"Why should I let you into my heaven?"

[Bible Highlighter]

When did thieves cease to be criminals and malefactors?There is absolutely no indication that two thieves arrive on the scene after Jesus is crucified.
There is absolutely no basis in these four accounts for your separation of them into two different narratives as you do.

All four accounts report the same events. There is no indication of an exact chronological order maintained by the writers in these accounts, so that to refer to the crucifixion of the two thieves when the crucifixion of Jesus is referred to, or to refer to events relating to Jesus (i.e., crucifixion, dividing clothes by lot, etc.) before referring to events relating to the thieves, necessarily means a difference in the actual chronology of the events.
That is nothing more than a lie of unbelief desperately searching for a plausible basis.

Differences in the details of accounts reported by more than one person demonstrate only one thing; i.e., more than one person witnessed the events. Eye-witnesses viewing the same events don't usually all report identically to the last detail. When you find that, you find a rehearsed lie.

The "in-depth" article is nothing more than unbelief seeking to discredit the Bible.

I believe every word of my Bible (i.e. the KJB) just fine. But as you should know, the Bible is a spiritual book, and it’s truths are not always so evident or understood by every person. Hence, why there are many denominations.

Anyways, here are two problems you run up against in your clinging to the popular interpretation.

#1. You have to believe that the thief on the cross changed his mind while on the cross. For…

“The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.” (Matthew 27:44).​

#2. The Roman soldiers did not walk down the line breaking the legs of the criminals (Which would be the natural order of things) before they got to Jesus.

“Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs” (John 19:32-33).
​

But I am not really expecting you to see it if you did not catch it the first time. So we can move on if you don’t see it. It’s not a major doctrine or anything.

In any event, may God bless you.

 

[zoidar]

I believe every word of my Bible (i.e. the KJB) just fine. But as you should know, the Bible is a spiritual book, and it’s truths are not always so evident or understood by every person. Hence, why there are many denominations.

Anyways, here are two problems you run up against in your clinging to the popular interpretation.

#1. You have to believe that the thief on the cross changed his mind while on the cross. For…

“The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.” (Matthew 27:44).​

#2. The Roman soldiers did not walk down the line breaking the legs of the criminals (Which would be the natural order of things) before they got to Jesus.

“Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs” (John 19:32-33).
​

But I am not really expecting you to see it if you did not catch it the first time. So we can move on if you don’t see it. It’s not a major doctrine or anything.

In any event, may God bless you.

#1 There might be a simple answer to this one. The witnesses described their own experience of the situation. If two people see a a car being stolen by a man and a woman at night, the first one that stod close by says he saw a man and a woman stealing the car. The other person that was standing far off says he saw two men stealing the car. Naturally the second person is wrong, but his testimony is true from his heart, from what he saw. Of course not everyone is open for such possibilties with God's Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

#1 There might be a simple answer to this one. The witnesses described their own experience of the situation. If two people see a a car being stolen by a man and a woman at night, the first one that stod close by says he saw a man and a woman stealing the car. The other person that was standing far off says he saw two men stealing the car. Naturally the second person is wrong, but his testimony is true from his heart, from what he saw. Of course not everyone is open for such possibilties with God's Word.

If we were not talking about the Bible, you might be right, but all Scripture is given by inspiration of God according to 2 Timothy 3:16 and thus it is perfect. There are no errors in what is written and or conveyed. John 17:17 says, Thy Word is truth. Scripture is said to be the Word of God. So I don’t see errors in God’s Word, friend. That’s not an option. For if I cannot trust one word in Scripture what makes me trust the rest of it? It’s either all true, or all false. I choose to believe every word of God.

 

[Clare73]

I believe every word of my Bible (i.e. the KJB) just fine. But as you should know, the Bible is a spiritual book, and it’s truths are not always so evident or understood by every person. Hence, why there are many denominations.
Anyways, here are two problems you run up against in your clinging to the popular interpretation.

#1. You have to believe that the thief on the cross changed his mind while on the cross.​

What do you think repentance is?
It's a change of mind. It happens every day as sinners are converted.

For... “The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.”
#2. The Roman soldiers did not walk down the line breaking the legs of the criminals (Which would be the natural order of things) before they got to Jesus.

Who said they did?
And you know what was "the natural order of things" there, how?

“Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs” (John 19:32-33).

