How is Once Saved Always Saved not a license to sin? (moved)

[Bible Highlighter]

I never said a believer is not saved. Please re-read what I wrote and base your question on that.

Then we are back to square one. If a person believes they can die in serious unrepentant sin (Such as murder, hate, adultery, theft, etc.) with the thinking they are saved, then they will have an excuse to live a sinful lifestyle or live in a particularily really evil sin that they enjoy with the thinking they are saved. This is Antinomianism or the ignoring of God's Laws.


....

 

[John Robie]

Then we are back to square one. If a person believes they can die in serious unrepentant sin (Such as murder, hate, adultery, theft, etc.) with the thinking they are saved, then they will have an excuse to live a sinful lifestyle or live in a particularily really evil sin that they enjoy with the thinking they are saved. This is Antinomianism or the ignoring of God's Laws.


....

Please re-read what I said and get back to me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please re-read what I said and get back to me.

Why don't you just answer the questions and explain what you mean?


....

 

[John Robie]

Why don't you just answer the questions and explain what you mean?


....

I explained what I meant in the earlier post.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I explained what I meant in the earlier post.

Your post can be read in several different ways (Which is not clear to me). Please just answer the simple questions. I say this because I am confused on where you are coming from. I want to know what you believe and if you do not answer my questions, then I will have no idea of where you stand on this issue. The questions are not hard. Please just answer them. Or are you afraid to answer them?


...

 

[John Robie]

Your post can be read in several different ways (Which is not clear to me). Please just answer the simple questions. I say this because I am confused on where you are coming from. I want to know what you believe and if you do not answer my questions, then I will have no idea of where you stand on this issue. The questions are not hard. Please just answer them. Or are you afraid to answer them?


...

The goading comments at the end are not helpful.

If my post is difficult, please ask a question pertaining to what I said. Something along the lines of "what did you mean when you said ...?"Then I can clarify. As it stands, your questions have nothing to do with what I said, and it looks like you just want to continue to post your talking points.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The goading comments at the end are not helpful.

If my post is difficult, please ask a question pertaining to what I said. Something along the lines of "what did you mean when you said ...?"Then I can clarify. As it stands, your questions have nothing to do with what I said, and it looks like you just want to continue to post your talking points.

I have talked on many forums before since 2004. This is the first forum I have been on that pushes the unBiblical concept of goading. Granted, I believe there is a line that must be drawn when a person is verbally attacked. I have been called bad names before as a Christian by other believers. I have been called Jason666. I have been called a "Wolf." I have been insulted and attacked personally in a big way many times (Without me insulting them in any way). Personal hateful attacks and words is the type of verbal persecution that Jesus talked about in Matthew 5.

But goading? Such a thing is not even based on Scripture. Jesus and the apostles said many uncomfortable things to others. Do you remember when Stephen had said things that cut the hearts of those who stoned him? Would not Stephen's words be considered as goading? However, was Stephen's words hateful? No. It was done in love. For Stephen asked God to not hold their crimes of stoning him against their charge. Stephen said things so as to get them to repent and believe in Jesus.

Asking if you are afraid does not mean that I am unloving towards you in any way. It is not my attention to attack or hurt you whatsoever. My intention is to draw you closer to God and His Word. My intention is to get you to tell the truth. My saying, "are you afraid to answer the questions" is not meant to hurt you but it was a question so as to ascertain the truth from you. If you want to remain cryptic or mysterious in telling me what you believe, then that is your call. You don't have to answer my questions. But you can clarify what you believe in relation to those questions, though (By how you think they do not apply) so as to be upfront and clear in telling me and others what you believe the truth on this topic actually is.

So the ball is still in your court.


...

 

[John Robie]

I have talked on many forums before since 2004. This is the first forum I have been on that pushes the unBiblical concept of goading. Such a thing is not even based on Scripture. Jesus and the apostles said many uncomfortable things to others. Do you remember when Stephen had said things that cut the hearts of those who stoned him? Would not Stephen's words be considered as goading? However, was Stephen's words hateful? No. It was done in love. For Stephen asked God to not hold their crimes of stoning him against their charge.

