admit it or not. That is where the grace of God comes in and it is one of the most beautiful themes of Scripture.

And again, this is no differen't than saying I must maintain my American citizenship by not commiting a felony. It is not like I live in fear I might commit a felony, because I obey the laws of the land. For that reason, my citizenship is safe.

But your argument is that if a Christian commits one intentional sin he/she loses their citizenship in heaven. So your analogy doesn't really apply. In fact it contradicts your home-made theology about sin.

What breaks down there? That is what I said, and what I meant. That person was never really chosen to be saved, which is why they fell before they died.

Which is not in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about having to endure to make it to heaven. It breaks down because it contradicts what you say about sinning. You claim that one sin is all it takes to go to hell if it is not repented of. Yet you don't seem to perceive the opposite is also true of your argument. You claim that a person has to endure to be saved. That means that one is saved by working, enduring, staying the course. They are saved by their works. If ONE work is all it takes to go to hell, if ONE sin weighs heavier than 25 years of faithful service, then you are teaching salvation by works, or salvation by enduring.

Yes someone did. Tinky did. I gave her a chance to say I took her wrong, and she didn't. Ask her directly if you don't believe me. I will still accept it if she says I am wrong. I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. You have just lied about me. Go back and look at what Tinky said. I will put out the question right now. Tinky, do you believe that God will deliver us from the bondage of sin, to where we don't have to commit willful sins, or does he leave us in a sinful state but just deliver us from hell? I will accept it if you say I took you wrong.

I read what Tinky said and I can tell the difference between how you are painting her responses and what she really said and meant. I am not going to buy into your revisionist approach to her posts. Honestly, you create theology out of whole cloth and now you are misrepresneting what Tinky has said. I will let her answer for herself, as I already understand the truth of her comments and I will not be swayed by your mischaracterization of her words.

[Guest shiloh357]

If you are going to claim that whosoever means anyone can be saved, then whosoever means anyone can commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to say that whosoever doesn't mean everyone can commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then whosoever doesn't mean everyone really has the opportunity to be saved.

Wrong. In both John 3:16 and Matt. 12:32 The "whosoever" is limited to sinners. Any sinner can be saved. Jesus said that all who come to Him, He will in no wise cast out. On the side, any sinner can potentially blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The whosoever in both places is all inclusive of sinners. Since genuine believers cannot coblasphme the Holy Spirit, there is no reason for "whosoever" to mean any and all living human beings as it regards that particular sin.

So there is no inconsistency in how I am employing the word "whosoever."

Those people that were predestined to be saved and have eternal life naturally won't commit an unpardonable sin, but someone who simply claims to be saved could commit that sin.

Can a person predestined to be saved and predestined to "endure" as you call it, lose their salvation?

[Guest Butero]

 

Yes I can Shiloh. It would be like this. I have a son, and I say that he is a willful child. That means he by nature willful. Being that way is just part of who he is. In another instance, I say that my son willfully disobeyed me when I told him to take out the trash.

But those are two different things. In the first instance, you are using willfully as an adjective to describe a noun (your son). In the second instance, you are using willfully as an adverb to modify the verb "disobeyed." So you are not really talking about the same thing. The second part is what we have in Heb. 10:26.

The word willfully describes a single action where my son disobeyed my orders.

No, it is an adverb that modifies the verb. . Adverbs are verb modifers that explain the manner in which an action takes places. "The man drives recklessly." Drives is the verb. Recklessly is the adverb.

If the text said, "if we are a willful sinner," rather than saying, "if we sin willfully" it would support your position, because it would mean we are by nature still a sinner.

No,it wouldn't support my position because my position has nothing to do with being a wilful sinner. My piosition is that the phrase willfully sin is not describing a type of sin, but the manner in which sin is carried out/acted upon. My position is that you have an adverb modifying verb. Your position is that willful is an adjective describing a noun and you are 100% wrong on the basis of your faulty handling of basic English grammar.

By saying, "If we sin willfully," you are speaking of a single action.

No I am nont and neither is the author of Heb. 10:26. He is talking about deliberately remaining in sin. The context is about remaining in the OT economy. The context is about rejecting Jesus' as the final sin offering and continuing to seek atonement under the sacrificial system. In chapters nine and ten of Hebrews, he is comparing the insufficiency of the blood and sacrifice of animals with the eternal sufficiency of the blood and saricifice of Jesus. He is comparing the Old Covenant which is obsolete with the New Covenant which is a better covenant built on better promises. It has better blood a better priesthood and a better sacrifice. "Wilfully sinning" in the context of Hebrews 10 is the willful deliberate and continued rejection of Jesus' final offering for sin in deference to the Old Covenant sacrificial sin offering. It is not talking just any kind of sin like lying or stealing. It is referring to continued rejection of Jesus. If they reject Jesus, he is the final sin offering there is no other sacrifice. God doesn't accept the blood of bulls and goats any more and so if you continue willfully under the old system, which is no longer in force, you are left with nothing but judgment. That is the point being made.

When I say, "my son is willful," that means he is a rebellious child. If I simply say, "he willfully disobeyed me," it can be a single action. Those are not under the initial blood covering. You can't sin "willfully," if there is no such thing as a "willful" sin. In the OT, it spoke of doing something "presumptuously." That would mean a single willful sin. I am referring to a passage in Numbers 15:22-31. It speaks of sins done by ignorance as opposed to those done presumptuously. There was a possible atonement for those done through ignorance, but those done presumptuously would lead to the offender being cut off from Israel. BTW, my computer wouldn't let me separate this into 2 paragraphs. I know it should be separated. A gremlin is gumming up the works tonight.

I know the feeling. My computer has been acting up lately as well. Presumptuous sins are done knowingly and willfully. All acts of rebellion are intentional. But there is no where in Scripture that says one intenntional sin means you have to go back and get re-saved. That is something you are penciling into the Scriptures.

 

There is really no use in going through this post section by section, because all I can say is I disagree with you on nearly every point.  I don't agree with you about the word wilfully.  I don't agree with you regarding your interpretation of the passage in Hebrews.  I don't agree with you that all sins are wilful, however, I did notice you phrased things a little differen't this time.  You said, "all acts of rebellion are intentional."  That is not the same as saying all sins are wilful.  A sin that is not wilful would be one done without meaning to.  It would mean there was no rebellion in mind.  I can actually agree with the phrase, "all acts of rebellion are intentional," and still disagree with you when you claim all sins are wilful.