Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I believe a saint can still be saved despite them having sins in their life that do not lead unto spiritual death.
It's not backpeddling. I did not just recently come to believe this. I am merely saying that my opponent's accusation that states, me saying: "I am sinless" is incorrect even based on their faulty interpretation on 1 John 1:8. For I still believe that 1 John 1:8 is talking about sin that needs to be confessed in order to be forgiven of such sin (1 John 1:9). Why does one need to confess sin? Is it because somebody is sinning every minute of every day of their life those types of sins that lead unto spiritual death? No. 1 John 1:8 is written to the person who denies the existence of sin or the punishment of sin's effects.Backpedaling a little, are we? You're changing your view. I know you'll deny it, but it's there for all to see.
This is an absolutely accurate and infallible recounting of an actual person and their sin and the Holy Spirit's opinion of it.This is not a real world example. This is you reading the Bible and making an interpretation upon it. A real world example is a universal truth in every day life that people would be familar with. For Jesus used real world examples all the time to illustrate spiritual truth. These are called parables. For what was true in the physical world was real for the spiritual. In other words, what you have to do is create a real world example that would not be something said from the Bible but it is an example of a moral lesson or spiritual truth taken from real life. For even the Canaanite woman was able to expound upon Jesus's real world example and add to it by saying something that is true in the real world, as well.....
JASON - Give us a "real world" example that proves your doctrine.Backpedaling a little, are we? You're changing your view. I know you'll deny it, but it's there for all to see.
Jason,
Although it may be casting my pearls before swine - here’s a "real world" example of what I believe.
A couple desires to adopt a troubled little boy from a local orphanage.
They pay all that is required for the adoption. They comply with every stipulation of the law concerning legal and permanent adoption.
They take the boy home and proclaim him a “brother” to all of their other children.
They set up certain boundaries for the boy just as they have for their other children. They tell him, among other things, that he is not to, under any circumstances, take any money that they leave around the house and spend it on himself.
He is tempted and he willingly disobeys the parents. There are many reasons why he was tempted to take money – not the least of which was peer pressure from his delinquent friends. But there is, of course, no excuse for his disobedience to his loving parents.
He repays them by sinning against them in spite of their loving kindness and their clear directions concerning what is and is not allowed for him to do.
They discover his transgression before he is able to confess or repent. Indeed they catch him while he is still spending the money on himself.
The father punishes the boy for his sin. The boy suffers what he considers in the end to be even more loss than what it would have been to not even have had the money to spend on his self at all. It is a net loss for the boy in the long run and he knows it all too well in the end.
Even in the short run there is a strain on the fellowship between him and his loving father that has resulted from his transgression.
But in the end – all is well. There has been some loss and there has also been some gain in the form of lessons learned by the boy and the entire family as they watched it all happen.
This situation turns out to be more beneficial for the boy's education concerning transgression than any other imaginable treatment would have been.
The couple does not take the boy back to the orphanage. In fact they could not do so because of an oath and a binding contract that they had entered into (not that they wanted to – they loved the boy very much, even beyond words).
That’s a real world example of my doctrine concerning salvation.
My real world example of your doctrine is somewhat different. The main glaring difference is the fact that, with your doctrine, in the end the boy’s father broke his word to the authorities, broke his word to the boy, broke his word to the other children, and disowned the boy as his son. In fact, in the end the father burned the little boy in fiery torment for eternity because he caught him in an un-confessed and un-repented of transgression.
How’s that?
I wouldn't trade my good news for your bad news for all the gold in all the world.
In your example, who would be the orphanage?
How does the adopted boy get a new nature?
What if the adopted boy, even after punishment, wouldn't stop stealing money and spending it upon himself?
What if the adopted boy got worse, and tried to kill his adopted parents time and time again?
It's not backpeddling. I did not just recently come to believe this. I am merely saying that my opponent's accusation that states, me saying: "I am sinless" is incorrect even based on their faulty interpretation on 1 John 1:8. For I still believe that 1 John 1:8 is talking about sin that needs to be confessed in order to be forgiven of such sin (1 John 1:9). Why does one need to confess sin? Is it because somebody is sinning every minute of every day of their life those types of sins that lead unto spiritual death? No. 1 John 1:8 is written to the person who denies the existence of sin or the punishment of sin's effects.
This lines up with what is said in the surrounding context. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4).
Side Note:
Again, for clarification: It was suggested that I was claiming to be sinless which is a denial in your view of 1 John 1:8. However, this is not true. I was speaking from my opponent's perspective on that verse and how it is not true. They are saying I am claiming to be sinless. Yet, I am not denying there may hidden or secret faults in my life that are not serious sins like murder, theft, hate, adultery, etc. But I do not believe my opponents position on 1 John 1:8 is correct, though. I still believe that verse is taking about how one is denying sin's existence or the punishment of sin in some way.....
Says who?
Sez me. You got a problem with that? How are your questions relevant to the real world example (a story)? They're not.
.
Yes, I have a problem when you set the rules.
The story isn't relevant at all with adoption. You got a problem with that?
My natural reply to your post would be something like, "What a complete idiot!"In your example, who would be the orphanage?
How does the adopted boy get a new nature?
What if the adopted boy, even after punishment, wouldn't stop stealing money and spending it upon himself?
