Eternal Security based on a holy walk and the fear of falling away.

[justbyfaith]

@aiki: it is your prerogative to reject the teaching that I have brought forth. That you have rejected it is by no means any kind of reason for others who are looking onward to reject it also. You have not presented good enough reasons for me to reject it after having seen your reasoning. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. And it remains that the way to life is narrow and strait and there are few who find it. So I encourage the reader to continue to read their Bibles, and seek the Lord for His take on all things presented; and also to seek the Lord for an understanding of salvation as you continue to read His word. And a simple exhortation: that when the apostles penned the holy scripture, they used great plainness of speech (2 Corinthians 3:12); so it is not a good idea to read into such verses as 1 John 3:9 any kind of extra things in interpreting it.

As concerning Romans 7:14-25 (and also Romans 3:9-23), I believe that Paul was referring to this (these) passage(s) in his own writings when he penned 1 Corinthians 9:22.

 

[justbyfaith]

***bump***

 

[justbyfaith]

***bump***

 

[justbyfaith]

No, I didn't miss it. John says nothing about "indwelling" sin. You emphasize the word "have" as though it is a stand-in for "indwelling" but "have" simply communicates possession.




Every day. You?



Well, as I pointed out, Paul clarifies what he means in the immediate context of Galatians 5:17. In verse 15, he is talking about believers "biting and devouring one another." (vs. 15) And in verse 16, Paul talks about how not to behave in such a fleshly way. In context, then, Paul is not, in verse 17, talking about believers who are being prevented from sin by the Spirit, but about those who are at risk of "consuming one another" in their carnal behaviour. Paul explains why this is so: For the flesh lusts against the Spirit...so that you cannot do the things that you would." There is, then, absolutely no need to resort to another letter entirely, written by a completely different author (1 John 3:9), to understand what Paul means. Given what I've pointed out about the context of Galatians 5:17, Paul's words in the latter part of Romans 7 are a much better parallel than what John wrote in 1 John 3:9.

Of course, Galatians 5:18 is also in the immediate context, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." So the question is, if someone is led of the Spirit, is he walking according to the flesh? If he cannot do the things that he would, is it doing righteousness that he cannot do, if he is walking according to the Spirit? or, in walking according to the Spirit, is it walking according to the flesh that he finds impossible to do, though he might desire to commit some act according to the flesh?

Just to be clear: I don't need your permission to reject the eisegesis in which you have indulged in arriving at your "second benefit" doctrine. You have added to Paul's words and twisted his meaning in doing so. And what's worse, you're promoting your twisted doctrine to others. It seems to me that you aren't taking the warnings of Scripture against this sort of thing very seriously. You should.

If I have twisted the meaning, then so has an entire denomination in the church (the Nazarene Church).

As I have explained, the believer is positionally sanctified in Christ but the working out of their sanctified position in him happens over time. So it is that a Christian is both fully sanctified in Christ and being sanctified in their daily condition - just as Hebrews 10:14 indicates.

I actually agree to this now. However, I still believe that the entire sanctification and perfection spoken of in Hebrews 10:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, and 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:18 with 1 Peter 1:3, will work itself out to be practical in due time, as a second benefit to the believer in Christ.

Sanctification is practical but it is also progressive. None of these verses deny this.

And yet, in 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 it says that sanctification can be completed as a work, so that a man can be sanctified wholly in the practical sense.

You mean these verses, of course:


No mention here of a believer obeying out of fear of God throwing them into hell. And, as I explained, the "fear of the Lord" is reverential awe, not the fear one would have for a dangerous animal or chemical that could cause one harm.

The fear of the LORD is to hate evil (Proverbs 8:13). And nothing changes the definition of fear when the fear of the LORD is being spoken of, except people who try to change that definition within their own thinking.

Again, no mention in these verses of a believer obeying God out of a fear of going to hell.

I have also referenced and even quoted Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4-5. but you conveniently left them out.

Is this a comment given to born-again believers? Nope. Christ had not yet died for the sins of all mankind when he spoke these words. All of those to whom he spoke stood under the jeopardy of eternal hell as unsaved people.

Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4-5 was a teaching given to disciples, which would have been retained by them after the Cross.

Does Peter mean here a craven, slavish fear that is concerned with Self-protection? No, the same God he calls believers to fear, Peter also says has redeemed them through the shed blood of Christ (vs. 18, 19), and has foreordained them to faith from before the foundation of the world (vs. 20), and is the One in whom they should have faith and hope (vs. 21). In light of these things, it is nonsensical to hold that Peter means by "fear" a craven, slavish sort of thing, but rather the reverential awe of a good, and caring, and amazing God that we see urged upon us in other places in Scripture.

Fear means fear. It is even translated as terror in 2 Corinthians 5:11 (kjv). And of course my analogy shows that the fear of the LORD is not a craven fear for those who are not walking near the edge of the cliff, but who remain close to the center of the plateau out of a love for Jesus who lives at the center.

And where is the "edge of the cliff," exactly? How much "wandering" is too much? The Bible never says. Not once is any precise line drawn beyond which a believer may step out of their salvation. Why? Because there is no such line. The "cliff" does not exist.

That is not the question that a true believer asks. A true believer does not ask, how far away can I wander before I lose my salvation, but, How can I stay as close as possible to my Lord and Saviour?

John 10:28-29
28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.

Now that scripture has been much discussed in certain other threads. The conclusion that we came to is that it does not apply to those who do or work iniquity; because they are not Jesus' sheep: because Jesus knows His sheep (John 10:27), and He never knew those who do or work iniquity (Matthew 7:23, Matthew 13:41-42).

