"Christian's Don't Sin" part 2

[annsni]

HP: Shall we set the record straight once for all on just what you are teaching? The question was asked if a believer could die on top of his neighbors wife and still make it into the kingdom……..and your response might be?


If a believer was caught molesting his neighbors underage daughter and was shot between the eyes by her father, would he make it into the kingdom? …..and your answer is?

If a man was robbing an elderly person that was a believer and was killed in the attempt, would such a one make it into the kingdom?....and your answer is?

IF they are truly a believer, then yes, they would get into the kingdom.

There is not one act of goodness that we can do to get into heaven. In the same way, there is not one act of badness that could rip us out of God's hand. However, a true believer will not willingly, arrogantly, purposefully and without conviction do ANY sin.

 

[annsni]

I am amazed that there are those who believe Christ's death is not sufficient for ALL sins. When I was washed, I was washed white as snow. I no longer have that debt of sin to pay. Jesus washed it all away - was a PROPITIATION for my sins. So when we're saved, our account is now placed at 0 and will start running the bill up again on it and need to repay? I don't see that in Scripture.

Paul is the greatest of sinners yet I don't see him saying that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient. That might be because it's an unBiblical and unGodly teaching.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: Jesus said there is a sin that is not unto death

HP: 1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

First it was the apostle John and not Jesus that mentions the sin not unto death, was it not?

I would not view the sin not unto death and unto death in the manner some are understanding it. First, this is the only verse that I am aware of that could be understood as sin that might not (if ones interpretation is correct) merit eternal separation from God. It is a stand alone verse, and if interpreted to mean that some sins will not merit eternal separation from God it is then understood as being in direct opposition to the numerous verses that indicate any and all sin will bring about the penalty of sin, i.e., eternal separation from God. Therefore I am very cautious of making doctrine with this one verse.

I am of the opinion that it is speaking NOT of some sins not meriting eternal punishment, but rather that there are some sins that when committed, God will immediately strike the person dead. We have at least a few examples of this happening. It does absolutely no good to pray for those individuals in that situation. A sin Not unto death, is a sin, that if persisted in until death without repentance, will indeed, as any other sin, merit eternal separation from God, yet God does not immediately strike the individual down as in the sin unto death. There is a time period that the individual is ‘in danger of’ eternal separation, yet has not reached the point of no return. It is for these sins that we are to pray for.

 

[DHK]

HP: I believe that your judgment and accusations are completely false. It is just as much to name call, calling one a liar, (in this case falsely) as it is to do anything else. You have even accused me of name calling when I simply associate your stated beliefs to those of a well known system of theology, and explain myself in detail as to the truth of that association. Where is your sense of fairness or justice??

Where is yours? As to your latter example, let me respond with an example of my own. If I were to state that your beliefs remind me of Hitler's would you be offended or would you take it as a compliment? Can you see why people don't want their names associated with other well known names--"in the sense of fairness or justice?"
As to "your accusation" that my judgments, etc., are completely false, that is your opinion which you are entitled to. How much value it has in this discussion is another matter.

HP: I agree with you that Brother Bob’s theology is inconsistent, but that does not make yours any more consistent. He certainly needs to come to grips with this area of inconsistency in his theology, but you need to be forthright in answering my simple questions that depict clear contradictions in your own theology.

Quite frankly I don't need to be forthright in answering anybody's questions, including yours. The Lord created me with free will, and this country allows for freedom of speech, and freedom of not to speak. What makes you think that you can compel me to answer your posts or am obligated to do so?
My theology has no contradictions. They are contradictory to you because you do not believe in eternal security. As long as you do not hold to the OSAS position it is quite evident that you will see inconsistencies in all of our answers who believe in eternal security, and you will continue to label us with "clear contradictions in our own theology." The problem actually lies in your denial of the truth of the Word of God's teaching in a believer being eternally secure in the hand of God, once he trusts Christ as His Saviour.

I would far rather see one walking a consistent holy life and inconsistent in their theology than I would seeing one taking the positions I have heard you take.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Your position as you have stated it many times would indeed allow those into heaven that God states will not enter in regardless of what faith they think they have or the ‘belief’ they believe they have had in the past. 1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? BE NOT DECEIVED: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

You have (deceitfully) quoted part of a passage out of its context. Leaving it out of its context just as it is, it only teaches that heaven will be empty, and absolutely no one will enter heaven. Fine theology you have there HP.

