No, not in my book. Eternal security is conditional upon whither or not the reprobate authentically repents and accepts Christ as savior and Lord. Once a true conversion takes place, Christ blood paid the ransom for the persons sins, the transaction is irrevocable, the debt paid by Christ was paid in full and His righteousness has been imputed to the believer's account and likewise our sin was place on Jesus. He who knew no sin became sin for us.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
But eternal security says salvation is UNCONDITINAL, salvation cannot be lost for any reason. So if a Christian must repent of his adultery, that makes salvation CONDITIONAL upon his repenting. No repenting = lost = no eternal security.
Again, 1 Jn 1:7 Christ's blood continues to wash away ALL the sins of a Christian IF IF IF that Christian CONDITIONALLY continues to walk in the light and repentance is part of that walking in the light. Eternal Security says walking in the light is not necessary for a Christian can sin all he cares to for he cannot lose salvation under ANY condition, even be saved without conditionally repenting.
So you cannot have both eternal security and repentance for the two are completely, totally antithetical to each other.
Again, 1 Jn 1:7 Christ's blood continues to wash away ALL the sins of a Christian IF IF IF that Christian CONDITIONALLY continues to walk in the light and repentance is part of that walking in the light. Eternal Security says walking in the light is not necessary for a Christian can sin all he cares to for he cannot lose salvation under ANY condition, even be saved without conditionally repenting.
So you cannot have both eternal security and repentance for the two are completely, totally antithetical to each other.
It Is Illogical Nonsense to Make Repentance inconsistent w/ ES
illogical.
Philippians 1:6
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Since the Lord promises to finish the good work & to save His people from their sins (& since impenitence is a sin), repentance is an inevitable consequence of eternal security.
"but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. And the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin; if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
1) What is your proof that the if (if if if) governs the 2nd clause "And the blood . . . cleanses us. . . "?
2) Denying the antecedent is a famous logical fallacy.
If you take the bus, you will get downtown
does not imply,
if you do not take the bus, you will not get downtown.
Straw man. That is not the doctrine of eternal security. Don't make up a straw man & try to impose it. Eternal security affirms that "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sin." Eternal security is not opposed to the Lord having methods by which He preserves His children.
It seems remarkable how some of the unsaved get worked up about sin being the consequence of trusting the Lord Jesus as Savior. (Why if I trusted Him to get me to Heaven, I would pay Him back by sinning up a storm.) It is remarkable since all the unsaved does is sin all the time! So in his brilliance he would, say like "I won't trust the Savior, because then I would not be saved from sin."
Utter nonsense. He works in us both to will and to do His pleasure.
Now any reading this are urged to repent of any denial of the Savior, calling him a chance-giver instead of a Savior.
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
The free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
illogical.
Philippians 1:6
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Since the Lord promises to finish the good work & to save His people from their sins (& since impenitence is a sin), repentance is an inevitable consequence of eternal security.
"but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. And the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin; if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
1) What is your proof that the if (if if if) governs the 2nd clause "And the blood . . . cleanses us. . . "?
2) Denying the antecedent is a famous logical fallacy.
If you take the bus, you will get downtown
does not imply,
if you do not take the bus, you will not get downtown.
Straw man. That is not the doctrine of eternal security. Don't make up a straw man & try to impose it. Eternal security affirms that "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sin." Eternal security is not opposed to the Lord having methods by which He preserves His children.
It seems remarkable how some of the unsaved get worked up about sin being the consequence of trusting the Lord Jesus as Savior. (Why if I trusted Him to get me to Heaven, I would pay Him back by sinning up a storm.) It is remarkable since all the unsaved does is sin all the time! So in his brilliance he would, say like "I won't trust the Savior, because then I would not be saved from sin."
Utter nonsense. He works in us both to will and to do His pleasure.
Now any reading this are urged to repent of any denial of the Savior, calling him a chance-giver instead of a Savior.
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
The free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Again, you are coming up with your own definition of ES. ES says once you made a genuine decision for Christ, you have been changed, reborn, born again, regenerated, made a new creature. This is life changing pivotal point in one's life. God has put His laws in your heart and you no longer follow the desires of your hearth, but now His desires. At this point His eternal destination is secure, just as sure as the reprobate have eternal security in Hell (although they don't know it).
Nothing I can say at this point will change your mind. My version of OSAS is very different then yours. My desire is for the Lord, it is my 100% faith in Him alone that saves me, it is my desire to obey Him even though I fail at this. I don't go out and intentionally sin making God grace abound for me. Nor do I know of any OSASers in my circle (including here) who advocate a life sinful living. Jesus said you can't belong to one or the other, either you're His enemy or His friend. In between doesn't exist! Yes, there are many false christians in the church, hence the warnings, the ifs.... I can't imagine living in any other way that is contrary to Him, why would I choose a life of destruction after receiving the knowledge of God and His salvation?