What if the adopted boy got worse, and tried to kill his adopted parents time and time again?
This is an absolutely accurate and infallible recounting of an actual person and their sin and the Holy Spirit's opinion of it.
It took place in a real place (Thessalonica) in the middle of the first century.
An entire Christian congregation was well aware of this sin. The Apostle Paul was even well aware of this sin.
The Holy Spirit commented on the sin and the way the church dealt with it. He also commented on the status of the person involved in the sin (even as he was still doing it).
The Holy Spirit calls him a brother even as he is still sinning and totally unrepentant.
This is a real world example of a real world man from a real world place.
It simply doesn't get any more real world than this example.
We are even blessed in this case with God's commentary on the subject of the eternal status of the man as he was in sin.
If you won't accept this real world example it is only because of one reason IMO.
Your doctrine is incorrect and you will not repent and cease teaching it.
Repent Jason - the Kingdom of God is at hand.
It has been sad to read through the last 4-5 pages of this thread seeing the words of those who seek justification based on their obedience to the law, but it completely makes sense that they would downplay their own sinfulness. They have to.
A Christian living in light of the gospel can be honest about his sin because he knows that his righteousness if found in Christ, not himself. His weakness does not bother him. It's expected. But one living by and under the law has nowhere to go with his sin, he has to turn a blind eye to it because it condemns him, so he does one of two things, and usually vacillates between the two. One, he becomes proud when he sees himself living inline with God's law, and two, he becomes despondent and defeated when he doesn't.
The main trick he uses, and he has a few, is that he keeps his eyes on others rather than on the actual law of God. His measuring stick is others, not the law. This is why he is judgmental and condemning. He has to be in order to bolster himself up.
The second trick of one living under the law is that he lowers the bar of the law to make it achievable. He fools himself into thinking that he is either without sin or that he sins only very occasionally because he has taken the glory out of the law. He has lowered the bar and fools himself into thinking that he is walking in compliance with the law. Along the same lines, he makes other laws about things such as drinking alcohol or watching certain movies. . . This helps him in his self-deception to live (in his mind) in obedience to the law.
Lastly, a common theme with the few people posting in this thread who are imagining themselves with very little sin is that they only see sin as wrongdoing; however, they fail to also see it as a lack of right-doing. They fail to see that not meeting their neighbor's needs with all of the immediacy, concern and resources that they meet their own is the same as lying or theft.
The reason I know so much about these types of people is that I used to be one of them. Praise Jesus that He forgave me the arrogance and insult to Him and His grace. Thank Christ that He rescued me from such a life. He saved me from trying to justify and sanctify myself. What joy, peace, and gratitude have replaced fear, condemnation and judgment of others. . .
JASON - Give us a "real world" example that proves your doctrine.
Then we will know what you mean by your challenge and perhaps take you up on it.
It doesn't matter if you believe me or not. It is still the truth. My belief has not changed in regards 1 John 1:8. I still believe 1 John 1:8 is saying that a person is denying the existence of sin or they are denying the punishment of sin in some way. I am merely saying that from my opponents perspective or view on 1 John 1:8, they are still wrong. Again, this is not a new revelation for me. I have said this same exact discussion before a long time ago on another forum.Nope, sorry, not buying it. You're doing damage control because you know you are on shaky ground.
Jason,
Although it may be casting my pearls before swine - here’s a "real world" example of what I believe.
A couple desires to adopt a troubled little boy from a local orphanage.
They pay all that is required for the adoption. They comply with every stipulation of the law concerning legal and permanent adoption.
They take the boy home and proclaim him a “brother” to all of their other children.
They set up certain boundaries for the boy just as they have for their other children. They tell him, among other things, that he is not to, under any circumstances, take any money that they leave around the house and spend it on himself.
He is tempted and he willingly disobeys the parents. There are many reasons why he was tempted to take money – not the least of which was peer pressure from his delinquent friends. But there is, of course, no excuse for his disobedience to his loving parents.
He repays them by sinning against them in spite of their loving kindness and their clear directions concerning what is and is not allowed for him to do.
They discover his transgression before he is able to confess or repent. Indeed they catch him while he is still spending the money on himself.
The father punishes the boy for his sin. The boy suffers what he considers in the end to be even more loss than what it would have been to not even have had the money to spend on his self at all. It is a net loss for the boy in the long run and he knows it all too well in the end.
Even in the short run there is a strain on the fellowship between him and his loving father that has resulted from his transgression.
But in the end – all is well. There has been some loss and there has also been some gain in the form of lessons learned by the boy and the entire family as they watched it all happen.
This situation turns out to be more beneficial for the boy's education concerning transgression than any other imaginable treatment would have been.
The couple does not take the boy back to the orphanage. In fact they could not do so because of an oath and a binding contract that they had entered into (not that they wanted to – they loved the boy very much, even beyond words).
That’s a real world example of my doctrine concerning salvation.
My real world example of your doctrine is somewhat different. The main glaring difference is the fact that, with your doctrine, in the end the boy’s father broke his word to the authorities, broke his word to the boy, broke his word to the other children, and disowned the boy as his son. In fact, in the end the father burned the little boy in fiery torment for eternity because he caught him in an un-confessed and un-repented of transgression.
How’s that?
I wouldn't trade my good news for your bad news for all the gold in all the world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?