If you keep sinning after you are saved are you still saved?

[bmjackson]

Have I ever argued that we shouldn’t worry about sin? Or that sin isn’t a big deal? No. And I never will. I agree against the false notion that we can be sinless in this life because it puts a burden on Christians. It’s law-driven and not gospel-centered. It focuses on what we can do for Christ, and takes the glory away from what Christ did for us.

This is what gives the doctrine of entire sanctification a bad name. Yes we can be sinless, and it is only through faith and not by works.

Believing it is a gradual process is works. If it is by faith then it can happen in an instant.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Every believer knows that the greatest torment is having to live this life surrounded by sin within and without. Knowing that you will never, in this life, achieve the perfection in your walk. The only relief is knowing that He is faithful and just, and that the day is coming when we will be freed from this body of sin and attain a new body.. a sinless body. Until then we die daily. We crucify our flesh daily. We are totally and completely dependent on Him, His blood, and his life.

 

[RaymondG]

Have I ever argued that we shouldn’t worry about sin? Or that sin isn’t a big deal? No. And I never will.

Did you see this accusation in my words?

I agree against the false notion that we can be sinless in this life because it puts a burden on Christians. It’s law-driven and not gospel-centered.

We are to cast our cares now Him....after which there is no burden....and we can walk in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.....no longer entangled in yokes of bondage.

It focuses on what we can do for Christ, and takes the glory away from what Christ did for us.

I think it's the opposite. For man it is impossible... with God, all things are possible.
To say that this is impossible.....is to say that it is impossible for God as well....thereby, removing some glory from Him.....as this would be the single thing I've learned that is impossible for Him....

 

[Hammster]

This is what gives the doctrine of entire sanctification a bad name. Yes we can be sinless, and it is only through faith and not by works.

Believing it is a gradual process is works. If it is by faith then it can happen in an instant.

Only if you define sin to a standard that you can uphold.

 

[bmjackson]

Only if you define sin to a standard that you can uphold.

I define sin as anything that is not in the will of God including thoughts and omissions.

 

[Hammster]

Did you see this accusation in my words?



We are the cast our cares now Him....after which there is no burden....and we can walk in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.....not longer entangled in yokes of bondage.



I think it's the opposite. For man it is impossible... with God, all things are possible.
To say that this is impossible.....is to say that it is impossible for God as well....thereby, removing some glory from Him.....as this would be the single thing I've learned that is impossible for Him....

It’s not whether it’s impossible or not. Yes, God can fully sanctify us in an instant, just like He will do in glory. But He chooses not to, for His reasons.

 

[Hammster]

I define sin as anything that is not in the will of God including thoughts and omissions.

I’m sure you do.

 

[Grip Docility]

We must not wrest this verse out of the context of the book and the chapter in which it is written if we want to understand John. 1John was written to counteract the heresy which was affecting the church (and still is) and was a treatise for Christians in general as there is no mention of a specific church as was contended by Lampe in his appeal to Theodoret.



The Latin version said "Epistle to the Pathians, adopted by Ancient Fathers defended by Grotius" but not in Greek, but at least the Syriac language of the Parthian Empire was understood by Christian’s unaquainted with Greek. Whoton conjectures on Greek superscription (to virgins) because the epistle is addressed to 'uncorrupted' Christians. Frequent usage of light and darkness occurs in Persian philosophy so John is correcting the abuses of it. That John really designed his epistle as a warning to those Christians who were in danger of being affected by Zoroastrian principles is very probable though the language of the epistle will not permit us to place John's readers in a country to the East of Euphrates.



The apostle is declaring to the whole world, his disapprobation of the doctrines maintained by Cerinthus and the Gnostics. Cerinthus taught that Jesus was by birth a mere man but that 'the Christ' descended on Him at His baptism. In order to understand the epistle we must ask ourselves the following questions, Why did John give these admonitions? Why did he repeat them frequently? Why has he admonished if he thought admonition necessary, merely in general terms and brotherly love? Why has he not sometimes descended into particulars as other apostles have done?



The Gnostics, who taught that man could be righteous in spirit and still sin in the flesh, (which is nowadays recognised by 'imputed righteousness' which Fox taught against) contended that the apostles had added commandments not given by Christ concerning the doctrine of sanctification. John devotes the greatest part of his epistle to the confirmation and enforcement of his doctrine.