??? Where did I say this? When a believer comes to love God after the manner described in the First and Great Commandment, sin will become in their living the exception rather than the rule. Sinless perfection, however, is only possible in eternity.

Not true. And you have also applied a misnomer to what is truly the case. We do not become sinlessly perfect, we are sanctified wholly (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Hebrews 10:14, 1 John 3:9). What this means is not that we are without sin; sin does indeed dwell within us, however it is rendered dead so that it no longer has any say over our behaviour (1 John 2:17 with 1 John 3:6, 1 John 3:5-9, 1 John 5:18 with 1 Peter 1:3; Romans 6:6-7, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8)

 

[justbyfaith]

"Perfect" in verse 15 is better translated "mature" - as it is in many translations. It refers to a state of being, unlike verse 12 where Paul refers to a process of becoming. We may all reach a place of maturity but we will all of us always be in the process of becoming perfect.

"Mature," in verse 15 as it is in some translations, is better translated "perfect". Now of course it is a no-no to argue about words (1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:14). And I think that since you started the process of disputing that a specific word is the right word, you are in the wrong here.

LOL! You aren't the only one studying the passage! As I've pointed out, you must force into Paul's words in Romans 7 your idea of his identifying with the sinner. He no where in his words even hints that he is doing so. And, as I explained, the context of the entire chapter makes it clear he is speaking to believers as a believer. He is not adopting the position of a lost person in what he says about his struggle with sin.

No; because scripture interprets scripture; and it is clear to me (if not to you), that 1 Corinthians 9:22 is applicable to Romans 7. Paul was being all things to all men that he by any means might save some. To the weak he became as weak.

I know quite well that Scripture interprets itself. But when context can do the job, it ought to be allowed to do so. So far, you haven't needed to jump about among books of the New Testament as you're doing to get at what Paul, or John, or Peter meant. One of the chief rules of exegesis is that "context is king." And when I examine your views in light of the context of a given verse or passage that you've offered, I find you often at odds with it.

Topical context is also important; as principles of scripture apply to things outside of the immediate context of where they are found. For example, that if I sow bountifully I will also reap bountifully (2 Corinthians 9:6), in its immediate context applies to financial sowing and reaping; but I love to apply it to the sowing and reaping of God's word by comparing it to Luke 8:11. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 gives us a mandate to compare spiritual things with spiritual; and this is done so very often by applying scripture that is not in the immediate context of the scripture that we apply it to.

Again, concerning Peter's words, you are going beyond what is written in the verses themselves and their immediate context. He gives not the slightest hint which of Paul's teachings were "hard to understand" and were being twisted. Yet, you propose to know that Peter was DEFINITELY referring to what Paul had written in the last half of Romans 7. How? Are you reading Peter's mind some 2000 years after his death? That would be a neat trick.

The Holy Spirit gives understanding, not through a telepathy that reaches into the far past; but because we know personally the source/author of the book. Certain things in Paul's writings, if understood incorrectly, are not the truth/doctrine which is according to godliness (1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 1:1). So I believe that Peter is referring to such writings in Paul's letters when he writes 2 Peter 3:15. You can take it or leave it; just know that God will hold you accountable on the day of judgment if you hold to a doctrine which is not according to godliness over and above the truth when you hear it.

If I'm wanting to know what Paul meant, I consider his words, not those of another. And just looking at what Paul himself taught, I am totally within the confines of what he wrote in Romans 8 to think as I do about it. I don't need to consider the comments of another writer entirely to understand Paul's thinking. He is quite clear, it seems to me. Why, then, should I have done the comparison of verses you urged me to do? As far as I can see, I don't need to. And neither do you.

It is Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:22 which I referred you to. And since Paul's words were inspired of the Holy Spirit, and so were Peter's, you can be sure that you can interpret Paul's words by Peter's, it is the same basic author (2 Timothy 3:16). And 2 Peter 3:15 therefore applies to Paul's words in Romans 3:10-18 and Romans 7:7-25. In the former, you should compare Romans 3:9 to 1 Corinthians 10:32, and Romans 3:19 to Romans 6:14, to gain a better understanding; because Romans 3:10-18 is what the law says about those who are under it.

Yes. This is what Scripture teaches - though without this "benefit" stuff.

That is what you think. And I am not one to argue, although I disagree. If you were sanctified wholly in the practical sense the moment you believed, more power to you. Just know that it doesn't happen this way for everyone.

God does not require this sort of appeal to a person's Self-centeredness in order to get them to obey. Paul is very clear that the only obedience God accepts from us comes from a motive of self-sacrificing love for Him (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

That sounds fine and dandy. However, there are many scriptures that speak of the fact that the fear of the LORD can be a motivation for obedience, and that this is also a valid motivation.

1 John 1:9 gives this thinking a problem: It says that confession is necessary before cleansing of the sin and the application of the forgiveness of God obtained by Christ's atoning sacrifice.

Of course we must be transparent before the Lord in order to continually be cleansed from all sin. This is given as a condition: that we walk in the light as He is in the light. 1 John 1:9 only expounds upon this principle further.

I do say - because it is true. Your analogy has no equivalent anywhere in the entire Bible.

Again, that is what you think. But if you will search for this concept when you read, I believe you will find it. For you cannot rightly say that you understand every concept in the Bible, not even if you have read it through fifty or more times. The message of the Bible is so simple a child can understand it, but so complex that the greatest theologian cannot plumb the depths of all the understanding it contains.

Of course. But not instantly, which was my point.

