For Those Who Fear They've Committed The Unpardonable Sin

[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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

You are quoting a verse that is using "sin" as a verb, but you are applying it as if the passage is using it as a noun. You are taking "willfully" and apply it as an adjective when the passage is applying it as an adverb. The passage simply says that for those who continue to deliberately remain in their sin, there is no sacrifice for them. The focus is not on the kind of sin, but on the attitude of the sinner. Yes, you are handling the English grammar in a poor manner and that is easily demonstratable and your denial won't change that.

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?

The yeah, the problem here is that I explained why what you are saying is a false gospel. I explained that it is a "gospel" based on works and not on grace. It is vey thing the NT argues against consistently. You attach works to grace, which is the very thing Paul so strenuously argued against in Galatians. You can throw what I said back in my face, but that is just a desparate defense mechanism to deflect attention away from your inability to actually address the substance of what I said.

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?

I would ask them to re-examine their salvation experience. I would argue that a person who claims to be a Christian but never experienced any change, any transformation, cannot bear any fruit, was never truly saved. It is pretty obvious that they are not genuine believers.

First of all, it is not that I am doing something to maintain salvation.

Of course, you are. You are trying to maintain salvation by not committing sins.

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.

But that is not what the passage says. It is talking about the deliberate intent of the sinner, not the type of sin being committed. If you choose by an act of your own will to remain in sin, there is no sacrifice for you, but only a future of judgment. That is what the writer is saying.

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.

You are trying to manufacture a problem where none exists. For my part, salvation is a transformation of the heart. For me, security isn't based on what I do, but on the faithfulness of God. Why in the world would I want to return to works-based system of righteousness??? Why would I trade the faithfulness of God for trusting in my own goodness, which God doesn't use as a basis for salvation in the first place? It would like giving up a Porsche to drive a rusted out '74 Pinto. Returning to a works-based system of righteousness is not only a sin, because it denies the sufficiency of Christ, but is just plain dumb.

[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.

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?

[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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[Guest 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.

You are quoting a verse that is using "sin" as a verb, but you are applying it as if the passage is using it as a noun. You are taking "willfully" and apply it as an adjective when the passage is applying it as an adverb. The passage simply says that for those who continue to deliberately remain in their sin, there is no sacrifice for them. The focus is not on the kind of sin, but on the attitude of the sinner. Yes, you are handling the English grammar in a poor manner and that is easily demonstratable and your denial won't change that.

I just told you what it means. Now, you claim this means that for those who deliberately remain in sin, there is no sacrifice for them? How long does that take? How many sins must they commit? In addition to that, this passage still makes it clear that there is something called a wilful sin. That is a kind of sin. If you don't like that word, the OT calls them presumptuous sins. Are you going to claim they don't exist either?

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?

The yeah, the problem here is that I explained why what you are saying is a false gospel. I explained that it is a "gospel" based on works and not on grace. It is vey thing the NT argues against consistently. You attach works to grace, which is the very thing Paul so strenuously argued against in Galatians. You can throw what I said back in my face, but that is just a desparate defense mechanism to deflect attention away from your inability to actually address the substance of what I said.

You didn't say anything of substance. You simply told me what you believe is taught in the NT, and I don't agree with you. What Paul was addressing were laws of separation, like circumcision. He never meant that in reference to sins of immorality. Look at all the sins Paul says will keep someone from inheriting the Kingdom of God? Look at how he dealt with the sinners in the church at Corinth?

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?

I would ask them to re-examine their salvation experience. I would argue that a person who claims to be a Christian but never experienced any change, any transformation, cannot bear any fruit, was never truly saved. It is pretty obvious that they are not genuine believers.

That is what I was hearing from Tinky. She said she can't go one hour without sinning. I have never heard you make that claim.

First of all, it is not that I am doing something to maintain salvation.

Of course, you are. You are trying to maintain salvation by not committing sins.

