No kidding, and going over the basics of Christianity.
1 John 2:1 says,
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” (1 John 2:1).
Obviously the part about “
if any man sin we have an advocate Jesus” is referring back to 1 John 1:9 in confessing our sins. 1 John 1:9 does not say when coming to the faith for the first time we must confess our sins to be forgiven of sin. It doesn't say that. It says, “If we [believers] confess our sins...”; This is said so as to refute the false gnostic belief that is declared in 1 John 1:8, which is a denial of sin's existence or saying that sin is an illusion. In other words, 1 John 1:8 is basically saying, if we say we have no sin when we do sin, we deceive ourselves. This has to be the interpretative view because 1 John 2:4 essentially says that if a person says they know the Lord and they do not keep His commandments, they are a liar and the truth is not in them. For 1 John 1:10 says if we say we have never sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us. For obviously we both agree that we have sinned as a part of our old life. So this is a gnostic belief that denies the existence of sin. This is why the apostle John brought up 1 John 1:9. He is warning the brethren of what to do instead of the false gnostic beliefs declared in 1 John 1:8, and 1 John 1:10. Also, we have the witness of David, who abided with God to take down Goliath, and then later in his adult years he committed the sins of murder and adultery and he confessed of them to the Lord in order to have forgiveness. Just read Psalms 51. But if David was forgiven of his future sin, there would be no point in him confessing his sins to the Lord to be forgiven.
You said:
There's no argument against confessing. What doesn't sound right is your idea that every second a sin goes unconfessed, your spiritually dead and headed for hell. Multiple continual spiritual resurrections. Dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive, dead, alive....
First, when the son came home and sought forgiveness with his father from squandering his inheritance on prostitutes, his father said his son was dead, and he is alive AGAIN. His father said he was lost, and he is found. Seeing the son did not die physically, this is referring to how the son died spiritually.
“For this my son was dead,
and is alive again;
he was lost, and is found.
And they began to be merry.” (Luke 15:24).
So how can the son be alive AGAIN?
How is that possible unless he used to be alive at one point in time prior before going prodigal by squandering his inheritance on prostitutes. In fact, are you saying that the prodigal son was saved while he was living it up with prostitutes? Or was he never saved? If so, then why does the father say that he is alive AGAIN? See that is what doesn't make any sense with the popular candy coated version of Christianity today. They just don't like Luke 15:24. So they change this verse or they ignore it.
Second,, 1 John 1:9 says if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. What does not sound right is that you are saying you are already forgiven before you confess of that sin. Yet, 1 John 1:9 says if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. The first part of the verse says “
we confess” and the second part says “
he forgives.” Some in the Belief Alone camp have tried to twist Scripture into saying that 1 John 1:9 is referring to a break in fellowship and not a loss of salvation. I have heard the excuse that 1 John 1:9 is referring to initial salvation before, and it just does not seem to line up with the context and or what the verse says at face value. So why all these other interpretations? Because folks don't like what 1 John 1:9 says.
You said:
Nothing changed, one verse is always slim evidence, especially the way that one is being applied. Three verses saying close to the same thing from three separate writers makes a sounder case. And something this important should have better scriptural back up.
There are actually five testimonies in Scripture of non-mortal sins or sins that do not lead unto death:
#1. 1 John 5:16-17.
#2. Matthew 5:22.
#3. The Apostle' Paul's error in Acts of the Apostles 21.
Psalms 19:12 says, "Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults." I believe these would be faults of character or minor errors that a person might make with people. Example: A person may not be a great listener, and they do not allow others to speak like they should. By not listening to others may come off a little like they do not care (even though they care in their own way or a different way). Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem. The Spirit warned Paul not to go. He was still determined to go because he loved His fellow Jews and wanted them to know the love of Jesus. The Spirit told the brethren that Paul will be imprisoned by his going to Jerusalem. The brethren warned Paul not to go. They were in tears and loved him and begged him not to go. But Paul did not listen. He would not hear them. He did not want to hear it. Fault of character. Hidden fault. Minor error of his character. It is not something that condemned him (See
Acts of the Apostles 21, and read this article
here by Ray Stedman; Note: There is even a better write up than this one by Bible commentator James Boice
here; Please keep in mind I do not share their views on Soteriology, though; I merely agree with their view on what happened with Paul in
Acts of the Apostles 21). It appears that Paul's imprisonment was his punishment. So this was an earthly form of punishment and it was not a punishment attached with warnings of hellfire and destruction of one's soul. For God does not appear to condemn Paul's actions in calling him to repent and get his heart right with God.
#4. The Command to Be Baptized.
Paul says Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel (
1 Corinthians 1:17). If it was essential to salvation, then why would Paul say something like this? In
1 Peter 3:21: Peter says baptism is not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh. If you were to turn to
2 Corinthians 7:1, you would see that it uses similar wording ("filthiness of the flesh") that is clearly in reference to sin. So Peter is saying that baptism is not for the putting away of "sin" [i.e. filth of the flesh]. In other words, baptism is not a command that if disobeyed, leads to spiritual death.
#5. Matthew 5:19.
Matthew 5:19 says, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
While I am not teaching anyone should break the least of the Lord's commands by any means (for we should seek to obey God in all things), but if we see in this verse is proof that a person appears to be in the kingdom of heaven despite them teaching that they can break one of the least of the commandments that the Lord was teaching at the Sermon on the Mount. One example of a least command of our Lord could possibly be the command to Rejoice when men persecute you or falsely accuse you of evil in
Matthew 5:11-12. For this command does not seem like a major violation of loving God and loving your neighbor; Plus, there is no warnings of any kind of hellfire or condemnation in the afterlife attached to this command. But should we obey this command? Yes, most definitely.
You said:
So there are other views. But you like this view best because it says what you want to hear.
I am going off only what His Word says. For you have not proven that the passages I presented are not the kind of sins that do not lead unto spiritual death.
You said:
You'd think with something as vitally important as this, it would be better established and more clearly written about. Other than in the Catechism.
The Bible says it, but men do not like certain parts of the Bible and so they seek to change it. Men prefer to justify the idea that they can sin and still be saved on some level. Jesus said narrow is the way and FEW be there that find it. This means that the majority of the popular candy coated version of Christianity is not the narrow way. It's obvious by just reading Scripture plainly and not taking verses out of context to defend a sin and still be saved type doctrine.