But I am not really expecting you to see it if you did not catch it the first time.

Where is the contradiction? Is it of your "natural order of things"?
And you know "the natural order of things" there, how?

So we can move on if you don’t see it. It’s not a major doctrine or anything.

I'll say. . .it's a lie looking for a home.

 

[zoidar]

For if I cannot trust one word in Scripture what makes me trust the rest of it?

I have heard this argument before. I guess this is if we believe God dictated every single word in the Bible. I believe the spiritual truth of the Bible is 100% correct. If there are some misdescriptions, I don't see it as a reason to mistrust the Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would counter that Love is a better motivator.

So you believe that if Universalism was true, more people would accept Jesus Christ and follow Him?

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”
(Proverbs 9:10).

“And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.” (Job 28:28).

Personally, I think the opposite would happen. If Universalism was true, less people would have any motivation to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior (Because they know they will just eventually end up in Heaven anyways at some point).

Also, saved persons are not sinners. That's an entirely different class of person.

Are you suggesting that believer’s sin in the flesh but they do not sin in their spirit because Jesus paid for their future sins?

A while back you basically said that the prodigal son was saved because he was still a son.

Does the statement “saved persons are not sinners” line up with the following passage?

“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1 John 3:7-10).

I believe in Sanctification ... as a part of the saved experience. IOW, we are BORN into salvation, ... and then we GROW into the expectation that God has for His children (that's SANCTIFICATION).

But are not of the belief that if the believer does not live holy, they will just simply lose rewards and not salvation?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What do you think repentance is?
It's a change of mind. It happens every day as sinners are converted.​

Well, the word “repent” and it’s related words has a wide variety of meanings. If you were to ever do the study on the word “repent” (and it’s various related words - one by one) on your own, you would discover that. For the context determines the meaning of the word. Anyways, here is my view on the meaning of “repentance” in regards to God’s Word telling the believer to “repent.”

CF Thread - A Biblical Case For Repentance

Who said they did?
And you know what "the natural order of things" there was, how?

Take a step back a moment and think like a detective. Replay the scenario in your mind. It’s a logical deduction. It’s what would have naturally happened. The only way they could have skipped Jesus is if something interrupted them and we get no indication of that in Scripture.

I'll say. . .it's a lie looking for a home.

Just saying so does not make it so. You have to prove your case and explain the contradictions I brought up.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have heard this argument before. I guess this is if we believe God dictated every single word in the Bible. I believe the spiritual truth of the Bible is 100% correct. If there are some misdescriptions, I don't see it as a reason to mistrust the Bible.

God inspired men to write the Bible. Meaning, God guided them in some way to write Scripture to be 100% accurate. If this was not the case, then you would need a truth detector machine to determine what was true or false in the Bible. Last I checked, there is no such device that God gave us like that. So again, the Bible is either all true, or all false. We cannot pick and choose based on our own limited reason. We are not above God’s Word. We should not change God’s Word but it should change us. God’s Word itself says that it is pure. I believe that. Do you?

 

[Clare73]

Well, the word “repent” and it’s related words has a wide variety of meanings. If you were to ever do the study on it on your own, you would discover that. Anyways, here is my view on the meaning of “repentance” in regards to God’s Word telling the believer to “repent.”

Repent means what its definition is in the Greek: i.e., change of mind (and heart).

CF Thread - A Biblical Case For Repentance

Think like a detective. It’s a logical deduction.

Thinking like a human detective will not give me the truth of the word of God.

It's what would have naturally happened.

Based on what? Your human supposition of an event which you have never seen?

The only way they could have skipped Jesus is if something interrupted them and we get no indication of that in Scripture.

And you would overturn the written testimony of Luke and John for the sake of your human supposition of what the "natural order would be" 2,000 years after the fact, never having had any experience nor observance of such an event?
This reeks of dispensational methodology.

Just saying so does not make it so. You have to prove your case and explain the contradictions I brought up.

There are no contradictions, and I explained why they were not contradictions.

You're defending the wrong thing, pal, when you defend contradictions in Biblical testimony, particularly when it is as lame as this one is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have heard this argument before. I guess this is if we believe God dictated every single word in the Bible. I believe the spiritual truth of the Bible is 100% correct. If there are some misdescriptions, I don't see it as a reason to mistrust the Bible.

