Was King David Saved While He Committed His Sins of Adultery and Murder?

[mark kennedy]

If we willfully sin after we receive the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:26).

Yet, many in the OSAS camp believe they will sin again as a matter of fact. It is a willful declaration that they are going to sin again at some point in the future again.

Look again:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. (Hebrews 6:4-6)
​

If you fall away from the faith after coming to Christ you don't come back. that is the clear, unvarnished message here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

John is not saying what you are, John says if we sin we have Jesus as our advocate, not that we lose our salvation. You've abandoned the text.

Not at all. 1 John 1:9 says if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.

So you have to confess sin to be forgiven of sin.

You cannot be saved and be unforgiven.

1 John 1:9 also says if we confess our sins, ....and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So confession of sin is a way to help us to overcome sin, too.
For it can cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.
1 John 3:7 says he that does righteousness is righteous.
The ALL righteousness part would include 1 John 3:7 in that.
So confession helps a new believer to mature and put away sin in time and to walk uprightly with the Lord instead of justifying sin and remaining in the slop with the pigs in the mud.

 

[Oldmantook]

My point was simply that John is saying, I'm writing to you so you don't sin, but if we do we have Jesus as our advocate. You don't lose your salvation because you sin, you deserve to, just like you don't deserve salvation in the first place. I'm saying if it is possible to lose salvation then you can only do it once and after that it will be impossible to be restored to repentance, Hebrews 6 discusses this at length.

Yes, you don't sin because if you PRACTICE SIN, you (not you personally) are a child of the devil. Pay attention to the verb tenses in Heb 6. In the Greek, they are present tense verbs; i.e. "crucifying" and "shaming" Christ. In other words, these persons are still sinning and practicing such things which is exactly the reason why - it is impossible to renew them to repentance. Their very actions demonstrate that they refuse to repent and instead prefer to remain rebellious. No repentance = no forgiveness.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hebrews 3:13 says you can be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

"But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." (Hebrews 3:13).

Why is this a problem?

Because a person can depart from the living God by having a hard heart.

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." (Hebrews 3:12).

A person can depart from the living God without even knowing it.
The heart is deceitful.

There are those who have a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof (See 2 Timothy 3:1-9).

What power are they denying?

The power that God can help them to overcome sin.

The writer of Hebrews is dealing with a very specific problem, in a word legalism. They were being tempted to drift back to Judaism, he is saying if you do you abandon Christ. As in all the New Testament he is urging them to escape the corruption of sin and to avoid it's narcotic deceptions, that's always a part of the gospel. You will not find anywhere in the New Testament that you lose salvation because you sin post conversion, that's just not how it works. Grace saves, grace sanctifies, grace empowers believers for ministry. You can't be saved by grace and then perfected by works. The works of righteousness, even complete repentance, is not a requirement for salvation, it is salvation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Look again:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. (Hebrews 6:4-6)
​

If you fall away from the faith after coming to Christ you don't come back. that is the clear, unvarnished message here.

I am not new to this passage. I have talked about this passage more times than I care to count. It is dealing with apostasy or departing from the living God (Hebrews 3:12). At the end of Hebrews 10 it says if any man draws back my soul shall not have pleasure in Him. Draw back in regards to departing from the living God. It's not talking about just backsliding into sin here. We know from the Parable of the Prodigal Son and James 5:19-20, that a believer can backslide into sin (die spiritually) and come back to the faith to the saving their soul again by repenting of their sin again (as long as they do not deny Jesus as their Savior).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The writer of Hebrews is dealing with a very specific problem, in a word legalism. They were being tempted to drift back to Judaism, he is saying if you do you abandon Christ. As in all the New Testament he is urging them to escape the corruption of sin and to avoid it's narcotic deceptions, that's always a part of the gospel. You will not find anywhere in the New Testament that you lose salvation because you sin post conversion, that's just not how it works. Grace saves, grace sanctifies, grace empowers believers for ministry. You can't be saved by grace and then perfected by works. The works of righteousness, even complete repentance, is not a requirement for salvation, it is salvation.

Yes, I agree that the problem was that they wanted to go back to the Jewish religion to avoid persecution for a time and then come back to be a Christian again. But this really does not fit the OSAS belief because in the OSAS belief you cannot become unsaved. But if you believe the Bible, there are things that a saved believer can do that can make them to become unsaved.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, you don't sin because if you PRACTICE SIN, you (not you personally) are a child of the devil. Pay attention to the verb tenses in Heb 6. In the Greek, they are present tense verbs; i.e. "crucifying" and "shaming" Christ. In other words, these persons are still sinning and practicing such things which is exactly the reason why - it is impossible to renew them to repentance. Their very actions demonstrate that they refuse to repent and instead prefer to remain rebellious. No repentance = no forgiveness.

