Is it possible to be sinless for 5 seconds straight?

[aiki]

You are failing to make a Moral Argument to convince me of your belief, and or explaining the Moral Problem I see with your belief.

You mean your Strawman about OSAS leading to licentiousness? What sort of Moral Argument are you looking for, exactly? I've shown from Scripture that OSAS is biblical. What more do I need to do?

This is nothing new for me in the many years I have discussed with OSAS Proponents before. They have also failed miserably to make a Moral case for OSAS.

Well, we have only your opinion to go by. "They" may be saying you are the one who failed miserably. If your arguments so far are anything to go by, "they" would be right.

But to say that we cannot know right and wrong and we cannot make judgments is silly.

Is someone saying that? I'm not. But I would point out to you that our sinful nature has corrupted our moral sense pretty badly. This is why in some countries honor killings and female genital mutilation are considered perfectly all right; it's why in some countries orphans are forced into being sex slaves, or treated like vermin; it's why in some countries pedophilia is rampant and even celebrated. Humans can make moral judgments but their sinful natures foul that judgment significantly.

If a person says that they only learned right and wrong from a Bible, then they are probably a sociopath.

Sociopaths don't really care about right and wrong - or the Bible. What does the Bible say, though?

Romans 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

It's called a conscience. Life taught me right and wrong, too. God placed in me things that I knew by nature that were wrong long before I read the Bible.

Perhaps. But what conscience you had naturally was warped by a sin-nature.

Oh, and by the way, you also just completely side stepped the issue of the possibility of a child becoming the next George Sodini by hearing an OSAS message. I mean, George heard the OSAS message and he went down the wrong path.

Judas spent some three years with Jesus as his disciple and he went down the wrong path. What's your point?

If there is one thing we can be sure of it's that humans will warp and twist the truth into all sorts of foul configurations. I don't know what version of OSAS this George fellow had embraced, but the one I hold to would not foster an evil life.

It would not be impossible for kids to make the wrong sinful choices because of OSAS, too.

A thing may be possible without being probable.

Kids could take your view on things and end up legalistic, hypocritical and nasty. I've met many over the years who did so.

Kids have committed suicide as a result of OSAS. They believed they would be saved, if they killed themselves.

OSAS does not teach suicide is salvific. Obviously. If kids killed themselves because of such a thing, the fault lays with the kid, not OSAS.

So how again is your belief Morally superior or good? I honestly cannot see how it can be in light of these facts.

Your facts don't support your conclusion. What you've pointed to is the human propensity to warp, and twist, and foul things.I know many people who hold to an OSAS view and are holy, loving, gracious people who love Jesus with all their hearts. What about them? They would say OSAS was an integral part of why they are who they are. If I were to judge OSAS by their lives it would pass any test of moral quality with flying colors! Do you see the problem with your "test" yet?

Anyways, lets move on, because I don't think we are going to agree.

You keep saying this but don't. I don't talk with you to be convinced of your views but to challenge them and expose the faulty reasoning in them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You mean your Strawman about OSAS leading to licentiousness? What sort of Moral Argument are you looking for, exactly? I've shown from Scripture that OSAS is biblical. What more do I need to do?



Well, we have only your opinion to go by. "They" may be saying you are the one who failed miserably. If your arguments so far are anything to go by, "they" would be right.



Is someone saying that? I'm not. But I would point out to you that our sinful nature has corrupted our moral sense pretty badly. This is why in some countries honor killings and female genital mutilation are considered perfectly all right; it's why in some countries orphans are forced into being sex slaves, or treated like vermin; it's why in some countries pedophilia is rampant and even celebrated. Humans can make moral judgments but their sinful natures foul that judgment significantly.



Sociopaths don't really care about right and wrong - or the Bible. What does the Bible say, though?

Romans 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.



Perhaps. But what conscience you had naturally was warped by a sin-nature.



Judas spent some three years with Jesus as his disciple and he went down the wrong path. What's your point?

If there is one thing we can be sure of it's that humans will warp and twist the truth into all sorts of foul configurations. I don't know what version of OSAS this George fellow had embraced, but the one I hold to would not foster an evil life.



A thing may be possible without being probable.

Kids could take your view on things and end up legalistic, hypocritical and nasty. I've met many over the years who did so.



OSAS does not teach suicide is salvific. Obviously. If kids killed themselves because of such a thing, the fault lays with the kid, not OSAS.



Your facts don't support your conclusion. What you've pointed to is the human propensity to warp, and twist, and foul things.I know many people who hold to an OSAS view and are holy, loving, gracious people who love Jesus with all their hearts. What about them? They would say OSAS was an integral part of why they are who they are. If I were to judge OSAS by their lives it would pass any test of moral quality with flying colors! Do you see the problem with your "test" yet?



You keep saying this but don't. I don't talk with you to be convinced of your views but to challenge them and expose the faulty reasoning in them.

