Unconfessed Sin

But surely you don't imagine that believing that Jesus Christ died for all my sins, past, present and future, necessarily means encouraging, condoning or being happy with myself or any other Christian committing adultery, killing, stealing, lying, and so on? Was David happy about killing Uriah the Hittite, and comitting adultery with Bathsheba? Not if the words of Psalm 51 mean anything. Was Peter happy about denying his Lord? No - he went out and wept bitterly. Was Paul happy when he did things he should not do, or left undone those things he should do? No - he said, "O wretched man that I am". I am glad such men are in the bible. They don't give me excuses for my sin, but they encourage me to know that there is forgiveness when I do sin.

 

Key phrase, right here!

 

No Sir, I do not believe Christians commit such acts as are listed. I do believe we sin and have an advocate with God. Jesus told us and for a reason, "there is a sin not unto death", I do not believe this sin not unto death that we overtake a brother in, is one of those sins listed above.
I believe we are saved by Grace THROUGH faith and that Grace then stays with us and is able in the end to present us blameless, body, soul and spirit. If we sin a sin not unto death, that Jesus spoke of, we have an advocate with God.
Now if people want to fault my doctrine because it is too straight for them, it won't be the first time.

Isa 4:1¶And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

fault me if you must, for teaching that Christians must be Christlike, God Bless,

BBob

 

At Bible study a few weeks ago, the question came up as to why David and Peter were children of God, and Saul and Judas were not. By our standards, David committed some of the most henious sins known to man. I think the difference is repentance. Someone mentioned Psalm 51. There was also Peter's repentance before a Risen Christ.

Repentance in itself is a gift of God in my opinion. Saul was interested in his power, and Judas his money. What is the difference? A changed heart for Peter and David, and not for the other two. Why? only God knows.

 

Sorry, Bob, I obviously didn't explain myself clearly. I, too, believe that Christians must be Christlike. That was what I meant when I wrote, "They (bible men such as David, Peter, and Paul) don't give me excuses for my sin."

I do not believe in antinomianism - the idea that says, in effect, "I'm OK. Jesus Christ has saved me, so I can sin as much as I like. I'll still go to heaven." Such a thought ought to cause the person who has it seriously to doubt if he has truly been saved by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, neither do I believe that sanctification (as opposed to justification) is an immediate thing. I came across the following words in an article with the title: "Justification and Sanctification: What is the Difference?" at the web site: http://www.carm.org/questions/justification.htm

Justification is the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is reckoned to the sinner so the sinner is declared by God as being righteous under the Law (Rom. 4:3; 5:1,9; Gal. 2:16; 3:11). This righteousness is not earned or retained by any effort of the saved. Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life. It is based completely and solely upon Jesus' sacrifice on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and is received by faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9). No works are necessary whatsoever to obtain justification. Otherwise, it is not a gift (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1).
Sanctification, on the other hand, involves the work of the person. But it is still God working in the believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13). Sanctification is not instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified person is actively involved in submitting to God's will, resisting sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23). Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification. That is, even if we don't live a perfect life, we are still justified.​

But in case anyone should imagine that the author of those words is antinomian, he continues:

Does this mean that those justified by grace can sin as much as they want? ​

Romans 6:1-2 says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in it?"
1 Thess. 4:7 says, "God has called us not for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification."
The Scriptures teach us that we are to live holy lives and avoid sin (Col. 1:5-11). Just because we are saved and eternally justified before God (John 10:28), that is no excuse to continue in the sin from which we were saved. Of course, we all sin (1 John 1:8). But the war between the saved and his sin is continuous (Rom. 7:14-20) and it won't be until the return of Jesus that we will be delivered from this body of death (Rom. 7:24). To continually seek sin and use God's grace to excuse it later is to trample the blood of Christ underfoot (Heb. 10:29) and to reveal the person's true sinful, unsaved nature (1 John 2:4; 2:19). (Other verses worth checking out are: Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; and 1 Pet. 2:21-22.) ​

So I certainly do not fault you for saying that a Christian must be Christlike. I hope that makes my meaning at least a little clearer.

 

I accept this to be truth, but this is not what you been saying. This is what I been saying, if you will have it.

 

I believe and accept everything in your post.
We might have some difference to the types of sins that the saved do fall into.

I thank you for your replys, they are courteous and pleasent to read. May God Bless,

BBob

 

Thank you for your kind words Brother Bob. I don't think they are deserved - I often look at the messages I have posted and think, "Why did I put it like that? Someone could take that the wrong way, and think I'm very rude."

