Justification and Sanctification ?

[Bible Highlighter]

That is not all you claim concerning them. THAT is my point. You have not proven them wrong. What's worse, you have not quoted (or video'd) them in what they are trying to say. The context is missing.

If you know them or know Calvinism or Reformed theology, you know that what you quote them to say is not all they are trying to say. And you say you don't sin?

So here you are teaching a double message. You are asking me if I don’t sin. This is to suggest that you believe no Christian can ever stop sinning even though Jesus said to, “sin no more.” So you must believe 1 John 1:8 is saying believers can sin and still be saved on some smaller level (like committing fornication with their eyes, or lying, or cussing at times, etcetera). So on one hand you are trying to act like MacArthur, and Piper are not saying you can sin and still be saved, and then on the other hand you are suggesting we can sin and still be saved. You cannot have it both ways. Either one can sin and still be saved or they cannot do that. The lessening of one’s serious sins does not change that one is still turning God’s grace into a license for immorality (Jude 1:4). Remember, it took only one sin for the fall to happen.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Is Mark not talking about sin, for which we are responsible, while you are talking about salvation, for which we had nothing to do?

Again, if you believe in Calvinism, then you are led to the view of Determinism. In Calvinism: God says who is saved and not saved ultimately and that would include them no longer sinning to a degree that many Calvinists would be considered wrong (And would qualify them as living holy to God). So God can stop people from sinning according to Calvinism because it is a part of the salvation package, right? So God is the One who is ultimately responsible for the change to happen. In Calvinism: He is the puppet master and the One who calls all the shots in whether men can sin or not.

But that’s not what the Bible teaches.
God gets angry at the wicked (Psalms 7:11).

 

[setst777]

Those hundreds of videos is just a front or cover for his license to sin belief. What I shared is unmistakable in regards to his belief.
Two sources are from his own mouth. Another source is from his own study bible. I have his study bible and I can confirm it. The source about one of his church members committing suicide (and him being sued in court over it because they state that a believer who commits suicide is saved) is from a general non-religious website. So no. I don’t buy his cover story of teaching holy living.

Here are some quotes from John MacArthur‘s books:

Words bolded above are added for emphasis to see what MacArthur is really teaching.
Even one Calvinist here (Claire) is defending how John Piper can still do his sins and yet God does not see his sins (even when he does them). This is what most Calvinists really believe if they are honest about all of their teachings.

John MacArthur says that it is a settled fact forever that they are imputed righteousness and forgiveness.

Listen to his audio clip of him saying that here:

https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/audio/John-MacArthur-myth-forgiven-forever.mp3

John MacArthur says John Calvin is his hero.

John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake. John Calvin believed in infant damnation. Meaning, he believed some innocent babies are in hell. John Calvin believed infant baptism.

Thank you for sharing the audio clip. I don't remember ever listening to short audio or video clips from John MacArthur before. I am suspicious that such short clips or texts from John MacArthur do not take into account the context. I say this because these clips seem to say the exact opposite of what John MacArthur teaches. I can see how such clips do appear to be teaching the opposite thing that he has taught in many of his other sermons.

My feeling, after listening to many of his sermons for decades is that this discrepancy is explained in the following way:

As a Calvinist, John MacArthur does believe that those whom God has chosen to believe and be saved are guaranteed to believe and be saved. No sins can prevent that, and nothing he does can change that guarantee. However; in saying that, the person God has chosen to be saved, even though he may sin, God surely does forgive his sins. Since God guarantees his faith and salvation, then that person God chose to be saved will remain in the faith to the end, living a sanctified life before God, so that, no sins he may commit, while living out his faith, can change that.

I think most Arminians and Wesleyans would similarly agree that [although Arminians and Wesleyans do not believe faith is guaranteed], they do believe salvation is guaranteed for those who do remain in the faith, living a sanctified life onto God. Since this is the case, then any sins that a true believer may commit in weakness, if he confesses, cannot cause him to lose his salvation. Why? Because sins that a true believer commits and confessed are forgiven by God - guaranteed, according to God's promise. God will cleanse from all sins the true believer who commits sins in weakness or error.

1 John 1:7-10 (WEB) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. 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 righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we haven’t sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I fully believe this as well, because nothing can snatch a true sanctified believer from the hand of God. That is God's guarantee, but only for a true believer - as long as he remains in the faith evidenced by following Lord Jesus. All sins this true believer may commit in weakness are forgiven, guaranteed, as he remains in the faith.

So, according to John MacArthur, if the context were known, he would be teaching that a person chosen by God to possess a true faith to be saved, is guaranteed salvation, because he is a true believer. Therefore, if God chose him, and gave him that faith, then that faith will become evident to us by the fruit he bears as his way of life, and no sins a true believer commits in weakness can change that because God forgives the sins of those who truly believe and, by faith, follow him.

To a Calvinist, if a person is truly God's elect, then he will remain in the faith to the end (Perseverance of the Faith). And if a person does not remain in the faith to the end, then he was never really chosen by God to be saved to begin with. That is the belief of Calvinists.