It is something that happens as the result of the principle of Proverbs 4:18. When you finally hit "the perfect day" you find yourself at the position of practically living in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 10:14, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:18 with 1 Peter 1:3; and 1 John 2:17 with 1 John 3:6.

And is the effect of the second benefit instant? If so, then my observation is appropo.

What observation was that?

It doesn't mean that you DON'T sin, either.

My point being that we all come short of the glory of God in that we have sinned, not necessarily in that we do sin. And yes, it doesn't mean that I don't sin; although it also does not mean that I do. In fact, it (Romans 3:23) is often taken to mean that I cannot help but be in a state where I sin on a moment-to-moment basis. This kind of teaching makes the command to repent rather empty impaho; because it implies that true repentance isn't possible.

 

[justbyfaith]

*****bump*****

 

[justbyfaith]

*****bumping because of relevancy to a discussion*****

 

[aiki]

Of course, Galatians 5:18 is also in the immediate context, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." So the question is, if someone is led of the Spirit, is he walking according to the flesh?

Remember, Paul was discussing with the Galatians whether or not they could be made (more) acceptable to God by way of circumcision. When he wrote verse 18, it was in the context of this larger discussion and a reference to it. A born-again believer is not beholden to the laws of ceremony and separation that confined OT Jews. If a believer is truly led of the Spirit, he is entirely free from the demands of these laws and fleshly attempts at keeping them. If a believer - like the Galatian believers - is thinking that there is some spiritual benefit to keeping the OT laws of separation and ceremony, he puts himself under the impossible constraints of these laws. Paul explains the problem:

Galatians 5:3-4
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The Galatians had taken up the notion that they could be better Christians if they observed the law of circumcision. But Paul here explains that to think this way is to make the law one's means of justification. If one is going to be justified by the law, though, one must keep all of it. But this is to be justified apart from Christ and to forsake the grace that God offers to us all in Jesus. Paul, then, is not saying the Galatians become unsaved by their reliance upon obedience to the law for their justification, only that they cannot benefit from the grace that is in the Saviour when they do so. If you own a lawnmower but use a pair of scissors to trim the lawn instead, it doesn't mean you don't own a lawnmower. It just means you've chosen an impossible method of grass maintenance unnecessarily. This was the sort of situation the Galatians were in. They were using the "scissors" of the law to "cut the grass" of their justification when they possessed the "lawnmower" of Christ's perfect imputed righteousness by which to do so.

If he cannot do the things that he would, is it doing righteousness that he cannot do, if he is walking according to the Spirit? or, in walking according to the Spirit, is it walking according to the flesh that he finds impossible to do, though he might desire to commit some act according to the flesh?

I already explained to you that the context in which verse 18 appears is clear that Paul was talking about the Galatians using their "liberty for an occasion to the flesh" (verse 13) and "biting and devouring one another" (verse 15). When he writes about the Galatians not doing the things that they would, he is plainly referring to them failing to live Spirit-led lives. The Galatians are Spirit-indwelt believers, which Paul makes very clear as he writes to them, so they have the Spirit urging them toward holy living, but they were yielding to their fleshly impulses and so behaving badly with one another.

If I have twisted the meaning, then so has an entire denomination in the church (the Nazarene Church).

It is not uncommon. Consider the Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, or Roman Catholics - all of whom are guilty as denominations of terrible verse-twisting.

And yet, in 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 it says that sanctification can be completed as a work, so that a man can be sanctified wholly in the practical sense.

Is this actually what the verses say?

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.

Does this passage stipulate "sanctified wholly in the practical sense"? No, it doesn't. This is something you're reading into the verses. On what grounds? Nothing contextually encourages such a reading. We know that at the moment of conversion, however, a person is fully sanctified positionally in Christ. Why couldn't this be what Paul is referring to here? In light of all the places in Scripture that speak of sinning believers, it seems more likely this is what Paul was referring to.

The fear of the LORD is to hate evil (Proverbs 8:13). And nothing changes the definition of fear when the fear of the LORD is being spoken of, except people who try to change that definition within their own thinking.

Yes, this is a part, or, rather, the consequence of, a reverential awe of God.

Fear means fear.

No, it doesn't. There are kinds of fear and levels of fear. I "feared" my father as a little child but not like I feared the snarling neighbor's dog who tried to bite me through the fence. There is a healthy fear one should have for, say, a viperous snake, but that is not the same fear I had of my grade 10 English teacher, the thunderous and severe Ms. Woodall.

That is not the question that a true believer asks. A true believer does not ask, how far away can I wander before I lose my salvation, but, How can I stay as close as possible to my Lord and Saviour?

This is a glaring deflection of my point. The Bible no where speaks of cliffs off which believers can fall into a lost state. Your analogy has no equivalent in all of the Bible.

Not true. And you have also applied a misnomer to what is truly the case. We do not become sinlessly perfect, we are sanctified wholly (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Hebrews 10:14, 1 John 3:9). What this means is not that we are without sin; sin does indeed dwell within us, however it is rendered dead so that it no longer has any say over our behaviour (1 John 2:17 with 1 John 3:6, 1 John 3:5-9, 1 John 5:18 with 1 Peter 1:3; Romans 6:6-7, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8)

THis is a semantics game you're playing here. In effect, what you mean is sinless perfection whether or not you adopt the phrase.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hello brother @aiki:

I was just reading through the thread here and I started to see some of your points.

Also, since we last spoke, I think I may have gotten saved (restored to the truth...James 5:19-20).

I was reading my Bible and came across Psalms 51:3 and Luke 18:9-14 and it hit me that I am perpetually a sinner; and that my proper response was not supposed to be to strive to not be a sinner, but rather to cast myself on the mercy of the Lord.