Asking you if you are afraid does it mean that I am not loving towards you in any way. It is not my attention to attack or hurt you in anyway. My intention is to get you to tell the truth. My saying, "are you afraid to answer the questions" is not meant to hurt you but it was a question so as to ascertain the truth from you. If you want to remain cryptic or mysterious in telling me what you believe, then that is your call. You don't have to answer my questions. But you can clarify what you believe in relation to those questions, though (By how you think they do not apply) so as to be upfront and clear in telling me and others what you believe the truth on this topic actually is. So the ball is in your court.


...

I've not been cryptic at all. And just for future reference, I am not afraid of any question.

Now, if you have questions about my earlier post, please let me know. Saying "I don't get it so I'll ignore it and move on", and then insist I answer unrelated questions is rather disrespectful.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've not been cryptic at all. And just for future reference, I am not afraid of any question.

Now, if you have questions about my earlier post, please let me know. Saying "I don't get it so I'll ignore it and move on", and then insist I answer unrelated questions is rather disrespectful.

First, it is not disrespectful to ask questions. Second, I understand perfectly when someone asks questions that I think are not true. That does not mean, I have not replied before in explaining how those questions are not true. Why don't you start by explaining how those questions do not apply (According to Scripture) and then discuss how morality and goodness is behind your position (So as to put my mind at rest in how you are in defense of God's goodness and holiness).


...

 

[John Robie]

First, it is not disrespectful to ask questions. Second, I understand perfectly when someone asks questions that I think are not true. That does not mean, I have not replied before in explaining how those questions are not true. Why don't you start by explaining how those questions do not apply (According to Scripture) and then discuss how morality and goodness is behind your position (So as to put my mind at rest in how you are in defense of God's goodness and holiness).


...

It's pretty simple. They do not apply because there's nothing in them that addresses what I said. In fact, they actually ignite what I said. I crafted a response to questions you had, and instead of addressing my post, I got the equivalent of "yeah, yeah, yeah. But what about this?" When you ask a question and ignore the answer, that demonstrates disrespect.

Now, is there a question concerning my earlier post that you'd like to ask? If so, please ask.

 

[nobdysfool]

But what about believing that one can die in unrepentant sin that leads unto death like murder, hate, theft, adultery, etc. with the thinking one can be saved? Is that not teaching one can live sinfully and yet still be saved? How is that any different then living a lifestyle of sin with thinking one can be saved?


...

I would like to know who here has said such a thing. From what I've seen, framing the questions in this way is "poisoning the well". You say that Christ did not die for future or present sins, only past ones, is that correct? Then you have a problem, because when He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead, ALL of YOUR sins were yet future. To be logically consistent, He didn't die for your sins, if He didn't die for future sins...

Now if you say he didn't die for future "unrepentant" sins, that doesn't get you off the hook. Jesus dies for sin. Whether or not we repented of any given sin does not affect whether or not He died for it. He either died for it, or He didn't. If He did, we can be forgiven, upon repentance. If He didn't, no amount of repentance, works, or begging and pleading will gain us forgiveness for that sin or sins.

Jesus took care of sin on the cross, once and for all. We cannot add to, or subtract from that solution. Good works are the evidence of Salvation, not its cause, or its maintenance plan. if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, His Blood cleanses us from sin. Walking with Christ is not a good work in the sense of "doing something for Jesus".

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's pretty simple. They do not apply because there's nothing in them that addresses what I said. In fact, they actually ignite what I said. I crafted a response to questions you had, and instead of addressing my post, I got the equivalent of "yeah, yeah, yeah. But what about this?" When you ask a question and ignore the answer, that demonstrates disrespect.

Now, is there a question concerning my earlier post that you'd like to ask? If so, please ask.