I believe that is the context for the clips from John MacArthur's sermons and questions answered that you gave links for.

 

[Clare73]

So here you are teaching a double message. You are asking me if I don’t sin. This is to suggest that you believe no Christian can ever stop sinning even though Jesus said to, “sin no more.” So you must believe 1 John 1:8 is saying believers can sin and still be saved on some smaller level (like committing fornication with their eyes, or lying, or cussing at times, etcetera). So on one hand you are trying to act like MacArthur, and Piper are not saying you can sin and still be saved, and then on the other hand you are suggesting we can sin and still be saved. You cannot have it both ways. Either one can sin and still be saved or they cannot do that. The lessening of one’s serious sins does not change that one is still turning God’s grace into a license for immorality (Jude 1:4). Remember, it took only one sin for the fall to happen.

You fail to grasp the Biblical distinction between unintentional sin (Lev 4:2, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27), treated of in 1 Jn 1:8-10,
and rebellious sin (Nu 15:30) of counterfeit faith (which "faith" does not save) and unbelief.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Bible Highlighter - it's my firm conviction that the scriptural truth here lies somewhere between two extremes ... your ["LOS" - Loss of Salvation] position and Mark's [5-point Calvinist] position. And since those who take the following position [the "middle ground"] stated below [the position which I embrace] are usually, although certainly not always, 1-point Calvinists [the "P" of T.U.L.I.P. - the inevitable preservation of the elect by God] they are considered the "minority" position and are consequently often misunderstood and rejected by most within professing Christianity.

(1) God has granted and enabled all men to make the choice [by virtue of the free moral agency He has sovereignly chosen to bestowed upon them] to receive [by faith] or reject [by unbelief] Christ's substitutional atoning work on their behalf.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that ***[whosoever]*** believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

2 Corinthians 5:15, "And that he died ***[for all]***, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

(2) God has promised to preserve all those who have placed their faith in [trusted exclusively in] Christ's substitutional atoning work on their behalf for the forgiveness of their sins. Not a single blood-bought child of God will ever everlastingly perish in the Lake of Fire ... they will never "lose" or "forfeit" the eternal life that they had received as a free gift.

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 :

23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

24 ***[Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.]***

2 Timothy 1:12, "For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that ***[which I have committed]*** unto him against that day.

Romans 8:30, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

All those who have been [past tense] justified by placing their faith in Christ's atoning work will be glorified [future tense] ... they will receive the redemption of their mortal bodies in Heaven.

At the end of the day… responsibility has to be placed on either us or God when it comes to what we do here on this Earth.
Yes, I do believe God illuminates our understanding on His Word and He can open our hearts (like He did with Lydia) so that we can receive His words (without which we cannot do so), but a person’s free will choice is involved when God brings these opportunities. Christ draws all men unto Himself. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. So God seeks to illuminate His Word to all men. But this illumination is in God’s timing. But men have to ultimately be responsible for their choosing God or not or in their being faithful to God or not. If not, then the Judgment would be a joke or farce.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you for sharing the audio clip. I don't remember ever listening to short audio or video clips from John MacArthur before. I am suspicious that such short clips or texts from John MacArthur do not take into account the context. I say this because these clips seem to say the exact opposite of what John MacArthur teaches. I can see how such clips do appear to be teaching the opposite thing that he has taught in many of his other sermons.
My feeling, after listening to many of his sermons for decades is that this discrepancy is explained in the following way:

As a Calvinist, John MacArthur does believe that those whom God has chosen to believe and be saved are guaranteed to believe and be saved. No sins can prevent that, and nothing he does can change that guarantee. However; in saying that, the person God has chosen to be saved, even though he may sin, God surely does forgive his sins. Since God guarantees his faith and salvation, then that person God chose to be saved will remain in the faith to the end, living a sanctified life before God, so that, no sins he may commit, while living out his faith, can change that.

I think most Arminians and Wesleyans would similarly agree that, although Arminians and Wesleyans do not believe faith is guaranteed, they do believe salvation is guaranteed for those who do remain in the faith, living a sanctified life onto God. Since this is the case, then any sins that a true believer may commit in weakness cannot cause him to lose his salvation. Why? Because sins that a true believer commits and confessed are forgiven by God - guaranteed, according to God's promise. God will cleanse from all sins the true believer who commits sins in weakness or error.

1 John 1:7-10 (WEB) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. 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 righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we haven’t sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I fully believe this as well, because nothing can snatch a true sanctified believer from the hand of God. That is God's guarantee, but only to the true believer - if he remains in the faith till the end evidenced by following Lord Jesus. All sins this true believer may commit in weakness are forgiven, guaranteed, as he remains in the faith.

So, according to John MacArthur, if the context were known, he would be teaching that a person chosen by God to possess a true faith to be saved, is guaranteed salvation, because he is a true believer. Therefore, if God chose him, and gave him that faith, then that faith will become evident to us by the fruit he bears as his way of life, and no sins a true believer commits in weakness can change that because God forgives the sins of those who truly believe and, by faith, follow him.