 

[Brother Bob]

I am amazed that there are those who believe Christ's death is not sufficient for ALL sins. When I was washed, I was washed white as snow. I no longer have that debt of sin to pay. Jesus washed it all away - was a PROPITIATION for my sins. So when we're saved, our account is now placed at 0 and will start running the bill up again on it and need to repay? I don't see that in Scripture.

Paul is the greatest of sinners yet I don't see him saying that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient. That might be because it's an unBiblical and unGodly teaching.

First of all, tell me what was Paul's sin?

Second, no one is saying that Christ's blood does not cover all your sins and cast them into a sea of forgetfulness.

Though your sins be as scarlet (that is already as scarlet) they shall be made white as snow.

Then Jesus gave some commandments.

1Cr 6:9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

So, unrighteous brings the second death. I doubt if you will argue with that, but you might.

Jhn 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Not a suggestion, but a commandment from the Lord.

Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Not a suggestion, but a commandment from the Lord

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

That is not a suggestion, but a commandment from the Lord.




Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Death:

and there is a sin not unto death.

What is it, can't be unrighteousness, for it is separate from unrighteousness, so what is it. Could it be a sin worthy of chastisement only.

And your suggestion that the blood covers all your sin, is true, but if you continue to commit greivous sins, you don't have the blood, even though you stopped for a while and started back sinning.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Here is but one of many examples:
[/i]
Read the rest of that post here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1281413&postcount=67

Steaver has said the same thing, as I have also. False accusations are common here. You continue to accuse all of us of teaching believers that they can sin, and even sin all they want, when we don't teach that. That is a pack of lies on your part. Neither does OSAS teach that, which I thought you believed. You continue to falsely represent our views. That is called bearing false witness (lying). It is breaking one of the Ten Commandments, and in God's sight is just as bad as committing adultery.

This is another example of deceitfulness. I never quoted any verse from 1Cor. 6, which you did and are alluding to. You are inferring in this post that I previously mentioned something about this, but I did not. You just pulled both a verse and a conclusion right out of the air, both having nothing to do with the discussion. It is deceptive.

Here is another problem that you have. You keep referring to the sin unto death, but as you imply in this post you don't even know what it is!! Why use the passage in your apologetic if you don't know what it means. It only makes your post look foolish.

Then keep wondering, and don't post until you have some confidence in what you believe it means. It certainly has nothing to do with the Second Death. It is speaking of a "brother" who cannot lose his salvation. Salvation is not the topic of that passage.

You are not following Christ in his theology. You admit that you don't know what a sin unto death is, and at the same time try to use it in your theology.
You have been shown where you falsely accuse others--bearing false witness against others, but cannot explain why that sin is not just as great as raping someone, or committing adultery, as God says it is. They are both included in the Ten Commandments. Why do you divide up the Ten Commandments and make some of them little sins and some of them Big sins. The Lord never did any such thing!

DHK;
As to "your accusation" that my judgments, etc., are completely false, that is your opinion which you are entitled to. How much value it has in this discussion is another matter.

DHK's is his opinion but mine are lies. That sir is hypocritical.

I have proven all the other posts to be true.

You say that you do not say a believer can sin all he wants. Well, just how many sins is he allowed? You also say they are all covered by the blood of Christ and if he sins, God does not see the sin, but sees him sinning. Thats a dilly. If God covered ALL of his sins, how come he can't sin all he wants, according to your theology?


Bbob,

 

[DHK]

And your suggestion that the blood covers all your sin, is true, but if you continue to commit greivous sins, you don't have the blood, even though you stopped for a while and started back sinning.

BBob,

Either you have the blood covering all your sin or you don't.
Either you are saved or you are not.
There is no inbetween, Bob. You can't sit on the fence.
You can't be born again and again and again.
Once saved always saved, and always does the blood cover all sin!

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: 1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

You can't give him eternal life, you do not have the power, so I suggest it means a good christian life.
1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

First it was the apostle John and not Jesus that mentions the sin not unto death, was it not?

I thought it was all given by the inspiration of God.

I would not view the sin not unto death and unto death in the manner some are understanding it. First, this is the only verse that I am aware of that could be understood as sin that might not (if ones interpretation is correct) merit eternal separation from God. It is a stand alone verse, and if interpreted to mean that some sins will not merit eternal separation from God it is then understood as being in direct opposition to the numerous verses that indicate any and all sin will bring about the penalty of sin, i.e., eternal separation from God. Therefore I am very cautious of making doctrine with this one verse.