First, I believe I answered what you said before with Scripture (in several ways). You just didn't like the answers. Second, it is not disrespect to ask an alternate question so as to determine what you believe. I have no idea what you believe. Hence, why I asked alternate questions so as to determine the truth of the matter. If you believe the questions do not apply, you are going to have to explain how. So again, the ball is in your court. The choice is yours to explain what you believe or to simply continue to remain silent from this point (Like you have been).

What you have to explain is how your belief lines up with morality or the God's goodness and or holiness. Right now, I don't see you doing that. You need to convince me (And others here who are on the side of the goodness of God) that what you believe is support of the righteousness of the LORD. If not, then just please gracefully bow out of this discussion and remain mysterious and cryptic.


....

 

[John Robie]

First, I believe I answered what you said before with Scripture (in several ways). You just didn't like the answers. Second, it is not disrespect to ask an alternate question so as to determine what you believe. I have no idea what you believe. Hence, why I asked alternate questions so as to determine the truth of the matter. If you believe the questions do not apply, you are going to have to explain how. So again, the ball is in your court. The choice is yours to explain what you believe or to simply continue to remain silent from this point (Like you have been).

What you have to explain is how your belief lines up with morality or the God's goodness and or holiness. Right now, I don't see you doing that. You need to convince me (And others here who are on the side of the goodness of God) that what you believe is support of the righteousness of the LORD. If not, then just please gracefully bow out of this discussion and remain mysterious and cryptic.


....

Okay, I guess we will move on since you refuse to engage with my earlier post. Hopefully you'll engage with this one (though I'm losing hope with your ability to stay on track).

My belief lines up with Christ's righteousness in that the penalty for sin was paid for by Christ for all who will believe. Hebrews (among other places) is clear that His sacrifice was once for all.

I also believe that we are, in actual reality, new creations. We are given new hearts. The new part of us longs to love and serve Christ. But we are still stuck with this body of flesh that wants to continue to rebel. So that is why we still sin. However, repentance is an indication that someone truly believes because the natural man has no need (in his mind) to repent.

So God is righteous in His dealings with me because my sin has been atoned for by His Son. In the Father's eyes, I am seated at the right hand of God, securely in Christ, sealed by the Spirit.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would like to know who here has said such a thing. From what I've seen, framing the questions in this way is "poisoning the well".

No, it is determining the truth behind people condoning a sin and still be saved doctrine.

You say that Christ did not die for future or present sins, only past ones, is that correct? Then you have a problem, because when He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead, ALL of YOUR sins were yet future. To be logically consistent, He didn't die for your sins, if He didn't die for future sins...

This is a sin and still be saved doctrine right here. By saying "future sin" is forgiven, it gives a person the wrong type of thinking that a believer can die in unrepentant serious sin like murder and still be saved. Yet, the Bible never says future sin is forgiven. On the contrary, it says if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleans us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). It says if we walk in the light as he is in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin (1 John 1:7). It says, if we claim that we know him and do not keep his commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us (1 John 2:4). It says if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven (Matthew 6:15). It says anyone who hates his brother does not have eternal life abiding in them (1 John 3:15). It says he that commits sin is of the devil (1 John 3:8). It says whosoever does evil hates the light (John 3:20).

Now if you say he didn't die for future "unrepentant" sins, that doesn't get you off the hook. Jesus dies for sin. Whether or not we repented of any given sin does not affect whether or not He died for it. He either died for it, or He didn't. If He did, we can be forgiven, upon repentance. If He didn't, no amount of repentance, works, or begging and pleading will gain us forgiveness for that sin or sins.

No. Repentance and accepting Christ is a part of receiving mercy. Proverbs 28:13 says he that confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy. Jesus defines repentance for us by saying that the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. If you were to turn to the end of Jonah chapter 3, you would see that the Ninevites turned from their evil and wicked ways as a part of their repentance. Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultery to: "sin no more."