In Eternal Security or OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), the talk of holiness and conforming to Christ is an illusion because the OSAS Proponent will also say you can sin on occasion and yet you are still saved (While committing that sin). This is what the two fold message of Eternal Security is all about (But of course you will not let yourself see it).

However, we know that the general message of OSAS in most cases tends to lead people into being enslaved to their sin and not being set free from it. How so? Just check out these testimonies below.

Ex OSAS Audio Testimonies:
Testimonies of former eternal security believers

Suicide & OSAS:
A tragic story of an OSAS believer.

A Pastor's Testimony on OSAS:
A testimony about OSAS by a Pastor's wife.

Hooked on Sin & OSAS:
Out Of Darkness NO Eternal Security Christian Testimony

Suicide, Mass Murder, and OSAS:
George Sodini

More Suicide Victims and OSAS:
SUICIDE Commit Suicide Symptoms Suicidal Victims

 

[aiki]

In Eternal Security or OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), the talk of holiness and conforming to Christ is an illusion because the OSAS Proponent will also say you can sin on occasion and yet you are still saved (While committing that sin).

This is a non sequitur, Jason. It does not follow that because one's sin does not jeopardize one's salvation one will neglect to pursue a holy life. This is a Strawman boogeyman that the SAL (saved-and-lost) crowd like to erect in their attempts to pull down OSAS. As far as I'm concerned, when this Strawman is used, it signals that the one using it doesn't under OSAS very well.

When the Almighty God of the Universe takes up residence in a person, the Bible says that person is made a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). Such a person is brought to life spiritually (Romans 8:10-11) and thereby fundamentally altered. They are in Christ and, by the Holy Spirit, he is in them; they are washed clean of the stain of their sin (Titus 3:5) and freed from its power (Romans 6); they are justified, and sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:29-30), and may come boldly before God's throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). Now, if all this can occur to someone and they are not significantly and immediately changed in the character of their thinking and living as a result, if the presence of the God of Everything within a person doesn't make a BIG difference to how that person is, then I highly doubt that person is truly saved. I don't believe for a second that God Almighty can come to dwell within someone and they remain essentially as they always were.

Too many Christians expect far too little from the conversion experience. But this is, I think, because the Gospel is not being properly communicated to people these days. Evangelism today is corrupted by "easy believism" and "cheap grace" and "your best life now." Simply say a prayer and you're in! No mention of Matthew 10:37-38, Matthew 16:24-25, or John 15:20. Very little is said of repentance or of the lost being wicked. And so, the "evangelized" are actually no such thing. They are largely false converts, "tares," who, thinking themselves saved, make an attempt to live God's way and find it frustrating, and confusing, and ultimately disappointing. Not having the power of God's Spirit to enable their holy living, these "tares" search for alternative sources of motivation, fear being one of the most common ones. And when these false converts try to live what God intends should be a love-relationship with Him (Matthew 22:36-37) out of fear, they end up hypocritical, legalistic, and deeply unhappy. I grew up among such people. I know first-hand what fear-based legalistic Christianity does to people. An unhappier, more sour, more hypocritically self-righteous group of people you'd be very hard pressed to find.

So, Jason, the morally-compromised lives of "Christians" claiming fidelity to the OSAS doctrine reveal in their corrupt living that they were never really saved at all. And in their attempt to live a holy life apart from genuine spiritual regeneration, they turn to false, self-centered fear-mongering motivations in order to do so. Those true believers who adhere to OSAS live lives of joyful holiness, enjoying the love of their Heavenly Father and loving Him in return. I know hundreds of people for whom this is true. I am an elder in a church full of such people. I can't, then, take your George Sodini and all the "testimonies" of people on websites with a doctrinal axe to grind against OSAS at all seriously.

However, we know that the general message of OSAS in most cases tends to lead people into being enslaved to their sin and not being set free from it.

You'd have to know all of the people who hold to an OSAS view and the content of the lives of each of them to make the sort of generalization you have here. Instead, you have taken what is an extremely small sampling of the OSAS community (if they were really sincere members of it at all) and tried to suggest that they are representative of the whole. This what racists do. I don't think you're a racist, Jason, but your thinking is fundamentally the same. If this sort of thinking is wrong for the racist to use, it is wrong for you to use it, too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is a non sequitur, Jason. It does not follow that because one's sin does not jeopardize one's salvation one will neglect to pursue a holy life. This is a Strawman boogeyman that the SAL (saved-and-lost) crowd like to erect in their attempts to pull down OSAS. As far as I'm concerned, when this Strawman is used, it signals that the one using it doesn't under OSAS very well.

When the Almighty God of the Universe takes up residence in a person, the Bible says that person is made a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). Such a person is brought to life spiritually (Romans 8:10-11) and thereby fundamentally altered. They are in Christ and, by the Holy Spirit, he is in them; they are washed clean of the stain of their sin (Titus 3:5) and freed from its power (Romans 6); they are justified, and sanctified (1 Corinthians 1:29-30), and may come boldly before God's throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). Now, if all this can occur to someone and they are not significantly and immediately changed in the character of their thinking and living as a result, if the presence of the God of Everything within a person doesn't make a BIG difference to how that person is, then I highly doubt that person is truly saved. I don't believe for a second that God Almighty can come to dwell within someone and they remain essentially as they always were.