I would not be a believer today if I thought one word in my Bible had a mistake in it. For God does not make mistakes. For how do you gain faith? Does not Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing the Word of God? In other words, a person reads and believes Scripture on the gospel and invites Jesus into their life based what the Bible says and not because of some vision. So all of my Bible is the faith! So your saying that the faith is faulty in some way if you are saying the Bible has errors in it. The Bible talks about how works can make one’s faith perfect (James 2:22). That can only work if we have complete trust in all of what God’s words say. If we think God’s words have some errors in them, then we are not going to trust those words, thus our faith cannot be perfect. For trusting in something imperfect cannot make us perfect.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Repent means what its definition is in the Greek: i.e., change of mind (and heart).

Thinking like a human detective will not give me the truth of the word of God.

Based on what? Your human supposition of an event which you have never seen?

You are just repeating blindly what some scholar said, and you have not done the study yourself.

Context is looking at the surrounding words and making the most logical deduction on what that word means based on that context.

Here is an example on what I am talking about.

1. Genesis 6:6 And it repented [grieved or sorrowed] the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
   
   
2. Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth [grieved or sorrowed] me that I have made them.
   
   
3. Exodus 13:17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent [will regret their decision] when they see war, and they return to Egypt: (Note: This interpretation on repent is taken from the Voice translation and it appears to give more clarity of what is going on instead of just saying, they will have a change of mind).
   
   
4. Exodus 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent [forsake or turn away] of this evil against thy people. (Note: This interpretation aligns with the TLB translation and it fits the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:41, and the Parable of the Two Sons - Matthew 21:28-32, and the fruits of repentance mentioned by John the baptist - Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8) (Note 2: This is the one of those instances where the “change of mind” interpretation fits best, but that does not mean it it is the correct definition exactly; Especially when we look at how the word “repent” is used in the rest of the Bible).
   
   
5. Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented [forsaken or turned away] of the evil which he thought to do unto his people (See Note 2 above).
   
   
6. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent [regret or have regrets]: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
   
   
7. Deuteronomy 32:36 For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent [relent or hold back] himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.
   
   
8. Judges 2:18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented [pitied or saddened] the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.
   
   
9. Judges 21:6 And the children of Israel repented [had felt sorry for] them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day.
   
   
10. Judges 21:15 And the people repented [had felt sorry for] them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.
    
    
11. 1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth [grieved] me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
    
    
12. 1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent [regret]: for he is not a man, that he should repent [regret or have regrets].

Except for maybe 1 or 3, reading ALL of these above verses with the forced definition of “change of mind” would turn the reading of these sentences above into absolute nonsense or gibberish. But you are free to believe as you wish.

Note: The words in blue in brackets (and the words in purple) is my commentary to the text.

The only way they could have skipped Jesus is if something interrupted them and we get no indication of that in Scripture.
And you would overturn the written testimony of Luke and John for the sake of your human supposition of what the "natural order would be" 2,000 years after the fact, never having had any experience nor observance of such an event?

There are no contradictions, and I explained why they were not contradictions.

You're defending the wrong thing, pal, when you defend contradictions in Biblical testimony, particularly when it is as lame as this one is.

Have you ever watched a detective show or read a detective novel before?
Have you ever thought how police detectives solved crimes?

 

[Clare73]

You are just repeating blindly what some scholar said,

Judging others by yourself?

Thanks for calling me a "scholar," but I think of myself as a student.

and you have not done the study yourself.

Context is looking at the surrounding words and making the most logical deduction on what that word means based on that context.

So what particular word are we disputing here?

And you have revealed your problem.
When you have four accounts of the same event, you have to look at more than just the context of one writer's account to get the whole picture.

Have you ever watched a detective show or read a detective novel before?
Have you ever thought how police detectives solve crimes?

Wrong analogy, pal.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Judging others by yourself?

Thanks for calling me a "scholar," but I think of myself as a student.

Actually, I said you were quoting a scholar and I was not calling you a scholar.

So what particular word are we disputing here?

And you have revealed your problem.
When you have four accounts of the same event, you have to look at more than just the context of one writer's account to get the whole picture.

Wrong analogy, pal.

Compare 1 Samuel 15:11 with 1 Samuel 15:29. It will prove to you that the word “repent” cannot always have just one meaning or definition. You implied the one definition meaning when you said “repent” means “a change of mind.” But in reality, this is not the case.

