The Time is Near - He who is Righteous will be Righteous still

[Winman]

It does not work to getting us to a point here nobody does "sin" because it says "if anyone DOES sin we have an advocate with the Father" - and what is more it says "these things I write that you sin not" as if reading, and free will, and choice and motivation is the cause or mechanism for "sin not". And then because that will not always result in the choice to "sin not" he adds "and if anyone does sin...".

It is very difficult to argue from 1 John 2 and 3 that "no one will ever sin" when he specifically says "if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father" - right after saying "if we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin".

This leads to the Rev 22:10-11 conclusion that just like we are "not yet" at the time when no lost person will ever cross over and become saved, we are also not yet at the time when no saved person will cease to remain holy - but rather both groups may change, may cross-over now until that future time of Rev 22:10-11.

I am sure all would agree that the lost do become saved today - still. We are not yet at the future Rev 22:10-11 time.

So what then does 1John 3:9 mean.

Notice how 1John 3 fits with 1John 2.

John focuses on specific sin - actually committing real sin when he says "
he that loveth not his brother." John says that comitting sin is to commit "transgression of the Law of God" --

Paul says "no longer am I the one doing it - but sin dwelling IN me" Romans 7.

Paul references the new nature vs the sinful nature and claims that the new nature is not choosing sin - but rather the sinful nature. Then in Romans 8 Paul points out that through the power of the Holy Spirit we need not choose to submit to the sinful nature. (Just as he points out victory over sin in Romans 6).

Paul and John are in agreement.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob I snipped the scripture because the post had too many characters.

Your view is no better than mine, your view says a born again person cannot sin at all, and we know that is not true.

As for Paul in Romans 7, he cannot be speaking from the perspective of a saved person for several reasons.

#1 He says he is sold under sin in vs. 14. The Christian has been made free from sin.

#2 He said he serves sin in vs. 25. A born again Christian no longer serves sin, but righteousness.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Paul said he is captive to the "law of sin" in vs. 23. He says the law of the Spirit has made him free from the law of sin in Rom 8:2.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Paul NEVER mentions the Holy Spirit in chapter 7, not once. But now in chapter 8 he speaks of the Spirit and how it has made him free from the law of sin he was held captive to in Romans 7:23.

So Paul was speaking from the perspective of an unsaved, unregenerated man in chapter 7. Of course this destroys the doctrine of Total Inability, because repeatedly he says he desires to do what is right in chapter 7.

Back to our discussion, 1 John 3:9 cannot simply be speaking of sinning, because all Christians sin. It must be speaking of living in continuous sin, which most commentators agree is what is being said here.

Here is what Albert Barnes wrote.

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin - This passage must either mean that they who are born of God, that is, who are true Christians, do not sin habitually and characteristically, or that everyone who is a true Christian is absolutely perfect, and never commits any sin. If it can be used as referring to the doctrine of absolute perfection at all, it proves, not that Christians may be perfect, or that a “portion” of them are, but that all are. But who can maintain this? Who can believe that John meant to affirm this? Nothing can be clearer than that the passage has not this meaning, and that John did not teach a doctrine so contrary to the current strain of the Scriptures, and to fact; and if he did not teach this, then in this whole passage he refers to those who are habitually and characteristically righteous.

For his seed remaineth in him - There is much obscurity in this expression, though the general sense is clear, which is, that there is something abiding in the heart of the true Christian which the apostle here calls “seed,” which will prevent his sinning. The word “his” in this phrase, “his seed,” may refer either to the individual himself - in the sense that this can now be properly called “his,” inasmuch as it is a part of himself, or a principle abiding in him; or it may refer to God - in the sense that what is here called “seed” is “his,” that is, he has implanted it, or it is a germ of divine origin. Robinson (Lex.) understands it in the latter sense, and so also do Macknight, Doddridge, Lucke, and others, and this is probably the true interpretation. The word “seed” ( σπέρμα sperma) means properly seed sown, as of grain, plants, trees; then anything that resembles it, anything which germinates, or which springs up, or is produced.