Too many Christians expect far too little from the conversion experience. But this is, I think, because the Gospel is not being properly communicated to people these days. Evangelism today is corrupted by "easy believism" and "cheap grace" and "your best life now." Simply say a prayer and you're in! No mention of Matthew 10:37-38, Matthew 16:24-25, or John 15:20. Very little is said of repentance or of the lost being wicked. And so, the "evangelized" are actually no such thing. They are largely false converts, "tares," who, thinking themselves saved, make an attempt to live God's way and find it frustrating, and confusing, and ultimately disappointing. Not having the power of God's Spirit to enable their holy living, these "tares" search for alternative sources of motivation, fear being one of the most common ones. And when these false converts try to live what God intends should be a love-relationship with Him (Matthew 22:36-37) out of fear, they end up hypocritical, legalistic, and deeply unhappy. I grew up among such people. I know first-hand what fear-based legalistic Christianity does to people. An unhappier, more sour, more hypocritically self-righteous group of people you'd be very hard pressed to find.

So, Jason, the morally-compromised lives of "Christians" claiming fidelity to the OSAS doctrine reveal in their corrupt living that they were never really saved at all. And in their attempt to live a holy life apart from genuine spiritual regeneration, they turn to false, self-centered fear-mongering motivations in order to do so. Those true believers who adhere to OSAS live lives of joyful holiness, enjoying the love of their Heavenly Father and loving Him in return. I know hundreds of people for whom this is true. I am an elder in a church full of such people. I can't, then, take your George Sodini and all the "testimonies" of people on websites with a doctrinal axe to grind against OSAS at all seriously.



You'd have to know all of the people who hold to an OSAS view and the content of the lives of each of them to make the sort of generalization you have here. Instead, you have taken what is an extremely small sampling of the OSAS community (if they were really sincere members of it at all) and tried to suggest that they are representative of the whole. This what racists do. I don't think you're a racist, Jason, but your thinking is fundamentally the same. If this sort of thinking is wrong for the racist to use, it is wrong for you to use it, too.

We are not talking about race. We are talking about a belief. They are not the same thing. Jesus says we will know false prophets by their fruit. Why are they false prophets? Because they have a false belief. The fruit of OSAS is bad. To my knowledge, the believer I have talked with in the OSAS camp will say that King David was saved in His sins of adultery and murder; Sooooo what other sins can a believer commit and still be saved like a King David? That's the problem with the OSAS belief that you simply do not want to admit. The foundation of the OSAS position is corrupted by just saying King David was saved in his sins of adultery and murder. Show me an OSAS Proponent, and in time, they will reveal to you that they justify sin on some level because they say nobody can overcome sin and yet they are still saved (even when they do sin). What sins they are talking about varies between OSAS Proponent, but the point here is that it is all justification of evil on some level (regardless).

As for the conversion experience: It is a smoke screen. You don't believe anyone in the OSAS camp can actually say they can overcome sin because if they do, then they would be violating the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 that says they are always in some kind of sin on some level.

In fact, if somebody knows that no grievous sin is going to keep them out of Heaven, then why even bother to live holy. That is why you will not see any OSAS Proponents defending the necessity of holiness and the fear of GOD. There is no fear of God in OSAS. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling? Yeah, it doesn't mean that in the OSAS belief. They changed it! As they change many other verses to fit their pet doctrine to justify sin and evil. For you don't believe that a Christian will overcome sin. For many times when I see righteousness emphasized, I see the OSAS Proponent swooping in and saying silly things like, "I am glad I am not saved by (good) works, etc., etc." (Which implies they can sin and still be saved by having a belief on Jesus). So lets not pretend like you have the Moral high ground with OSAS, friend. This is simpy not true.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Peter says there are false prophets who cannot cease from sin (See 2 Peter 2:1) (2 Peter 2:14).
Now, why are OSAS proponents defending a belief that is characterized or identified certain false prophets?

Note: I say this because when I tell OSAS proponents the necessity of overcoming grievous sin, most of them act like such a thing is impossible and they start spouting off how they are saved by God's grace and not by works. But this sounds like they are trying to justify some kind of sin to me because they say nobody is perfect and we all sin every day or every week, etc.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

 

[aiki]

We are not talking about race. We are talking about a belief. They are not the same thing.

It is continually astonishing to me how little you understand of the things I write to you. There are a fixed set of talking points through which you revolve and outside of which you seem unable to operate. I did not say you were talking about race, Jason. I said the generalization you made about OSAS proponents was of a kind with the sort of generalization a racist makes about people of a certain ethnic group. Like a racist, you take a small sampling of a particular group and generalize - illegitimately - to all of the members of that group. The racist says, "All blacks are stupid!" and you say "All OSAS proponents are enslaved to sin." Neither statement is true and for the same reason.