To a Calvinist, if a person is truly God's elect, then he will remain in the faith to the end (Perseverance of the Faith). And if a person does not remain in the faith to the end, then he was never really chosen by God to be saved to begin with. That is the belief of Calvinists.

I believe that is the context for the clips from John MacArthur's sermons and questions answered that you gave links for.

I see the issue here as the one addressed in post #464; i.e., unintentional sin vs. rebellious sin (which is really unbelief, demonstrating they were not actually saved, for their faith was counterfeit, as in Mt 7:21-23).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you for sharing the audio clip. I don't remember ever listening to short audio or video clips from John MacArthur before. I am suspicious that such short clips or texts from John MacArthur do not take into account the context. I say this because these clips seem to say the exact opposite of what John MacArthur teaches. I can see how such clips do appear to be teaching the opposite thing that he has taught in many of his other sermons.

Do not assume people cannot be deceptive or that they cannot teach a double message. Do not assume they are innocent. I see it all the time even here on the forums. Just because they may preach holy living to be right with God at times does not mean they agree with the Bible’s version of holy living or that they don’t believe they can also sin and still be saved on some level. I know. I can spot this type a belief a mile away by many.

You say the word “repent” to a person and you don’t define it, and 10 different Christians are going to have a wide range of different meanings to that word “repent.” So when MacArthur talks about living holy, his definition is not the same as the Bible’s definition.

Then again, I believe he is double speaking or teaching contradictory messages.

John MacArthur’s own words condemn him in the fact that he clearly is teaching you can sin and still be saved at certain times.
Other times he will say that this is not the case.
Why? Because he does not want all people to think he is teaching a license to sin (even though he really believes that).

My feeling, after listening to many of his sermons for decades is that this discrepancy is explained in the following way:

As a Calvinist, John MacArthur does believe that those whom God has chosen to believe and be saved are guaranteed to believe and be saved. No sins can prevent that, and nothing he does can change that guarantee. However; in saying that, the person God has chosen to be saved, even though he may sin, God surely does forgive his sins. Since God guarantees his faith and salvation, then that person God chose to be saved will remain in the faith to the end, living a sanctified life before God, so that, no sins he may commit, while living out his faith, can change that.

Which is a license to sin because if they believe they can sin and still be saved during times they are not confessing and forsaking sin, or when they are backslidden into a lifestyle of sin, then that is turning God’s grace into a license for immorality.

But Jesus warns that to just look upon a woman in lust means a person is in danger of being cast bodily into hellfire (Which runs contrary to this sin and still be saved teaching). Jesus taught if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven by the Father. Jesus taught that by our words we can be condemned. Jesus taught that not helping the poor can lead to going away into a punishment that has everlasting consequences.

I think most Arminians and Wesleyans would similarly agree that, although Arminians and Wesleyans do not believe faith is guaranteed, they do believe salvation is guaranteed for those who do remain in the faith, living a sanctified life onto God. Since this is the case, then any sins that a true believer may commit in weakness cannot cause him to lose his salvation. Why? Because sins that a true believer commits and confessed are forgiven by God - guaranteed, according to God's promise. God will cleanse from all sins the true believer who commits sins in weakness or error.

1 John 1:7-10 (WEB) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. 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 righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we haven’t sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I fully believe this as well, because nothing can snatch a true sanctified believer from the hand of God. That is God's guarantee, but only to the true believer - if he remains in the faith till the end evidenced by following Lord Jesus. All sins this true believer may commit in weakness are forgiven, guaranteed, as he remains in the faith.

No, dear sir. 1 John 1:9 says IF we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
So if we are not confessing sin, then there is no forgiveness.
Proverbs 28:13 says we have to confess and forsake sin so as to have mercy.

In Luke 15:24, and Luke 15:32, we learn that when the prodigal son came home and sought forgiveness with his father, we know that his father said his son was “dead” and he is “alive AGAIN.” The parable is speaking in spiritual terms. So when the prodigal son was living it up with prostitutes (Luke 15:30), he was “dead” spiritually, but when he came back home and sought forgiveness with his father, he became “alive AGAIN” spiritually. The only way a person can be “alive AGAIN” is if they were once alive a first time spiritually. James 5:19-20 expresses a similar truth, as well. So yeah. This parable actually demolishes a sin and still be saved type belief.

To say we can sin and still be saved is to buy into the lie that the devil gave Eve that we can disobey God’s command and not die.
Some say the devil’s lie (of saying we cannot die because of sin) is the gospel today.
They have things twisted around.

So, according to John MacArthur, if the context were known, he would be teaching that a person chosen by God to possess a true faith to be saved, is guaranteed salvation, because he is a true believer. Therefore, if God chose him, and gave him that faith, then that faith will become evident to us by the fruit he bears as his way of life, and no sins a true believer commits in weakness can change that because God forgives the sins of those who truly believe and, by faith, follow him.