 

No, you have it wrong Sir. I been saying believers do not commit such sins as adultery and if it happens they were never saved.

And if no one is going to hell over their sins, I guess Jesus died in vain, for He said, My words shall judge you in the last day. I chuckle when someone tries to separate sins, hell, the lake of fire and say its unbelief, that will send you to hell when it takes belief in Jesus to have your sins removed so you do not go to hell. Its like trying to separate His death from His resurrection as I hear some do as if they discovered some great miracle. Well its takes both for us to have eternal life, and you cannot separate them, no matter how hard you try.

 

So in your view, unbelief (rejecting Christ) is not a sin, it seems.

 

If unbelief were unpardonable, how would anyone be saved? We weren't born as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. So before we were converted, we were all unbelievers. If a person persists in unbelief, and dies in unbelief, then of course they cannot be pardoned after death for their unbelief.

But was it simply "unbelief" in Mark 3? Verses 28-30 seem to indicate otherwise:

28 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;
29 "but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" ––
30 because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."​

Not only did those scribes not believe in Jesus, they ascribed Satan His work of casting out demons. Plenty of my friends and neighbours don't believe in Jesus Christ, and I fervently pray that God will graciously save them as He has me, but none of them ascribe His works to Satan.

 

I agree with everything skypair has said, here, that I've quoted. We, too often, cloud the issue with our words, even if done unintentionally.

Maybe I could (hopefully) expand on this and clarify this even more. So I shall attempt to do so.
skypair writes: "Not even (the) unsaved are going to hell on account of sin". This is absolutely correct. We too often cloud this issue with our terminology, by saying words to the effect that someone "goes to hell to pay for (our) sin(s)." This is simply not so. Neither 'sin', as in the sin nature, nor sins 'committed' are 'charged' to us, at all, but all these were placed on the Lord Jesus Christ, on the cross, who 'paid' the penalty in full, once for all time.

The Lord Jesus Christ was the 'sin-offering', once for all time. All the sins of the world were laid upon HIm. There is not one Scripture that I know of that ever says that "man 'pays' for his or her sins", anywhere in Scripture, as to the penalty for sin. Man suffers the consequences
of sin, all throughout Scripture, but that is not the same as "paying the 'judicial' penalty for sin(s)." If the blood, required by God to 'cover' sins were not accomplishable by that of 'innocent' "bulls and goats", why should one think that it is ever accomplished, in any way, by a 'guilty' man? In fact, I just cited a verse that says our 'trespasses were not imputed to us', in the first place. Why? Because they were already imputed to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Then why does one 'go to hell', stand 'condemned', or is 'lost', depending on how one wishes to say this? It is a valid question. Why is everyone not saved, then, since the Lord 'paid the price', in full? Because of not believing that God has sent the Son, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty through His own sacrifice on the cross.

We often say that a person is 'lost' because of unbelief, as well. Not exactly accurate, for "believe" is a word, in English, that may merely mean a lack of knowledge in which to believe. I prefer to use the word "disbelieve", or as the KJV renders it "believe not" which is an "active" rejection, as opposed to a "passive" state.

Something I found, and I don't even know who is the person saying this, says it better than I can, so I will quote it from them. [Please do not take this as an 'endorsement', for as I said, I know nothing further, and do not normally endorse anyone, except for what I may quote. (I did reduce the font size in the quote.)]

I fully agree with this.

Ed

 

I think its foolish to compare David with those who have the blood already applied to their souls, of which David did not. Also, who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, of which David did not, Also, who have the mind of Christ, which David did not.
If I believed all was the same, then I would not be concerned about what Christians did, no matter what. Many concubines, stone their wives and sons to death, etc.

Rom 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel

I think you do error in not telling people to believe in Christ includes repentance, confession that He is the Christ. I do not like the doctrine of "say you believe" and you are saved. If that is all you teach people you do them a wrong. It says to preach the Gospel, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. "believe what"? The Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. Jesus said to preach "repentance", you and Ed and saying "just believe" without explain that to believe from the heart includes repentance, confession.
You are using what I see on TV all the time, "just come up here and say the sinners prayer and you will be saved" hogwash.

If you want to tell people what it takes to be saved, tell them what Jesus said to tell them. Why are you trying to go around Jesus?

1Pe 4:1¶Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

It worries me that some are causing people to settle down on something short of salvation.

"To Believe"
Includes a lot more than the impression you are giving.

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

This scripture alone tells you that sins will condemn you to hell.

If a preacher got up in our church and preached that sins will not send you to hell, I would take him by the coat tail and set him down, maybe a little hard set down too.

Are you saying that all men's sins are forgiven?