That's not what he is talking about, he is not talking about your petty little sins. Now he does encourage repentance but in the opening verse of Hebrews 6 says let's leave the elementary teachings, of among other things, repentance from dead works. Departing from Christ in that context is going back to legalism, something they had left decades, perhaps generations before. The message is very much like that of Galations and he is warning them that going back to the Mosaic Law would be a fatal mistake spiritually. Later he would assure them he expected better of them but that doesn't change the content of the warning.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, I agree that the problem was that they wanted to go back to the Jewish religion to avoid persecution for a time and then come back to be a Christian again. But this really does not fit the OSAS belief because in the OSAS belief you cannot become unsaved. But if you believe the Bible, there are things that a saved believer can do that can make them to become unsaved.

If it's possible to lose salvation then it's impossible to be restored to salvation, because you would be crucifying the Savior a second time. There is no such thing as a formal doctrine of OSAS, that's a clutch phrase. The term is eternal security and it's synonymous with eternal life. As usual, your rushing around the extremities and missing the whole point.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not new to this passage. I have talked about this passage more times than I care to count. It is dealing with apostasy or departing from the living God (Hebrews 3:12). At the end of Hebrews 10 it says if any man draws back my soul shall not have pleasure in Him. Draw back in regards to departing from the living God. It's not talking about just backsliding into sin here. We know from the Parable of the Prodigal Son and James 5:19-20, that a believer can backslide into sin (die spiritually) and come back to the faith to the saving their soul again by repenting of their sin again (as long as they do not deny Jesus as their Savior).

I understand that a believer caught in sin must escape, we should with great urgency do exactly that, no question. What is curious about your response is that you claim to be very familiar with the passage and respond without addressing the passage. If you depart from Christ it is impossible to be restored to repentance. It doesn't say the first time you sin you lose salvation, that does not exist in the New Testament and the passage in Hebrews 6 refutes your premise decisively.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's not what he is talking about, he is not talking about your petty little sins. Now he does encourage repentance but in the opening verse of Hebrews 6 says let's leave the elementary teachings, of among other things, repentance from dead works. Departing from Christ in that context is going back to legalism, something they had left decades, perhaps generations before. The message is very much like that of Galations and he is warning them that going back to the Mosaic Law would be a fatal mistake spiritually. Later he would assure them he expected better of them but that doesn't change the content of the warning.

The Old Covenant was not technically legalism. The Jews had turned into a system of legalism. Abraham was justified by faith just like everyone else in the Old Covenant. The Jews changed that. Obeying God is not the problem, it is leaving out God's grace (See the Parable of the Tax Collector). It is leaving out love, faith, justice, and mercy (of which Jesus criticized the Pharisees for - see Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42). Even if the Jews were doing things correctly (which they were not), the Old Covenant had ended. The blood of goats and bulls never took away sin. Obedience was not the issue. Circumcision at one time under the OT was a part of the salvation process (See Genesis 17:14). But Abraham had to FIRST BELIEVE and not be circumcised in order to be saved (Romans 4:9-12). But seeing we are under a New Covenant with New commands, things like circumcision do not even apply anymore. Yet, the Jews took the old law and they twisted them. We are not even under the Old Law anymore contractually speaking and they still were not doing things correctly under the Old ways.

At the Jerusalem counsel, they addressed the heresy of trying to be saved by FIRST trying to be circumcised and or by trying to saved by obeying the WHOLE of the Law of Moses (When the 613 laws of Moses did not apply anymore contractually speaking):

1. Acts of the Apostles 15:1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
   
   
2. Acts of the Apostles 15:5 says, But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
   
   
3. Acts of the Apostles 15:24 says, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I understand that a believer caught in sin must escape, we should with great urgency do exactly that, no question. What is curious about your response is that you claim to be very familiar with the passage and respond without addressing the passage. If you depart from Christ it is impossible to be restored to repentance. It doesn't say the first time you sin you lose salvation, that does not exist in the New Testament and the passage in Hebrews 6 refutes your premise decisively.

I am drawing you to the context of Hebrews like Hebrews 3, and Hebrews 10 (Which proves my case for me). I am also limited on time to give you a full broken down commentary at the moment. I am working on another project that needs my attention. But I would be happy to post a commentary on this at a later time. Not sure if it will convince you, but I am happy to do it.