To a Calvinist, if a person is truly God's elect, then he will remain in the faith to the end (Perseverance of the Faith). And if a person does not remain in the faith to the end, then he was never really chosen by God to be saved to begin with. That is the belief of Calvinists.

I believe that is the context for the clips from John MacArthur's sermons and questions answered that you gave links for.

Again, Adam and Eve died spiritually by just committing one sin. It did not take lots of sins, or practicing sin in order to be separated from God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I see the issue here as the one addressed in post #464; i.e., unintentional sin vs. rebellious sin (which is really unbelief, demonstrating they were not actually saved, for their faith was counterfeit, as in Mt 7:21-23).

Most believers today use 1 John 1:8 as a banner flag that they will always fall into unintentional sin ALWAYS this side of Heaven.
They will say things like they sin in thought, and deed every day (unintentionally - of course) but they are saved by a belief alone in Jesus. This unintentional sin is intentional. They say ahead of time that they must always sin again. That’s intentional!!!

We truly are living in the last days.
Jesus said, “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

 

[biblelesson]

Justification means being declared righteous, "(just as if we'd never sinned); while sanctification means growing in righteousness.

Justifification means righteous has been inputted unto us in Christ Jesus. Sanctification means set apart as holy before God through the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. 1 Corinthians 6:11, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

How does one grow in righteousness if they can't seem to stop their sinning ... "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.” (John 5:14) and "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ... from now on sin no more." (John 8:10-11).

Your first recognized that we have been declared righteous in Christ Jesus, then you through away what Jesus did for us on the cross and said how can one grow in righteousness if on can’t stop sinning.

I realize many people make this mistake. But, we don’t grow in righteousness so that we can stop sinning. That’s taking back from Christ the righteous he has inputted onto us. We don’t look at whether we are righteous or not, because we are in Christ. What we do is GROW in the grace and knowledge of Christ, 2 Peter 3:18. We are strengthen in our inner man by the Spirit of God, Ephesians 3:16.

We have to be able to make the distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The scripture you listed in John are before the death of Christ, before the new covenant that we are under where we have now been offered grace in Christ Jesus and forgiveness of sin. Christ took our sin, so those in Christ cannot sin, 1 John 3:9. We cannot sin not because of us, but because of God’s seed that’s in us that cannot sin. There is no sin with God. We possess the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, God’s Holy Spirit, Romans 8:11. Chew on that for a moment.

Some may differ on interpretation, but the purpose of this thread is your interpretation of Romans 7 - especially verses 17-20. Do you interpret Romans 7:17-20 that Paul is as much as saying that he finds it difficult to stop sinning even after (not before) his "born again" conversion (Titus 3:5).

Apostle Paul is speaking about the power of the law that causes us to sin being that we are not able to overcome our Ademic nature, the carnal man, and without God’s power, the Holy Spirit, we can’t do good no matter how much we try to will it to be so. This is because when we try and do good, evil is present, Romans 7:21 KJV.

So what Apostle Paul is saying is the more we try to fight this evil that’s present, the more we try to do good, we will loose and commit more sin. So, Apostle Paul is saying it is not us because we want to do good, but sin that dwells in us, Romans 7:17 KJV.

The reason Paul cries out, who can save me is because when we become Christian we experience this war between the flesh and the Spirit; and until we realize we have no power over the flesh we will continue to be frustrated. But once the Holy Spirit helps us to see the truth by revelation, we stop trying and we rest in Christ, Romans 7:24-25 KJV.

 

[Clare73]

Again, if you believe in Calvinism, then you are led to the view of Determinism.

I don't do "isms," but doesn't Determinism mean self-determinism?

In Calvinism: God says who is saved and not saved ultimately and that would include them no longer sinning to a degree that many Calvinists would be considered wrong (And would qualify them as living holy to God). So God can stop people from sinning according to Calvinism because it is a part of the salvation package, right?

God doesn't "stop" people from sinning, he gives them to no longer prefer it, and
since the will chooses what one prefers, it does not choose sin.

So God is the One who is ultimately responsible for the change to happen. In Calvinism: He is the puppet master and the One who calls all the shots in whether men can sin or not.

Yes, in the word of God it is the Holy Spirit who is the sovereign cause of rebirth, wherein is the power to die to sin, and whose sovereignty of choice therein is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8).

But that’s not what the Bible teaches.
God gets angry at the wicked (Psalms 7:11).

That is what the Bible teaches, and God does get angry at the wicked.

But wickedness (rebelliousness) is not found in the true faith of the wheat, only in the counterfeit faith of the tares.

 

[Clare73]

Most believers today use 1 John 1:8 as a banner flag that they will always fall into unintentional sin ALWAYS this side of Heaven.
They will say things like they sin in thought, and deed every day (unintentionally - of course) but they are saved by a belief alone in Jesus. This unintentional sin is intentional. They say ahead of time that they must always sin again. That’s intentional!!!