Nothing I can say at this point will change your mind. My version of OSAS is very different then yours. My desire is for the Lord, it is my 100% faith in Him alone that saves me, it is my desire to obey Him even though I fail at this. I don't go out and intentionally sin making God grace abound for me. Nor do I know of any OSASers in my circle (including here) who advocate a life sinful living. Jesus said you can't belong to one or the other, either you're His enemy or His friend. In between doesn't exist! Yes, there are many false christians in the church, hence the warnings, the ifs.... I can't imagine living in any other way that is contrary to Him, why would I choose a life of destruction after receiving the knowledge of God and His salvation?
Your first paragraph makes it seem that Eternal Security means it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to sin which cannot be the case, 1 Jn 6-10 shows the Christian does sin.
So when a Christian sins, must he:
1) conditionally repent of that sin to maintain salvation
2) do nothing for the sin cannot in anyway cause him to lose his salvation
So when a Christian sins, must he:
1) conditionally repent of that sin to maintain salvation
2) do nothing for the sin cannot in anyway cause him to lose his salvation
Failure at obeying God means success at disobeying Him. This is the Gospel of mandatory disobedience.
You even quote Arthur Pink who says...
"In bestowing grace, God never rescinds His claims upon us, but rather enables us to meet them. Was the prodigal son, after his penitential return and forgiveness, less obliged to conform to the laws of his Father’s house than before he left it? No indeed, but more so." A.W. Pink
On the one hand you will claim that you fail at obeying God and yet on the other hand will claim that God enables you to obey God. Which is it? This is theological double talk.
That all sounds well and good but again it is double speak because you believe disobedience to God and therefore sin is inevitable because you constantly fail at it. Thus you have this concept of "sinful living" versus "inevitable sin." You'll reject "sinful living" because to you that implies "sinning with abandon" yet your theology teaches you can "go prodigal" so to speak, and "sin temporarily"
I often wonder how you reconcile this double speak or is it just something that is better "out of sight out of mind" ?
This "salvation" which you believe that cannot be lost has nothing, in your mind, to do with any real manifestation of having the power of sin actually being broken over you. Thus you uphold a "sinning salvation."
It surprises me how so few people seem to be able to see through this nonsense and will debate endlessly for this notion of salvation which is not any kind of real salvation at all. Jesus said it so clearly when He said that He will set people free indeed. A freedom from a state where one serves sin.
Your doctrine has grafted the service of sin into salvation. That is an utter abomination.
You even quote Arthur Pink who says...
"In bestowing grace, God never rescinds His claims upon us, but rather enables us to meet them. Was the prodigal son, after his penitential return and forgiveness, less obliged to conform to the laws of his Father’s house than before he left it? No indeed, but more so." A.W. Pink
On the one hand you will claim that you fail at obeying God and yet on the other hand will claim that God enables you to obey God. Which is it? This is theological double talk.
That all sounds well and good but again it is double speak because you believe disobedience to God and therefore sin is inevitable because you constantly fail at it. Thus you have this concept of "sinful living" versus "inevitable sin." You'll reject "sinful living" because to you that implies "sinning with abandon" yet your theology teaches you can "go prodigal" so to speak, and "sin temporarily"
I often wonder how you reconcile this double speak or is it just something that is better "out of sight out of mind" ?
This "salvation" which you believe that cannot be lost has nothing, in your mind, to do with any real manifestation of having the power of sin actually being broken over you. Thus you uphold a "sinning salvation."
It surprises me how so few people seem to be able to see through this nonsense and will debate endlessly for this notion of salvation which is not any kind of real salvation at all. Jesus said it so clearly when He said that He will set people free indeed. A freedom from a state where one serves sin.
Your doctrine has grafted the service of sin into salvation. That is an utter abomination.
No, I don't mean that a Christian can't sin. What I mean is it is no longer the desire for a Christian to live his life in the same manner/lifestyle prior to His conversion--->worldly. A true Christian does not continue in sinful living all their life thinking it's normal or ok. If they do, then they are not children of God.
Re: It Is Illogical Nonsense to Make Repentance inconsistent w/ ES
You ignore verse 5 that says those Philippian Christians had been faithfully remaining in the gospel from the "first day unto now". So they were faithful to God and in turn God will be faithful to them by continuing a good work in them. Had they fallen away from the gospel (as the Galatians, Gal 1:5ff) then God would not unconditionally continue the good work in them anyway.