The basis of this error i.e. that a believer can still be in Christ and sin was made popular and spread through the church by Augustine who taught this because he was unable to give up his women. Augustine has spread his heresies throughout the Protestant and Catholic Church since. Fox and the Quakers (and others at various times) saw this notion as unscriptural as it was taught also during the early centuries of the church, but was always opposed amongst those who did not wish to turn from their sins.









If we look at verses 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in chapter 1,



6, If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness we lie and do not the truth.



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 Christ cleanseth us from ALL sin



(BUT)



8, If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us



(BUT)



9, If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.



(BUT)



10, If we say that we have not sinned we make Him a liar and His Word is not in us



We can see that John is comparing walking in the light to walking in darkness ie walking in the flesh compared to walking in the Spirit. He is describing two different opposing state which corresponds perfectly with the teaching of the Apostle Paul when he talks about 'carnal' or fleshy believers against those who were walking in the Spirit.. In verses 7 and 9, John says that the benefit of walking in the light are:-



1)We have fellowship with one another in the unity of the Spirit (agreement)

2)By confessing our sins we will be forgiven

3)We will then be cleansed by the blood of Jesus from all unrighteousness and sin.



Whereas if we walk in the flesh:-



1)We are deceived and remain in our sin

2)There is no truth in us

3)We make God a liar by denying our need for forgiveness.



So John is saying that it is only when we are walking in the darkness that we are blind to our need of coming to Christ for His cleansing from ALL sin. The letter is to believers and not un-believers as stated previously. And believers can fall into the error of walking in the flesh as Paul demonstrated to the Galatians who thought that they could go on to maturity or perfection through the works of the law and not through faith.



Those who were being misled by the Gnosticism and today by the preachers of 'positional righteousness' were walking in darkness because they were still sinning and did not see their need of the cleansing which can be provided by Christ alone. So they thought that they had no sin to be dealt with and were acceptable as they were, but John says that they walk in darkness. But if we see our need for cleansing from ALL sin and come to Christ (again) for forgiveness, then He will be able to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness (not just the sin in question please note) So it is these ones who are saying wrongly that they have no sin not the ones who have come to Christ and HAVE been cleansed from ALL unrighteousness.



John goes on in the rest of his epistle to show that those who do carry on in sin (but say they have no further need of cleansing) are NOT in CHRIST. He stresses his point against the Gnostic heresy Little children let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous even as He is righteous 3:7 and this is the test i.e. as He is righteous so must we be not just in position or as a hope for the future but as a present reality that we must be as Christ, without sin if we are walking in the light.



But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected 2:5



My little children these things I write unto you that ye sin not 2:1



Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not whosoever sinneth not hath not seen Him neither known Him 3:6



He that commiteth sin is of the devil 3:8



Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin 3:9



Let me end my discussion of 1 John 3:9 with this:

That the word sin in the Greek is the present tense indicative is beyond
dispute. Anybody can check this fact with Bible Works or another such program.
The Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament says, "The present tense
indicates continual, habitual action." The Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in
the New Testament, by Ernest Burton, says, "The present indicative is used of
action in progress in present time." And the Orthodox Study Bible, representing
Greek Orthodox theology says that 1 John 3:9 is literally, "does not keep on
sinning."

The New Bible Commentary states, "If he is born again from above he will
habitually lead the life of a born-again person, in spite of stumbles; if he
continually sins he is of the devil, so that the false teachers were wrong in
saying that sin does not matter. As righteous living characterized the Master,
so it must characterize the servant."

So what John is NOT teaching is:
1. that a born again person cannot sin.
2. that his sin are not real ones
3. that God automatically forgives our sins without confession
4. that God does not see his sins, but rather sees the blood of Christ instead
5. that sins are not imputed to him
6. that the new man does not sin while the old man does sin
7. that all one's sins are already forgiven, past, present, and future
8. that a little sin is ok

What John is saying, throughout his epistle, is that Jesus came to save you
from sin and sinning, and if you have not made a break with the habit of
sinning, you are not even at the beginning. You are not even saved. If you are
genuinely saved, then you no longer knowingly do wrong all the time. That is
the beginning point on the highway of holiness.

I appreciate the time you took to write this. Sin is a pretty severe matter.

I keep seeing misrepresentation of Gnostic Belief, by the way. A gentleman did it on another thread, to attempt to frame the epistle of James.

I’m going to reveal that I have many friends of different religions. One of my friends is a genuine, fire breathing Theosopher... Pagan deity studier and ... Gnostic of the ancient studies.

The form of Gnosticism both you and the other gentlemen preport, doesn’t exist. It has never existed.