Jesus took care of sin on the cross, once and for all. We cannot add to, or subtract from that solution. Good works are the evidence of Salvation, not its cause, or its maintenance plan. if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, His Blood cleanses us from sin. Walking with Christ is not a good work in the sense of "doing something for Jesus".

Can you claim salvation is all you because you called upon Him to save you? No, of course not. The Lord has drawn you to Him. The Lord has also made it possible for you to repent, too. Jesus saves 100%. We merely choose to abide with Christ and His good ways or not (of our own free will choice). But to erase any doubt, you need to ask yourself the question: Who ultimately does the "good work" in a believer's life?

Is it God?
Or is it the believer?

Well, Scripture tells us that God (Christ) is the One who does the work within a believer.

Philippians 1:6
Philippians 1:11
Philippians 2:13
Philippians 4:13
1 Corinthians 15:10
Hebrews 12:1-2
Hebrews 13:21
Isaiah 26:12
1 John 4:12
Galatians 5:22-24 (cf. Matthew 7:16-18, Matthew 19:17)
John 15:5
Ezekiel 36:26-27

For that is why the 24 elders cast their crowns down before Jesus (Revelation 4:10). For the crowns they received for their good work was all the result of Christ working in them.

Yeah, but doesn't a believer do the work, too? Now, yes, it is true; A believer is created unto Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10); And a believer is indeed held accountable by their "good works" here upon this Earth at a Judgment. But we must also realize that true believers are not ultimately doing these "good works" alone or of their own power, though. For in 1 Corinthians 15:10 Paul said that he labored more than all of his brethren, yet he said it was not him that labored but it was the grace of God that was within him. So true believer's are just choosing to allow God's "good work" to flow within them or not.

So no. I do not believe in Works Salvationism. I believe if someone truly has accepted the LORD and Christ lives within them, then good fruit (And not bad fruit) will be evident in their life to prove that the One who is salvation itself abides within them (1 John 5:12).

Also, again, it is not correct to say that future sin is forgiven a person because that would be teaching others that they can sin and still be saved (Which is Antinomianism or an ignoring of God's moral laws).


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay, I guess we will move on since you refuse to engage with my earlier post. Hopefully you'll engage with this one (though I'm losing hope with your ability to stay on track).

My belief lines up with Christ's righteousness in that the penalty for sin was paid for by Christ for all who will believe. Hebrews (among other places) is clear that His sacrifice was once for all.

I also believe that we are, in actual reality, new creations. We are given new hearts. The new part of us longs to love and serve Christ. But we are still stuck with this body of flesh that wants to continue to rebel. So that is why we still sin. However, repentance is an indication that someone truly believes because the natural man has no need (in his mind) to repent.

So God is righteous in His dealings with me because my sin has been atoned for by His Son. In the Father's eyes, I am seated at the right hand of God, securely in Christ, sealed by the Spirit.

No. Jesus does not atone for present or future rebellion in a person's life that is not repented of. It doesn't work like that. Only sin that is confessed and forsaken is forgiven. All of mankind's sin was paid for on the cross, but that does not mean everyone is saved. A person has to receive God's love gift (Thru repentance of their sins and acceptance of HIm) and then they have to abide by the terms of the contract involving that free love gift.