 

[A_Thinker]

I would counter that Love is a better motivator.

So you believe that if Universalism was true, more people would accept Jesus Christ and follow Him?

How does God's love translate into Universalism ?

How would it be loving for God to place His enemies eternally in a world they have no desire to share in ?

Are you suggesting that believer’s sin in the flesh but they do not sin in their spirit because Jesus paid for their future sins?

Which of your sins were not in the future of Christ's sacrifice ?

Does the statement “saved persons are not sinners” line up with the following passage?

“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1 John 3:7-10).

John also wrote this in the same letter ...
1 John 1

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

But are not of the belief that if the believer does not live holy, they will just simply lose rewards and not salvation?

That's what the scriptures say ...
1 Corinthians 3

11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.

It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

 

[Clare73]

You are just repeating blindly what some scholar said, and you have not done the study yourself.

The following from post #220 are my own creation, thoughts and words, so you have just called me a scholar.

"There is absolutely no basis in these four accounts for your separation of them into two different narratives as you do.

All four accounts report the same events. There is no indication of an exact chronological order maintained by the writers in these accounts, so that
to refer to the crucifixion of the two thieves when referring to the crucifixion of Jesus, or
to refer to events relating to Jesus (i.e., crucifixion, dividing clothes by lot, etc.) before referring to events relating to the thieves (crucifixion)
necessarily means a difference in the actual chronology of the events.
That is nothing more than a lie of unbelief desperately searching for a plausible basis.

Differences in the details of accounts reported by more than one person demonstrate only one thing; i.e., more than one person witnessed the events. Eye-witnesses viewing the same events don't usually all report identically to the last detail. When you find that, you find a rehearsed lie."

Here is an example on what I am talking about.

Your examples are in the Hebrew. I gave you the Greek definition.

1. Genesis 6:6 And it repented [grieved or sorrowed] the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
   
   
2. Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth [grieved or sorrowed] me that I have made them.
   
   
3. Exodus 13:17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent [will regret their decision] when they see war, and they return to Egypt: (Note: This interpretation on repent is taken from the Voice translation and it appears to give more clarity of what is going on instead of just saying, they will have a change of mind).
   
   
4. Exodus 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent [forsake or turn away] of this evil against thy people. (Note: This interpretation aligns with the TLB translation and it fits the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:41, and the Parable of the Two Sons - Matthew 21:28-32, and the fruits of repentance mentioned by John the baptist - Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8) (Note 2: This is the one of those instances where the “change of mind” interpretation fits best, but that does not mean it it is the correct definition exactly; Especially when we look at how the word “repent” is used in the rest of the Bible).
   
   
5. Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented [forsaken or turned away] of the evil which he thought to do unto his people (See Note 2 above).
   
   
6. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent [regret or have regrets]: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
   
   
7. Deuteronomy 32:36 For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent [relent or hold back] himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.
   
   
8. Judges 2:18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented [pitied or saddened] the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.
   
   
9. Judges 21:6 And the children of Israel repented [had felt sorry for] them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day.
   
   
10. Judges 21:15 And the people repented [had felt sorry for] them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.
    
    
11. 1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth [grieved] me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
    
    
12. 1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent [regret]: for he is not a man, that he should repent [regret or have regrets].

Except for maybe 1 or 3, reading ALL of these above verse with the forced definition of "change of mind" would turn the reading of these sentences above into absolute nonsense or gibberish.

And even in the Hebrew, that assertion is not so. . .

All your OT verses boil down to two meanings of nacham:
to repent; i.e., to change one's mind or disposition or heart or purpose or conduct; and

to comfort; i.e., the refugees in Babylon, Bathsheba after the death of her child, Job to his three companions, the psalmist, Jerusalem with the restoration of Israel, etc.

And the NT has two meanings of metanoeo:
to change one's mind or purpose (for the better):

to regret.

Have you ever watched a detective show or read a detective novel before?
Have you ever thought how police detectives solved crimes?

Wrong analogy, pal. . .and none of which has anything to do with the attempt to overturn Luke's and John's testimony regarding Jesus' crucifixion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How does God's love translate into Universalism ?