True Gnosticism teaches that all physical matter is Evil. It teaches that only the Spiritual realm is holy. Because of this, true Gnosticism teaches that Jesus could not have been God in the flesh, because the Spiritual cannot be joined with the physical. True Gnosticism teaches that a lesser deity like Satan created the world, and the physical realm is thusly tainted. The Gospel Of Judas And Thomas are the accurate books to study to understand the true Christian Gnostic Heresies.

Matter altogether is evil and created by evil. That is the most foundational rule of Christian Gnosticism.

Gnosticism taught practices of wisdom that Save a man through gnosis (knowledge).

Jesus is nothing more than a teacher like Buddha to Gnostics.

True Christian Gnosticism did not exist, until after the last book of current cannon had been completed. Revelation was written somewhere between AD 81 - 96. What the individuals who force the idea that Gnosticism is discussed in scripture like the book of James are ignorant of, is that Plato is the reference to early “Gnosticism”... and in no way do Plato’s works refer to Christ or the imputation of Christ’s Righteous upon Faith to Faith. Proof? Plato was dead long before Christ.

True Gnostics taught that through Knowledge, one could become like God.

Though Gnostics rejected the physical and embraced knowledge, they indeed believed that they could become like God through their gnosis.

Since sinless Doctrine proponents disguise their beliefs by claiming to not teach sinless Doctrine, it is often difficult to nail them down. But, the apostle Paul Literally describes himself bound to Carnal struggle by the law of sin and death, while only being liberated by the Law of Christ.

Paul not only would have despised the Gnostic teachings, but would have infuriated Gnostics as he literally attributes the name Jesus Christ as the HIGHEST NAME in Scripture.

Now stop and think about that. Paul even binds the name Jesus to YHWH in Romans 10.

You have no idea when Gnosticism emerged. Refutation of it is nowhere to be found in scripture, because Christian Gnosticism quotes scripture to come about and had to add to it to support its claims. It was the post written Cannon, Church that had to combat Gnosticism.

“The founder of "Christian" Gnosticism was Valentinus, who was born in Carthage about 100 A.D.”

He was so avid that man could BE LIKE GOD, that he was identified as one who spoke like Satan, in the Garden of Eden.

I’ll leave individuals, Who claims to be sinless and perfect, now... with a verse...

Isaiah 14:14

Jesus is the Most High. Claiming perfection in the flesh is indeed claiming to be like the Most High.

I write this, not to throw around accusations... but to point out that true Gnosticism is something that Works Of the flesh based Christians don’t know or search out...

The Anathema teachings of the Pharisees that convicted Jesus are far more like Gnosticism than anything currently known. The Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife! The Talmud stands as my witness.

Try as anyone desires... our Carnal might will never justify us. Those who depend on it to maintain their salvation are closer to Gnosticism than they will ever know.

I am weary of reading words that twist not only scripture, but the beliefs of a heresy that is well recorded by individuals like... Epiphanius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Hippolytus.

The men that combatted the Gnostic Heresy were not writers of Cannon, and thusly, all claims that cannon records Gnosticism are lies.

As we know John the Revelator to be the author of Revelation and the epistles Of John, we can be assured that his references to Anti Christ belief isn’t even in reference to Gnostics.

Isaiah 14:14 is a wise verse to comprehend.

 

[Grip Docility]

I define sin as anything that is not in the will of God including thoughts and omissions.

This is indeed frightening, in light of 1 John 1:8-10.

It would have to be redefined to uphold the idea that one does not sin.

Isaiah 14:14

 

[d taylor]

This in no way is a refutation of what Romans 8:13 says plainly. If you disagree with the plain straight forward meaning of Romans 8:13 (that I have shown), then please explain what you think this verse actually means.

Note: Please use the context to support your interpretation.

If you accept Romans 8:13 as it is given then why do you not accept Joshua 10:12-15 as given. Or Genesis 1:16, or many more of the verses in the Bible about God's creation.

And if you do not, are you not sinning for not believing the account of Joshua 10 as given in the Bible. Did not the Hebrews also did not believe Joshua and Caleb's statements about the promise land and that God would give them this land. Instead the Hebrews believed the bad report (lie) and ended up in the desert for 40 years for sinning because they did not believe Gods word instead they took mans testimony over Gods.

So by you standards (at least the way i understand you) you have not stopped sinning and are placing your salvation at risk.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are correct.....The path is only for a few.... But I would encourage you to continue to strive for perfection even thought literally everyone else will not be able to do so. You are not everyone.....you are special....chosen....not just called..