Jesus says we will know false prophets by their fruit. Why are they false prophets? Because they have a false belief. The fruit of OSAS is bad.

This does not address my point about your over-generalization in the slightest. It is, essentially, another of the many deflections you employ to avoid a difficult challenge to your thinking. I have explained to you that I know many OSAS proponents personally who live very God-honoring, joyful lives. Your contention, then, that the fruit of OSAS is bad is untrue.

To my knowledge, the believer I have talked with in the OSAS camp will say that King David was saved in His sins of adultery and murder

??? What? King David wasn't saved (that is, born again). No Old Testament person during the time of the OT was saved. Christ had not yet died on the cross, so how could anyone in the OT be saved?

That's the problem with the OSAS belief that you simply do not want to admit.

As far as I can tell, your "problem" relating to King David makes no sense.

The foundation of the OSAS position is corrupted by just saying King David was saved in his sins of adultery and murder.

I don't know what it means to say, "King David was saved in his sins of adultery and murder." Salvation wasn't available to people living in OT times.

Show me an OSAS Proponent, and in time, they will reveal to you that they justify sin on some level because they say nobody can overcome sin and yet they are still saved (even when they do sin).

*Sigh* You just can't take in and understand what I've written to you, can you? I think you're afraid to actually carefully consider what I've been pointing out. What else can account for your complete lack of reasonable responses to my points? I'm a proponent of OSAS but I don't think sin can be justified. The sinner can be justified - as I've already pointed out to you - but the sin cannot.

What sins they are talking about varies between OSAS Proponent, but the point here is that it is all justification of evil on some level (regardless).

Nope. Not true.

As for the conversion experience: It is a smoke screen. You don't believe anyone in the OSAS camp can actually say they can overcome sin because if they do, then they would be violating the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 that says they are always in some kind of sin on some level.

See, this is a good example of the poor reasoning that characterizes most of your posts. You don't seem to understand what a non sequitur is. It does not follow that because a person always has sin in their life that no one sin can be overcome. This is like saying because a postman always has letters to deliver he has never delivered any letters. Clearly, this is nonsensical. Can you even understand the parallel I'm making here, though? I am very doubtful that you can...

In fact, if somebody knows that no grievous sin is going to keep them out of Heaven, then why even bother to live holy.

What a question! Has it never occurred to you that there are other better, stronger motives for obedience to God than fear? Apparently not. I think that's very sad. God only accepts obedience to Him that emanates from a love for Him (Matthew 22:36-37; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3). It is love, not fear, that is the truest, strongest ground for obedience to God. If you think fear is stronger, it is only because you don't properly understand and live in the power of God's love.
1 John 4:18-19
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear: because fear has torment. He who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.

That is why you will not see any OSAS Proponents defending the necessity of holiness and the fear of GOD. There is no fear of God in OSAS.

More Strawmen. Have you nothing else? You don't even really understand what you're arguing against.

I think holiness is essential to crucial living. It is the fundamental ground of our fellowship with God. It is not, though, the ground of our relationship to Him. We can be saved without being holy but we cannot enjoy God without being holy.

As for the fear of God, well, the "fear" I have of God is not the craven, cowering fear of a slave before a hard and cruel Master, but the reverential awe of a child for his glorious, and powerful, and loving Heavenly Father. That's the "fear" every believer ought to have for God.

As they change many other verses to fit their pet doctrine...

Pot and kettle, Jason. Pot and kettle.

For you don't believe that a Christian will overcome sin.

False. Strawman. In fact, I do believe a truly born-again Christian can and will overcome sin. They will not, though, overcome all of it.

For many times when I see righteousness emphasized, I see the OSAS Proponent swooping in and saying silly things like, "I am glad I am not saved by (good) works, etc., etc." (Which implies they can sin and still be saved by having a belief on Jesus). So lets not pretend like you have the Moral high ground with OSAS, friend. This is simpy not true.

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion - however in error it might be.

Note: I say this because when I tell OSAS proponents the necessity of overcoming grievous sin, most of them act like such a thing is impossible and they start spouting off how they are saved by God's grace and not by works.

None of the OSAS folk I know would respond this way. I certainly wouldn't. Overcoming sin is integral to the Christian life. But no one will ever overcome all sin in their life. This is why we need the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us. If we could work ourselves into a sinless state, then Jesus didn't need to die.

 

[John the Ex-Baptist]

Well, the Bible does not say that a Christian is a sinner (i.e. As if to say they are still living that kind of life after receiving Jesus) whereby they can then declare that they are saved by God's grace (despite their remaining in their sins). This sounds to me like it is turning God's grace into a license for sin (or immorality).

Although it's true to say that I totally disagree with the majority of that which @Jason0047 has written throughout this thread, I have to say that I have now taken on board what he fairly and squarely pointed out above.