The problem is that you do not seem to understand basic morality and how it is wrong to justify grievous sin with God approving of that.

This is what you must do when you think David was saved when he committed his sins of adultery and murder.

 

[Oldmantook]

That's not what he is talking about, he is not talking about your petty little sins. Now he does encourage repentance but in the opening verse of Hebrews 6 says let's leave the elementary teachings, of among other things, repentance from dead works. Departing from Christ in that context is going back to legalism, something they had left decades, perhaps generations before. The message is very much like that of Galations and he is warning them that going back to the Mosaic Law would be a fatal mistake spiritually. Later he would assure them he expected better of them but that doesn't change the content of the warning.

"Petty little sin?" Do you consider CRUCIFYING and SHAMING Christ to be petty little sins? The verse specifically states it is impossible to renew them SINCE they are crucifying and shaming Christ. These ongoing "petty sins" are the things that result in loss of salvation and the impossibility of being renewed. You ignore this verse completely in order to hold on to your doctrinal belief.

In terms of the Galatians, you also ignore Gal. 1:6. Paul states there that those Galatians who are called/kaleo are deserting Christ to follow another gospel. As we both know, "called" is a term that refers to the elect. Paul's own testimony confirms that those who are elected are deserting Christ.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I understand that a believer caught in sin must escape, we should with great urgency do exactly that, no question. What is curious about your response is that you claim to be very familiar with the passage and respond without addressing the passage. If you depart from Christ it is impossible to be restored to repentance. It doesn't say the first time you sin you lose salvation, that does not exist in the New Testament and the passage in Hebrews 6 refutes your premise decisively.

Ananais and Sapphira surely lost their salvation by just one sin because they were instantly killed for lying to God and a great fear came upon the church. Peter told Simon to repent and pray that God would forgive him. If he was already forgiven by believing in Christ's sacrifice, then Peter would never say this to him.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Old Covenant was not technically legalism. The Jews had turned into a system of legalism. Abraham was justified by faith just like everyone else in the Old Covenant. The Jews changed that. Obeying God is not the problem, it is leaving out God's grace (See the Parable of the Tax Collector). It is leaving out love, faith, justice, and mercy (of which Jesus criticized the Pharisees for - see Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42). Even if the Jews were doing things correctly (which they were not), the Old Covenant had ended. The blood of goats and bulls never took away sin. Obedience was not the issue. Circumcision at one time under the OT was a part of the salvation process (See Genesis 17:14). But Abraham to FIRST BELIEVE and not be circumcised in order to be saved (Romans 4:9-12). But seeing we are under a New Covenant with New commands, things like circumcision do not even apply anymore. Yet, the Jews took the old law and they twisted. We are not even under the Old Law anymore contractually speaking and they still were not doing things correctly under the Old ways.

At the Jerusalem counsel, they addressed the heresy of trying to be saved by FIRST trying to be circumcised and or by trying to saved by obeying the WHOLE of the Law of Moses (When the 613 laws of Moses did not apply anymore contractually speaking):

1. Acts of the Apostles 15:1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
   
   
2. Acts of the Apostles 15:5 says, But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
   
   
3. Acts of the Apostles 15:24 says, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”

For a guy who argues endlessly to obey God's commandments you dismiss the Law of Moses a little too lightly. Now I agree, legalism was not how the Patriarchs and the children of Israel kept the Law. It was always by grace, but that wasn't fully revealed until Christ.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (Romans 3:21)
​

But now it's been revealed. We are left without excuse for our sin and also, ignorance of the gospel because the righteousness of God has been made known, it is by grace through faith. Peter answers the argument of the Pharisees that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved saying neither we nor our fathers could bear this yoke. The Law was intended to show us that we are sinners, the gospel is predicated on it and Peter argues decisively that the Gentiles are purifying themselves by faith, the implied point here, not by works of the Law. Paul goes ballistic in Galatians, because the message of grace is under attack. The early Gentile church was vulnerable to their Jewish predecessors and Paul is warning them in the strongest possible terms if you go back to that Christ will not do you any good.

Justification by grace through faith was not invented by Martin Luther, it is not a Pauline doctrine though he emphasizes it continually. It's the Apostles doctrine and the church was then and remains to this day unanimous, salvation is by grace through faith apart from works. The irony here is it is that grace that not only saves but sanctifies and the gospel is still under attack.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Petty little sin?" Do you consider CRUCIFYING and SHAMING Christ to be petty little sins? The verse specifically states it is impossible to renew them SINCE they are crucifying and shaming Christ. These ongoing "petty sins" are the things that result in loss of salvation and the impossibility of being renewed. You ignore this verse completely in order to hold on to your doctrinal belief.