I now realize I am a sinner saved by grace...I changed the description under my moniker to "justified sinner" to show that I have come to realize that my only hope was never to seek to be justified through becoming perfect (which was what I was trying to do in spite of Galatians 5:4 and other verses/passages); but that my salvation can rest only in forgiveness of past, present, and future sins through the shed blood of Christ.

Much joy in heaven, right?
...

 

[justbyfaith]

@aiki, I would invite you to the following thread:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/sin.8078093/

 

[justbyfaith]

Or, you can pay attention to the emphasis I give in these verses in the quotation of this post from that thread:

John 5:24, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:47, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 10:27-30, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

Jeremiah 32:38-40, And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

 

[BobRyan]

1st of all, in John 10:27-28 we find the words, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand.

This of course is to be interpreted by Matthew 7:23, where Jesus says, And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Also in Matthew 13:41-42 we find the words, The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity: And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In these scriptures we find that those who have eternal life and shall never perish and cannot be removed from Jesus' hand, are known by Jesus; but of course Jesus never knew them which do or work iniquity. Therefore the promise of eternal security in John 10:28 is for those who don't do or work iniquity.
.

context would include this

Ezek 18
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.

 

[justbyfaith]

I forgot to add this:

Hebrews 13:5, Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with such things as you have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

 

[justbyfaith]

They were using the "scissors" of the law to "cut the grass" of their justification when they possessed the "lawnmower" of Christ's perfect imputed righteousness by which to do so.

If you are attempting to cut the grass with scissors you will ultimately fail at what you are attempting (which is in this case justification). The only way to cut the grass properly (and thus be truly justified) is to use the lawnmower and not your scissors to cut the grass.

When he writes about the Galatians not doing the things that they would, he is plainly referring to them failing to live Spirit-led lives. The Galatians are Spirit-indwelt believers, which Paul makes very clear as he writes to them, so they have the Spirit urging them toward holy living, but they were yielding to their fleshly impulses and so behaving badly with one another.

I think that I still believe that a person who is walking in the Spirit and is having victory over the flesh will at certain times be tempted; in which case not giving in to temptation means that they cannot do the things that they would (because the Holy Spirit restrains them, so that they cannot sin). The word cannot is a key word that is to be compared in both Galatians 5:17 and 1 John 3:9. Of course I am here preaching the law of the New Testament as a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ, not necessarily saying that you are unsaved if you were to do something according to the flesh; that is, not unless you are trusting in your own obedience to save you.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.

Does this passage stipulate "sanctified wholly in the practical sense"? No, it doesn't. This is something you're reading into the verses. On what grounds? Nothing contextually encourages such a reading.

The word blameless indicates a practical outward holiness.

This is a glaring deflection of my point. The Bible no where speaks of cliffs off which believers can fall into a lost state. Your analogy has no equivalent in all of the Bible.

It may not speak directly of cliffs; but cliffs are an analogy that might be drawn from such scriptures as Hebrews 3:12-15.

This is a semantics game you're playing here. In effect, what you mean is sinless perfection whether or not you adopt the phrase.

I feel that it is the opponents of the doctrine of entire sanctification who are playing a semantics game. They slander the doctrine by trying to make it incompatible with 1 John 1:8 in their label of it (however I don't think that it is them that are behind this attack on the doctrine, but satan). The real doctrine, as it stands, is not incompatible with 1 John 1:8 however.

I will say this: that, paradoxically, in beginning to understand that my sin is ever before me (Psalms 51:3), an unconscious level of holiness has been produced in me so that certain things that used to beset me have gone away from my life. Now whether this that has happened is entire sanctification or not, I don't know: it would be foolish of me to close myself off to anything that the Holy Spirit would want to say to me in order to pinpoint sin in my life; so I think it would be wise for me to be open to anything He might speak on the matter of what sins He might want to deal with in the process of my sanctification.

However, currently, I know nothing against myself, even as Paul also said about himself at one point (1 Corinthians 4:4); but I am not hereby justified: but He who judges me is the Lord.

My justification however does not rest in the possibility that I might be entirely sanctified, but in the reality that I am forgiven of all of my sin/sins through the shed blood of Jesus Christ as he died on the Cross of Calvary.

Entire sanctification may very well be the result. However my salvation is not predicated on my levels of holiness or how sanctified I am, or how well I am doing in my performance as a believer in Christ. It is based solely on what He has done for me (in forgiving me of my sins).

He does the work of sanctification in me so that the sharing of my faith may become effectual (Philemon 1:6).

Because if the result of being forgiven is entire sanctification (which my experience tells me that it may be so), then if one finds himself to be not entirely sanctified, he must question as to whether he is truly forgiven (see 2 Corinthians 13:5). All of this is intended as using the law of the New Testament as a schoolmaster to lead unforgiven sinners to Christ (Galatians 3:24-25).

 

[DeaconDean]

Because if the result of being forgiven is entire sanctification (which my experience tells me that it may be so), then if one finds himself to be not entirely sanctified, he must question as to whether he is truly forgiven (see 2 Corinthians 13:5). All of this is intended as using the law of the New Testament as a schoolmaster to lead unforgiven sinners to Christ (Galatians 3:24-25).

And once again, I ask, if the above is true in your theology, then how do explain both Peter and Paul's willful sins as recorded in the book of Acts?

"And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven." -Acts 10:11-16 (KJV)

Willful disobedience to God. Not once, not twice, but three times!

Then we see not long afterwards:

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" -Gal. 2:11-14 (KJV)

Peter, not long after the incident with God, stood accused and guilty of the willful sin of hypocrisy by Paul!