As you may notice, this has led me to change both the signature in my profile, along with the URL of my website. I have also written a post on this matter which I will leave a link to should anyone wish to read it. This isn't solely because of the comment made above, but I have to admit that it went to reflect quite closely a comment made by my own pastor on the same subject.

Anyway, I hope the post will clarify my stance for anyone who wishes to read it, and thankyou @Jason0047 for your input.

https://theologymatters.co.uk/2018/11/a-change-of-heart/

God bless,

John

 

[Neogaia777]

I suppose David wasn't saved and didn't receive the Holy Spirit when being anointed with oil By Samuel when he was chosen as a boy, and didn't have God in or with him when he defeated Goliath, not to mention all his other battles...? guess God wasn't with him though, right...?

If anything, it's about having it, losing it, and getting it back again, or having Grace, falling from Grace, then getting Grace back again, and that's only and "if" (for this can or may have to happen several times)... That kind of thing is called, in one word "Redemption"... and the whole Bible is a story of Redemption, with other individual stories of redemption within... And those always make the best stories anyway...

Some of you have never fallen from Grace yet, thank God for Grace though, but until your "redeemed" you'll never be or ever feel complete and/or satisfied...

God Bless!

 

[aiki]

I suppose David wasn't saved and didn't receive the Holy Spirit when being anointed with oil By Samuel when he was chosen as a boy, and didn't have God in or with him when he defeated Goliath, not to mention all his other battles...? guess God wasn't with him though, right...?

Does Scripture say David was indwelt by God's Spirit, washed clean of the stain of his sin by the shed blood of Christ, justified, sanctified and spiritually regenerated by faith in Christ as his Saviour and Lord like New Testament Christians were? Clearly, this would have been impossible before Christ's redemptive work at Calvary. So, in whatever way the Holy Spirit "came (mightily) upon" David, it was not in a way that made him saved as you and I are as post-Calvary Christians. Certainly, God blessed David with courage, strength, victory in battle, wisdom, the favor of the people of Israel, and so on. But for all of these blessings endowed by God's Spirit upon him, David could not have been born-again before Christ's sacrifice on the cross made such a thing possible.

If anything, it's about having it, losing it, and getting it back again, or having Grace, falling from Grace, then getting Grace back again, and that's only and "if" (for this can or may have to happen several times)...

The phrase "fallen from grace," as far as I know, appears only once in the New Testament:

Galatians 5:1-4
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
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.

Much of Paul's letter to the Galatians was taken up with exhorting the Galatian believers to reject the attempt of some legalistic Jews to return them to a law-based, works-based means of justification. Through his atoning work on the cross, Christ had made them free from the "yoke of bondage" to the law, giving them in himself the grace of God instead. The Galatian Christians were entirely and permanently justified before God by their faith in Christ as their Saviour and Lord. They did not need to work any longer to obtain this justification that was freely given to them in Christ. And so Paul warned the Galatians that if they thought that obeying the law by circumcision could add anything to their already fully justified position in Christ, they would be debtors once again to keep the whole law as they once had to do. Doing so would make Christ of none effect; his grace would be of no benefit to them so long as they relied upon their own obedience to the law to make themselves acceptable to God. In this way, they would become "estranged" from Christ and fallen from the grace that he had bestowed upon them in himself. Does this mean those who might have tried to be more accepted by God by way of circumcision were unsaved? No. A man who owns a lawnmower but chooses to cut his grass with a pair of tweezers still owns a lawnmower. He doesn't cease to posses his lawnmower just because he refuses to benefit from it's power. Likewise, the Galatian Christian who tried to be justified before God by keeping the law of circumcision did not lose his salvation as a result. Like the man tweezing his lawn, the Galatian believer attempting to be justified by the law would not benefit from the power of his "lawnmower" (aka salvation) but he would still possess it.

Galatians 3:2-3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Romans 5:20-21
20 ...But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Neogaia777]

Does Scripture say David was indwelt by God's Spirit, washed clean of the stain of his sin by the shed blood of Christ, justified, sanctified and spiritually regenerated by faith in Christ as his Saviour and Lord like New Testament Christians were? Clearly, this would have been impossible before Christ's redemptive work at Calvary. So, in whatever way the Holy Spirit "came (mightily) upon" David, it was not in a way that made him saved as you and I are as post-Calvary Christians. Certainly, God blessed David with courage, strength, victory in battle, wisdom, the favor of the people of Israel, and so on. But for all of these blessings endowed by God's Spirit upon him, David was never born-again.



The phrase "fallen from grace," as far as I know, appears only once in the New Testament:

Galatians 5:1-4
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
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.

