Well, for one, you have sinned just today because you falsely accused me and you did not even apologize about it. Nowhere did I say that a believer can be a child molester and still be saved or even struggle in being one and be saved and yet that is what you accused me of believing when I said no such thing.
Don't twist my words Jason.
I asked you specifically why a child molester does not get the pass that you give the drunk?
Instead of answering that question and thus the real context of what I wrote you address a strawman.
I'll ask again,
If a drunkard can "confess they are a sinner" and "accept Jesus" and thus have this "substitutional provision" you believe in "applied" and then subsequently go out and get drunk and still have the provision in application so long as they "repent" then why do you not apply the same standard to a child molester?
Surely a child molester can "confess they are a sinner" and "accept Jesus" and thus have this "substitutional provision," you believe in, "applied" and then subsequently go out and molest another child and still have the provision in application so long as they "repent." If not why not? Why does drunkenness get a pass and child molestation not get a pass?
You have just dodged that question and twisted it into an accusation of me saying that you believe that a child molester can engage in molestation and be saved. I never said such a thing, clearly you deny such a thing BUT you don't deny "sinning and being saved" when it comes to getting drunk. Your logic is not consistent.
You merely made an assumption and ran off with something else I said and you did not ask to clarify if that is what I believed or not.
You clearly stated what you believe.
This is first admitting that they are a sinner, and accepting Jesus as their Savioir. Then from there, they have to continue to walk in Christ's righteous ways (by allowing Christ's righteousness to work within them) according to His Word. So a person is saved when they yield to God in both Justification (Initial salvation by receiving the Lord) and in Sanctification (Continued salvation by walking with God and His good ways). The moment the believer sins and refuses to repent of such sin, then God's Spirit can withdraw from them and the Substitionary Atonement will then not be applied to them anymore.
You have clearly implied that a drunkard can confess they are a sinner and accept Jesus as their saviour and thus have the Substitionary Atonement (that you believe in) applied to them. Then is they subsequently go our and get drunk but repent (whatever that means) then the Substititionary Atonement is still applied.
Clearly you uphold a sin/repent/sin/repent cycle.
What do you think you need to clarify?
You have brought up examples of David and Noah engaging in wrongdoing in context with your position on the drunkard. In other words you believe a believer can occasionally engage in evil and simply "repent" each time and remain covered, so to speak, by the provision of Penal Substitution.
Why don't you answer my questions instead of reverting to a strawman?
You just falsely accused me with no apologies.
What false accusation? This...
a believer can be a child molester and still be saved or even struggle in being one and be saved and yet that is what you accused me of believing
I never accused you of that. I asked why do you not give a child molester a pass when you give the drunkard a pass?
It would be better for you to actually address what I write than implicate that which is not there. Now I know it may be EASIER for you to implicate fictions as those fictions allow you to ignore examining the fundamentals of what you actually believe.
I said there are greater sins that a believer will put away behind them. It is a very serious sin. However, what I would like to know is that if you think that a believer cannot be forgiven of sin if they are struggling with sin, then what do you make of the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14? Was he saved? If so, then how?
An individual "struggling with sin" is not a believer. Believers are servants of righteousness, not servants of sin.
The very fact that you can equate a believer with an addicted servant of sin demonstrates just how perverted your theological system actually is.
The Tax Collecter repented. He was not out ripping people off. He was coming clean with God. The Bible says that he who confesses and FORSAKES their sin shall have mercy, you even quote that scripture. The Bible doesn't say he who "serves sin and does not like it" has mercy. Isn't that what you are implying?
As for your statement of saying you do not commit sins unto death: So you are saying that you have not lied, not hated, not had a wrong thought, and you have helped the poor this week? When people talk to you, do they think your words are full of grace seasoned with salt?
I answered your question but you have not answered mine. Instead you take my answer and respond as if I didn't really mean what I said. I clearly stated that I have stopped obeying sin unto death and instead obey unto righteousness. is that not enough for you? Do you really need to ask me if I lie, hate, and/or despise the needy?
Also a "wrong thought" is not necessarily a sin unto death. We live in a world of iniquity and "wrong thoughts" are easily wrought simply through what we may see or here or even memories of our old lives. The issue is whether we put a "wrong thought" to death and bring every thought into subjection to Christ. That is the issue.
Now here is my question again, the question you chose not to answer...
Have you been made free from sin wherefore you have become a servant of righteousness? Have you obeyed from the heart to the doctrine delivered to us by Jesus Christ, the doctrine of HEAR AND DO?
Also here is an earlier question I asked, another question which you also chose to decline a response.
Do you have any testimony of your heart being made pure Jason?
Does your theology uphold heart purity in a believer Jason?