1) The "if" at the beginning makes both the "walking" and "cleansing" conditional. If Christ's blood cleanses UNconditionally then the walking in the light is unnecessary. Then the Christian could walk in darkness (not repent) and still have all his sins cleansed away UNconditionally.
2) Is the bus the only means to get downtown? If so, then by not taking the bus, then one will not get downtown.
Walking in the light is the ONLY means the Christian has in getting Christ's blood to cleanse away all his sins. Therefore no walking = no cleansing.
How can you argue "straw man" when you already said "What is your proof that the if (if if if) governs the 2nd clause "And the blood . . . cleanses us. . . "?"
You try to argue that the clause "cleanseth away all sins" is NOT conditioned by the word "if", which implies the Christian can sin at will (not walk in the light) and be saved anyway.
So is walking in the light NECESSARY or UNNECESSARY?
If you say necessary, then you make salvation CONDITIONAL upon walking when ES says it is UNconditional.
If you say unnecessary, then you free the Christian to do as he pleases and still unconditionally have his sins cleansed away.
Can't have you cake and eat it too.
ES says salvation is totally, completely UNCONDITIONAL so it does not matter what the Christian does.
REPENTANCE says one must CONDITIONALLY repent else perish, Lk 13:3,5.
So you cannot go along with both the UNCONDITIONALITY eternal security puts on salvation and, at the same time, require a Christian to repent of his sins. It's one or the other.
ES and repentance is like mixing oil and water.
You ignore verse 5 that says those Philippian Christians had been faithfully remaining in the gospel from the "first day unto now". So they were faithful to God and in turn God will be faithful to them by continuing a good work in them. Had they fallen away from the gospel (as the Galatians, Gal 1:5ff) then God would not unconditionally continue the good work in them anyway.
1) The "if" at the beginning makes both the "walking" and "cleansing" conditional. If Christ's blood cleanses UNconditionally then the walking in the light is unnecessary. Then the Christian could walk in darkness (not repent) and still have all his sins cleansed away UNconditionally.
2) Is the bus the only means to get downtown? If so, then by not taking the bus, then one will not get downtown.
Walking in the light is the ONLY means the Christian has in getting Christ's blood to cleanse away all his sins. Therefore no walking = no cleansing.
How can you argue "straw man" when you already said "What is your proof that the if (if if if) governs the 2nd clause "And the blood . . . cleanses us. . . "?"
You try to argue that the clause "cleanseth away all sins" is NOT conditioned by the word "if", which implies the Christian can sin at will (not walk in the light) and be saved anyway.
So is walking in the light NECESSARY or UNNECESSARY?
If you say necessary, then you make salvation CONDITIONAL upon walking when ES says it is UNconditional.
If you say unnecessary, then you free the Christian to do as he pleases and still unconditionally have his sins cleansed away.
Can't have you cake and eat it too.
ES says salvation is totally, completely UNCONDITIONAL so it does not matter what the Christian does.
REPENTANCE says one must CONDITIONALLY repent else perish, Lk 13:3,5.
So you cannot go along with both the UNCONDITIONALITY eternal security puts on salvation and, at the same time, require a Christian to repent of his sins. It's one or the other.
ES and repentance is like mixing oil and water.
Last edited:
You are overlooking the fact that "salvation" is being viewed as an abstract status apart from a real manifest internal transformation. Bookend believes salvation applies to a "status change" due to the legal exchange he believes the cross effected. Thus the believer is credited with the track record of Jesus and Jesus was credited with the sinning track record of the believer, it is a "legal swap" he believes in.
ie. post #661 http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/94920-once-saved-always-saved-34.html#post1613828
Thus SeaBass you are attempting to dialogue with Bookends withing the framework of error. The most effective deceptions in this world is where both sides of a paradigm are artificial constructions and this is why Paul warned people to beware of "oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." Paul understood this dynamic of deception.
Yo allude to 1Jn 1:6-10 as meaning that Christian's continue sinning yet that is not what John is teaching there. John is speaking of the "means" by which one is to "walk in the light" (v7) and that the "means" is conditional on coming clean with God about previous sin. When a repentant sinner approaches God they cannot claim that "they have no sin" to their account. It is only through being completely honest with oneself and also with God that one is then able to walk in the light. Read Hebrews 10:19-22 where the cleansing is spoken about, the cleansing which takes place when we approach God in all truth confessing our wrong doing.
The question you propose is entirely within the framework of error because salvation is not an abstract position. Salvation is literally a manifest state of having had the yolk of sin being literally broken whereby we are able to rule over sin as opposed to having sin ruled over us. Thus we are set free from the bondage of sin and therefore we no longer earn sins wages which is death.