2Ti 3:16All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


I am of the opinion that it is speaking NOT of some sins not meriting eternal punishment, but rather that there are some sins that when committed, God will immediately strike the person dead. We have at least a few examples of this happening. It does absolutely no good to pray for those individuals in that situation. A sin Not unto death, is a sin, that if persisted in until death without repentance, will indeed, as any other sin, merit eternal separation from God, yet God does not immediately strike the individual down as in the sin unto death. There is a time period that the individual is ‘in danger of’ eternal separation, yet has not reached the point of no return. It is for these sins that we are to pray for.

Phl 1:21For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain.

Phl 1:23For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:


Rev 14:13And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed [are] the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Ecc 7:1¶A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

1Th 4:13¶But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

Hbr 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Hbr 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.


BBob,

 

[DHK]

DHK's is his opinion but mine are lies. That sir is hypocritical.

It wasn't hypocritical. You demanded evidence and I gave you evidence with a URL to back it up. That is evidence enough. HP made a statement without any evidence to back it up. I stated that his statement was simple opinion. He can opine all he wants. I don't mind. But when you start to make accusations then have the evidence to back it up.

I have proven all the other posts to be true.

Bbob,

Which posts?
You have borne false witness against many of us telling the board that we teach others that it is alright to sin, or that we encourage other to sin. That is bearing false witness against all of us. For none of us have made any such statement. But you frequently have made such a statement.

 

[Brother Bob]

It wasn't hypocritical. You demanded evidence and I gave you evidence with a URL to back it up. That is evidence enough. HP made a statement without any evidence to back it up. I stated that his statement was simple opinion. He can opine all he wants. I don't mind. But when you start to make accusations then have the evidence to back it up.


Which posts?
You have borne false witness against many of us telling the board that we teach others that it is alright to sin, or that we encourage other to sin. That is bearing false witness against all of us. For none of us have made any such statement. But you frequently have made such a statement.

Oh?, that is my opinion sir.......................................

Your teaching that God does not even see their sin, encourgages them to sin. IMO

BBob,

 

[DHK]

Oh?, that is my opinion sir.......................................

Your teaching that God does not even see their sin, encourgages them to sin. IMO

BBob,

And as we have told you before, that is a false allegation, a lie, bearing false witness--carrying the same weight as raping or adultery.
You will stand before God and give account for that ungodly lie, when you know it is not true.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: I believe that your judgment and accusations are completely false. It is just as much to name call, calling one a liar, (in this case falsely) as it is to do anything else. You have even accused me of name calling when I simply associate your stated beliefs to those of a well known system of theology, and explain myself in detail as to the truth of that association. Where is your sense of fairness or justice??

DHK: Quite frankly I don't need to be forthright in answering anybody's questions, including yours. The Lord created me with free will, and this country allows for freedom of speech, and freedom of not to speak. What makes you think that you can compel me to answer your posts or am obligated to do so?

HP: Nothing compels you to…….. unless you desire not to be seen as unfair, unkind, unwilling to grant your brother in the Lord the opportunity to hear with your own lips your stated position, rather than to cast lying accusations around, that without such clear explanations are mere personal insults, and that without merit.

DHK: My theology has no contradictions.

HP: That is a subjective notion for certain.

DHK: They are contradictory to you because you do not believe in eternal security. As long as you do not hold to the OSAS position it is quite evident that you will see inconsistencies in all of our answers who believe in eternal security, and you will continue to label us with "clear contradictions in our own theology." The problem actually lies in your denial of the truth of the Word of God's teaching in a believer being eternally secure in the hand of God, once he trusts Christ as His Saviour.

HP: Strange you have yet to establish the truth of eternal security, but rather have chosen to accept it at every turn as a presupposition by which you approach Scripture from. Show us one verse that states that it is impossible, once entering into a hope of eternal life, to turn your back on such hope and do despite the Spirit of grace one once received and be lost in the end? Show us from the Word of God that all sins that one is presently committing or will commit in the future have a blanket pardon apart from sincere repentance being invoked. You have not produced one shred of evidence to establish any sin, apart from the fulfilling of the conditions for forgiveness, have been or will be pardoned.




HP: Your position as you have stated it many times would indeed allow those into heaven that God states will not enter in regardless of what faith they think they have or the ‘belief’ they believe they have had in the past. 1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? BE NOT DECEIVED: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Quote:
DHK: 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

DHK: You have (deceitfully) quoted part of a passage out of its context. Leaving it out of its context just as it is, it only teaches that heaven will be empty, and absolutely no one will enter heaven. Fine theology you have there HP.

HP: First, I quoted nothing “deceitfully.” What gives you the right to impinge my motives for quoting this passage? Who are you to judge another man’s servant in this manner?