I'm a miserable sinner, and I have no intention to ever admit to be anything else. May I die, and Christ be praised.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

There are going to be individuals who think they have proven me wrong with Scripture (When they really haven't). But people will be able to see for themselves that there is no such evidence on their end if they were to look around.

I am also talking from my experience over many years over different Christian forums, too. I am talking about those believers who think they can sin and still be saved on occasion (or on some level), and my dealings with them. I have talked with a wide range of Belief Alone Proponents. Some believe you can sin as much as you want and be saved by having a belief alone on Jesus. Others believe you can sin only on occasion and you cannot help but to sin and you are saved by having a belief in Jesus alone.

Anyways, if anyone here thinks they have evidence that refutes the verses I put forth, then they should provide the post #'s of their explanation on the verses I presented that demolishes their belief in "Belief Alone-ism." They need to come up with a proper explanation using the context on those verses I present. So far, this has not happened. But they are free to object with no actual evidence (of course).

I hope this helps for those who are good Bereans or those who are seeking the truth.

Blessings to you all in the Lord today.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The secret is Christ. For man this is impossible, but for God, all things are possible.....Therefore we can do all things through Christ.

This is not a goal you strive for and achieve... it is something that Happens to you by no good will of your own.....

That was a joke.

 

[Hammster]

To all:

There are going to be individuals who think they have proven me wrong with Scripture (When they really haven't). But people will be able to see for themselves that there is no such evidence on their end if they were to look around.

I am also talking from my experience over many years over different Christian forums, too. I am talking about those believers who think they can sin and still be saved on occasion (or on some level), and my dealings with them. I have talked with a wide range of Belief Alone Proponents. Some believe you can sin as much as you want and be saved by having a belief alone on Jesus. Others believe you can sin only on occasion and you cannot help but to sin and you are saved by having a belief in Jesus alone.

Anyways, if anyone here thinks they have evidence that refutes the verses I put forth, then they should provide the post #'s of their explanation on the verses I presented that demolishes their belief in "Belief Alone-ism." They need to come up with a proper explanation using the context on those verses I present. So far, this has not happened. But they are free to object with no actual evidence (of course).

I hope this helps for those who are good Bereans or those who are seeking the truth.

Blessings to you all in the Lord today.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

I have, and if anyone wants me to show how Jason distorts the gospel, I’ll gladly do it.

 

[bmjackson]

I appreciate the time you took to write this. Sin is a pretty severe matter.

I keep seeing misrepresentation of Gnostic Belief, by the way. A gentleman did it on another thread, to attempt to frame the epistle of James.

I’m going to reveal that I have many friends of different religions. One of my friends is a genuine, fire breathing Theosopher... Pagan deity studier and ... Gnostic of the ancient studies.

The form of Gnosticism both you and the other gentlemen preport, doesn’t exist. It has never existed.

True Gnosticism teaches that all physical matter is Evil. It teaches that only the Spiritual realm is holy. Because of this, true Gnosticism teaches that Jesus could not have been God in the flesh, because the Spiritual cannot be joined with the physical. True Gnosticism teaches that a lesser deity like Satan created the world, and the physical realm is thusly tainted. The Gospel Of Judas And Thomas are the accurate books to study to understand the true Christian Gnostic Heresies.

Matter altogether is evil and created by evil. That is the most foundational rule of Christian Gnosticism.

Gnosticism taught practices of wisdom that Save a man through gnosis (knowledge).

Jesus is nothing more than a teacher like Buddha to Gnostics.

True Christian Gnosticism did not exist, until after the last book of current cannon had been completed. Revelation was written somewhere between AD 81 - 96. What the individuals who force the idea that Gnosticism is discussed in scripture like the book of James are ignorant of, is that Plato is the reference to early “Gnosticism”... and in no way do Plato’s works refer to Christ or the imputation of Christ’s Righteous upon Faith to Faith. Proof? Plato was dead long before Christ.

True Gnostics taught that through Knowledge, one could become like God.

Though Gnostics rejected the physical and embraced knowledge, they indeed believed that they could become like God through their gnosis.

Since sinless Doctrine proponents disguise their beliefs by claiming to not teach sinless Doctrine, it is often difficult to nail them down. But, the apostle Paul Literally describes himself bound to Carnal struggle by the law of sin and death, while only being liberated by the Law of Christ.

