Repentance and Faith

Wow...what a jump in logic!
I recall Jesus stating that even the evil man does not give his son a stone when he asks for bread.

 

Havensdad,
Before I am accused of paraphrasing Comfort and Cameron's views, I am referring to question 8 in their FAQ section on www.wayofthemaster.com. I won't quote it due to the copyright. Their general teaching is that if you sin willfully after conversion, you are fooling yourself, and you really are not saved. This is indefensible, unrealistic, and dangerous.

How does one sin "unwillfully"?

 

I disagree in that it points specifically to neither. However, your idea of repentance being synonymous with faith (forget for a moment that metanoia is not "believe" the way we think of it today), would teach clearly in this passage that faith is given by God, not an act of man. That was my point.

See above> praying for God to give repentance under the FG idea of that word, would mean Calvinism.

Then you do not reject Calvinism> you reject classical Lutheranism ala' "Bondage of the Will". Classical Calvinism (not Hyper Calvinism) teaches a "compatibilist" model> that man's will and God's sovereignty are mutually compatible.

As I have already demonstrated, repentance as I have defined it is clearly demonstrated in the Gospel of John on multiple occasions. Just because the word "metanoia" is not used, does not mean it is not the same thing.

Look "Press the accelerator" or "Push the Gas pedal". The same. So it is with John.

Your opinion. Heres mine:

Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.

I would say, as I quoted earlier from Jesus in the Gospel of John, that unless one has such repentance (turning from the things of man to the things of God) they CANNOT believe. Therefore, if they believe, they HAVE repented.

Example: to get to the store from my House, you HAVE to go down Davidson drive. So if someone had to go to the store to be saved, I could either say "Go to the store" or I could say "go down Davidson drive to the store" . Going to the store, INCLUDES going down Davidson Drive. It is not possible to get to the store, unless you first go down this street.

Where in the Heck did you hear that??! I not only "hold to" WOTM, I have been through there school, have discussed theology with them, and have watched every video they have. One of the Lessons in the School of Biblical evangelism, concerns "heretical" teachings of cults that teach sinless perfectionism. I have heard Ray, Kirk, Todd, Ez, Mark Spence, and the rest, ALL say that they sin pretty much on a daily basis.

So I have no idea where you got that from.

 

If this is wrong, Paul is also wrong in Romans...
This is a theological statement, as they make clear, and is the SAME thing Paul says here:


Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
Rom 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

 

Havensdad,

The only thing they make clear in their "FAQ question 8" is that they are embracing perfectionism. They clearly imply that willful sin after conversion is the sign of a person who is not really a Christian. Paul's life indicates the opposite - he certainly had his struggles. If you are going to dissect the term "willful" in defending WOTM, perhaps they should have included the same elaborate description you provided. The other possibility is they meant exactly what is written on the website.

 

The first sentence reads "we still sin". How is that sinless perfectionism, again?

OHHHHHHH, you mean you want to completely divorce the Holy Spirit (which scripture says now dwells inside us) of any changing power. Sorry, scripture does not allow for that.

If you claim to be a Christian, but go on sinning as if nothing happened, then according to scripture you are a hypocrite and a liar, and "the truth is not in you".

Paul had struggles. Yet he makes it VERY clear, that he HATED it when he sinned. If fact, he says it's NOT EVEN HIM DOING IT> it is sin that still dwells within him. That is what is meant by "unwillful" or "willful" sinning. If you can beat your wife, daily, with no remorse, God's spirit is not dwelling in you.

 

Havensdad,

I never said the Holy Spirit would not change a person's life. You are making assumptions. I am simply refuting perfectionism.

As for your reference to 1 John 2, I would like to add the comments on this passage of I. Howard Marshall, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland:

"...the test suggested by 1 John 2:3 in not of the saving knowledge of God or of Christ, but of the experiential knowledge of God and His Son. To get this wrong, as many commentators have, is to lay the groundwork for a complete misreading of the epistle!..." - The Epistles of John - I. Howard Marshall, p. 122

Incidentally, I don't see much point in continuing at this point. This has become an argument, and neither of us is going to change our view. The sarcasm is of no positive purpose in a religious discussion.

Blessings to you.

 

All of that is opinion. There is no textual or contextual reason to think that John is not referring to saving knowledge. It is clear later in this chapter, that John is speaking in a salvific way: why that would not be true here is complete conjecture, based on ones own presuppositions. I can list umpteenth commentaries, that would state this is speaking in a sense of "salvation".

 

Why would John be speaking about salvation when he is speaking to believers. They don't need salvation. This is a practical epistle, about practical Christian living. Practical Christian living doesn't need salvation.

 

First, the people who he is writing to, already "know him"...

1Jn 2:13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

Purpose?? Simple:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.


In fact (remembering that Chapter divisions only came somewhat recently) if we look RIGHT BEFORE THIS>

1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Very clear he is speaking salvifically. John is writing to this people to "clear things up", such as Christs bodily resurrection, the truth of Salvation, etc.

Notice above IF we walk in the light, THEN we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from sin. So what if we're not "walking in the light"???

 

...we don't have fellowship with one another. It's quite simple. I can't believe you think 1 John is speaking of salvation. The 3 Johns are letters written to believers.

 

Context? You jump from 2:13 to chapter 4 leaving out everything between.
The purpose of the epistle has nothing to do with salvation. You have just proved that in the verses you have quoted. Where does it say anything about sinners coming to Christ? It doesn't.

All of this has to do with fellowship. First our fellowship with other believers is mentioned. It also is predicated on the blood of Christ. Then our fellowship with God is mentioned, which also is interrupted by unconfessed sin.

To clear things up, perhaps. But that has nothing to do with salvation, as no believer has any possibility of losing their salvation. We are eternally secure in the hand of God.

Notice the key word "fellowship". If we are not walking in the light, it has nothing to do with our salvation, but everything to do with our fellowship.
The two things are very different from each other.

 

First> please understand that I am not advocating that ones salvation is based on works.

Second> it is clear from the conjunction used, that "the blood of Jesus Christ cleansing us from all righteousness" is hinged upon whether or not we are walking in the light.

Lastly> I believe in Perseverance of the Saints. I agree with DHK that e cannot lose our salvation. Rather, I think these scriptures teach that thosewho are saved, wil by their nature, be walking in the light.

Also, John states that these people ALREADY "know" Christ. So why would he be writing a letter to them about how to know him? He is NOT. There were many false teachings going around in those days. One was the Gnostics, whom John is clearly refuting in the beginning of the letter. Another, are those who believe "God's grace allows them to live immoral lives". One of these groups were the Nicolatians, who PROFESSED Christ, yet used the Grace of Christ to commit immorality. Revelations is clear that God "hates" the Nicolatians (his words, not mine), and in facts condemns churches for even tolerating them.

 

But if a non-American Christian says he or she believes in free grace, please don't make the assumption that they believe anything like what Havensdad describes as "borderline heresy". Here, belief in free grace means belief that salvation is ultimately due to God and His grace to sinners, nothing to do with "making decisions".

 

Yeah, I know. It makes me kind of angry that these people have usurped that word. If someone were to ask me o you believe in the free Grace of God? I would say ABSOLUTELY.

"Free" Grace, and "ineffectual" Grace, are two different things.