It is applied in the New Testament to the word of God, or the gospel, as that which produces effects in the heart and life similar to what seed that is sown does. Compare Matthew 13:26, Matthew 13:37-38. Augustin, Clemens, (Alex.,) Grotius, Rosenmuller, Benson, and Bloomfield, suppose that this is the signification of the word here. The proper idea, according to this, is that the seed referred to is truth, which God has implanted or sown in the heart, from which it may be expected that the fruits of righteousness will grow. But that which abides in the heart of a Christian is not the naked word of God; the mere gospel, or mere truth; it is rather that word as made vital and efficacious by the influence of his Spirit; the germ of the divine life; the principles of true piety in the soul. Compare the words of Virgil: Igneus est illi vigor et coelestis origo semini. The exact idea here, as it seems to me, is not that the “seed” refers to “the word of God,” as Augustin and others suppose, or to “the Spirit of God,” but to the germ of piety which has been produced in the heart “by” the word and Spirit of God, and which may be regarded as having been implanted there by God himself, and which may be expected to produce holiness in the life. There is, probably, as Lucke supposes, an allusion in the word to the fact that we are begotten ( Ὁ γεγεννημένος Ho gegennēmenosof God. The word “remaineth” - μένει , compare the notes at 1 John 3:6 - is a favorite expression of John. The expression here used by John, thus explained, would seem to imply two things:
(1)that the germ or seed of religion implanted in the soul abides there as a constant, vital principle, so that he who is born of God cannot become habitually a sinner; and,

(2)that it will so continue to live there that he will not fall away and perish. The idea is clearly that the germ or principle of piety so permanently abides in the soul, that he who is renewed never can become again characteristically a sinner.
And he cannot sin - Not merely he will not, but he cannot; that is, in the sense referred to. This cannot mean that one who is renewed has not physical ability to do wrong, for every moral agent has; nor can it mean that no one who is a true Christian never does, in fact, do wrong in thought, word, or deed, for no one could seriously maintain that: but it must mean that there is somehow a certainty as absolute “as if” it were physically impossible, that those who are born of God will not be characteristically and habitually sinners; that they will not sin in such a sense as to lose all true religion and be numbered with transgressors; that they will not fall away and perish. Unless this passage teaches that no one who is renewed ever can sin in any sense; or that everyone who becomes a Christian is, and must be, absolutely and always perfect, no words could more clearly prove that true Christians will never fall from grace and perish. How can what the apostle here says be true, if a real Christian can fall away and become again a sinner?

Because he is born of God - Or begotten of God. God has given him, by the new birth, real, spiritual life, and that life can never become extinct.

I tend to agree with this view. I believe a true Christian that is born of God can never fall away in unbelief. Oh, they might have a period, or even a short season of doubt, but I believe they will always recover their faith. It is certainly shown throughout scripture that true Christians had moments of doubt as when John the Baptist was in prison.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well the Arminian model does not allow for OSAS because free will means that the saved saint has the choice of losing salvation and while not all will take the path to become "Severed from Christ" and "Fallen From Grace" Gal 5:4 - apparently as Paul points out - some do.

And as Christ warns in Matt 18 - forgiveness revoked is what is promised to those who are fully forgiven - and yet who later fail to show that SAME full forgiveness to their fellow servants.

in Christ,

Bob

I am neither an Arminain nor a cal. So your point is moot.

 

[saturneptune]

"He is able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not continue in unbelief" Romans 11.

There is nothing in there about "Christ would have to die again".

in Christ,

Bob

Again, define the line, both going into an unsaved state and returning to a saved state, not some vague concept backed up by an out of context verse.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Revmitchell
Ok OSAS does not mean no free will after being saved. If you are going to try to represent someone else view you need to do it honestly lest you fall into the same error cals do.

Well the Arminian model does not allow for OSAS because free will means that the saved saint has the choice of losing salvation and while not all will take the path to become "Severed from Christ" and "Fallen From Grace" Gal 5:4 - apparently as Paul points out - some do.