So we agree. . .intentional sin is the rebellion of unbelief in the counterfeit faith of those who are not really saved.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You fail to grasp the Biblical distinction between unintentional sin (Lev 4:2, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27), treated of in 1 Jn 1:8-10,
and rebellious sin (Nu 15:30) of counterfeit faith (which "faith" does not save) and unbelief.

The only way sin can be unintentional is if one does not plan to sin ever again in this life. If we say we will sin again (even unintentionally) as per a wrong interpretation on 1 John 1:8, then we are setting out ahead of time that we will do evil and it is inevitable.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So we agree. . .intentional sin is the rebellion of unbelief in the counterfeit faith of those who are not really saved.

But you take 1 John 1:8 to mean that we will always sin (unintentionally) this side of Heaven. This is INTENTIONAL. If one declares they must sin again even a little bit, they are doing so intentionally. Saying believers must sin again this side of Heaven is intentional sin.

 

[setst777]

Do not assume people cannot be deceptive or that they cannot teach a double message. Do not assume they are innocent. I see it all the time even here on the forums. Just because they may preach holy living to be right with God at times does not mean they agree with the Bible’s version of holy living or that they don’t believe they can also sin and still be saved on some level. I know. I can spot this type a belief a mile away by many.

John MacArthur makes very clear in his sermons what is meant by holy living.

You say the word “repent” to a person and you don’t define it, and 10 different Christians are going to have a wide range of different meanings to that word “repent.” So when MacArthur talks about living holy, his definition is not the same as the Bible’s definition.

John MacArthur is an expository preacher, one of the best out there; and so, he explains in detail by Scripture what is meant by "repent," "believe," "salvation," etc.

Then again, I believe he is double speaking or teaching contradictory messages.

John MacArthur’s own words condemn him in the fact that he clearly is teaching you can sin and still be saved at certain times.
Other times he will say that this is not the case.
Why? Because he does not want all people to think he is teaching a license to sin (even though he really believes that).

To understand the differences, you have to actually listen to his sermons.

Which is a license to sin because if they believe they can sin and still be saved during times they are not confessing and forsaking sin, or when they are backslidden into a lifestyle of sin, then that is turning God’s grace into a license for immorality.

"1 John 1:6-10" is not used by John MacArthur, or other conservative Calvinists like John MacArthur, as a license for sin, but there are many liberal Christians who will quote only "1 John 8-10" and use it in such a way as to become a license for immorality. I agree.

But Jesus warns that to just look upon a woman in lust means a person is in danger of being cast bodily into hellfire (Which runs contrary to this sin and still be saved teaching). Jesus taught if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven by the Father. Jesus taught that by our words we can be condemned. Jesus taught that not helping the poor can lead to going away into a punishment that has everlasting consequences.

Good context. The true believer will follow Lord Jesus into a sanctified life of righteousness and love, the Spirit leading our faith as we follow by faith.

No, dear sir. 1 John 1:9 says IF we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
So if we are not confessing sin, then there is no forgiveness.

In that section that you responded to, I did say that if a person sins and confesses he is forgiven. Here it is but bolding and brackets are mind to show you where I did say "confessed.".

<<<
setst777 said:
I think most Arminians and Wesleyans would similarly agree that, although Arminians and Wesleyans do not believe faith is guaranteed, they do believe salvation is guaranteed for those who do remain in the faith, living a sanctified life onto God. Since this is the case, then any sins that a true believer may commit in weakness cannot cause him to lose his salvation. Why? Because sins that a true believer commits {{{and confessed}}} are forgiven by God - guaranteed, according to God's promise. God will cleanse from all sins the true believer who commits sins in weakness or error.
>>>

In Luke 15:24, and Luke 15:32, we learn that when the prodigal son came home and sought forgiveness with his father, we know that his father said his son was “dead” and he is “alive AGAIN.” The parable is speaking in spiritual terms. So when the prodigal son was living it up with prostitutes (Luke 15:30), he was “dead” spiritually, but when he came back home and sought forgiveness with his father, he became “alive AGAIN” spiritually. The only way a person can be “alive AGAIN” is if they were once alive a first time spiritually. James 5:19-20 expresses a similar truth, as well. So yeah. This parable actually demolishes a sin and still be saved type belief.

This is a good text against Calvinism. Those who deliberately sin against God are dead in sin and will be condemned. However, this prodigal son who was lost and dead, repented, and his Father was merciful and forgave him before his son even had time to confess his sins before his Father, because the Father was likely already aware the son was repentant. This is a wonderful parable about God's love and mercy even for those who have deliberately rejected him to live in sin, that God, in mercy, will still grant (allow) a person who rejected the faith to repent and return to Him.

To say we can sin and still be saved is to buy into the lie that the devil gave Eve that we can disobey God’s command and not die.
Some say the devil’s lie (of saying we cannot die because of sin) is the gospel today.
They have things twisted around.

Many people say many things.