Much of Paul's letter to the Galatians was taken up with exhorting the Galatian believers to reject the attempt of some legalistic Jews to return them to a law-based, works-based means of justification. Through his atoning work on the cross, Christ had made them free from the "yoke of bondage" to the law, giving them in himself the grace of God instead. The Galatian Christians were entirely and permanently justified before God by their faith in Christ as their Saviour and Lord. They did not need to work any longer to obtain this justification that was freely given to them in Christ. And so Paul warned the Galatians that if they thought that obeying the law by circumcision could add anything to their already fully justified position in Christ, they would be debtors once again to keep the whole law as they once had to do. Doing so would make Christ of none effect; his grace would be of no benefit to them so long as they relied upon their own obedience to the law to make themselves acceptable to God. In this way, they would become "estranged" from Christ and fallen from the grace that he had bestowed upon them in himself. Does this mean those who might have tried to be more accepted by God by way of circumcision were unsaved? No. A man who owns a lawnmower but chooses to cut his grass with a pair of tweezers still owns a lawnmower. He doesn't cease to posses his lawnmower just because he refuses to benefit from it's power. Likewise, the Galatian Christian who tried to be justified before God by keeping the law of circumcision did not lose his salvation as a result. Like the man tweezing his lawn, the Galatian attempting to be justified by the law would not benefit from the power of his "lawnmower" (aka salvation) but he would still possess it.

Galatians 3:2-3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Romans 5:20-21
20 ...But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Like what you said...

I did a whole study on Galatians before, and Romans, took a lot of notes... Love it!

I don't know about David not having the Holy Spirit, or least, if not "a", "the" Spirit of God in him, or not having received it when he was anointed (by Samuel), or not being not saved or not, when he was righteous at the/that time...?

God Bless!

 

[aiki]

I don't know about David not having the Holy Spirit, or least, if not "a", "the" Spirit of God in him, or not having received it when he was anointed (by Samuel), or not being not saved or not, when he was righteous at the/that time...?

I'm not saying David wasn't infused with special divine blessing and power by the Spirit, only that in whatever way he was benefited by the Spirit it could not have been in the same way as post-Calvary Christians are. It is only because of what Christ did at Calvary that a person can be born-again, spiritually-regenerated, justified, sanctified and made a new creation in Christ. If it was possible for anyone to be so without Christ's atoning work at Calvary, it would have been possible for everyone to be so. In other words, if David was saved without the redeeming work of Christ on the cross, then Jesus did not need to die to save us, did he? Why couldn't we all be saved, too, without the atoning sacrifice of Christ?

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm not saying David wasn't infused with special divine blessing and power by the Spirit, only that in whatever way he was benefited by the Spirit it could not have been in the same way as post-Calvary Christians are. It is only because of what Christ did at Calvary that a person can be born-again, spiritually-regenerated, justified, sanctified and made a new creation in Christ. If it was possible for anyone to be so without Christ's atoning work at Calvary, it would have been possible for everyone to be so. In other words, if David was saved without the redeeming work of Christ on the cross, then Jesus did not need to die to save us, did he? Why couldn't we all be saved, too, without the atoning sacrifice of Christ?

Do you think people like David went to like Abraham's bosom or anything like that, (Hades) before Jesus went there and took many of them with him when he ascended into heaven...? Seem to remember something like that...?

I agree with your post, good post...

God Bless!

 

[aiki]

Do you think people like David went to like Abraham's bosom or anything like that, (Hades) before Jesus went there and took many of them with him when he ascended into heaven...? Seem to remember something like that...?

I agree with your post, good post...

God Bless!

Yes, I think you're correct: The OT saints went to "Abraham's bosom" (which has always struck me as an odd name for the place), awaiting Christ's atonement.

God bless you, too!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Although it's true to say that I totally disagree with the majority of that which @Jason0047 has written throughout this thread, I have to say that I have now taken on board what he fairly and squarely pointed out above.

As you may notice, this has led me to change both the signature in my profile, along with the URL of my website. I have also written a post on this matter which I will leave a link to should anyone wish to read it. This isn't solely because of the comment made above, but I have to admit that it went to reflect quite closely a comment made by my own pastor on the same subject.

Anyway, I hope the post will clarify my stance for anyone who wishes to read it, and thankyou @Jason0047 for your input.

A Change of Heart – Theology Matters

God bless,

John

While it is good that you changed the name (Which is a step in the right direction), you have not changed your belief that essentially says you can commit grievous sin and still be saved (Which is not good).

One verse to hopefully let it sink in deep for you;
This verse is a command, and it is taken from out of the pages of the Old that God repeats in the New Testament for us.

"Be ye holy; for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:16).​

If we are to be holy, as God is holy, then it has to be in conduct because God is holy in conduct.

"We have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16).​

If Christ never justified sin, then we should never justify sin and think we are good with God. "We have the mind of Christ" Do we really have the mind of Christ if we are justifying a doctrine that allows for us to do evil with the thinking we are saved?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I suppose David wasn't saved and didn't receive the Holy Spirit when being anointed with oil By Samuel when he was chosen as a boy, and didn't have God in or with him when he defeated Goliath, not to mention all his other battles...? guess God wasn't with him though, right...?