And as Christ warns in Matt 18 - forgiveness revoked is what is promised to those who are fully forgiven - and yet who later fail to show that SAME full forgiveness to their fellow servants.

I am neither an Arminain nor a cal. So your point is moot.

My point is not that you have to be one thing or the other. My point is that Arminians don't have a theological basis for arguing in favor of the tradition of OSAS because we believe in free will both before one is saved and afterwards.

Which means we are left taking the Matt 18 warning about "forgiveness" revoked, and the Gal 5:4 problem of "Severed from Christ" and "Fallen from grace" to be a serious subject for consideration.

As well as the John 15:1-7 teaching about 'branches IN ME" that are removed - dried up - dead and tossed into the fire as worthless.

And this thread specifically deals with the Rev 22:10-11 subject where at a future point in time - the saints do not lose salvation any more and the lost do not accept the Gospel any more.

On the Calvinism vs Arminianism board section - one of our "non cal" friends made this case for a non-Cal support of OSAS - (no free will) after one is saved - but free will before being saved.

Rev 22 NASB
10 And he *said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

11 Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”


Rev 22 KJV
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.


Notice that this speaks of a future time when the wicked will no longer be converted to the Gospel and when the righteous will no longer be subject to backsliding into wickedness and rebellion against God and the loss of salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Revmitchell]

Uh no I do not have to be either. That is a strawman.

 

[BobRyan]

Again, define the line, both going into an unsaved state and returning to a saved state, not some vague concept backed up by an out of context verse.

Romans 11 is the very thing you seem to be wanting to avoid.

11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[BobRyan]

I said -- My point is not that you have to be one thing or the other.

Uh no I do not have to be either. That is a strawman.

Are you posting to me or someone else???

If it is to me - I find your logic illusive just then.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In 1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you sin not, but if anyone does sinwe have an advocate with the Father"

In 1John 3:9 1 Jhn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Now let's try the solution of replacing "Sin" by "this verse cannot be speaking of sin in that sense, so it must be speaking of sinning "continuously" or falling away from being saved in unbelief." and see where that gets us.

1 John 2:1 "these things I write to you that you do not fall away from being saved in unbelief (i.e. sin not), but if anyone falls away from being saved in unbelief (i.e. does sin)we have an advocate with the Father"

It does not work
---

This leads to the Rev 22:10-11 conclusion that just like we are "not yet" at the time when no lost person will ever cross over and become saved, we are also not yet at the time when no saved person will cease to remain holy - but rather both groups may change, may cross-over now until that future time of Rev 22:10-11.

I am sure all would agree that the lost do become saved today - still. We are not yet at the future Rev 22:10-11 time.
...

Notice how 1John 3 fits with 1John 2.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgressethalso the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.


John focuses on specific sin - actually committing real sin when he says "
he that loveth not his brother." John says that comitting sin is to commit "transgression of the Law of God" --

"4 Whosoever committeth sin transgressethalso the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."


Paul says "no longer am I the one doing it - but sin dwelling IN me" Romans 7.


Paul references the new nature vs the sinful nature and claims that the new nature is not choosing sin ...

Bob I snipped the scripture because the post had too many characters.

Your view is no better than mine, your view says a born again person cannot sin at all, and we know that is not true.

My view is not that a born again Christian cannot sin.

My view is -

1. 1John 2 and details in 1 John 3 point to specific sin explicitly. Even naming sin in some cases.
2. you cannot swap out "sin" or "sin not" with " do not fall away from being saved in unbelief " in 1John 2 or 1John 3. 1 John 2 proves it cannot work.
3. John explicitly addresses "and if anyone does sin" so we know that it is possible as claimed by John - to sin after being a Christian.
4. The new nature is not the same as the sinful nature - and a Christian has both.
5. Paul addresses this warfare between the two natures in Romans 7 where "He serves the Law of God with my mind". In Romans 3 Paul explicitly states that in the sinful nature - we do not at all serve the law of God.
In fact in Romans 8 Paul insists that those who have only the sinful nature do not subject themselves to the Law of God - "neither indeed can they".
6. Rev 22:10-11 does speak to saints "holy being holy still" as you point out - not losing their salvation. But it says this is a future event "The time is near" - a new thing that is coming at which time the lost do not change - do not become converted. And also the saved will no longer change to become lost - but in the future time - will remain holy.


more on Romans 7 ...