That is like saying I am trying to maintain citizenship in the United States by not committing a felony.

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.

But that is not what the passage says. It is talking about the deliberate intent of the sinner, not the type of sin being committed. If you choose by an act of your own will to remain in sin, there is no sacrifice for you, but only a future of judgment. That is what the writer is saying.

Even in that instance, you are acknowledging someone can lose their salvation by repeated sins. I would have to ask you how many? When does someone cross that line? After 6 months? After a year?

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.

You are trying to manufacture a problem where none exists. For my part, salvation is a transformation of the heart. For me, security isn't based on what I do, but on the faithfulness of God. Why in the world would I want to return to works-based system of righteousness??? Why would I trade the faithfulness of God for trusting in my own goodness, which God doesn't use as a basis for salvation in the first place? It would like giving up a Porsche to drive a rusted out '74 Pinto. Returning to a works-based system of righteousness is not only a sin, because it denies the sufficiency of Christ, but is just plain dumb.

I don't see it as dumb at all. Here is why? If you can't do anything to lose salvation, what do I have to lose in following the law? On the other hand, if I am right, those who don't continue to live right have everything to lose. Again, I am not saved by works. I am saved by faith in Christ, but if I am really saved, good works will follow.

[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.

[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.

[Guest shiloh357]

I just told you what it means.

No, you gave me your own home-made version of what you think it means. You did NOT actually come even close to correctly framing the text, whatsoever.

Now, you claim this means that for those who deliberately remain in sin, there is no sacrifice for them? How long does that take? How many sins must they commit?

It is not about a particular number. It's about a condition of the heart that loves sin and choose remain in sin and refuses to repent.

In addition to that, this passage still makes it clear that there is something called a wilful sin. That is a kind of sin.

No, it mentions "If we willfully sin.." That is not a "thing." It is describing an action, not a thing. It is not a kind of sin, as if "willfully" is being used as an adjective. It is a deliberate, willful determined attitude of inpenitence for which there is no sacrifice to cover. No provision is made for a person who refuses to repent.

That is what I was hearing from Tinky. She said she can't go one hour without sinning. I have never heard you make that claim.

I think you are skewing things a bit. None of us go very long without sinning. I need salvation every minute of every day. Tinky's comment was not made by her to imply that she lives in sin. That was not her point. What I was responding to was in the context of a person who doesn't want to stop sinning and looks for opportunities to sin. Your approach here is dishonest and it skews what Tinky meant and the spirit of her comment. I was referring to people in a completely different context and I think you know that, but in absence of a real biblical defense, you felt the need to resort to a less than honest attempt in this discussion.

[quoute]That is like saying I am trying to maintain citizenship in the United States by not committing a felony.

Your entire view of salvation is ultimately based on works. You treat salvation as a reward for living right.

Even in that instance, you are acknowledging someone can lose their salvation by repeated sins.

I pointed out that it is talking about people remaining in sin, failing to repent. The audience is not a saved audience, but is written to Jews of that time period. It is not an epistle to any church.

I don't see it as dumb at all. Here is why? If you can't do anything to lose salvation, what do I have to lose in following the law?

Fellowship with the Lord. If I return to the law, then I am not led by the Holy Spirit, which means there is no impediment to keep me from sin. You cannot live effectively as a Christian and you certainly lose the fellowship demension of your relationship with God if you return to the law. You lose a lot, but you don't lose your salvation. You lose peace, you lose contentment, you lose fulfillment. Returning to the law as a means of accessing God's grace means that you deny the sufficiency of Christ.

On the other hand, if I am right, those who don't continue to live right have everything to lose. Again, I am not saved by works. I am saved by faith in Christ, but if I am really saved, good works will follow.

Ultimately, though your positoin leads to a works-based system of righteousness where you need to maintain salvation by avoiding sin and doing enough good deeds to remain saved. According to you, one sin and you have lost it. So you need to be a bit more honest about where your position ultimately leads.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.