If anything, it's about having it, losing it, and getting it back again, or having Grace, falling from Grace, then getting Grace back again, and that's only and "if" (for this can or may have to happen several times)... That kind of thing is called, in one word "Redemption"... and the whole Bible is a story of Redemption, with other individual stories of redemption within... And those always make the best stories anyway...

Some of you have never fallen from Grace yet, thank God for Grace though, but until your "redeemed" you'll never be or ever feel complete and/or satisfied...

God Bless!

David received the Holy Spirit as a part of being a king. The Holy Spirit was not given to him as a part of salvation. David was saved before he was anointed king.

 

[John the Ex-Baptist]

One verse to hopefully let it sink in deep for you;
This verse is a command, and it is taken from out of the pages of the Old that God repeats in the New Testament for us.

"Be ye holy; for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:16).
If we are to be holy, as God is holy, then it has to be in conduct because God is holy in conduct.

I don't dispute anything you've said there. I simply believe there is only One who is truly holy as God Himself is holy, and that is our sinless Saviour, Jesus Christ. His perfect holiness and righteousness is what those who are found in Him, are clothed with in the sight of God. It is that perfect holiness and righteousness that justifies us, which is given to those who believe and trust in Him, as a gracious and free gift of loving kindness. It is His perfection that is reckoned to us on account of our faith and trust in Him, whilst our imperfection and sin is cast upon Him in our place. We are made holy because Christ is holy, and those who believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are to be found in Him.

If Christ never justified sin, then we should never justify sin and think we are good with God. "We have the mind of Christ" Do we really have the mind of Christ if we are justifying a doctrine that allows for us to do evil with the thinking we are saved?

I never for a second said we should justify sin in any way. We are to hate it, and fight against it in our lives on a daily basis. This is the life a Christian is called to, but it is not what justifies us in the sight of God; that is found only in Christ. We live in this way by the power of the Holy Spirit, and in the freedom of knowing we are already justified in Christ. We have already been judged and declared righteous in Christ, and it is now our vocation to embrace the Law of God as His children. We are to judge our lives by it each day, seeking to put to death the deeds of our flesh constantly, flowing from a grateful heart.

To quote from the post I mentioned:

"To paraphrase my pastor, we were once wretched sinners that could be likened to orphaned beggars cast into the streets, who were taken from where they were by a kind and loving man, and adopted them as his own children. It so happened that man was a king, and as a result of being adopted, those orphaned beggars were now truly part of a royal family. Not as outsiders temporarily invited in, but those who were now truly at home where they belonged. Would it be right for them to still identify as orphaned beggars? Or would it be better they identify as royal children, whose rightful response to their loving father, would be to seek to live their lives now in the light of what they now are, thanks to his benevolence?

Whilst it is most certainly true that Christ came to save sinners, it is equally true that He saved us for the purpose of being adopted into the Ultimate Royal Family there ever was or will be. Is it not right and proper that we should now identify as the adopted children of God we have now become, and seek to live accordingly with a thankful heart, leaving our old sinner self to drown in our baptismal waters?"

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't dispute anything you've said there. I simply believe there is only One who is truly holy as God Himself is holy, and that is our sinless Saviour, Jesus Christ. His perfect holiness and righteousness is what those who are found in Him, are clothed with in the sight of God. It is that perfect holiness and righteousness that justifies us, which is given to those who believe and trust in Him, as a gracious and free gift of loving kindness. It is His perfection that is reckoned to us on account of our faith and trust in Him, whilst our imperfection and sin is cast upon Him in our place. We are made holy because Christ is holy, and those who believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are to be found in Him.

First, you need to understand that I do not believe in "Works Alone Salvationism" (Which is what I believe Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3, Galatians 3, and Titus 3:5 says). I believe we are initially and ultimately saved by God's grace through faith. So faith is the element needed to access God's saving grace that is a free gift. In 1 Peter 1, we clearly see grace mentioned, but we also see holy conduct, as well. While we do need to believe in Christ for salvation, the immediate context of 1 Peter 1:16 to taking about holy action and not in believing in Christ's sacrifice alone.

1. As obedient children (verse 14).
2. Not fashioning yourselves according to former lusts in ignorance (verse 14).
3. Be holy in all manner of conversation (verse 15).
>>> "Be ye holy, for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:16) <<<
4. The Father judges according to every man's work (verse 17).
5. Pass the time of your sojourning here in fear (verse 17).​

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently" (1 Peter 1:22).

Second, I also believe there is no holiness apart from God or Christ. I believe Jesus saves both in Justification (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 3:5), and I believe Jesus saves in Sanctification (Romans 13:14, John 15:5, Philippians 1:11, Philippians 4:13, Hebrews 13:21). Yes, within the Trinity: The Father, and the Holy Spirit also do work inside the believer (playing a part in the Sanctification process) for us to live holy, as well. Without this holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14) (Please take note that Hebrews 12:14 is yet another verse where the immediate context is in reference again to holy action and not in believing in Christ's sacrifice alone; For it says, "Follow peace with all men" which plays part in: "without which, no man shall see the Lord.").