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 7

5. Paul addresses this warfare between the two natures in Romans 7 where "He serves the Law of God with my mind". In Romans 3 Paul explicitly states that in the sinful nature - we do not at all serve the law of God.
In fact in Romans 8 Paul insists that those who have only the sinful nature do not subject themselves to the Law of God - "neither indeed can they".

As for Paul in Romans 7, he cannot be speaking from the perspective of a saved person for several reasons.

#1 He says he is sold under sin in vs. 14. The Christian has been made free from sin.

#2 He said he serves sin in vs. 25. A born again Christian no longer serves sin, but righteousness.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Paul said he is captive to the "law of sin" in vs. 23. He says the law of the Spirit has made him free from the law of sin in Rom 8:2.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Paul NEVER mentions the Holy Spirit in chapter 7, not once.

The problem in Romans 7 is only a problem for a saved person who "with my mind - serve the Law of God".

The problem in Romans 7 is only a problem for someone who fully affirms the Law of God "as holy just and good".

Paul says " I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;".

Apart from the law - from the ilght of what it really means - He thought He was "blameless" -- as "for the righteousness that comes from the law - found blameless" Phil 3.

This was how he viewed himself in his lost state. But then he was converted, he saw the real light of the Law of God and he realized that he needed salvation. He is converted and then "with my mind I serve the law of God". In Romans 8 Paul says the lost person does not choose to be subject to Law of God also "can not" conform/obey even if they wanted to.

The slavery in Romans 7 is only that which can take place in the life of the saint - apart from applying the remedy of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8.

But now in chapter 8 he speaks of the Spirit and how it has made him free from the law of sin he was held captive to in Romans 7:23.

Yes indeed. All agree that Romans 8 is pointing to the solution for the problem in Romans 7.

The debate/question is whether Romans 7 problem is one that the lost person has who considers himself "blameless" as Paul says of his lost state in Gal 3, or of the newborn saint who finally has the new nature , the will and desire to serve God but realizes He needs supernatural power to do it -because "in me dwelleth no good thing". That is in our human sinful nature.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[evangelist-7]

Romans 11 is the very thing you seem to be wanting to avoid.

The only thing that is not wanted to be avoided around here
are the false "doctrines of men" from many centuries ago.

Satan and man have combined with their free wills to be King over all.
I.E. The LORD God will not override anyone's free will choices.

Because of all of this, many have gone, continue to go, and will go into the great dumpster below.

However, the precious Holy Spirit will work in the BAC in trying to get him to believe the truth.
.

 

[Winman]

Romans 7

5. Paul addresses this warfare between the two natures in Romans 7 where "He serves the Law of God with my mind". In Romans 3 Paul explicitly states that in the sinful nature - we do not at all serve the law of God.
In fact in Romans 8 Paul insists that those who have only the sinful nature do not subject themselves to the Law of God - "neither indeed can they".

The problem in Romans 7 is only a problem for a saved person who "with my mind - serve the Law of God".

The problem in Romans 7 is only a problem for someone who fully affirms the Law of God "as holy just and good".

Paul says " I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;".

Apart from the law - from the ilght of what it really means - He thought He was "blameless" -- as "for the righteousness that comes from the law - found blameless" Phil 3.

This was how he viewed himself in his lost state. But then he was converted, he saw the real light of the Law of God and he realized that he needed salvation. He is converted and then "with my mind I serve the law of God". In Romans 8 Paul says the lost person does not choose to be subject to Law of God also "can not" conform/obey even if they wanted to.

The slavery in Romans 7 is only that which can take place in the life of the saint - apart from applying the remedy of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8.

Yes indeed. All agree that Romans 8 is pointing to the solution for the problem in Romans 7.

