On forgiveness of sins and loss of salvation.

[squirrelyguy]

I recently had a conversation with a man at church who might be one of the most hard-core dispensationalists I've ever met. He caught me off guard by saying "1 John 1:9 has done more harm to the body of Christ than anything else!" I didn't say anything because I was taken aback by the irreverence of his statement, but then he continued by saying something to the effect that 1 John, along with the rest of the New Testament except for Paul's epistles were not written to us as Gentiles. Therefore, he reasoned, it cannot be true that we Christians today need to confess our sins in order to be forgiven. In his reasoning, faith alone is necessary for salvation, and this excludes the need for confessing our sins.

Now I have some thoughts on this:

1. I think he correctly perceives a "contradiction" in the New Testament on this. I want to emphasize that I put the word "contradiction" in quotes because I don't think there truly is any contradiction; the only "contradiction" that we have is a result of our inadequate theology.

2. Here is the "contradiction" that we have: confessing our sins as a means of receiving God's forgiveness seems, on the surface, to be a matter of eternal salvation. Thus we tie ourselves in knots trying to explain how this conforms to the idea of salvation by grace through faith alone. Confession of sins, like forgiving our neighbor, is not just a matter of having faith in Christ. It's not a work (at least not in any meritorious sense), but neither is it faith. It's something other than faith or works. It's a third option.

3. Now as for the interpretation of 1 John 1:9, I see at least two ways of interpreting it. One way is to say that we lose our salvation every time we sin pending our confession of that sin. I don't think there's any way to harmonize such a notion with the whole of the New Testament. The second way that I see is that forgiveness of sins, for the Christian, is not a matter of eternal life or eternal death. Rather, it is something more like restoring a relationship between a father and a son (or daughter). Just as the prodigal son injured his relationship with his father by departing for his life of hedonism and squandering his possessions, so the Christian who carries around unconfessed sins has a broken relationship with his/her Heavenly Father. The practical consequence of unconfessed sin is that we live outside of the natural protection afforded to us in this world by being in a right relationship with the Father. Like the prodigal son before he repented, we are left to fend for ourselves, desiring to eat the pods that the pigs feed on for want. Confession results in the Father welcoming us back into his protective covering where we have food enough to spare and are well clothed. (Don't think prosperity gospel).

4. I think this latter interpretation harmonizes well with the whole of New Testament theology, and it doesn't resort to declaring half of the NT to be irrelevant for Christians today.

5. I also think it's within the realm of possibilities to suppose that unconfessed sin turns into a liability for the Christian at the return of Christ. That is, when the Bible warns about being found naked, having defiled garments, having no oil in our lamps, etc. it is warning not about eternal damnation, but about the prospect of being made ashamed at Christ's return and even cast out of the wedding feast and/or disinherited for the final thousand years of world history.

 

[ReverendRV]

I recently had a conversation with a man at church who might be one of the most hard-core dispensationalists I've ever met. He caught me off guard by saying "1 John 1:9 has done more harm to the body of Christ than anything else!" I didn't say anything because I was taken aback by the irreverence of his statement, but then he continued by saying something to the effect that 1 John, along with the rest of the New Testament except for Paul's epistles were not written to us as Gentiles. Therefore, he reasoned, it cannot be true that we Christians today need to confess our sins in order to be forgiven. In his reasoning, faith alone is necessary for salvation, and this excludes the need for confessing our sins.

Now I have some thoughts on this:

1. I think he correctly perceives a "contradiction" in the New Testament on this. I want to emphasize that I put the word "contradiction" in quotes because I don't think there truly is any contradiction; the only "contradiction" that we have is a result of our inadequate theology.

2. Here is the "contradiction" that we have: confessing our sins as a means of receiving God's forgiveness seems, on the surface, to be a matter of eternal salvation. Thus we tie ourselves in knots trying to explain how this conforms to the idea of salvation by grace through faith alone. Confession of sins, like forgiving our neighbor, is not just a matter of having faith in Christ. It's not a work (at least not in any meritorious sense), but neither is it faith. It's something other than faith or works. It's a third option.

3. Now as for the interpretation of 1 John 1:9, I see at least two ways of interpreting it. One way is to say that we lose our salvation every time we sin pending our confession of that sin. I don't think there's any way to harmonize such a notion with the whole of the New Testament. The second way that I see is that forgiveness of sins, for the Christian, is not a matter of eternal life or eternal death. Rather, it is something more like restoring a relationship between a father and a son (or daughter). Just as the prodigal son injured his relationship with his father by departing for his life of hedonism and squandering his possessions, so the Christian who carries around unconfessed sins has a broken relationship with his/her Heavenly Father. The practical consequence of unconfessed sin is that we live outside of the natural protection afforded to us in this world by being in a right relationship with the Father. Like the prodigal son before he repented, we are left to fend for ourselves, desiring to eat the pods that the pigs feed on for want. Confession results in the Father welcoming us back into his protective covering where we have food enough to spare and are well clothed. (Don't think prosperity gospel).

4. I think this latter interpretation harmonizes well with the whole of New Testament theology, and it doesn't resort to declaring half of the NT to be irrelevant for Christians today.

5. I also think it's within the realm of possibilities to suppose that unconfessed sin turns into a liability for the Christian at the return of Christ. That is, when the Bible warns about being found naked, having defiled garments, having no oil in our lamps, etc. it is warning not about eternal damnation, but about the prospect of being made ashamed at Christ's return and even cast out of the wedding feast and/or disinherited for the final thousand years of world history.

It's good to believe that All Scripture is Good for Doctrine, for Reproof, Correction and for instruction in Righteousness; that the Man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every Good Work...

