Chapter Overview

We will address the standard teaching today that states repentance is not a turning from sin or a condition of salvation. This falsehood is pervasive. We will examine the teachings of these men.

• Charles Stanley
• Charles C. Ryrie
• John MacArthur

The truth is that repentance is a condition of salvation, and it involves turning away from all sin to serve God through faith. Repentance includes restitution. When was the last time you heard or read anything about the requirement of restitution? I will provide biblical and philosophical evidence to support my thesis that restitution and repentance are essential conditions for salvation.[1]

In closing, I bring all of this together with a lengthy quote from Ezekiel chapter 33. This passage will support everything I have taught throughout this book. In addressing the concept of unconditional salvation, I will devote a significant amount of time to discussing sin and its consequences in the life of a believer. I will pose many questions that a serious Christian should answer for themselves. These are questions of monumental proportions and eternal consequences.

Repentance and Restitution

When was the last time you heard a Pastor indicate that forgiveness and pardon are conditioned on repentance, which includes restitution? I would have no problem believing you have never heard about the necessity of repentance, let alone restitution. I have never attended a church that even taught on the subject of restitution. Over the years, I have attended numerous churches and read a wide range of religious books.

THE FALSEHOOD = REPENTANCE, WHICH LEADS TO SALVATION, IS A CHANGE OF MIND ONLY AND DOES NOT IMPLY THE FORESAKING OF SIN. REPENTANCE OR TURNING FROM SIN IS NOT A CONDITION OF SALVATION.

Charles Stanley

            In the last chapter on eternal security, I covered the subject of repentance as taught by Charles Stanley. He doesn’t believe repentance is a condition or necessarily a fruit of salvation. In other words, the saved may never repent of their sins, but they are still going to heaven. Salvation may have nothing to do with forgoing the pleasures of sin, according to him. I am not trying to be argumentative, but isn’t that what Satan wants you to believe?

“And I will winnow them with a winnowing fork at the gates of the land; I will bereave them of children, I will destroy My people; They did not repent of their ways” Jeremiah 15:7.

            The Jews, God’s people, like Stanley and others, didn’t see repentance as a condition for salvation and God’s favor. Their destruction was horrific. If you can’t recall the story of Jerusalem’s fall, you might want to refresh your memory. Words can’t capture how terrible the scene was, with death from famine, disease, the sword, or even family members turning on each other in cannibalism! What do you think awaits God’s people who continue to refuse to repent? Could it be that sinful Christians and Jews are destroyed and still sent to heaven? Maybe they are saved through fire, even now. Does it seem like Jeremiah 15:7 makes repentance optional? Or do you believe that repentance was necessary back then but not today?

Charles C. Ryrie

            Mr. Ryrie writes that we only have a correct understanding of repentance when we see repentance and faith as synonymous. If we view repentance as a turning away from sin to be saved, it is a false condition for salvation, according to Ryrie. He is wrong again, dead wrong. Up to and including the moment of initial salvation, we come as we are, practicing and habitual sinners in need of forgiveness and cleansing. But after we are forgiven and cleansed (born again), we walk as new creatures, sinners who have ceased from the practice of sin. If we are not sanctified, then we are not saved. If we continue to live in sin, then we are not saved. That may sound harsh, but to those who know the Word of God, it is simply His truth.

            Surrendering to the lordship of Christ is a false addition to the conditions of salvation, according to Ryrie. Surrendering to the Lordship of Christ is a condition of full discipleship, not of salvation, but it should follow salvation.[2] Elsewhere, he has said repentance is a change of mind, which bears fruit in a changed life. That sounds like repentance (turning from sin) is a condition of salvation. But does Ryrie believe that? Try to make sense of what he really thinks, for I find it difficult to understand. On the one hand, Ryrie believes that repentance will bear fruit in a changed life, and on the other hand, he states that it’s not a condition of salvation. Therefore, repentance from sin must be optional with respect to salvation.

What does Ryrie mean that repentance will bear fruit in a changed life? Does it mean we will make Christ the Lord of our lives? Not according to him. Lordship is a condition of full discipleship, not salvation. Therefore, we can be half-hearted followers of Christ, and that is acceptable. Does it mean we stop sinning? No, not necessarily. It might mean we sin a little less, but it doesn’t necessarilymean that. Ryrie is trying to maintain that repentance is part of salvation while he emasculates it. Repentance becomes just a synonym for faithless faith. His repentance is an empty notion, a cistern without water.

Too bad John the Baptist and Jesus never knew that repentance was a synonym for faith, for they could have shortened their message of ‘repent and believe’ to ‘believe.’ Furthermore, the faith that Ryrie espouses doesn’t mean we yield to all the will of God. His faith means that we trust Christ paid the penalty for our sins, regardless of whether we continue to commit them. His faith doesn’t mean we trust Christ to run our lives by submitting obediently to His will. We can withhold that facet of trust and still exercise saving faith according to Mr. Ryrie. We can be genuine believers and not be disciples of Christ. Pretend for a moment that you are the number one enemy of God. Now, let me know if you can come up with a better deception than this faith without virtue that Ryrie, Stanley, and other advocates of eternal security promote. I take no pleasure in such statements. It may even take something more substantial to awaken us.