Three, gifts are free, but if we are not responsible with those gifts, we can ruin them. For example: If I receive a car as a free gift, that does not mean I can run red lights, drive drunk, and hit pedestrians with it. I would not have my free gift for very long if I did that. Likewise, if a man receives a wife from the Lord (from his praying for many years) as a gift, that does not mean he can be unfaithful to her and expect her to still want to be married to him. So while we do not technically earn salvation (like trading dollars for hours at a job), we do have to do work as a part of taking care of the gift of salvation who lives inside of us (Who is Jesus Christ). Remember, those poor people Jesus talked about? Jesus essentially said if we do not help the poor (at some point in our life), it will be as if we did not do it unto Him and we will be cast into everlasting fire (Matthew 25:31-46). It's all about abiding and nurturing that relationship. Jesus says if we love Him, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15). If we are not keeping His commandments, we do not love Jesus. For can you truly not love Jesus and still enter His Kingdom?

I never for a second said we should justify sin in any way. We are to hate it, and fight against it in our lives on a daily basis. This is the life a Christian is called to, but it is not what justifies us in the sight of God; that is found only in Christ. We live in this way by the power of the Holy Spirit, and in the freedom of knowing we are already justified in Christ. We have already been judged and declared righteous in Christ, and it is now our vocation to embrace the Law of God as His children. We are to judge our lives by it each day, seeking to put to death the deeds of our flesh constantly, flowing from a grateful heart.

This is where the double message sets in. On the one hand, you are saved by God's grace and you do not need to worry about technically living holy, but yet on the other hand you believe that you must strive to live holy. Why? What is the purpose in living holy if Jesus already paid the price for you to live holy? Was His grace that ineffectual?

See, what you fail to understand is that Christ's sacrifice is imputed to us not only by believing in Him and His shed blood (John 3:16, Romans 3:25), but Christ's sacrifice is imputed to us when we "walk in the light" (1 John 1:7) (Note: "walk in the light is loving your brother" - 1 John 2:9-10, which loving your neighbor (brother) is the same equivalent of keeping the Moral Law - See Romans 13:8-10). Christ is the author of eternal salvation also to all who OBEY Him (Hebrews 5:9). For if we willfully sin after we receive the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:26).

God says in His Word that we can overcome grievous sin in this life (1 Corinthians 10:13, 1 Peter 4:1-2, Galatians 5:16, Galatians 5:24, Romans 13:14, 2 Corinthians 7:1). So if we deny God's way of true Justification (that His sacrifice does not pay for willful sin) and we deny God's true way of Sanctification (in overcoming grievous sin) we are denying God's narrow way that leads unto life (Whereby FEW there be that finds it).

"To paraphrase my pastor, we were once wretched sinners that could be likened to orphaned beggars cast into the streets, who were taken from where they were by a kind and loving man, and adopted them as his own children. It so happened that man was a king, and as a result of being adopted, those orphaned beggars were now truly part of a royal family. Not as outsiders temporarily invited in, but those who were now truly at home where they belonged. Would it be right for them to still identify as orphaned beggars? Or would it be better they identify as royal children, whose rightful response to their loving father, would be to seek to live their lives now in the light of what they now are, thanks to his benevolence?

Whilst it is most certainly true that Christ came to save sinners, it is equally true that He saved us for the purpose of being adopted into the Ultimate Royal Family there ever was or will be. Is it not right and proper that we should now identify as the adopted children of God we have now become, and seek to live accordingly with a thankful heart, leaving our old sinner self to drown in our baptismal waters?"

But if those orphaned beggars one day forgot about his benevolence and they decided to murder or rape the royal king's other family members, is the king going to have mercy on them regardless if they do not change? Surely not. At some point they will be put in prison or executed. Bad behavior is never condoned or approved of by God; And just because a person is taken from a bad life before does not mean they will be forever grateful. In fact, if they are not obedient to the King, that means they are not grateful. If the servant knew that he had a free pass to be a son no matter what he did (like murder, and rape), he could then think he could get away with doing those things at some point. Therein lies the problem with your belief. For in order for your sin and still be saved plan of salvation to work, .... the Lord would have to agree with it. God would have to agree with your doing evil to save you if you believe you can do evil and still be saved. But God cannot agree with evil. God is holy and good and righteous, and just. Salvation does not work as you say. God is good.

 

[Neogaia777]

David received the Holy Spirit as a part of being a king. The Holy Spirit was not given to him as a part of salvation. David was saved before he was anointed king.

But you say he wasn't...? Right...? Or that he lost his salvation and had to get it back or something like that correct...? Or do I have that wrong maybe...?, and if I do perhaps you can clarify for me/us...?

God Bless!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But you say he wasn't...? Right...? Or that he lost his salvation and had to get it back or something like that correct...? Or do I have that wrong maybe...?, and if I do perhaps you can clarify for me/us...?

God Bless!

See this new thread I created here.
Please include Scripture if you do decide to contribute, though.