This was the first Sermon I ever heard when I first went to the first Reformed Baptist Church I went to 🤔 ; and I'm so glad it was...

 

[squirrelyguy]

On the idea that Christians can be disinherited by Christ at His return and how we can mitigate against that possibility, see the parable of the unrighteous steward in Luke 16:1-13. If we take that parable at face value, then the lesson is that by doing good deeds to our fellow Christians in this lifetime, some of them might speak up on our behalf and welcome us into their own inheritance if we find ourselves on the verge of being disinherited by Christ at His return.

I think this same idea is expressed in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. When the wise virgins tell the foolish to "go to those who sell, and buy for yourselves", it's talking about the need of many Christians at Christ's return to make up for what they lack by obtaining "something" from other Christians who are in a position to help them.

 

[ReverendRV]

On the idea that Christians can be disinherited by Christ at His return and how we can mitigate against that possibility, see the parable of the unrighteous steward in Luke 16:1-13. If we take that parable at face value, then the lesson is that by doing good deeds to our fellow Christians in this lifetime, some of them might speak up on our behalf and welcome us into their own inheritance if we find ourselves on the verge of being disinherited by Christ at His return.

I think this same idea is expressed in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. When the wise virgins tell the foolish to "go to those who sell, and buy for yourselves", it's talking about the need of many Christians at Christ's return to make up for what they lack by obtaining "something" from other Christians who are in a position to help them.

Ask @civic about this stuff because he's a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist like John Macarthur Jr. I've never been able to understand PreMill Dispy Eschatology. I know you're not EXACTLY wanting to talk Eschatology here, but want to talk about Dispensational Soteriology...

 

[squirrelyguy]

Ask @civic about this stuff because he's a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist like John Macarthur Jr. I've never been able to understand PreMill Dispy Eschatology. I know you're not EXACTLY wanting to talk Eschatology here, but want to talk about Dispensational Soteriology...

I think the problem with bringing MacArthur's beliefs into this is that he doesn't believe there is such a thing as a carnal Christian. Therefore, any parable of Jesus that warns about something undesirable at the end of the age is necessarily applicable only to unbelievers.

 

[ReverendRV]

I think the problem with bringing MacArthur's beliefs into this is that he doesn't believe there is such a thing as a carnal Christian. Therefore, any parable of Jesus that warns about something undesirable at the end of the age is necessarily applicable only to unbelievers.

I don't know, ask him. Only Systematic Theology, Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology make sense to me. Y'all can have a good conversation...

Maybe I can learn something...

 

[eternomade]

In his reasoning, faith alone is necessary for salvation, and this excludes the need for confessing our sins.

He's pretty close. Those in Christ are already forgiven. It's not their faith that saves them but rather Christ had already died. Confession, forgiveness and reconciliation are important in the life of a believer but has no effect on eternity.

I agree with your 3-5

 

[ReverendRV]

It's good to believe that All Scripture is Good for Doctrine, for Reproof, Correction and for instruction in Righteousness; that the Man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every Good Work...

This was the first Sermon I ever heard when I first went to the first Reformed Baptist Church I went to 🤔 ; and I'm so glad it was...

Regarding your friend @squirrelyguy , use 2nd Timothy 3:16 on him. It applies to the Man of God, so he cannot avoid but to apply it to the Jew and Gentile Man of God within the Church. Like I said, the Verse is the first thing I learned in my Reformed Baptist Church; and I consider it THE Hermeneutic of all Hermeneutics. Back then I heard that some Arab Nations would only allow you to bring in one Verse to their Country, so I told myself it would have to be 2nd Timothy 3:16...

But for anyone who wants to Segregate Scripture like that, it's the perfect Apology against that; because there is now only One Man of God, not Two...

 

[squirrelyguy]

Regarding your friend @squirrelyguy , use 2nd Timothy 3:16 on him. It applies to the Man of God, so he cannot avoid but to apply it to the Jew and Gentile Man of God within the Church. Like I said, the Verse is the first thing I learned in my Reformed Baptist Church; and I consider it THE Hermeneutic of all Hermeneutics. Back then I heard that some Arab Nations would only allow you to bring in one Verse to their Country, so I told myself it would have to be 2nd Timothy 3:16...

But for anyone who wants to Segregate Scripture like that, it's the perfect Apology against that; because there is now only One Man of God, not Two...

Well I suspect that he would respond by comparing the general epistles to something like the OT dietary laws; although it's Scripture and it's profitable for our use, it doesn't mean it applies to Christians today in any meaningful way.

 

[ReverendRV]

Dispensationalist tend to want to manufacture elaborate scenarios to explain verses that contradict their theology. I had a friend for over 30 years that I finally decided to tell him where he was wrong with Dispensationalism. I spent half an hour dismantling what he believed and he finally told me to shut up. That it didn't matter what I said. That he had heard enough. I don't know the hours I've sat and listen to this man say the same things over and over again without saying one word to the contrary. It didn't take but 30 mins to end our friendship. I still care for him deeply but he avoids me now.

I only said this to say that we serve our Lord Jesus Christ. You'll find this life is designed to challenge our loyalty to Him. He is what matters. Pleasing Him will cure all our problems even if it creates a little discomfort in our own lives.

I respect Christians like Civic and Macarthur, so I bow out of the discussion and will Lurk; probably will ask a question or two...

 

[ReverendRV]

Well I suspect that he would respond by comparing the general epistles to something like the OT dietary laws; although it's Scripture and it's profitable for our use, it doesn't mean it applies to Christians today in any meaningful way.

You know me; I could get through to him by using it. Try it...