But, lets not let Paul out either. In Acts 21 we read:

"Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden. And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem...And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." -Acts 21:3-4; 8-11 (KJV)

Here, Paul was told several times not to go to Jerusalem, yet he willfully disobeyed.

And:

"And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." -Acts 23:1-5 (cf. Ex. 22:28(KJV))

Fact is, you are putting/holding people to a higher standard than we are able to perform. Not even the Apostles were so "sanctified" that they couldn't live a sin-free life.

So I ask you to name one person who has reached/attained "entire sanctification, perfection" in this life, other than Jesus Christ.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[justbyfaith]

And once again, I ask, if the above is true in your theology, then how do explain both Peter and Paul's willful sins as recorded in the book of Acts?

I think that, first of all, you have taken some statements that I have made out of context of the rest of the post in question.

And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven." -Acts 10:11-16 (KJV)

Willful disobedience to God. Not once, not twice, but three times!

Peter very likely thought of it as a test: and that he was obeying the Lord by being obedient to the food laws of the Old Testament. This was not willful disobedience but a desire to pass what he perceived as a test from the Lord.

Then we see not long afterwards:

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" -Gal. 2:11-14 (KJV)

Peter, not long after the incident with God, stood accused and guilty of the willful sin of hypocrisy by Paul!

I have spoken to you on this before; but thank you for the opportunity to explain my response to this argument once again:

If you look at all of Romans 14 and especially Romans 15:1, I think you might see that there is a principle there that when there is someone present whose conscience might be affected by my liberty to do something (such as eating foods deemed unclean by the Old Testament); I am to be sensitive to the conscience of my weaker brother and refrain from doing that thing. According to principles in 1 Corinthians 8, I would be sinning against Christ by emboldening my weaker brother to do something that his conscience really does not allow him to do; but he does it because he sees you doing it and that no harm came to you spiritually.

Now in the case of the above scripture that you quoted, Peter's hypocrisy may not have been real; but only Paul's judgment because of the perspective that he was coming from. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he understood that Peter's dissimulation was going to compel Gentiles to attempt to live as Jews in the desire to be justified (this is a major topic in the epistle to the Galatians). However, from Peter's perspective, he was being sensitive to the conscience of his Jewish brothers and sisters. For he was called to the circumcision even as Paul was called to the Gentiles.

Now there may have indeed been a responding to pressure coming from those who came that day from James. And in that Peter succumbed to that pressure, I don't doubt that he may have sinned (while what I said previously justifies him in my opinion because he was obeying a principle even if his motivation wasn't right). Now would Peter have been lost for ever because of committing this sin? Peter's justification, as with all of us, was based on the forgiveness of sins that Christ provided through His shed blood. And if Peter had a momentary lapse (and one that in some sense was obedience to a scriptural/spiritual principle), then I would not identify that as willful sin, because there may have been confusion as to what the proper actions were to be. If you will recall, even Barnabas was carried away by the dissumulation. Which indicates that there was very likely a backing for their behaviour concerning biblical principles, and I have shown what these principles are by referencing Romans 14 and Romans 15:1.

The essence of the sin therefore had to do with the fact that it was giving a message to Gentile believers that was not in line with the gospel that Paul knew that they needed to hear. Peter, whose ministry was to the circumcision, was concerned for the ones whom he was ministering to and therefore he may not have had any fault whatsoever (in his own heart). He simply was not considering the effect his behaviour might have on the Gentiles concerning how the gospel to them might be affected.

But, lets not let Paul out either. In Acts 21 we read:

"Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden. And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem...And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." -Acts 21:3-4; 8-11 (KJV)

Here, Paul was told several times not to go to Jerusalem, yet he willfully disobeyed.

Here, Paul was told that if he went to Jerusalem he would definitely suffer for it. Paul's friends, who did not want him to suffer, tried to dissuade him from going. But Paul felt that the Lord wanted him to go to Jerusalem: the love in his heart for his own people motivated him to want to minister the gospel to them (see 2 Corinthians 5:14). I'm not sure what it is that you think is sinful about that. Paul disobeyed man, not God (see Psalms 118:8-9).

I find it highly virtuous and also a mighty word from the Lord, in fact, what Paul said to his friends when he decided to in fact go to Jerusalem. In Acts 20:24 Paul said, But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

And you want to call this sin. Shame on you!

And:

"And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." -Acts 23:1-5 (cf. Ex. 22:28(KJV))

Here again, Paul did not willfully sin. He didn't know that who he was speaking to was the high priest. Of course, if you hold that not to be an excuse, it just goes to show that all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord. It remains that His standard is perfection, and that anyone who wants to enter into heaven on the basis of the law/their works/their own righteousness must be absolutely perfect (Galatians 3:10-13, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48). Of course there is a better way, and that is simply to be forgiven: put your faith and trust in Christ and what He did for you on the Cross today!

Fact is, you are putting/holding people to a higher standard than we are able to perform. Not even the Apostles were so "sanctified" that they couldn't live a sin-free life.

So I ask you to name one person who has reached/attained "entire sanctification, perfection" in this life, other than Jesus Christ.

Not one. It doesn't change the fact that the standard of holiness is God's perfection, which is an even higher standard than what I have set forth, if you think about it. For God requires that you not even commit one sin, willful or otherwise, if you are going to be righteous enough (in yourself) to enter into heaven. But the standard that I have set forth is that those who are forgiven/redeemed simply will not sin willfully against the Lord.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Till the raptured saints are unified in heaven and the world that is left behind divides over unimportant matters.

God bless.