The debate/question is whether Romans 7 problem is one that the lost person has who considers himself "blameless" as Paul says of his lost state in Gal 3, or of the newborn saint who finally has the new nature , the will and desire to serve God but realizes He needs supernatural power to do it -because "in me dwelleth no good thing". That is in our human sinful nature.

in Christ,

Bob

I disagree with your interpretation of Romans 7. I do not believe Paul is saying he "mistakenly believed" he was alive without the law once. When was he without the law?, the law was 1500 years before he was born.

No, I believe Paul is speaking of himself as a child before he knew the law, because he explains that he had not known sin without the law. He gives the example that he would not have known "lust" except the law had said "thou shalt not covet".

Now, Paul did believe the law would bring life, if you keep the law you would inherit eternal life. But sin, taking advantage of the law convicted him as a sinner and he spiritually died.

This is the perspective Paul is speaking from, as an unregenerate sinner. He wants to keep the law, he knows it is good, but he has been convicted by it and it has worked death in him.

If Paul wanted to teach he "mistakenly believed" he was alive, he could have easily said that.

No, Paul declared plainly that he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.

You must be spiritually alive to die, this chapter absolutely refutes Original Sin, just as Jesus taught when the prodigal son repented, that he was alive AGAIN.

 

[BobRyan]

Not everyone will agree with me on the two-natures at war in Romans 7 for the born-again saint who "with my mind - I serve the Law of God" -- where the solution is found in Romans 8.

But in Rev 22:10-11 we have agreement that the "holy will be holy still" is a kind of OSAS - and yet according to the text itself it is future. It is a future change according to the text, just as the text says about the future change where the lost no longer convert to become saved saints.

========================


Rev 22 NASB
10 And he *said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

11 Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”


Rev 22 KJV
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.


Notice that this speaks of a future time when the wicked will no longer be converted to the Gospel and when the righteous will no longer be subject to backsliding into wickedness and rebellion against God and the loss of salvation.


-------------------------


Until that point in time though we DO have the changes - the wicked turn to righteousness and the saints fall from grace, severed from Grace, forgiveness revoked - lose salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If Paul wanted to teach he "mistakenly believed" he was alive, he could have easily said that.

No, Paul declared plainly that he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.

You must be spiritually alive to die, this chapter absolutely refutes Original Sin, just as Jesus taught when the prodigal son repented, that he was alive AGAIN.

Paul said in Phil 3 that "as a Pharisee" (which is not the state of an infant by any measure) "As to the righteousness that comes through the law - found blameless".

4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

And in Romans 7 "I was once alive apart from the law".

In neither case does he say "mistakenly believed to be"

For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

 

[BobRyan]

I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it isno longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

the new nature "the inner man" is in harmony with the Law of God according to Paul in Romans 7. This is the 2Cor 5 state of the "new creation".
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

"It is NO LONGER I who do it" shows that in his former state it WAS Paul choosing sin - but then a change came and now it is "NO LONGER I". -- the new creation rejects sin.

"What I WILL to do that I do NOT" here is free will being exercised CHOOSING to obey God - choosing the path of the saint - the new creation.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Not everyone will agree with me on the two-natures at war in Romans 7 for the born-again saint who "with my mind - I serve the Law of God" -- where the solution is found in Romans 8.

But in Rev 22:10-11 we have agreement that the "holy will be holy still" is a kind of OSAS - and yet according to the text itself it is future. It is a future change according to the text, just as the text says about the future change where the lost no longer convert to become saved saints.

========================


Rev 22 NASB
10 And he *said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

11 Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”


Rev 22 KJV
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.


Notice that this speaks of a future time when the wicked will no longer be converted to the Gospel and when the righteous will no longer be subject to backsliding into wickedness and rebellion against God and the loss of salvation.


-------------------------


Until that point in time though we DO have the changes - the wicked turn to righteousness and the saints fall from grace, severed from Grace, forgiveness revoked - lose salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

It would be most beneficial then for a new believer in Christ to die quickly, even pray for a quick death, so they will not have too many days to live and have their gift of eternal life snuffed out of them by the One who freely gave it by grace through faith.

