The Love of Jesus

[headheart]

This is going to be a very sensitive thread and I hope that those who believe that a Christian may lose their salvation will stay out of the discussion in the beginning and rather read and consider what I am about to share.

For many years I believed that a Christian could lose their salvation if they committed enough vile acts, I guess sort of like a scale. If one committed a sin and repented, and then went and did that sin again, and repented, eventually by this repeated process the mercy of God would be outweighed and I would lose my salvation forever, being no better off than I was before I had been saved. This is what I thought for nearly three decades.

A few years ago, I embarked on a journey into 'the prayer closet' with the prime intention of getting to know Jesus. I did and to my absolute suprise Jesus revealed to me that He loved me quite inspite of the life I had lived after becoming a Christian.

After years of theological wrangeling about whether or not, I could lose my salvation or not, suddenly it was a closed book, and no matter if I sinned, I knew now without a doubt that Jesus never changed in His love for me for one single second. It is hard to express a love like this in human words, for I am just one beggar showing others beggars where to found bread. Just a sinner trying to inform other sinners that there is love like I have never known in this Jesus of the Bible, who died for my sins, was buried and rose again on the third day, and who was seen by many witnesses to be alive from the dead.

Love,
headheart.

[undead]

Well, two days are up so I guess its time to allow people on this thread who believe that you can "lose your salvation", although I would dispute whether that was an appropriate way of articulating the issue.

The issue was never about whether God continues to love someone despite what they do, but it is rather about the nature and kind of love that God is able to bestow, pursuant to human actions that result in a way being chosen apart from God.

God's love was expressed for mankind in that he sent Christ to die on the cross. Now if you trample on that cross, no further sacrifice for sins is able to be bestowed.

So the whole of the issue is the degree of the sin one commits. This is clearly explained in 1 John. There is a sin that one can commit that leads to death. But there are other sins that do not.

Indeed even when a knowledhe of Christ is gained, sin continues to be inevitable, because the degree of repentance is conditional on the degree of knowledge of God's law, and on our own understanding of our own actions. That is why believers do not go immediately to heaven upon first belief. The period of sanctification is vital to accomplishing perfection.

That is why suicide is sinful, because it inhibits sanctification. The sin that leads to death is an attitude which says "I will not be sanctified." This can arise by deliberate choice of bad over good. Cf the Corinthian man who married his father's wife. 1 Cor 5. God's love can only continue if we repent in such situations.

[headheart]

Now if you trample on that cross, no further sacrifice for sins is able to be bestowed.

Hi undead,

For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
(Hebrews 10:26-29)



Commentary: ?




Lovingly in Jesus,
Headheart.

God's love can only continue if we repent in such situations.

Dear undead,

I used to have a belief similar to yours, but I am more inclined to understand God's love as it is revealed in Christ, to be full of mercy and forgiveness. You have already declared your position in 'Mystical Union or Diabolical Confusion' to be far more severe than that of Jesus Christ, but then I aught to remember a sobering fact, "you are not Jesus Christ."

Headheart.

Side note: (retiring for surgery and to recuperate)

Dear Twebbers,

I am retiring from posting for eight days (a Beatle week), for that is the duration of my recovery after the Angioplasty, (tommorrow at 11.30am) and will hopefully return to posting once the brusing in my wrist has healed. It normally hurts like crazy after the pressure is applied to the artery in my wrist, so your prayers at this time will be greatly appreciated.

Nothing shall seperate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.

headheart.

[undead]

Dear undead,

I used to have a belief similar to yours, but I am more inclined to understand God's love as it is revealed in Christ, to be full of mercy and forgiveness. You have already declared your position in 'Mystical Union or Diabolical Confusion' to be far more severe than that of Jesus Christ, but then I aught to remember a sobering fact, "you are not Jesus Christ."

Headheart.

And who are you to usurp the beloved apostle of Jesus when he said:

1 Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

I would ask you to distinguish different kinds of sin. If you cannot do so, then I fail to see how you can claim belief in the bible.

[John Reece]

The subject of this thread is the question of whether or not a Christian may lose his/her salvation by committing enough vile acts to eventually exhaust the mercy of God.

The last post introduced into the thread the text of 1 John 5:16; however, neither the text nor the context of 1 John 5:16. is relevant to the question posed in the OP, because the 'sin that leads to death ([greek]amartia proV qanaton[/greek], ^hamartía pros thánaton) in 1 John 5:16. is not a sin committed by a Christian, nor is it apostasy on the part of a Christian.