 

[DeaconDean]

Peter very likely thought of it as a test: and that he was obeying the Lord by being obedient to the food laws of the Old Testament. This was not willful disobedience but a desire to pass what he perceived as a test from the Lord.

Not so. If Peter had relied on guidance of the Holy Spirit, he would have known the vision was from God and obeyed.

He did not. A fact Peter learned very well at the First Apostolic Council.

Now in the case of the above scripture that you quoted, Peter's hypocrisy may not have been real; but only Paul's judgment because of the perspective that he was coming from.

Scripture clearly is against you.

"he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." -Gal. 2:12. Clear cut hypocrisy.

Here, Paul was told that if he went to Jerusalem he would definitely suffer for it. Paul's friends, who did not want him to suffer, tried to dissuade him from going. But Paul felt that the Lord wanted him to go to Jerusalem: the love in his heart for his own people motivated him to want to minister the gospel to them. I'm not sure what it is that you think is sinful about that. Paul disobeyed man, not God (see Psalms 118:8-9).

Again, scriptures are against you:

"Thus saith the Holy Ghost," -Acts 21:11

And you want to call this sin. Shame on you!

I call them like scripture calls them. Paul disobeyed the Holy Ghost.

Here again, Paul did not willfully sin. He didn't know that who he was speaking to was the high priest. Of course, if you hold that not to be an excuse, it just goes to show that all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord. It remains that His standard is perfection, and that anyone who wants to enter into heaven on the basis of the law/their works/ their own righteousness must be perfect (Galatians 3:10-13, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48). Of course there is a better way, and that is simply to be forgiven: put your faith and trust in Christ and what He did for you on the Cross today!

Be that as it may, Paul may have been ignorant of the fact he was the "High Priest" but even from an OT Torah perspective, there were provisions for sins committed out of ignorance. Just because Paul didn't know, does not negate the fact that he sinned.

Not one. It doesn't change the fact that the standard of holiness is God's perfection, which is an even higher standard than what I have set forth, if you think about it. For God requires that you not even commit one sin, willful or otherwise, if you are going to be righteous enough (in yourself) to enter into heaven. But the standard that I have set forth is that those who are forgiven/ redeemed simply will not sin willfully against the Lord.

Ha! Any sin, willfull or not, is a sin against the Lord.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[aiki]

Hello brother @aiki:

I was just reading through the thread here and I started to see some of your points.

Also, since we last spoke, I think I may have gotten saved (restored to the truth...James 5:19-20).

I am...astonished. I have only on the rarest of occasions ever had anyone on CF who had taken an opposing view to mine acknowledge that I might be correct. It just doesn't happen. Wow.

I was reading my Bible and came across Psalms 51:3 and Luke 18:9-14 and it hit me that I am perpetually a sinner; and that my proper response was not supposed to be to strive to not be a sinner, but rather to cast myself on the mercy of the Lord.

You know, it is a tricky thing getting this whole business about who I am in Christ right. It only began to make any sense to me when I realized that there are two states in which I as a believer exist:

1. My spiritual position in Christ - dead to sin, seated with Christ in the heavenlies, fully justified, wholly sanctified, a joint-heir with Christ, a new creature in Christ, etc.

2. My daily condition (or experience) - struggling with sin, working by faith to bring the fact of my death to Self into daily living, increasing over time in the Fruit of the Spirit, learning more and more to live in constant surrender to the Spirit, etc.

When I realized that I had a spiritual identity in Christ that existed independent of my everyday, mundane living and that would only be experienced as I, by faith, began to live in the truth of my identity in Christ, then it was that I began to understand how I could be both dead to sin and not dead to it at the same time. When I began to "reckon it so" by faith that I was, whether I felt or experienced it or not, that "new creature in Christ" that God said in His word that I was, then it was that I began to actually see the truth of these things in how I lived. This was a difficult thing for me at first because I was so very used to believing only after I had seen which was the reverse of how God said I must walk with Him. Walking by faith meant I had to set aside what I felt was true and even what my experience was indicating and believe - put my whole weight upon - the things God said were true of me. And, as I did, lo and behold, I began to see that these things were true.

I now realize I am a sinner saved by grace...I changed the description under my moniker to "justified sinner" to show that I have come to realize that my only hope was never to seek to be justified through becoming perfect (which was what I was trying to do in spite of Galatians 5:4 and other verses/passages); but that my salvation can rest only in forgiveness of past, present, and future sins through the shed blood of Christ.

Amen. His grace is sufficient. (Romans 5:20-21)

Much joy in heaven, right?

Yes, indeed.

If you are attempting to cut the grass with scissors you will ultimately fail at what you are attempting (which is in this case justification). The only way to cut the grass properly (and thus be truly justified) is to use the lawnmower and not your scissors to cut the grass.

Amen. I've tried the scissors approach and, of course, it doesn't work. At all.

I think that I still believe that a person who is walking in the Spirit and is having victory over the flesh will at certain times be tempted; in which case not giving in to temptation means that they cannot do the things that they would (because the Holy Spirit restrains them, so that they cannot sin).

This is an unusual reading; one I've never encountered before. We've both made our views on it clear, I think. We'll have to just let it be. God will lead us to a right understanding.

The word blameless indicates a practical outward holiness.

Okay. Why? Is it not as a result of standing before God blameless in Christ (justified) that we are accepted by God? This is what I see spelled out in Scripture. Positionally, I am blameless before God in Christ. His perfect righteousness has been imputed to me and so God declares me righteous and one of His own. No other righteousness but perfect righteousness will do, right? So, there is no acceptance by God without being justified fully - without being made blameless - through Christ.