Well, I am not a Universalist, but I can see from the Universalist perspective that they make God out to be more loving in the fact that God is not seeking to hurt anyone and He only wants to just love us all. It’s like those love hippies in the 60’s who seek to make peace, love, and not war. It sounds good at first, but when one analyzes the deeper mechanics behind it, it just does not work in the long term.

My point here is that your belief is similar to Universalism in that a believer can sin and still be saved when in reality narrow is the way that leads to life and few be there that find it. It does not make God any less loving if He makes the way more narrow than you think it should be.

Which of your sins were not in the future of Christ's sacrifice ?

So if Christ forgave all future sin, then does that mean everyone is saved?

1 John 1
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

What is helpful in understanding 1 John 1:8 is looking at its immediate context. 1 John 1:10 says if we say we have not sinned. 1 John 1:10 switches gears from 1 John 1:8 in regards to time; John talks about the declaration on committing sin in verse 8 (which is present tense) to a declaration on committing sin being a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense). This is clearly a gnostic belief. Why? Well, most believers today hold to the idea that they have sinned as a part of their old life before coming to Christ (Regardless of whether they are “OSAS,” a “Sin and still be saved” type believer, or a “Conditional Salvationist”). So this clearly is a “gnostic belief” that John was warning the brethren about (See 1 John 2:26). 1 John 1:8 is a present declaration of sin. It is saying if we say we have no sin when we do sin (present tense). This has to be the interpretative understanding of this verse because 1 John 2:4 says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us. The OSAS's interpretation on 1 John 1:8 does not work because it conflicts with a normal reading on 1 John 2:3-4. You cannot always be in sin (breaking God's commands) as a part of 1 John 1:8 and yet also fulfill 1 John 2:3 that says we can have an assurance of knowing Him if we keep His commandments. Especially when 1 John 2:4 says we are a liar and the truth is not in us if we break his commandments. In other words, if the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 was true, then I would be damned if I do by obeying God's commands (1 John 1:8) and yet I would be damned if I don't by not obeying God's commands (1 John 2:4).

In fact, the New English Translation says this for 1 John 1:8,

"If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8 NET).​

In other words, this verse is saying that if a person sins and says they do not bear the guilt of sin (in the sense that they will not have to face any wrath or Judgment from God over their sin) then they would be deceiving themselves and the truth would not be in them. This is exactly what the Eternal Security proposes. They are saying that they do not bear the guilt of any sin (destruction of their soul and body in hell fire) if they do sin because they believe their future sins are paid for by Jesus. They are saying, they do not bear the guilt or the punishment of sin at the final Judgment because of their belief on Jesus. In short, 1 John 1:8 is a denial of the existence of sin on some level. “If we say we have no sin (in the sense that it does not exist) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). Christian Scientists think sin is an illusion and does not exist at all. So this verse would apply to them. Eternal Security Proponents and those who deny that “Sin Can Separate a Believer from God” deny the existence of sin partially. They believe sin exists physically but they do not believe sin exists for them on a spiritual level because Jesus has forgiven them of all their sin by their belief on Jesus. In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.

John prescribes that we do not think that sin is an illusion, and we are automatically saved, but John is telling us to "sin not" and go to our advocate Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1), and confess our sins so as to be forgiven of sin and to be cleansed of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). How can you confess and be forgiven of sin if all your future sin is paid for? It makes no sense.

You can say that John is talking about a break of fellowship by one's sins and not a loss of salvation, but that would not be consistent with Scripture. 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life.

That's what the scriptures say ...
1 Corinthians 3

11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light.

It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Who is the builder?
The gospel preacher and soul winner (i.e. the apostle Paul).
What are the works? (The Corinthians).
They are Paul’s work in the gospel.
Paul will be saved through the fire if his work (the Corinthians) continue to justify the sins of strife or envy until they die (with no repentance).

Note: We see the sins of strife or envy mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3:3.
Paul mentions these sins again to the Galatian believers in Galatians 5:19-21 and he says that they which do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Note: Fortunately, we find out that the Corinthians repent (seek forgiveness with the Lord) over their sins in 2 Corinthians.

Anyways, what foundation does a gospel preacher build upon?
It’s Jesus Christ.
You don’t build sin upon Jesus.
That is not a work. The work in the instance within 1 Corinthians 3 are the people a gospel preacher (soul winner) brings to Christ.