From The Letters of John (TNTC), by John R. W. Stott:

Indeed, although the rendering is 'a mortal sin' in RSV and 'a deadly sin' in NEB, it is doubtful whether John is referring to specific 'sins' at all, as opposed to 'sin' (as in 1:8), that is, 'a state or habit of sin willfully chosen and persisted in' (Plummer). [....]. The second suggestion, favoured among modern commentators by Brooke, Law and Dodd, is that the sin that leads to death is neither a specific sin, nor even a 'backsliding', but a total apostasy, the denial of Christ and the renunciation of the faith. Those who hold this view usually link these verses with such passages as Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26ff., and 12:16-17, and apply them to the false teachers, who had, in fact, so clearly repudiated the truth as to withdraw from the church (2:19).

But can a Christian, who has been born of God, apostatize? Surely John has taught clearly in this letter that the true Christian cannot sin, that is, persist in sin (3:9), let alone fall away altogether. He is about to repeat it: 'we know that anyone born of God does not continue in sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him' (18). Can he who 'does not continue in sin' (18) commit a sin that leads to death (16)? Moreover, John has just written of having life (12) and knowing it (13). Can someone who has received life which is eternal lose it and 'sin unto death' (AV)? It seems clear, unless John's theology is divided against itself, that he who sins unto death is not a Christian. If so, the sin cannot be apostasy.

[undead]

The subject of this thread is the question of whether or not a Christian may lose his/her salvation by committing enough vile acts to eventually exhaust the mercy of God.

The last post introduced into the thread the text of 1 John 5:16; however, neither the text nor the context of 1 John 5:16. is relevant to the question posed in the OP, because the 'sin that leads to death ([greek]amartia proV qanaton[/greek], ^hamartía pros thánaton) in 1 John 5:16. is not a sin committed by a Christian, nor is it apostasy on the part of a Christian.

From The Letters of John (TNTC), by John R. W. Stott:

Indeed, although the rendering is 'a mortal sin' in RSV and 'a deadly sin' in NEB, it is doubtful whether John is referring to specific 'sins' at all, as opposed to 'sin' (as in 1:8), that is, 'a state or habit of sin willfully chosen and persisted in' (Plummer). [....]. The second suggestion, favoured among modern commentators by Brooke, Law and Dodd, is that the sin that leads to death is neither a specific sin, nor even a 'backsliding', but a total apostasy, the denial of Christ and the renunciation of the faith. Those who hold this view usually link these verses with such passages as Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26ff., and 12:16-17, and apply them to the false teachers, who had, in fact, so clearly repudiated the truth as to withdraw from the church (2:19).

But can a Christian, who has been born of God, apostatize? Surely John has taught clearly in this letter that the true Christian cannot sin, that is, persist in sin (3:9), let alone fall away altogether. He is about to repeat it: 'we know that anyone born of God does not continue in sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him' (18). Can he who 'does not continue in sin' (18) commit a sin that leads to death (16)? Moreover, John has just written of having life (12) and knowing it (13). Can someone who has received life which is eternal lose it and 'sin unto death' (AV)? It seems clear, unless John's theology is divided against itself, that he who sins unto death is not a Christian. If so, the sin cannot be apostasy.

This is meaningless word-play. All the guy is saying is that if you apostacize, you could not have been a 'brother' or a Christian to begin with, and that is how the person will be so regarded.

But whilst it is up to every individual to form their own judgment about such matters in respect of particular individuals, what cannot be denied (cf Parable of the Sower, Heb 10, King Saul) is that God can and does work in the minds and hearts of those who will apostacize, who may even partake of the Spirit of God:

"Heb 10:29 .... who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified."

John's letter is to 'brothers'. The opening remark is "if anyone see his brother." The context is a man's brothers in Christ. He is not talking about pagans here.

Mr. Stott seems is saying "apostacy is impossible". That is not biblical - see Hebrews 10;29. God does work in those who will not inherit eternal life. To pretend that he does not, is to limit God, and make Him out to be vindictive and partial.