Again, Adam and Eve died spiritually by just committing one sin. It did not take lots of sins, or practicing sin in order to be separated from God.

At the time they sinned, God had not yet provided the ransom for all sins, although God did prophecy of that Redeemer to come to Adam and Eve. So, since God did provide, in his mercy, a temporary covering for them made of animal skin, my feeling is that, after the redemption was paid for, Lord Jesus saved them.

 

[Clare73]

The only way sin can be unintentional is if one does not plan to sin ever again in this life. If we say we will sin again (even unintentionally) as per a wrong interpretation on 1 John 1:8, then we are setting out ahead of time that we will do evil and it is inevitable.

But you take 1 John 1:8 to mean that we will always sin (unintentionally) this side of Heaven. This is INTENTIONAL. If one declares they must sin again even a little bit, they are doing so intentionally. Saying believers must sin again this side of Heaven is intentional sin.

Who made that rule?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't do "isms," but doesn't Determinism mean self-determinism?

But you just used an ”ism” (i.e., self determinism) and so you do use “isms.”
So you are contradicting yourself.
Then again, I see Calvinism as a contradiction if one reads the Bible plainly.

Again, if God gets angry at the wicked every day according to Psalms 7:11 this does not make any sense in Calvinism.
It contradicts the Bible if one believe in Calvins. Why? Again, if God determines who is saved and unsaved (and He stops a person from committing sins on a level that angers Him), then why is God getting upset? He can just snap His fingers and Elect them to salvation and not have them sin a way that angers Him anymore.

God doesn't "stop" people from sinning,

So what about the 144,000? Granted, while they were not forced to obey, they were found without fault before the throne of God (See Revelation 14:5) (KJB).

he gives them to no longer prefer it, and
since the will chooses what one prefers, it does not choose sin.

Yes, in the word of God it is the Holy Spirit who is the sovereign cause of rebirth, wherein is the power to die to sin, and whose sovereignty of choice therein is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8).

That is what the Bible teaches, and God does get angry at the wicked.

But wickedness (rebelliousness) is not found in the true faith of the wheat, only in the counterfeit faith of the tares.

Again, you are failing to see the problem here. If God is responsible for one being a wheat or a tare, then why get angry at the tares seeing He can just make them into wheat if He desires? That would be like creating clay figurines and then getting mad at some of them that you made. It makes no sense. BUT… if they had free will to choose evil, then God can get angry at them because that was their choice to do wrong and not God’s choice to make them in such a way whereby evil is their only choice (Whereby He could have changed it). This is the flaw in Calvinism but many who are caught in its web.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Who made that rule?

It’s not a rule, it’s common basic sense. If one tells others they will sin again as per 1 John 1:8, then they are intentionally setting out to sin again by that very statement. So when one stumbles in unintentional fornication, they can just shrug their shoulders and eat a cookie and say “Oh well, no big deal, believers will always sin this side of Heaven.” “God said we would always sin as per 1 John 1:8.”

But that’s not what 1 John 1:8 is saying.
The context does not support the ”sin and still be saved” interpretation for 1 John 1:8.
If 1 John 1:8 was the only in the verse in the Bible, then I would say that you could be right.
But its not, and there is the surrounding verses we have to look to support what it is saying.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

John MacArthur makes very clear in his sermons what is meant by holy living.



John MacArthur is an expository preacher, one of the best out there; and so, he explains in detail by Scripture what is meant by "repent," "believe," "salvation," etc.



To understand the differences, you have to actually listen to his sermons.



"1 John 1:6-10" is not used by John MacArthur, or other conservative Calvinists like John MacArthur, as a license for sin, but there are many liberal Christians who will quote only "1 John 8-10" and use it in such a way as to become a license for immorality. I agree.



Good context. The true believer will follow Lord Jesus into a sanctified life of righteousness and love, the Spirit leading our faith as we follow by faith.



In that section that you responded to, I did say that if a person sins and confesses he is forgiven. Here it is but bolding and brackets are mind to show you where I did say "confessed.".

<<<
setst777 said:
I think most Arminians and Wesleyans would similarly agree that, although Arminians and Wesleyans do not believe faith is guaranteed, they do believe salvation is guaranteed for those who do remain in the faith, living a sanctified life onto God. Since this is the case, then any sins that a true believer may commit in weakness cannot cause him to lose his salvation. Why? Because sins that a true believer commits {{{and confessed}}} are forgiven by God - guaranteed, according to God's promise. God will cleanse from all sins the true believer who commits sins in weakness or error.
>>>



This is a good text against Calvinism. Those who deliberately sin against God are dead in sin and will be condemned. However, this prodigal son who was lost and dead, repented, and his Father was merciful and forgave him before his son even had time to confess his sins before his Father, because the Father was likely already aware the son was repentant. This is a wonderful parable about God's love and mercy even for those who have deliberately rejected him to live in sin, that God, in mercy, will still grant (allow) a person who rejected the faith to repent and return to Him.



Many people say many things.