It may not speak directly of cliffs; but cliffs are an analogy that might be drawn from such scriptures as Hebrews 3:12-15.

Hebrews 3:12-15
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

When I read verse 12 of this passage I understand it to mean that a believer can wander away from a healthy, fruitful walk with God when they begin to doubt His word, His promises to, and declarations about, them. I don't see it indicating a loss of salvation, however. When the doubting Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, did they do so abandoned, cut off, rejected by God? No. He went with them in the wilderness and continued to care for them. They were still His Chosen People. It doesn't seem to me, then, that I can properly read "departing from the living God" as "lost salvation."

Verse 13 explains what happens as a result of departing from God: the deceitfulness of sin hardens the believer in their doubting of God, the effect of which is to keep the believer from the spiritual "Promised Land" that is theirs in Christ. Like the Israelites, the doubting believer wanders in a spiritual wilderness of frustration, failure and dryness. I don't think, though, that such a believer is actually no longer a believer. Again, God did not abandon His Chosen People in the wilderness. They were still His people even as they wandered. So, too, the wandering believer who is not walking by faith with God. He is not cut off from God, only separated from the spiritual blessings of walking by faith in the promises of God.

Verse 14 very pointedly indicates that disbelief keeps us from the spiritual "Promised Land" that is in Christ. All that we are as children of God, we possess in our Saviour. But if we begin to doubt that this is so, if we begin to doubt who we are in Christ, we cannot partake of the spiritual richness and bounty of life in him. I don't see, though, that this means a believer will be cast out of God's family, rejected by Him. For reasons I've explained above, this seems to me far too extreme a reading.

Verse 15 urges us, in light of what the writer of Hebrews has explained, not to follow the example of the doubting Israelites. Very good advice, I think.

As I read this passage of verses, then, I just can't see that it supports your idea that there is a cliff's edge off of which a believer can fall into lostness. The believer who does not walk by faith in God's promises is spiritually stunted, they "walk in the wilderness," but they are no more abandoned by God than the disobedient Israelites were abandoned by God when they wandered in the wilderness.

I feel that it is the opponents of the doctrine of entire sanctification who are playing a semantics game. They slander the doctrine by trying to make it incompatible with 1 John 1:8 in their label of it. The real doctrine, as it stands, is not incompatible with 1 John 1:8 however.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Verse 8 isn't simply referring to a principle of sin within the believer, or a sin-nature present but rendered impotent within him. We know this because verse 9 speaks of confessing sins for which God issues forgiveness. Why would God issue forgiveness for a principle, or for the present but crucified "old man" within the believer? It seems to me forgiveness issues only as a response to actual committed sin. But if this is what verse 8 is talking about, it opposes the idea of entire practical sanctification, making the one who claims it deceived and God a liar.

I will say this: that, paradoxically, in beginning to understand that my sin is ever before me (Psalms 51:3), an unconscious level of holiness has been produced in me so that certain things that used to beset me have gone away from my life. Now whether this that has happened is entire sanctification or not, I don't know: it would be foolish of me to close myself off to anything that the Holy Spirit would want to say to me in order to pinpoint sin in my life; so I think it would be wise for me to be open to anything He might speak on the matter of what sins He might want to deal with in the process of my sanctification.

Amen. I certainly believe that Christians can arrive at a place in their walk with the Lord where obvious sin is the rare exception rather than the rule. But the holiness to which believers are called, the holy perfection of God Almighty is so far beyond what any of us will ever attain that the only way to be holy as God is holy is by the imputation of such holiness to us by God through and in Christ. This positional holy perfection will never, this side of the grave, ever be fully manifested in the life of any believer. It is too high, too far, too great to be attained practically by any fallible human being which is why we have verses like 1 John 1:8 in Scripture. This isn't to say that believers ought to throw up their hands and give up striving to be holy as their God is holy. Not at all. Increasing holiness should mark every genuine born-again believer.

However, currently, I know nothing against myself, even as Paul also said about himself at one point (1 Corinthians 4:4); but I am not hereby justified: but He who judges me is the Lord.

THis makes me think of the Psalmist's words:

Psalms 19:12-13
12 Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.
13 Also keep back Thy servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not rule over me...

Psalms 139:23-24
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

As good as we think we may be, as free from sin as we may think we are, we are always blind in some measure to our "hidden faults," those things we don't even recognize as sin within us. Over time, God must reveal these sins to us. If He does not, we will never see them as the sin that they are.

My justification however does not rest in the possibility that I might be entirely sanctified, but in the reality that I am forgiven of all of my sin/sins through the shed blood of Jesus Christ as he died on the Cross of Calvary.

Entire sanctification may very well be the result. However my salvation is not predicated on my levels of holiness or how sanctified I am, or how well I am doing in my performance as a believer in Christ. It is based solely on what He has done for me.

Amen!

 

[justbyfaith]

You know, it is a tricky thing getting this whole business about who I am in Christ right. It only began to make any sense to me when I realized that there are two states in which I as a believer exist:

1. My spiritual position in Christ - dead to sin, seated with Christ in the heavenlies, fully justified, wholly sanctified, a joint-heir with Christ, a new creature in Christ, etc.

2. My daily condition (or experience) - struggling with sin, working by faith to bring the fact of my death to Self into daily living, increasing over time in the Fruit of the Spirit, learning more and more to live in constant surrender to the Spirit, etc.