[John Reece]

Stott (op.cit.) identifies the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit committed by a hardened unbeliever as the 'sin that leads to death':

But, it may be objected, if the 'sin leading to death' is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit committed by a hardened unbeliever, how can John call him a brother? To be exact, he does not. It is the one whose sin does not lead to death who is termed a brother; he whose sin leads to death is neither named nor described. Nevertheless, supposing John thinks of each as a brother, we must still assert that neither can be regarded as a child of God. The reasons for denying that he who sins "unto death" is a Christian have already been given [here]; what can be said about him whose sin does not lead to death? An important point, to which commentators surprisingly give no attention, is that he is given life in answer to prayer. This means that, although his sin does not lead to death, he is in fact dead, since he needs to be given life. For how can you give life to one who is already alive? This person is not a Christian, therefore, for Christians have received life, and do not fall into death when they fall into sin. True, 'life' to John means communion with God, and the sinning Christian cannot enjoy fellowship with God (1:5-6), but John would certainly not have said that when the Christian sins he dies and needs to receive eternal life again. The Christian has 'passed from death to life' (3:14; cf. Jn 5:24). Death and judgment are behind him; he 'has life' (12). He needs to be forgiven and cleansed (1:10), but John never says he needs to be 'quickened', 'made alive', or 'given life' all over again.

If this is so, then neither he whose sin leads to death nor he whose sin does not lead to death is a Christian, possessing eternal life. Both are 'dead in transgressions and sins' (Eph 2:1). Each 'remains in death' (3:14). The difference between them is that one may receive life through a Christian's intercession, while the other will die the second death. Spiritually dead, he will die eternally. Only such a serious state as this would lead John to say that he does not advise his readers to pray for such.

[undead]

Stott (op.cit.) identifies the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit committed by a hardened unbeliever as the 'sin that leads to death':

But, it may be objected, if the 'sin leading to death' is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit committed by a hardened unbeliever, how can John call him a brother? To be exact, he does not. It is the one whose sin does not lead to death who is termed a brother; he whose sin leads to death is neither named nor described. Nevertheless, supposing John thinks of each as a brother, we must still assert that neither can be regarded as a child of God. The reasons for denying that he who sins "unto death" is a Christian have already been given [here]; what can be said about him whose sin does not lead to death? An important point, to which commentators surprisingly give no attention, is that he is given life in answer to prayer. This means that, although his sin does not lead to death, he is in fact dead, since he needs to be given life. For how can you give life to one who is already alive? This person is not a Christian, therefore, for Christians have received life, and do not fall into death when they fall into sin. True, 'life' to John means communion with God, and the sinning Christian cannot enjoy fellowship with God (1:5-6), but John would certainly not have said that when the Christian sins he dies and needs to receive eternal life again. The Christian has 'passed from death to life' (3:14; cf. Jn 5:24). Death and judgment are behind him; he 'has life' (12). He needs to be forgiven and cleansed (1:10), but John never says he needs to be 'quickened', 'made alive', or 'given life' all over again.

If this is so, then neither he whose sin leads to death nor he whose sin does not lead to death is a Christian, possessing eternal life. Both are 'dead in transgressions and sins' (Eph 2:1). Each 'remains in death' (3:14). The difference between them is that one may receive life through a Christian's intercession, while the other will die the second death. Spiritually dead, he will die eternally. Only such a serious state as this would lead John to say that he does not advise his readers to pray for such.

This seems like complete tripe. It asserts that a Christian can never sin.

The phrase "leads to death" settles it. If the person was not originally alive, he could not be 'led to death' because he would already be dead. You cannot be led to death if you are dead.

[John Reece]

Stott concludes the comment begun here:

The question remains: How can someone who (if the above interpretation be correct) is not a Christian be termed a brother? The only answer is that John must here be using the word in a broader sense either of a 'neighbour' or a nominal Christian, a church member who professes to be a 'brother'. Certainly in 2:9, 11 the word 'brother' is not used strictly, for he who hates him is not a Christian at all but is 'in the darkness' . In 3:16-17 also the word seems to have this wider connotation, where we are bidden to lay down our lives 'for our brothers' and to supply the material necessities of a 'brother in need'. Since Christ died for the ungodly and his enemies, we can scarcely suppose that we are to limit our self-sacrifice and service exclusively to our Christian brothers and sisters, and to have compassion only upon them. Such a broader connotation of the word brother, implied also in the teaching of Jesus (Mt. 5:22-24; 7:3-5), 'arises not so much out of the character and standing of him whom you call your brother, as out of the nature of the affection with which you regard him' (Chandlish). This suggestion is supported by the somewhat similar passage in the letter of James (5:19-20).