At the time they sinned, God had not yet provided the ransom for all sins, although God did prophecy of that Redeemer to come to Adam and Eve. So, since God did provide, in his mercy, a temporary covering for them made of animal skin, my feeling is that, after the redemption was paid for, Lord Jesus saved them.

No. I disagree. MacArthur makes clear statements that a believer can sin and still be saved. But like Claire, I think he makes a distinction between unintentional sin, and intentional sins. The problem with this line of thinking is that when one points to 1 John 1:8 as an excuse to always commit unintentional sin this side of Heaven always, they are in fact declaring they will intentionally sin again. So when they cuss, or look upon a person in lust, they can just chock it up to 1 John 1:8 and say, “Well, we cannot stop sinning unintentionally this side of Heaven.” So then begins the slippery slope of sin. Next thing you know they are doing this sin all the time or they are justifying the sin every couple of weeks or months (and thinking it is okay because it is done on occasion). Is an axe murderer no longer an axe murderer if they do not intend to murder but they just keep doing it on occasion? That’s the flawed logic and thinking here. But again, you are failing to see that John MacArthur said a church member of his who committed suicide was saved. That’s teaching a license for immorality. Just the message alone can lead many people to think they can do other sins and be saved. Therein lies the problem with his contradictory stance on sin and salvation (that you do not appear to understand). MacArthur is teaching a license to sin by a double message. He is speaking out of two sides of his mouth. People do this all the time. You just are listening to one side of his story and not hearing the other side. You want to see him as innocent when this is not the case. MacArthur is not an isolated case in Calvinism. Most I have encountered believe as he does.

You obviously been enamored by MacArthur or you have benefited from tons of his sermons, and it possible that this is not allowing you to see any bad teachings from him (like his teaching that a believer can commit serious sins and yet still be saved).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am not talking about chastening here. Chastening in your belief system is not real chastening because the goal of chastening is to get a person to stop sinning. Most Christians today believe they will always sin this side of Heaven. So chastening does not really make any sense in their particular worldview. It would be like kicking a dog across the room because it has an uncontrollable pooping problem in the fact that it is sick. Why kick the animal? It makes no sense.

When I talk about not being responsible in the sin and still be saved type belief: It is in the sense of one believes there is no real consequences like hellfire for one committing serious sin like lying, fornication, coveting, etcetera. I say this because most believers in your camp wave around 1 John 1:8 as some kind of banner flag to sin and still be saved.

Ha! Speaking of not making sense! My children were never expected to become perfect. Does that mean I shouldn't teach them obedience?

What is 'my camp'? You would think I would be aware of them excusing sin, yet the most sensible and urgent teaching I have ever heard concerning putting sin to death comes from the Reformed! The only time I hear otherwise is from accusers like you, who have, for some reason, a distaste for God accomplishing FOR HIMSELF everything he set out to do.

Well, the first birth is not entirely God’s choice because it also involved humans making free will choices to have a child together or to take the chance at having a child through a free will choice to partake in being intimate with one another. In fact, it was a command to be fruitful and multiply in the beginning. But as we know man can disobey God’s commands. It’s never God’s will that we ever disobey His commands. Now, can God accomplish His will despite man’s disobedience? Yes, but it is never God’s ultimate intention or desire that man disobeys Him.

So, the first birth is part God's choice and part Human's choice? Here I've been arguing limited atonement, against those who (I say) claim Christ can actually pay for the sins of those who end up paying for their own sins, and I get, "How can you quantify payment for sin?" How do you quantify causation? If God had not created specifically, and precisely, what he did, nobody would have had a first birth. Yet that doesn't mean it's only partly because of him. ALL things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. But how many millions of other facts impinge on any one person's birth? His causation did not stop with any of them, nor with the attraction anyone's parents had toward each other.

Even before I realized the truth that my salvation does not depend on my choice, but on God's choice, it was rather obvious, what you seem to ignore, that "God's will" has (at least) two different meanings (or uses) in Scripture. (1) His will is that we obey. Very definite. (2) His will is that everything he intended to happen comes to pass. Very precise. Nothing else happens —not even by chance or accident, nor by free agency of his creatures, lest you have already forgotten that God knew it all, but created it anyway.

No, it’s called reading the Bible and common sense. If you lay the blame on God for salvation then you are blaming God for all the evil and the suffering in the world. You are also saying that the Judgment is a farce or joke because men are not really being punished for what they have done wrong but because God decreed sin upon them even though the Judgment says they will be judged because they (the individuals) did evil. You have things all twisted around and you cannot read the Bible correctly that sets up a series of contradictions (because of your Reformed lens). I say this because you believe God chooses who is saved and not saved. If a person is saved they are not going to live that sinful life, right? So it is God’s choice who sins and does not in your belief system.

What kind of statement is that —"If you lay the blame on God for salvation then you are blaming God for all the evil and the suffering in the world."? You BLAME someone for salvation? I credit God for both salvation and for his wisdom and patience in his intention that all the evil and suffering in this world come to pass —for HIS reasons. These do not happen by God's mistake or by accident. Somehow, the notion of God in shock and dismay, looking down on his creatures, just doesn't do it for me.