 

[Guojing]

If we are never in jeopardy when we sin, then the Bible would not teach that we can fall away from the faith; But it does teach that we can fall away.

Here are several lists of verses that makes it absolutely clear that believers can fall away from the faith:

Here is a General List of Verses on How Believers Can Fall Away:

Hebrews 3:12-14
Hebrews 4:11
Hebrews 6:4-9
Hebrews 10:26-30
Hebrews 12:15
1 Timothy 1:18-20
1 Timothy 4:1-7
Galatians 5:2-4
2 Peter 2:20-22
2 Peter 3:17
Luke 8:11-15
1 Corinthians 10:12
2 Thessalonians 2:3​

Now, do not misunderstand me, believers cannot lose their salvation (like they would a pair of car keys), but they can forfeit their salvation (i.e. they can willingly throw it away by rebelling against God). In fact,

Here is a list of believers who have forfeited their salvation:

Saul (1 Samuel 16:14) (1 Samuel 31:4)
Demas (2 Timothy 4:10)
The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)
Judas Iscariot (Psalm 41:9) (Luke 6:16) (Acts 1:25)
Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Unnamed Christians destroyed by false teaching (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Many Unnamed Disciples (John 6:66)
Some Younger Christian Widows (1 Timothy 5:14-15)
Some Christians Eager For Money (1 Timothy 6:8-10)
Ananias and Sapphira (Acts of the Apostles 5:1-11)​

And here is a list of potential fallen believers:

The Servant Who is Not Looking For Him (Luke 12:45-46)
Recent Convert Who is a Potential Spiritual Leader (1 Timothy 3:6)
The Unforgiving in Heart (Matthew 6:14-15)
Luke Warm Unrepentant Believer (Revelation 3:14-22)
Fruitless Christians (John 15:1-10) (Matthew 25:14-30)
Widows That Live in Pleasure (1 Timothy 5:5-6)
Believers Whose Seed Fell Upon the Rocks (Luke 8:13)
Believers Whose Seed Was Choked by Thorns (Matthew 13:22)
Gentile Believer Who Did Not Have on a Wedding Garment (Matthew 22:1-14) (Revelation 19:7-8)
The Potential Fellow Believer Who Erred From the Truth & Was Converted Back (James 5:19-20)​

In fact, Paul is against Eternal Security or a sin and still be saved type belief. For Paul says,

1. We can fall from grace (Galatians 5:4).
   
   
2. We can be moved away from the hope (Colossians 1:23).
   
   
3. We can be a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:27).
   
   
4. We can be cut off just like the Jews if we do not continue in God’s goodness (Romans 11:20-22).
   
   
5. We can sow to the flesh and reap corruption instead of sowing to the Spirit which reaps everlasting life. (Galatians 6:8).
   
   
6. We can deny God by a lack of good works (Titus 1:16).
   
   
7. We can shipwreck our faith (1 Timothy 1:19).
   
   
8. We can deny the faith and be worse than an infidel if we do not provide for our own household (1 Timothy 5:8).
   
   
9. We can err from the faith and pierce ourselves thru with many sorrows if we love and covet after money (1 Timothy 6:10).
   
   
10. Hymnenaeus and Philetus have overthrown the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:18).

These things would not exist in Scripture if things are as you say.

So can I conclude your answer is a yes? Your belief is that

Adam's disobedience, that gives death, in the garden was so powerful that, there is only ONE way to get out of it. You have to accept Christ's free gift. Renouncing Satan alone will not result in you forfeiting Adam's gift.

Christ's obedience at the cross, that gives salvation, was less powerful, there are MANY ways to forfeit that salvation. You don't even need to renounce Christ to forfeit that salvation.

 

[A_Thinker]

So if Christ forgave all future sin, then does that mean everyone is saved?

Everyone does not believe. Unbelief is pragmatically unforgivable ...

 

[A_Thinker]

How can you confess and be forgiven of sin if all your future sin is paid for? It makes no sense.

Sin paid is atonement. Sin forgiven restores fellowship.

 

[A_Thinker]

Who is the builder?
The gospel preacher and soul winner (i.e. the apostle Paul).
What are the works? (The Corinthians).
They are Paul’s work in the gospel.
Paul will be saved through the fire if his work (the Corinthians) continue to justify the sins of strife or envy until they die (with no repentance).

All believers build onto the building of God.

1 Peter 2

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.