We have further confirmation of the interpretation argued above if under the description of the sin that leads to death John is alluding, as many commentators believe, to the false teachers. In John's view they were not apostates; they were counterfeits. They were not true 'brothers' who had received eternal life and subsequently forfeited it. They were 'antichrists'. Denying the Son, they did not possess the Father (2:22-23; 2 Jn. 9). True, they had once been members of the visible congregation and had then no doubt passed as 'brothers'. But they went out, and by their withdrawal it was made evident that they 'did not really belong to us' (2:19). Since they rejected the Son, they forfeited life (5:12). Their sin did indeed lead to death.

[John Reece]

The phrase "leads to death" settles it. If the person was not originally alive, he could not be 'led to death' because he would already be dead. You cannot be led to death if you are dead.

Your assertion is based on the NIV (= the version used in Stott's TNTC commentary) rendering of [greek]amartia proV qanaton[/greek] (^hamartía pros thánaton); however, there is no verb in the Greek term, which does not necessarily support your assertion.

From The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia), by Georg Strecker (brackets added):

The concept of [greek]amartia proV qanaton[/greek] [is] unique in primitive Christian writings [...]. [...] the author uses this expression in a spiritualized sense, in terms of "eternal death," definitive exclusion from eschatological existence.

The term does not necessarily presuppose that the person sinning has the 'life' that is the antithesis of the 'death' referenced in the Greek term; rather, it simply indicates an absence of any prospect of ultimately avoiding 'definitive exclusion from eschatological existence', to use Strecker's terminology.

[undead]

True, they had once been members of the visible congregation and had then no doubt passed as 'brothers'.

Precisely. And that is all that matters, because when we speak of such people, we refer only to what is knowable about them. And if they pass as Christians, then they are Christians as far as we are concerned. And the reason why then can pass as Christians is because they are able to share in the gifts of God, just as every other person. For "God does not show favouritism".

[John Reece]

Precisely. And that is all that matters, because when we speak of such people, we refer only to what is knowable about them. And if they pass as Christians, then they are Christians as far as we are concerned. And the reason why then can pass as Christians is because they are able to share in the gifts of God, just as every other person. For "God does not show favouritism".

No, that is not all that matters; far from it.

The scripture was not written from our perspective; rather, it was written from the perspective of God, as expressed by the apostle John, so your comment about how "we speak of such people" is not decisive for a valid exegesis of the text.

[undead]

No, that is not all that matters; far from it.

The scripture was not written from our perspective; rather, it was written from the perspective of God, as expressed by the apostle John, so your comment about how "we speak of such people" is not decisive for a valid exegesis of the text.

I beg to differ. John was writing from the human perspective, which is the only legitimate perspective that there is, and certainly the only one that his audience could understand. Attempting to argue everything from God's perspective only really began with Augustine, and was carried on by Calvin and the hyper-Calvinists. The only thing that can be said about God's perspective is that he works out everything for his own ends, does not show favouritism in his dealings with men, and that Christ died for all men, and that those who wil inherit eternal life are predestined and foreknown.

Early Christianity is all about the human perspective. That is why it is much purer in a way than what passes for Christianity today, much of which is gnostic in character.

[John Reece]

John was writing from the human perspective, which is the only legitimate perspective that there is [...]. [...]. Early Christianity is all about the human perspective.

2 Corinthians 5:16—(RSV)

From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.

From The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC), by Murray J. Harris (brackets added):

[...] It seem better to treat [greek]ei kai[/greek] as introducing a real condition, depicting an actual situation of the past: "Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer" (RSV).

[...] So then, two basic and profound changes had been brought about in Paul's attitude as a result of his Damascus encounter with the risen Lord: he now recognized and proclaimed Jesus as Messiah and Lord [...]; he now viewed Gentile believers as Abraham's offspring, fellow citizens, brothers and sisters in Christ [...] while Jewish unbelievers were in need of salvation in Christ [...]. And these two changes were not unrelated. A new attitude toward Jesus Christ prompts a new outlook on those for whom Christ died [...]. When we come to share God's view of Christ [...], we also gain his view of people in General.

[headheart]

The subject of this thread is the question of whether or not a Christian may lose his/her salvation by committing enough vile acts to eventually exhaust the mercy of God.

Thank-you.

Praise Jesus! The angioplasty was successful and though I am home, I am going to watch the progress of this thread (from a distance) as I have been told to take it easy for a week.

I hope that there will be a more scholarly presentation of the primary thrust of the contra-argument. It is one that has kept many a believer in the woods and I guess this is no exception.

Lovingly in Christ,
Headheart.