In terms of the Galatians, you also ignore Gal. 1:6. Paul states there that those Galatians who are called/kaleo are deserting Christ to follow another gospel. As we both know, "called" is a term that refers to the elect. Paul's own testimony confirms that those who are elected are deserting Christ.

Legalism always involves prefect obedience to a code of conduct. It's all masks and whitewash and Paul isn't talking about repentance from dead works, he is talking about how being circumcised means you have to keep the whole Law which is impossible. They were observing the Mosaic Law:

But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain. (Galatians 4:9-11)
​

I'm very familiar with the book. I understand it's purpose, the problem and most importantly the solution Paul prescribes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ananais and Sapphira surely lost their salvation by just one sin because they were instantly killed for lying to God and a great fear came upon the church. Peter told Simon to repent and pray that God would forgive him. If he was already forgiven by believing in Christ's sacrifice, then Peter would never say this to him.

No they didn't lose their salvation, they lost their lives, that's all we really know. God can destroy the body in order to save the soul:

When you are gathered in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of the Lord Jesus, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? (1 Corinthians 5:4-6)​

 

[Oldmantook]

Legalism always involves prefect obedience to a code of conduct. It's all masks and whitewash and Paul isn't talking about repentance from dead works, he is talking about how being circumcised means you have to keep the whole Law which is impossible. They were observing the Mosaic Law:

But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain. (Galatians 4:9-11)
​

I'm very familiar with the book. I understand it's purpose, the problem and most importantly the solution Paul prescribes.

Where is legalism mentioned? To turn away and follow another gospel is to apostatize from the faith - irrespective of whether they turned back to follow the Law or some other false gospel at the time such as
Gnosticism. You neglected to address the fact that these Galatians who were called/elected and yet did not persevere but instead deserted Christ. If you understand the book, then you should have no problem explaining this contradiction to your held belief.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am drawing you to the context of Hebrews like Hebrews 3, and Hebrews 10 (Which proves my case for me). I am also limited on time to give you a full broken down commentary at the moment. I am working on another project that needs my attention. But I would be happy to post a commentary on this at a later time. Not sure if it will convince you, but I am happy to do it.

The problem is that you do not seem to understand basic morality and how it is wrong to justify grievous sin with God approving of that.

This is what you must do when you think David was saved when he committed his sins of adultery and murder.

I don't know what good such a broad context is going to do me if you neglect the immediate context of the passage in question, not that there is a real question. Go ahead and pursue your project Jason, this issue will be here when you get back. Your premise is flawed and we will yet again revisit the subject matter. I'm not arguing against basic morality and certainly not interested in persuading someone that sin is ok. I'm saying that God punished David for his sin and punished his people because of his sin. David had to be visited by a prophet who told him a story of someone killing a little lamb that belonged to someone else, David says, tell me who this man is and I'll have his head removed. The prophets say your the man and David responds, I have sinned.

Jason did you know David harbored a murderer right up until his death bed? One of his generals had murdered at least two people, David knew about it and did nothing. He warns Solomon that he must look into these things, and be a man and he will know what to do. In doing so he uncovers a coup underway and he has Joab put to death and the High Priest replaced (2 Kings 2:35). Think about what your saying Jason and we can talk some more.

 

[NBB]

I voted i don't know, but why he needed to repent if he was saved.

"because i don't want the death who dies, repent and you will live"

Ezekiel 18:24-26 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
24 “Now, maybe good people might stop being good. They might change their lives and begin to do all the terrible things that evil people have done in the past. (The evil people changed, so they can live.) So if those good people change and become bad, God will not remember all the good things they did. He will remember that they turned against him and began to sin. So they will die because of their sin.

25 “You people might say, ‘The Lord isn’t fair!’ But listen, family of Israel. I am fair. You are the ones who are not fair! 26 If good people change and become evil, they must die for the bad things they do.

 

[mark kennedy]

Where is legalism mentioned? To turn away and follow another gospel is to apostatize from the faith - irrespective of whether they turned back to follow the Law or some other false gospel at the time such as
Gnosticism. You neglected to address the fact that these Galatians who were called/elected and yet did not persevere but instead deserted Christ. If you understand the book, then you should have no problem explaining this contradiction to your held belief.

There is no contradiction there, Paul wasn't saying they were lost. Paul was warning them not to be drawn in by the Judaizers.