When I realized that I had a spiritual identity in Christ that existed independent of my everyday, mundane living and that would only be experienced as I, by faith, began to live in the truth of my identity in Christ, then it was that I began to understand how I could be both dead to sin and not dead to it at the same time. When I began to "reckon it so" by faith that I was, whether I felt or experienced it or not, that "new creature in Christ" that God said in His word that I was, then it was that I began to actually see the truth of these things in how I lived. This was a difficult thing for me at first because I was so very used to believing only after I had seen which was the reverse of how God said I must walk with Him. Walking by faith meant I had to set aside what I felt was true and even what my experience was indicating and believe - put my whole weight upon - the things God said were true of me. And, as I did, lo and behold, I began to see that these things were true.

The thing that made me aware of these truths is Romans 4:5, But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Our identity in Christ is that we are justified, even when we blow it He counts us as righteous. So then, my identity in Christ is that I am righteous in Him (see 1 John 3:7). So the natural outcropping of this is that I am going to now live like my identity.

Okay. Why? Is it not as a result of standing before God blameless in Christ (justified) that we are accepted by God? This is what I see spelled out in Scripture. Positionally, I am blameless before God in Christ. His perfect righteousness has been imputed to me and so God declares me righteous and one of His own. No other righteousness but perfect righteousness will do, right? So, there is no acceptance by God without being justified fully - without being made blameless - through Christ.

Something I wanted to mention though is that 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 isn't speaking of justification but sanctification. I think that you may be confusing the two, equating sanctification as being justification.

Hebrews 3:12-15
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

When I read verse 12 of this passage I understand it mean that a believer can wander away from a healthy, fruitful walk with God when they begin to doubt His word, His promises to, and declarations about, them. I don't see it indicating a loss of salvation, however. When the doubting Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, did they do so abandoned, cut off, rejected by God? No. He went with them in the wilderness and continued to care for them. They were still His Chosen People. It doesn't seem to me, then, that I can properly read "departing from the living God" as "lost salvation."

Verse 13 explains what happens as a result of departing from God: the deceitfulness of sin hardens the believer in their doubting of God, the effect of which is to keep the believer from the spiritual "Promised Land" that is theirs in Christ. Like the Israelites, the doubting believer wanders in a spiritual wilderness of frustration, failure and dryness. I don't think, though, that such a believer is actually no longer a believer. Again, God did not abandon His Chosen People in the wilderness. They were still His people even as they wandered. So, too, the wandering believer who is not walking by faith with God. He is not cut off from God, only separated from the spiritual blessings of walking by faith in the promises of God.

Verse 14 very pointedly indicates that disbelief keeps us from the spiritual "Promised Land" that is in Christ. All that we are as children of God, we possess in our Saviour. But if we begin to doubt that this is so, if we begin to doubt who we are in Christ, we cannot partake of the spiritual richness and bounty of life in him. I don't see, though, that this means a believer will be cast out of God's family, rejected by Him. For reasons I've explained above, this seems to me far too extreme a reading.

Verse 15 urges us, in light of what the writer of Hebrews has explained, not to follow the example of the doubting Israelites. Very good advice, I think.

As I read this passage of verses, then, I just can't see that it supports your idea that there is a cliff's edge off of which a believer can fall into lostness. The believer who does not walk by faith in God's promises is spiritually stunted, they "walk in the wilderness," but they are no more abandoned by God than the disobedient Israelites ceased to be God's Chosen People when they wandered in the wilderness.

Undoubtedly, if we are in Christ, absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of God. Now I have been saying elsewhere in these forums that those who receive the promises concerning eternal security have to be the same people who heed the warnings not to fall away. Because we are born again, and soft-hearted, we will not harden our hearts to specific warnings of scripture (though they may be hypothetical, they are still to be heeded by us as though they weren't) not to fall away.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Verse 8 isn't simply referring to a principle of sin within the believer, or a sin-nature present but rendered impotent within him. We know this because verse 9 speaks of confessing sins for which God issues forgiveness. Why would God issue forgiveness for a principle, or for the present but crucified "old man" within the believer? It seems to me forgiveness issues only as a response to actual committed sin. But if this is what verse 8 is talking about, it opposes the idea of entire practical sanctification, making the one who claims it deceived and God a liar.

I would say that in my view of practical entire sanctification, sin is not eradicated from the body, and therefore we still have sin; but it is rendered dead within us (Romans 6:6-7, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8) so that we don't have to commit sin; the element of sin has no authority over my behaviour so that I cannot willfully sin against the Lord (1 John 3:9 with Hebrews 10:26-27).

I believe we are indeed forgiven of sin as a principle (once we get our doctrine right). We need to be forgiven for what God says is true of us (before we got saved--Ezekiel 36:25-27, Luke 8:15) in Jeremiah 17:9.

This makes me think of the Psalmist's words:

Psalms 19:12-13
12 Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.
13 Also keep back Thy servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not rule over me...

Psalms 139:23-24
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

As good as we think we may be, as free from sin as we may think we are, we are always blind in some measure to our "hidden faults," those things we don't even recognize as sin within us. Over time, God must reveal these sins to us. If He does not, we will never see them as the sin that they are.

Amen (although, sin that was never revealed to us will simply be swallowed up by life when we receive our glorified bodies; unless we are counting on the confession of individual sins as being our salvation/forgiveness).

I said:

Now whether this that has happened is entire sanctification or not, I don't know: it would be foolish of me to close myself off to anything that the Holy Spirit would want to say to me in order to pinpoint sin in my life; so I think it would be wise for me to be open to anything He might speak on the matter of what sins He might want to deal with in the process of my sanctification.

 

[justbyfaith]

Not even the Apostles were so "sanctified" that they couldn't live a sin-free life.

I think you meant to say 'could'.