What do you call a person who...

[SQLservant]

...believes in the existence of the Triune God,
in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ the Son of God and second Person of the Trinity,
in the all-encompassing love of Christ to bring forgiveness to all shortcomings,
in the Bible as the infallible Word of God,
in the Church as the Body of Christ and "pillar and ground of truth,"
in the reality of hell,
in the necessity of faith,
in the necessity of evidence for that faith by good works,
in the efficacy of the Sacraments as means of grace and not just outward rituals of obedience,
in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
was by all evidence converted, born of water and spirit, in his life,

...and yet chooses to act on none of these things, for whatever reason, despite his worldview and with the full knowledge of what that inaction will bring him at the end of his life?

 

[drich0150]

Christ Identifies a person like this as a prodigal. (One that left but did not come Back) For as a son, knows fully of the grace and responsiablity one undertakes as a son of the Living God. The fact that you understand these things makes you a son, the fact that you have turned your back on these things means you have left the expresssed will of God and have not come back.

 

[SQLservant]

I would have said a fool, personally... supposing that the free grace model of eternal security is untrue, one could safely say that such an individual would receive exactly what he had known to be his eternal destiny, were he to die in such a state?

 

[drich0150]

James 2:14-26 pretty well sums you next question up.

 

[theophilus40]

Salvation doesn't come through knowing that certain doctrines are true but is a result of repentance of sin and faith in Christ. In fact, all you really have to know is that you are a sinner and that Christ died for your sins and then rose from the dead. If you know these things and put your faith in him you are saved and learning the rest of the doctrines you mentioned can come later.

On the other hand you can know all of these facts but still not be saved if your belief is merely an intellectual acknowledgement of the truth and you haven't truly repented of your sins. This seems to be the case with the person you are talking about.

In fact it is possible to be wrong about some doctrines and still be saved.

in the efficacy of the Sacraments as means of grace and not just outward rituals of obedience,
in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

These beliefs are actually not true but a belief in them doesn't keep a person from being saved.

 

[SQLservant]

On the other hand you can know all of these facts but still not be saved if your belief is merely an intellectual acknowledgement of the truth and you haven't truly repented of your sins. This seems to be the case with the person you are talking about.

Supposing the repentance was true, but practice of the Christian religion and lifestyle (prayer, Scripture, participation in public worship, love of neighbor, confession and repentance of sin) has been discontinued.

In fact it is possible to be wrong about some doctrines and still be saved.

I believe it was Thomas à Kempis that said a righteous life pleases God more than any amount of knowledge.

These beliefs are actually not true but a belief in them doesn't keep a person from being saved.

The truth value of the two statements quoted is kind of beside the point, and so I will not argue about this. The point was that this individual would be more severely judged for what he knew and didn't do than if he had not known and not done. Is even that statement correct?

 

[theophilus40]

Supposing the repentance was true, but practice of the Christian religion and lifestyle (prayer, Scripture, participation in public worship, love of neighbor, confession and repentance of sin) has been discontinued.

If a person really repents he is born again with a new nature that wants to obey God. He also has the Holy Spirit living in him to help him live as he should. He can still fall into sins, including sins of omission, but God won't allow him to continue in that sin. The only person who can make a profession of faith and later fall away permanently is one who never really repented in the first place.

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
(1 John 2:18-19 ESV)
​

The point was that this individual would be more severely judged for what he knew and didn't do than if he had not known and not done. Is even that statement correct?

That servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.
(Luke 12:47-48 ESV)
​

 

[SQLservant]

If a person really repents he is born again with a new nature that wants to obey God. He also has the Holy Spirit living in him to help him live as he should. He can still fall into sins, including sins of omission, but God won't allow him to continue in that sin. The only person who can make a profession of faith and later fall away permanently is one who never really repented in the first place.

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
(1 John 2:18-19 ESV)​

Notice that it says "they were not of us," not "they were never of us." Christ Himself says that branches of the Vine can still be cut off for bearing no fruit, which sounds like it excludes the idea that they were never branches at all. Christians for 2000 years have understood this to mean that people could walk away from Christ; on what basis do you say they were all wrong? What revelation do you have that they didn't?​

 

[brinny]

...believes in the existence of the Triune God,
in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ the Son of God and second Person of the Trinity,
in the all-encompassing love of Christ to bring forgiveness to all shortcomings,
in the Bible as the infallible Word of God,
in the Church as the Body of Christ and "pillar and ground of truth,"
in the reality of hell,
in the necessity of faith,
in the necessity of evidence for that faith by good works,
in the efficacy of the Sacraments as means of grace and not just outward rituals of obedience,
in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
was by all evidence converted, born of water and spirit, in his life,

...and yet chooses to act on none of these things, for whatever reason, despite his worldview and with the full knowledge of what that inaction will bring him at the end of his life?

a person in need of prayer, asking for God Himself to intervene as only He can and then leave it there.

 

[theophilus40]

Notice that it says "they were not of us," not "they were never of us."

It also says, "if they had been of us, they would have continued with us."This plainly says they were never true believers. I don't see how this could be any plainer.