Paul not only would have despised the Gnostic teachings, but would have infuriated Gnostics as he literally attributes the name Jesus Christ as the HIGHEST NAME in Scripture.

Now stop and think about that. Paul even binds the name Jesus to YHWH in Romans 10.

You have no idea when Gnosticism emerged. Refutation of it is nowhere to be found in scripture, because Christian Gnosticism quotes scripture to come about and had to add to it to support its claims. It was the post written Cannon, Church that had to combat Gnosticism.

“The founder of "Christian" Gnosticism was Valentinus, who was born in Carthage about 100 A.D.”

He was so avid that man could BE LIKE GOD, that he was identified as one who spoke like Satan, in the Garden of Eden.

I’ll leave individuals, Who claims to be sinless and perfect, now... with a verse...

Isaiah 14:14

Jesus is the Most High. Claiming perfection in the flesh is indeed claiming to be like the Most High.

I write this, not to throw around accusations... but to point out that true Gnosticism is something that Works Of the flesh based Christians don’t know or search out...

The Anathema teachings of the Pharisees that convicted Jesus are far more like Gnosticism than anything currently known. The Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife! The Talmud stands as my witness.

Try as anyone desires... our Carnal might will never justify us. Those who depend on it to maintain their salvation are closer to Gnosticism than they will ever know.

I am weary of reading words that twist not only scripture, but the beliefs of a heresy that is well recorded by individuals like... Epiphanius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Hippolytus.

The men that combatted the Gnostic Heresy were not writers of Cannon, and thusly, all claims that cannon records Gnosticism are lies.

As we know John the Revelator to be the author of Revelation and the epistles Of John, we can be assured that his references to Anti Christ belief isn’t even in reference to Gnostics.

Isaiah 14:14 is a wise verse to comprehend.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not saying that Christian Gnosticism is exactly the same thing. Of course it isn't and like 'traditional' Gnosticism, it is unclear when it started as it could easily have exisited at ground level before being written about.

"True Gnosticism teaches that all physical matter is Evil. It teaches that only the Spiritual realm is holy."

Yes and this is the basis of the doctrine that a man can be a sinner in the flesh but is positionally holy. It invaded the church at the start but you won't agree with me that the apostles were teaching against it because of the way you interpret.

 

[RaymondG]

It’s not whether it’s impossible or not. Yes, God can fully sanctify us in an instant, just like He will do in glory. But He chooses not to, for His reasons.

He chooses not to, for our reasons. For we must first believe that He is and that He is a rewarder to them that diligently seek Him.

If you believe, the sanctification you push to the future can take place now... You can be translated now and even bypass death... But it is only done unto you as you believe...

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

So what do you say? Do we want to continue experiencing sin and death, or shall we pass from death.....to life?

 

[bmjackson]

"14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

This is not what ES teaches. No man can make himself like God, it is the power of the cross unto salvation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not saying that Christian Gnosticism is exactly the same thing. Of course it isn't and like 'traditional' Gnosticism, it is unclear when it started as it could easily have exisited at ground level before being written about.

"True Gnosticism teaches that all physical matter is Evil. It teaches that only the Spiritual realm is holy."

Yes and this is the basis of the doctrine that a man can be a sinner in the flesh but is positionally holy. It invaded the church at the start but you won't agree with me that the apostles were teaching against it because of the way you interpret.

The insidious nature of the opinio legis is that those who champion it think they are contending against the flesh when, in truth, they are merely indulging their lusts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Grip Docility]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not saying that Christian Gnosticism is exactly the same thing. Of course it isn't and like 'traditional' Gnosticism, it is unclear when it started as it could easily have exisited at ground level before being written about.

"True Gnosticism teaches that all physical matter is Evil. It teaches that only the Spiritual realm is holy."

Yes and this is the basis of the doctrine that a man can be a sinner in the flesh but is positionally holy. It invaded the church at the start but you won't agree with me that the apostles were teaching against it because of the way you interpret.

That is not the doctrinal basis of Justification, Atonement, Sanctification and Propitiation.

A simple cross reference and biblical concordance search of the words I mentioned will support Justification by Faith. I say this with the utmost confidence in the honesty of scripture.

Grace is never a license to sin, but a provision “because” we sin.

Is Christ a promoter of sin? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

[Gideons300]

Here's a good one:
John 6:39
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day.

Oscar, do you believe that if some chooses to sin willfully that they will still be saved? Or, does the fact that they continue to sin willfully show that they may not have been saved to begin with?

Thanks in advance.

Blessings,

Gideon