The "manifest state" is connected to the "reconciled state" with God and one cannot forfeit one without the other. One cannot choose to sin and not surely die. The wages of sin will always be death and the death that is being spoken of is the end result. Being dead to God and the ultimate end of which is perdition.
It is through this release from bondage that God can cleanse us from all sin through the sacrifice of the cross as we are made partakers with Christ as we are raised up to newness of life as new creations. There is no true new creation experience occurring in all these false theologies because these people constantly defend a life of ongoing sin with their testimony of mandatory failure.
It is a real shame.
ie. post #661 http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/94920-once-saved-always-saved-34.html#post1613828
Thus SeaBass you are attempting to dialogue with Bookends withing the framework of error. The most effective deceptions in this world is where both sides of a paradigm are artificial constructions and this is why Paul warned people to beware of "oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." Paul understood this dynamic of deception.
Yo allude to 1Jn 1:6-10 as meaning that Christian's continue sinning yet that is not what John is teaching there. John is speaking of the "means" by which one is to "walk in the light" (v7) and that the "means" is conditional on coming clean with God about previous sin. When a repentant sinner approaches God they cannot claim that "they have no sin" to their account. It is only through being completely honest with oneself and also with God that one is then able to walk in the light. Read Hebrews 10:19-22 where the cleansing is spoken about, the cleansing which takes place when we approach God in all truth confessing our wrong doing.
The question you propose is entirely within the framework of error because salvation is not an abstract position. Salvation is literally a manifest state of having had the yolk of sin being literally broken whereby we are able to rule over sin as opposed to having sin ruled over us. Thus we are set free from the bondage of sin and therefore we no longer earn sins wages which is death.
The "manifest state" is connected to the "reconciled state" with God and one cannot forfeit one without the other. One cannot choose to sin and not surely die. The wages of sin will always be death and the death that is being spoken of is the end result. Being dead to God and the ultimate end of which is perdition.
It is through this release from bondage that God can cleanse us from all sin through the sacrifice of the cross as we are made partakers with Christ as we are raised up to newness of life as new creations. There is no true new creation experience occurring in all these false theologies because these people constantly defend a life of ongoing sin with their testimony of mandatory failure.
It is a real shame.
Last edited:
Seabass, how can you be walking in the light and post such darkness?
You seem to be in such darkness that you deny the plain reiterated promise of God, namely eternal life for the believer. It appears that you most willfully chose to walk in darkness.
1 John 2 has a marvelous eternal security passage which explains apostates as never having been in the Body of Christ. If they had been of the Body of Christ they would have remained. To be sure many unsaved church members profess to be Christian; they may attend services regularly & participate in their denominational hocus pocus. Many may say, Lord, Lord; but get the retort "I NEVER knew you. " Not that He once knew them, but now no longer. It is I NEVER knew you! You have no way of knowing who is a true child of God & who is not; though fruits give an indication, like apostasy.
Let he who denies that the Lord is the Savior, making Him a mere "chance-giver," repent and trust Christ as Savior.
Here is light:
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sin.
I give them eternal life, & they shall never perish.
"The way of the wicked is as darkness,
They do not know at what they stumble."
Prov 4:19
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him.
Jn 1:10
And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.
Jn 3:19
they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
< Rom 1:21
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
2 Cor 4:3-4
< Eph 4
as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind,being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart;
You seem to be in such darkness that you deny the plain reiterated promise of God, namely eternal life for the believer. It appears that you most willfully chose to walk in darkness.
1 John 2 has a marvelous eternal security passage which explains apostates as never having been in the Body of Christ. If they had been of the Body of Christ they would have remained. To be sure many unsaved church members profess to be Christian; they may attend services regularly & participate in their denominational hocus pocus. Many may say, Lord, Lord; but get the retort "I NEVER knew you. " Not that He once knew them, but now no longer. It is I NEVER knew you! You have no way of knowing who is a true child of God & who is not; though fruits give an indication, like apostasy.
Let he who denies that the Lord is the Savior, making Him a mere "chance-giver," repent and trust Christ as Savior.
Here is light:
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sin.
I give them eternal life, & they shall never perish.
"The way of the wicked is as darkness,
They do not know at what they stumble."
Prov 4:19
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him.
Jn 1:10
And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.
Jn 3:19
they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
< Rom 1:21
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
2 Cor 4:3-4
< Eph 4
as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind,being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart;
When a genuine Christian sins, he should repent, not to receive salvation all over again, that would be paramount to trampling of the blood of Christ and putting Him to open shame. In essence you'd be saying the blood of Christ wasn't sufficient to cleanse from all our sin. A genuine Christian will repent of their sin not for a re-union with God, but for continued communion with Him. For we know if we grieve the HS within us, His presence in our life is quenched and our relationship with Him hinders.