For example: I can receive a car as a free gift (tax free) from someone I love, but that does not mean I can go around and ignore the traffic laws, and or get drunk and then drive or run over pedestrians or ignore general maintenance on my vehicle. If I were to do so, I would not have that free gift for very long.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I mean what sets a believer apart from the unbeliever in regards to sin? If Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, then we have to conclude it is those individuals who have a Godly sorrow over their sin whereby they confess and forsake their sin in order to have mercy. To suggest that a believer can willingly rebel against God on any level (even with just one sin like say abusing children) with the thinking they are saved is preposterous. God cannot condone a person's present or future sin that is serious. Only when we say we are sorry about our sin and we strongly desire with God's help to stop can we ever truly have any kind of forgiveness from God. To suggest otherwise is to make God a party to a person's evil. But God is Holy; And God is good.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For example: If a father wiped away his son's past crimes by paying his fine, he could then start over and be let out on the hope that he would behave good again. But if the son kept committing the same crimes again, and his father had any sense of morality or goodness to him, then he would not pay the son's prison fine again (Knowing that the son could hurt others with his criminal activity). However, if the father let out the son knowing that he would do evil again, then the father would be just as guilty of the crimes that the son would commit again. For a good father would realize in paying a son's fine would be done in the hope that the son would be truly sorry about his crimes and never do them again. If they struggled with a sin and truly desired to stop, then that would be another matter.

In other words, there has to be a point where God knows that a person is truly going to be sorry about their sin and eventually stop in doing such a criminal act against Him. If one is not truly remorseful or sorry about their sin, then they are not going to care to express Godly sorrow and or stop in their sins at any point. They are just going to continue to live like an unbeliever without a care.


...

 

[John Robie]

No. Jesus does not atone for present or future rebellion in a person's life that is not repented of. It doesn't work like that. Only sin that is confessed and forsaken is forgiven. All of mankind's sin was paid for on the cross, but that does not mean everyone is saved. A person has to receive God's love gift (Thru repentance of their sins and acceptance of HIm) and then they have to abide by the terms of the contract involving that free love gift.

For example: I can receive a car as a free gift (tax free) from someone I love, but that does not mean I can go around and ignore the traffic laws, and or get drunk and then drive or run over pedestrians or ignore general maintenance on my vehicle. If I were to do so, I would not have that free gift for very long.


....

Please support your notion that future sin is not atoned for.

Thanks.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please support your notion that future sin is not atoned for.

Thanks.

If a saint believes future sin is forgiven them, then this would mean they will always remain spiritually holy and pure, just as they were the day they were saved, even if they would turn to sexual immorality, drunkenness, theft, idolatry, lying, murder, etc.

But the Bible teaches that only past sins for a believer are cleansed.

"if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins." (2 Peter 1:9).

But the Bible teaches that if a believer does not forgive, they will not be forgiven (Matthew 6:15).
The Bible teaches that if a believer hates his brother then they have no eternal life abiding in them (1 John 3:15).
The Bible teaches if we willfully sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:26).
The Bible teaches that if a believer were to look upon a woman in lust, they could be potentially be cast into Gehenna, i.e. the Lake of Fire (Matthew 5:28-29).

Is a believer automatically pure and holy because of Christ's sacrifice? No.

"Do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. (1 Timothy 5:22)

"Therefore, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent that you may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" (2 Peter 3:14).

Without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. (Luke 13:24).

He that covers his sins shall not prosper: but whosoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy (Proverbs 28:13).

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9).

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7).


...

 

[South Bound]

How is "Once Saved Always Saved" not a license to sin?

I have argued the topic of "Once Saved Always Saved" or "Eternal Security" for many years. In my many discussions on this topic on various forums, I have noticed that there are many warnings in the Bible that go ignored; In addition, the the moral issue is also ignored (in my opinion), as well. Please tell me how "Once Saved Always Saved" is not a license to sin. Can a person abide in unrepentant sins like lying, lusting, and hating and still be saved if they do those sins the rest of their life and die? Or do all true believers become holy and righteous in time? So does a believer do both good and bad as a part of their every day life? Or are they changed and different (showing that they have put on the new man)? Are believers supposed to be a holy and separate people that are different from the world or not?

What makes you think an unrepentant person is saved in the first place? Why would someone who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit want to continue to sin?

I realize the moderators will make up some bogus excuse to suspend me again for this, but it sounds like your problem isn't with the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, but with a misunderstanding of the regeneration that takes place when one is saved and the work the Holy Spirit does in the heart of a born again believer.