DHK: Scripture teaches no such thing.

HP: I did not get that verse from a fairy tale book DHK. That is straight from the Word of God. Instead of the personal attacks of being ‘deceitful’, why don’t you practice a little Christian charity and simply state the context you believe I am failing to understand it from? Are you going to tell us that OSAS is a penumbral presupposition lying between the lines of this verse or what?

Is it even possible for you to debate on a Christian debate forum apart from consistently attacking another’s character or person?

 

[Brother Bob]

Either you have the blood covering all your sin or you don't.
Either you are saved or you are not.
There is no inbetween, Bob. You can't sit on the fence.
You can't be born again and again and again.
Once saved always saved, and always does the blood cover all sin!

You are incoherent in your theology. God covers all your sins, never to be remembered again, but wow! He is going to take my life over some sin, He said He would not remember. What kind of doctrine is that.

BBob,

 

[DHK]

Oh?, that is my opinion sir.......................................

Your teaching that God does not even see their sin, encourgages them to sin. IMO

BBob,

Of course you are totally inconsistent about this.
A person like HP will point to your doctrine of eternal security, and tell you that the flaw in your belief in OSAS is that you get saved and it gives you a licence to sin all you want. Essentially Bob, you believe the same thing, by admitting to a belief in eternal security. At least HP is consistent by denying eternal security, whereas you are not. You say you do believe in eternal security and thereby (according to what you accuse us of) give a licence to murder or rape. You believe the same thing.

 

[Brother Bob]

IF they are truly a believer, then yes, they would get into the kingdom.

There is not one act of goodness that we can do to get into heaven. In the same way, there is not one act of badness that could rip us out of God's hand. However, a true believer will not willingly, arrogantly, purposefully and without conviction do ANY sin.

I would be ashame to say, he had the blood of Christ, while molesting that little girl. Glad its never happened to me and my daughter. I sure would not say, bless his heart, he is with the Lord now.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: A person like HP will point to your doctrine of eternal security, and tell you that the flaw in your belief in OSAS is that you get saved and it gives you a licence to sin all you want.

HP: Tell me DHK. Would it be proper for me to respond as you do in similar comparisons, by calling you a liar, accusing you of sin, slander, or bearing false witness, or saying 'show me where I have ever stated that or you are bearing false witness against me?'

If not why not? Would it promote Christian charity if I would so respond in that manner. Just wondering.

 

[Brother Bob]

Of course you are totally inconsistent about this.
A person like HP will point to your doctrine of eternal security, and tell you that the flaw in your belief in OSAS is that you get saved and it gives you a licence to sin all you want. Essentially Bob, you believe the same thing, by admitting to a belief in eternal security. At least HP is consistent by denying eternal security, whereas you are not. You say you do believe in eternal security and thereby (according to what you accuse us of) give a licence to murder or rape. You believe the same thing.

Now this is one for the books, LISTEN up folks, hear ye, hear ye, DHK says I believe the same as he does, but calls me a liar for posting it.............:laugh:

BBob,

 

[DHK]

HP: Tell me DHK. Would it be proper for me to respond as you do in similar comparisons, by calling you a liar, accusing you of sin, slander, or bearing false witness, or saying 'show me where I have ever stated that or you are bearing false witness against me?'

If not why not? Would it promote Christian charity if I would so respond in that manner. Just wondering.

If I have mis-stated your belief, let me know and I will edit my post.
If your belief is correct then is it wrong for me to state it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If I have mis-stated your belief, let me know and I will edit my post.
If your belief is correct then is it wrong for me to state it?

HP: I will answer that after you answer my questions that I have asked kindly of you.:thumbs: Fair enough?

 

[DHK]

Now this is one for the books, LISTEN up folks, hear ye, hear ye, DHK says I believe the same as he does, but calls me a liar for posting it.............:laugh:

BBob,

Listen up Bob,
In a recent post HP (who does not believe in eternal security) said that your theology was inconsistent. He agreed to that much.
You have stated:
1. You believe in eternal security (as we do also).
2. You also believe (contrary to eternal security) that a believer that commits adultery cannot enter heaven. This goes contrary to eternal security and even denies the very doctrine.
3. On the one hand you say that you believe the same as we do--eternal security.
4. On the other hand, in the practical outworking of your theology it is full of inconsistencies which deny not only eternal security, but also the sufficiency of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and even the atonement.

Thus these discussions have dragged on. You say one thing, in agreement with us, and then tell us something entirely different.