These promoters of OSAS disconnect their "status change" from a "manifest change" although it may appear sometimes that they uphold a "manifest change." They contradict themselves with statements like...
Only to contradict themselves with...
They truly believe that they cannot obey God and thus they must uphold that one can disobey God and be reconciled at the very same time hence the disconnect between "justification" and "sanctification." They see a disconnect between the "status change" and the "manifest change."
The "manifest change" is gradual to them. I am not speaking of "growth" here, rather I am speaking of the root condition of the heart, that of a heart "full of iniquity" versus a "pure heart." The "growth" experience in Christianity is related to "knowledge" not to "heart purity." A Christian may fall short due to lack of knowledge but rebellion is out of the question.
The erroneous position of these people can be easily exposed by using extreme illustrations regarding sin. Can a truly born again Christian be addicted to pornography for example? These people will have to admit that yes they can be.
These people have to defend ongoing sin. If a born again Christian can be addicted to porn then they can be addicted to child molestation or murder too. One cannot have one without the other.
In true salvation the heart has been transformed and made clean. Thus a genuine salvation experience brings an end to the service of sin once and for all and there is no possible way for someone in a manifest saved state to go out and murder or commit sexual sins. To do so is to go back into bondage and the service of sin.
Only to contradict themselves with...
They truly believe that they cannot obey God and thus they must uphold that one can disobey God and be reconciled at the very same time hence the disconnect between "justification" and "sanctification." They see a disconnect between the "status change" and the "manifest change."
The "manifest change" is gradual to them. I am not speaking of "growth" here, rather I am speaking of the root condition of the heart, that of a heart "full of iniquity" versus a "pure heart." The "growth" experience in Christianity is related to "knowledge" not to "heart purity." A Christian may fall short due to lack of knowledge but rebellion is out of the question.
The erroneous position of these people can be easily exposed by using extreme illustrations regarding sin. Can a truly born again Christian be addicted to pornography for example? These people will have to admit that yes they can be.
These people have to defend ongoing sin. If a born again Christian can be addicted to porn then they can be addicted to child molestation or murder too. One cannot have one without the other.
In true salvation the heart has been transformed and made clean. Thus a genuine salvation experience brings an end to the service of sin once and for all and there is no possible way for someone in a manifest saved state to go out and murder or commit sexual sins. To do so is to go back into bondage and the service of sin.
Do neither one.
First of all, if a "Christian" sins by denying that Christ is His Savior, making Him a mere "chance-giver," the "Christian" should repent of pretending to be a Christian and actually trust the Savior to save.
Second, if the Christian does trust Christ as Savior, he shall follow 1 John 1:
but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. , And the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin; if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Let us stop making up hypotheticals and worrying about this & that, things that are irrelevant to the truth.
There is this Savior Who paid for your sins on the cross? Will you have Him save you -- or will you pretend you can do it yourself and claim He is only a chance-giver.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, & you shall be saved.
I give them eternal life, & they shall never perish.
Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
QED
It is very easy to make one lined comments but you cannot specifically address the issues I raise can you?
You are forced to convolute those issues and misdirect the conversation.
You believe that a "saved person" can willfully engage in sexual sin and remain in a justified state don't you? You do believe that correct? Please don't avoid the question with diversions or quick one liners.
It is very easy to go through your previous posts and point out the contradictions and double speak. You do not believe that salvation has anything to do with a manifest transformation of the heart, to you salvation is purely positional with the heart transformation occurring sometime later. Thus you believe that "in the meantime" you can sin and not surely die so long as one does not sin with abandon. Thus in your paradigm a child molester could be "saved" and yet still engage in child molestation, it would perhaps just occur less and less over time.
Can't you see how absurd that is?
You are forced to convolute those issues and misdirect the conversation.
You believe that a "saved person" can willfully engage in sexual sin and remain in a justified state don't you? You do believe that correct? Please don't avoid the question with diversions or quick one liners.
It is very easy to go through your previous posts and point out the contradictions and double speak. You do not believe that salvation has anything to do with a manifest transformation of the heart, to you salvation is purely positional with the heart transformation occurring sometime later. Thus you believe that "in the meantime" you can sin and not surely die so long as one does not sin with abandon. Thus in your paradigm a child molester could be "saved" and yet still engage in child molestation, it would perhaps just occur less and less over time.
Can't you see how absurd that is?
Last edited:
