For Those Who Fear They've Committed The Unpardonable Sin

[Fez]

In among the basic debate there is a lot of stuff here to digest and learn. I am enjoying reading the thread and so far it has been relativity civil on all fronts, if not a bit passionate (nothing wrong with that!).

Please let's continue in this vein, there is more to be unlocked here. It is a deep subject and so far has been given the patience and grace it deserves.

[Tinky]

Butero, for your consideration: http://www.raptureready.com/soap/lysaught12.html

[Guest Butero]

Butero: please explain to me how you can claim to be a Christian, when 1 John says Christians don't continue in sin

Butero, May 23, 3:49pm: "I even stated I had sinned in my life, and I don't claim absolute sinless perfection now."

Well then, according to your statement above, how can you claim to be a Christian?

Butero, let me say, I believe you are saved. I believe you are earnest and sincere. But I also believe you are living in error. Again, please just consider the things I am saying, and not simply dismiss them out of hand.

Blessings.

I claim to be a Christian now because I am not continuing in wilful sins. At the same time, I acknowledge that even an evil thought is a sin. There is no way a person can go through life living good enough where they don't need God's grace. The blood atonement automatically covers all sins that are not pre-meditated. The sins that are not under the blood covering are wilful sins.

[Guest shiloh357]

[ The blood atonement automatically covers all sins that are not pre-meditated. The sins that are not under the blood covering are wilful sins.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

( Eph 1:7)

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

(Col 1:14)

The Bible doesn't divide between willful and non-premeditated sins. That is a dichotomy YOU are making

[Tinky]

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

[Guest Butero]

BUTERO Hello Tinky. I am finally back from Kentucky, and I will attempt to answer your post.

TINKY I haven't. I wanted this thread to be a positive one. One that was encouraging for fearful, hurting people who feel they have no hope. I simply defended my thread when you came in and tried to place people back into bondage with your works-righteousness - one sin and God will abandon you - "gospel."

BUTERO First of all, you should be happy about one thing. We do have an area of common ground in regard to the unpardonable sin, and coming to complete unity on anything is hard to do. We all believe that if a person desires to be saved, they haven't committed the unpardonable sin. The fact we all agree on that should put everyone's mind at ease in this regard, because if we have 100 percent agreement, it is likely true?

I don't look at what I am doing as putting people in bondage, but just the opposite. You are saying you can't go an hour without committing sin. That to me is bondage. I am saying that God can break sin's bondage, and give you the freedom to live right. I am not talking about sinless perfection in that you will never sin in anger or have an evil thought, but there is no reason for anyone to be so weak in the flesh, they have to commit wilful transgressions.

You 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. I lived many years struggling with the flesh, and perhaps living in bondage like you, not able to abstain from sin for even a single day? One day, while I was seeking God, he revealed to me that a true Christian cannot live that way, and that a Christian doesn't have to be in bondage. On that day, he set me free from that bondage. Is this the sanctification Wesley spoke of? Perhaps it is or maybe it isn't, but something changed, and I have peace I didn't use to have. I am not in bondage, but I was in bondage when I couldn't go a day without sin. You don't have to live that way Tinky.

TINKY Why in the world would God offer such fallible, fallen creatures a works - based salvation, Butero? Why would Jesus go through such terrible scourging, beatings, mental anguish, a humiliating, agonizing death on the cross - even to the point of abandonment by the Father whose holy eyes could not look upon a being who became sin for us - who went through all of that to purchase us back - only to basically say to mankind, "okay, here's the gift of salvation, but if you mess up even one time, I'm taking it back!"

BUTERO 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? You would have to ask God? The question I would ask in response to you is why would Jesus die for people who think so little of the salvation Jesus purchased, they would abuse his grace? Remember what it says in Hebrews 10:29. "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, whereby he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

If you go back the the OT, it tells us plainly that the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments. The problem is, we have all fallen short of that, so grace is necessary to give us any hope of being saved. We are saved through faith in Christ, but not just from hell, but from the bondage of sin. We have the ability to abstain from wilful sins. We are only lying to ourselves when we say otherwise. That is something God showed me, and at that moment, I learned to fear the Lord.

TINKY Would God, who is love, offer us such conditional love?

How could God say He loves us, adopts us into His family, and even calls us His friends, save us - but as soon as we commit one sin, we instantly go back to being children of the devil and enemies of God?

BUTERO This is an interesting question too. People like to say God is love, but he is much more than that. Just like a person has many characteristics, so does God. You can see he is a God of justice. You can see he is a God that judges sin. You can see him getting angry. Look at what he did to Ananias and Saphira for one sin! Look at how he struck a man down for steadying the ark of the covenant? Someone could ask if a God who is love would do that? How about all the evil he is going to bring on this world during the great tribulation period? To really know God, you have to know more about him than that he is love, because he is much more.

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

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. At the same time, the Apostle Paul warns us to make our calling and election sure by walking in the Spirit. If we are following God, we know we are saved at that moment, and if we keep following God, and walking on that narrow pathway, we will reach heaven. That means we were indeed a child of God. If we depart from following God, or only have a profession of faith without works, we were never really a child of God.

Even Shiloh will tell you that there are people who think they are saved, but are not. In theory, you could only be deceiving yourself into thinking you are saved, in that belief system. The same would apply to me and Shiloh. There is really no security in that. Where the supposed security comes in is that everyone that holds to that belief is convinced they are really saved. Even that woman I spoke of that serves the devil today believed she was saved once upon a time. If she was wrong, you and Shiloh could be wrong. Just something to think about.

TINKY Would even a human father tell his children he loves them yet adds, " but as soon as mess up even once, you are no longer my kids, I'll disown you, kick you out of my house, and consider you dead!" (Ephesians 2:11)

BUTERO Some might? In the OT, if you had a rebellious son or daughter, you were to take them before the authorities, and bring charges against them, and they were stoned to death. Besides that, your average earthly Father, didn't give one of his Sons to die for his other children, only to have them make light of the sacrifice by abusing his grace. I could understand why the Father would disown someone for that.

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.

TINKY Is that real love?

BUTERO Again, you are focusing on God's love, and nothing else. Was it love that God struck a man dead for steadying the ark of the covenant? He is also a God that gets angry when we transgress his laws. Ask Ananias and Saphira.

TINKY Do you have unsaved family members or friends? Do you hang around with them and have friendly fellowship? The Bible says you shouldn't because " bad company corrupts good morals." (1 Corinthians 15:33)

BUTERO The Bible doesn't teach me to disown family and friends because they aren't saved, but fortunately, everyone in my family is a professing Christian. I don't have any close friends that are sinners, only casual aquaintances. I don't hang around them. This is irrelivant anyway, because my failings or anyone else's failings doesn't make their doctrine wrong.

TINKY By Biblical standards, being lost, they would be "bad company" because they are wicked and enemies of God. Do you keep them at arms length, Butero? Do you only witness to them and have nothing else to do with them?

BUTERO The people I have close fellowship with are all professing Christians.

I am not heaping any glory on myself for claiming I can live sinless. Talk about a false accusation!

TINKY Butero, when you claim you are keeping yourself saved by your works, you are sharing in God's glory - and He will not share His glory with another. He either gets all the glory for saving you, and keeping you saved, or you do. You are saying it is by your striving that is keeping you saved, because a sin on your part will instantly damn you again.

BUTERO 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. In reality, I can't claim any credit for being saved, because it was 100 percent the will of God I be saved or lost. You are sharing in God's glory more than I am under your belief system.

BTW, what exactly do I need my eyes opened to? That I can accept that I can't help but sin every hour of every day, and that I can't love God all the time, and that I can feel secure and good about that?

TINKY You are placing your feelings of security and goodness in your works - and not in the finished work of the cross.

BUTERO That is not true at all. I couldn't be saved if it weren't for the cross. I couldn't be saved unless God directly called me to be saved. I have nothing to glory in.

I am adding this comment. Wasn't it you that once said that we can't really know God's grace until we abuse it?

TINKY As Paul said, "God forbid!" if we strive to sin so that grace may abound.

Allow me to clarify. What I meant by that is, we really don't appreciate how wonderful the gift of grace is, until we really mess up. We instantly become fearful - dreading the sure punishment heading our way - but then God picks us up, dusts us off, and loves us anyway. Oh, how we mourn when we sin! How we despise ourselves! How we feel so worthless and wretched! Yet God's still, small voice cuts through all of that, and reminds us of the cross. He shows us in our minds His nail scarred hands. He envelopes us with His presence and heals our souls.

And in that is known, the full power of His grace.

BUTERO Well Tinky, I am not going to play the gotcha game with you as some have with me, so I will accept that explaination. I don't need to really mess up to appreciate God's grace. I appreciate grace going back to the first time I prayed a sinner's prayer. If I never messed up at all, I would have exerienced God's grace fully. Sadly, I have really messed up since that day, and do appreciate the grace granted me when I confessed my transgressions. Thankfully, he delivered me from the bondage of sin, and I appreciate his grace for that. I don't glory in myself for that. I give God the glory for having the power to deliver me from the hold sin had on me.

[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.

[Guest Butero]

BUTERO I haven't changed on anything. I made a distinction between wilful sins and sins that are not wilful. If anything, you changed, because you are calling sins that are not intentional "mistakes." That is an acknowledgement there is a difference in wilful sins and things done in error.

SHILOH357 No, I have always made the distinction between genuine sin and mistakes. You the one who keeps using the phrase "willful sins" which is a useless phrase given that all sins are done willfully. The concept of willful sins that you keep bringing up is based on a poor handling of basic English grammar.

BUTERO Here is the problem I face when discussing things with you. You will make statements like this, and what am I supposed to say in response? You know I don't agree with you. All I can say is that there are wilful sins, and sins that are not pre-meditated. I don't agree with you that I am handling the English language in a poor manner, and I believe you are the one refusing to accept what is clearly stated in Hebrews.

BUTERO We are not saved by our works. We all are saved by grace, but we can do things that will cause us to be lost again.

SHILOH357 That is internally inconsistent. If we can be lost by our works, then by our works, we remain saved. That is a false gospel

BUTERO And again, how am I supposed to respond to this? I suppose the only thing I can say is you are wrong, and yours is the false gospel? Do you see the futility here?

BUTERO He that doeth righteousness is righteous. That is scripture. There is nothing vain about that, and you know it, but when you can't win an argument on merit, you make false accusations like that.

SHILOH357 The word "doeth" in Greek refers to habitual practice. John's point is not that doing righteousness makes you righteous. He is saying that we can tell who is righteous by what they practice. Works of righteousness is the fruit of salvatoin, not means of obtaining or maintaining it. Salvation is a work of God alone.

BUTERO We are saved by faith, and our works are indeed the fruit of salvation. True saving faith will lead us to do good works. I have no problem with that, but what do you say about a person who says they cannot go an hour without sinning? What you said makes sense, but how do you deal with someone whose life is one of habitual sin, but they claim to be a Christian?

BUTERO There is no glory in doing the mere minimum required of us. Jesus said that when we have done all we have been commanded to do, we are as unprofitable servants. There is no vanity in that. You need to find something new in the Baptist playbook.

SHILOH357 Who said anything about doing the minimum required? That is not even close to the point. The point is that our works play no part in bridging the gap that exists between us and God. Only God can repaire the breach. I didn't say it was vanity to do your best in serving God. You completely missed the point. My point is that it is absolute vanity to think that you are good enough to maintain one nano-second of salvation. It is also the way to hell.

BUTERO First of all, it is not that I am doing something to maintain salvation. I am believing God when he said that if I make light of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross by committing wilful sins, there is no atonement for those sins. That is point number one. The second point I must make is your inconsistency. If a person gets saved, under your scenerio, and certainly Tinky's, they are eternally secure. To you, returning to a works based salvation would be sinful, but you can't lose your salvation because of your sins, or that becomes a works based salvation, so it can't be the way to hell.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[Guest Butero]

BUTERO I didn't come up with my doctrine from Calvin. I know he teaches predestination, but my doctrine is my own. I was trying to understand how to reconcile certain scriptures, so I sought the Lord about it, not Calvin. I believe Calvin was only right in part, and what I am telling you is right. You might say I fixed Calvin's errors, and gave you the truth.

SHILOH357 I can definitely tell it is your own doctrine, because none of it can be biblicall corroborated as you have expertly demonstrated. So by your own admittance, what I am responding to is your own concoction and not a well-reasoned explanation based on Scripture. It is your own home-made “doctrine.”

BUTERO All doctrine was someone's concoction as you call it. Even the people we look to today like Luther, Wesley, and Calvin came up with their own doctrine. They didn't have others to look to. None of them agree either, and there are entire denominations born out of their doctrines, so that comment doesn't bother me. There are people that follow everything others have come up with, and I have chosen not to do that.

SHILOH357 (Just as an aside, it would be really nice if you learned how to use the quote functions better, you have been here long enough to know how. Your posts get really confusing and don’t flow very well.)

BUTERO The problem is the number of quotes in a single thread. When I use the quote function, it says I have more than the number allowed. You have been very argumentative, and there is a great deal to respond to.

BUTERO Then why did God have to intevene at all, and actually state he hardened Pharoah's heart? Wouldn't it become hard by the laws of nature on it's own? God actually says he hardened Pharoah's heart. .

SHILOH357 Yes and I explaned that. God hardened Pharoah’s heart because Pharoah was pre-disposed to being hardened. It was Pharoah’s own hardness and intransigence in the face of God’s command to let the Children of Israel go, that further hardened even more. God used that to show His power.

Your theology would have God saying, “I want Pharoah to die and I want the first born of Egypt to die and so I am going to demand Pharoah to let my people go while at the same time, force Pharoah to make a series of self-destructive decisions that culminate in the death of not only millions of Egyptians but end in the annihilation of Pharoah and his army.”

At any time, Pharoah could have changed His mind. Pharoah didn’t have to chase the Children of Israel to the Red Sea, but He did and God used that in one final demonstration of His power to the children of Israel.

BUTERO None of what you said is true. Pharoah had no choice. God had already told Moses that Pharoah wouldn't go along until a certain number of plagues came upon Egypt, and even had it planned how Pharoah's army would be destroyed in the Red Sea. Had Pharoah been able to change his course, God would have been proven a liar. He had no choice.

BUTERO I am not expecting to cause everyone on these boards to accept what I said to be true. I am just telling you how things are. Yes, God did know that the man and woman would sin in the garden, and that was his intent from the start.

SHILOH357 So God intended for man to fall??? That is what you are saying?? God wanted the fall in the garden to happen??

BUTERO God knew man would fall when he placed him in the garden along with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course it was God's intention that man would fall, and he already had the plan of redemption planned out.

BUTERO It is not a happy thought, but it is viable. How do we determine which events are unavoidable and which events are not? Take end time events. Why are they set in stone, but the meal I am eating is not? I believe that I am making decisions, but they are forordained. God decided back in the beginning that we would both be members at this message board, and discussing this topic today. He decided that I would be taking loads to Kentucky this week on my job. Nothing happens by mere chance, good or evil. One small change in our actions effects more than we realize, and if we had the kind of free will people believe we did, end time events could be changed.

SHILOH357 Sorry, but you have strayed from Scripture. That is, philosophically speaking what is known as “hard determinism.” So if an innocent girl is raped, that is what God wanted and desired to happen? What about when husband and wife lose their child to a drunk driver… You are saying that God wanted that to happen??? How do you offer comfort to those who lost children in Moore, OK the other day?? Did God desire and plan for those children to die???