Another example of a contradiction in the Bible because of your belief in Calvinism:

God gets angry at the wicked every day (Psalms 7:11).
But this does not make sense in Calvinism. In Reformed thinking, God predetermines ultimately who is saved and unsaved.
So if that is the case, then why is God angry at His own choices? Why doesn’t God just elect certain wicked people He is angry at to salvation and change them to no longer be wicked?

It makes no sense. In Calvinism: God is angry at His own indecision. He can simply click His fingers and make them saved and to live a holy life and not be wicked anymore.

God has indecision in Calvinism? I hadn't heard that. Could you explain?

And he is angry at his own choices? Explain. I mean, if you are going to start accusing, you'd better be precise or you'll get disregarded.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that the reason why the wicked perish is because THEY received not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved.
It says that they MIGHT be saved. There is no MIGHT be saved in Calvinism. So you are not reading the verse right. You are ignoring the word “MIGHT” in the verse in relation to salvation.

Apparently you aren't very familiar with the subjunctive. It is not a question of probability, but purpose —"in order that they would be saved". THEY received it not, because THEY refuse it, ALWAYS. You are right, there is no "who knows whether he will accomplish everything he set out to do."

Mark Quayle said:
Ask yourself, WHY does anyone repent. But mostly, ask yourself WHY one person does one thing, and another does something else. And when you have answered that, as yourself WHY that happened, and so on. Maybe you will be simple-hearted enough to see that God began the whole thing. And mere chance had nothing to do with it. Or maybe you will still insist on self-determinism, in the face of the Grace of God.

Again, you are reading the Bible with a Reformed lens and not simply and plainly as it is written. Just let the Bible speak for itself.

You didn't answer the question. "Common sense" —remember saying that, in the context of "plain reading"? Since God is the absolute Sovereign, Omniscient and Omnipotent, The First Cause, then EVERY subsequent fact is a result of first cause. THEREFORE, if anyone decides anything, it (the fact of that particular decision) has descended logically from God.

Maybe you didn't know that I never learned Reformed Theology from the Reformed. I learned it from MUCH Scripture including the KJV that I grew up memorizing, and life's hard knocks, and agonized prayer and common sense. What I believe, may be called Reformed, but I don't care about what it is called. I got it from Scripture.

What's ironic is that you can't see that you read the Bible through the lens of self-determinism. I will easily admit that I am unable to read it without biases, and predetermined notions. But so do you —don't deny it. But the worst thing is the human tendency to take credit from God. THERE is self-determinism.

 

[Clare73]

But you just used an ”ism” (i.e., self determinism) and so you do use “isms.
So you are contradicting yourself.

Was I not addressing your statement, not mine? You are the one who used the "ism."
A little more intellectual honesty would be welcome.

Then again, I see Calvinism as a contradiction if one reads the Bible plainly.

And I see it as totally consistent if one reads the Bible in context of it all.

Again, if God gets angry at the wicked every day according to Psalms 7:11 this does not make any sense in Calvinism.

You're confused. . .

The born again are not the wicked.
The unregenerate rebellious are the wicked.

It contradicts the Bible if one believe in Calvins. Why?

It contradicts the Bible if one does not believe in predestination and election (Ro 8:29-30, Eph 1:4, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11, 1 Pe 1:2).

Again, if God determines who is saved and unsaved (and He stops a person from committing sins on a level that angers Him), then why is God getting upset?

Maybe because rebellion and refusal to be governed by him in all things is usurping his authority. . .

He can just snap His fingers and Elect them to salvation and not have them sin a way that angers Him anymore

Not doing so is part of his purpose (Ro 8:28, Eph 1:11, Eph 3:11), which purpose is the result of infinite wisdom.

So what about the 144,000? Granted, while they were not forced to obey, they were found without fault before the throne of God (See Revelation 14:5) (KJB).

Revelation is prophetic riddle, not given clearly (Nu 12:8) and subject to more than one interpretation, and I interpret that completely differently than you do.
The only rule for interpretation is that it must be in agreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching (didactics), which mine is.

Again, you are failing to see the problem here. If God is responsible for one being a wheat or a tare, then why get angry at the tares seeing He can just make them into wheat if He desires?

Again, anger is not the issue.
The issue is God's purpose and plan, and all in accordance with justice which must be done if he is a just God.

That would be like creating clay figurines and then getting mad at some of them that you made.

It's not about anger. . .it's about justice.

It makes no sense. BUT… if they had free will to choose evil, then God can get angry at them because that was their choice to do wrong and not God’s choice to make them in such a way whereby evil is their only choice (Whereby He could have changed it). This is the flaw in Calvinism but many who are caught in its web.

It makes infinite sense in the infinite wisdom of God's purpose and plan.

And it makes sense to me in the light of God's revealed purpose.