It would be wise to apply a bit of God given logic to a position before fully embracing it as a matter of fact.

 

[Winman]

It would be most beneficial then for a new believer in Christ to die quickly, even pray for a quick death, so they will not have too many days to live and have their gift of eternal life snuffed out of them by the One who freely gave it by grace through faith.

It would be wise to apply a bit of God given logic to a position before fully embracing it as a matter of fact.

I remember Curtis Hutson saying if this were true, he would just continue to hold folks under when they got baptized and get them into heaven quick! :laugh:

 

[Winman]

Paul said in Phil 3 that "as a Pharisee" (which is not the state of an infant by any measure) "As to the righteousness that comes through the law - found blameless".

4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

And in Romans 7 "I was once alive apart from the law".

In neither case does he say "mistakenly believed to be"

For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

You are supporting my argument, Paul was not unable to express what he really meant to say. As a Pharisee, he was blameless.

Folks think that all the Pharisees were horrible hypocrites, that is not true, many were sincerely devout and lived about as holy a life as a person could possibly do.

Look what scriptures say about John the Baptist's parents;

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Zacharias and his wife were GOOD people. They obeyed God about as perfectly as a man could do. Were they sinless? Of course not. And Zacharias knew he wasn't sinless and gave the offerings for his sins, and this is why he was judged "righteous" by God.

Paul was also a very good man as a Pharisee, and that is what he is saying here.

But in Romans 7 Paul is speaking of when he came to know the law:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Paul tells us here he would not even have known what lust is, unless the law had told him not to covet. So when Paul speaks of the "commandment coming" in verse 9, he is speaking of that time when he learned the law and learned what sin is. This traditionally is when a Jewish boy is around 13 years old and learns the law. The Bar Mitzvah means "son of commandments" and is when the Jews believed a young man became accountable before God.

So, Paul is not confused here, and he is not telling us he mistakenly believed he was spirutally alive, he is actually telling us he was spiritually alive until he learned the commandments. When he learned the law he became accountable and was convicted by the law as a sinner and spiritually died.

And Paul didn't say he "thought" he died, he said he actually died, and that sin slew him. You have to be alive to die, and you have to be alive for someone to slay you.

Original Sin is false doctrine.

 

[steaver]

I remember Curtis Hutson saying if this were true, he would just continue to hold folks under when they got baptized and get them into heaven quick! :laugh:

Yeah, quick before they have their eternal life revoked! :tongue3:

If it were true, the gospel should be preached that once you receive Christ as Lord a Saviour, now pray you die quickly!!

 

[DHK]

Until that point in time though we DO have the changes - the wicked turn to righteousness and the saints fall from grace, severed from Grace, forgiveness revoked - lose salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

There is no such doctrine as "forgiveness revoked." It is a false doctrine. Perhaps Bob himself made it up, I don't know.
But this I do know.
The theological basis for it comes from a parable.
First, parables don't teach doctrine; they illustrate doctrine already taught.
Second, parables never, never, introduce new doctrine. Bob has introduced this new doctrine via a parable which violates all principles of hermeneutics.
Third, and repetition is good for the soul, parables are for illustration of doctrine--just as Jesus used them. He would teach, and then give a parable to support the doctrine. Often he had to interpret the parable to his disciples. But it wasn't new doctrine.
OTOH, Bob is trying to introduce new doctrine via a parable which makes his man-made "forgiveness revoked" null and void.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no such doctrine as "forgiveness revoked." It is a false doctrine .

I think that is a view a lot of people have until they "notice the details" in Matt 18 as taught by Christ.

Matt 18
32 Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’
34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.

Those who are alert to the principle of "forgiveness revoked' will instantly see that very thing happening here.

Those who embrace tradition against the Bible in vs 32-34 are not going to accept the words of Christ in vs 35 applied outside of the Parable.


35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

Those who accept the teaching of Christ in the Gospels will instantly notice that he is applying that same rule to the saved saints who also have been fully forgiven - and are therefore under obligation to "forgive others AS they have been fully forgiven.


in Christ,

Bob