BUTERO The same way I would offer comfort to someone whose child died from a terrible disease. That it was the will of God, and while we may not understand the why, we can take comfort in knowing they are in a better place. What do ministers usually say? Some would dress it up and say God needed another flower for his garden in heaven, or something like that? Everything happens for a reason. I don't see how I could be anymore clear in what I am saying, and I don't care how exteme you make the situation. I can point to all kinds of atrocities in the OT, that God was directly involved in, every bit as bad as the things you are speaking of.

BUTERO While I do share one thing in common with Calvin, you can't compare what I am saying with traditional Calvanists, because I didn't study Calvin to get the truth. I found it in scripture.

SHILOH357 No it is something you cooked up in your own mind. None of this is from Scripture.

BUTERO And my tactful reply to you is that you are mistaken.

BUTERO But if God knew what we would do, through the use of our will, before we came into being a physical being, then what takes place isn't really as much free will as we think? If I have the abiliity to know what a man will do before he does it, like when the Prophet told a man that he would slaughter many of his people in the future, how is that free will? The outcome was settled.

SHILOH357 Foreknowledge and fore-ordaining are two different concepts. God knows I will eat a cheese sandwich for dinner, but that doesn’t mean He willed it. I can know how a good friend or family member will react to certain things because I know them well enough to predict what they will do. That doesn’t mean I forced them to respond that way.

BUTERO There is a difference. God created you, and he knew at that time you would eat a cheese sandwich for dinner. I can have a good idea what my wife might do in a given situation, but I didn't create her. Big difference. Lets take a serial killer for instance. God had to know that man would be a serial killer when he created him, so it is a fine line to claim this is not the same as it being his will the man kill people. If it makes you feel better to say that, so be it, but there is no real distinction to me.

BUTERO It is not where I "want to go." It is reality. .

SHILOH357 It is not reality. This is the kind of abberrant false doctrine we get from people who go off on a lark with the Bible. It really borders on heresy. I don’t mean that as a perjorative. I mean that in the true theological sense of the term. It is a perversion of the character of God as revealed in Scripture.

BUTERO And again, how am I to respond to something like this? The only tactful thing I can say is that you are mistaken.

BUTERO God uses this struggle between good and evil to bring about his ultimate will and show his power.

SHILOH357 That didn’t answer the question. I know that God uses the struggle between good and evil to bring about His will. You said that man can’t do anything that God doesn’t want to happen. I asked you if God wants women to be raped, children molested and so forth. Answer the question.

BUTERO I can't be more clear than I already have been. If something occurs, it is because God planned it. He created everyone knowing every action they would ever do. That would include people that would rape and murder. How is that any differen't than God ordering the children of Israel to kill every man, woman, and child in a city? You have a false idea of God.

BUTERO God created Adam and Eve in the garden, and placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in that garden. Did he know they would disobey him? I believe he did. To one of the churches in Revelation, God tells them they will suffer all kinds of things, including the death of many, but tells them to endure to the end. Could God have stopped that? Certainly, but he didn't. Did God know the people that would persecute the church would do so when he created them, (or in your belief system, allowed them to come into being and live long enough to persecute the church) and let it happen?

SHILOH357 That God has allowed horrible things to happen doesn’t mean that He wanted those things to happen You have a very weird view of God and one that is not borne from a genuine Christian view. I would expect to be having this kind of conversation with an unbeliever.

BUTERO And what am I supposed to say to this? I strongly disagree.

BUTERO What I have is the truth. I sought it, and I got it.

SHILOH357 No, it is not truth. It is a very bizarre and heretical assault on God’s character especially in terms of His justness. A God that claims to be holy but ordains rape. A God who claims to be love, but creates people to destroy them and send them to hell. Your view of God is not biblical, is not Christian and should be an object of contempt for every genuine Christian who reads it.

BUTERO And what am I supposed to say in response to this attack? You are mistaken. Are you going to deny that God ordered the destruction of every man, woman and child in various cities? Are you going to deny that God will send people to suffer eternal torments in hell for rejecting his Son? You don't seem to know a whole lot about things written in the Bible?