John MacArthur

            Mr. MacArthur does a good job comparing the various views on essential Christian doctrines, including the doctrine of repentance. The three applicable views are: Lordship, no-lordship, and radical no-lordship.

The Lordship view is that, “The gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance. Repentance is turning from sin. It is not a work but a divinely bestowed grace. Repentance is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well.”

No-lordship view is that, “Repentance is a change of mind about Christ. In the context of the gospel invitation, repentance is often seen as a synonym for faith. No turning from sin is required for salvation.”

The radical no-lordship view is that “Repentance is not essential to the gospel message. In no sense is repentance related to saving faith.”[3]

            While I must completely reject both the no-lordship and radical no-lordship views, I am not sure I can entirely agree with MacArthur’s lordship view. I agree that repentance involves turning away from sin. But he goes on to state, “It is not a work but a divinely bestowed grace.” He makes it sound like God decides who will and who will not repent. Also, he makes it sound like it’s a work that God does while we wait passively for Him to change us. If it’s a divinely bestowed grace yet we are not changed, then it must be God’s fault, or we must have the ability to resist His grace. If we can resist His grace, then it’s a work or condition we must comply with to accept and cooperate with His grace. Why does the author talk about it in this way? I believe MacArthur is afraid of suggesting we do any work, thus becoming a legalist, and that he is forced into this statement. But as Sproul has correctly said ‘Is not faith a good work? Surely it isn’t a bad work.’ Like Sproul, MacArthur is a strong Calvinist (a five-point Calvinist) who believes that God decrees whatever comes to pass, both good and evil. That explains his position that faith is a gift, not something we must do as a condition of our own salvation.

            Did Jesus command us to make decisions or make disciples? Did He suggest that a momentary act of faith was what He was looking for? Can a person be a true believer but not a disciple? What is a disciple? Are they not supposed to be the same thing?

            The author believes we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, it is a gift of God that no man may boast, Ephesians 2:8-9. I agree. Salvation is of God. But that doesn’t mean there are no conditions to salvation. It does mean that God alone made a way for sinners to be forgiven if we will meet the conditions. Even MacArthur appears to believe we must personally exercise faith, which is a condition of salvation that rests on our shoulders. Is that what he really thought? But he maintains faith is a divinely bestowed gift as well. Again, he makes it sound like God decides who will and who will not believe. And that is actually what he thinks and teaches. Notice how well he keeps his absolute position hidden so that he can appear to be sensible and reasonable. Sproul does believe God is the source, and his theology remains consistent throughout. Semi-Calvinists, such as Stanley, Ryrie, and others, have adopted a very inconsistent and illogical theology.

            At least MacArthur is attempting to defend a gospel that produces righteousness. Ryrie, Stanley, and many other advocates of eternal security are destroying a righteous gospel, which I believe is the one true gospel.[4] The no-lordship and radical no-lordship ideas are permeated throughout. I genuinely believe they are doctrines of demons. I honestly don’t know how Satan could improve on these ideas. I don’t think Ryrie and Stanley are evil men, nor do I think they are intentionally destroying the gospel. I believe the very best about them and assume they love God with all their hearts. At the same time, I think they’re damaging the gospel. They must reject my teaching as well. What I write is either right or wrong. It’s either true or false. Let me shock you again and say that truth isn’t relative and all ideas aren’t equal. Some ideas are diabolical. You will need to decide if what I am writing is true. Please don’t just take my word for this; check it out for yourself. Search the Bible, think about these ideas, and hold fast to the truth. Correct me if I am wrong. Faithful are the wounds of a friend. Will you accept correction? Will Ryrie, Stanley, and MacArthur?   

The truth = Repentance is a condition of salvation. It means to turn from all sin to obey God, and it includes restitution.

            Repentance, a condition of salvation, means not only a change of mind but also a change of heart, a turning from self to God. If this is not the essential meaning of this idea in the Bible, then I am truly out of my mind. Or I am entirely ignorant of the Bible. How anyone can read the Word of God and not understand this is beyond me. When faith is correctly understood, we know it means submitting to all the truth of God. Stanley doesn’t view faith as a submission to all the truth of God and His demands of us. He believes saving faith is the acceptance of a self-serving truth about Christ, which is incomplete and eternally deficient.

            The doctrine of repentance implies many things. It includes hatred for and rejection of sin in ourselves and others, an admission of our own guilt, an acknowledgement and agreement that we deserve eternal death, and acknowledgment that God is right and we are wrong, and so forth. It also implies a willingness to make restitution. This is what I want to focus on in this chapter. I call this a forgotten truth, for I have never heard it preached or seen it written about in contemporary theology. Restitution is a crucial component of repentance, faith, and love.

            When I first got right with God, I knew I must make restitution as I was able. I had not yet read about it in the Bible, nor was I taught it in the churches I attended. I just knew I must make restitution. My moral rational nature, given to me by God, told me that I must make this right and provide restitution. I set about to do it. Needless to say, it was a challenging experience. I made it easier by doing some of it anonymously, hoping that would ease my conscience. And it did for a few years. I am disappointed the evangelical church didn’t teach me what I should do. I had to figure it out on my own. It never occurred to me that making restitution would earn me salvation and God’s forgiveness. However, I knew it must be a condition of being forgiven, saved, and being a disciple of Jesus Christ. Restitution was proof that my repentance and faith are genuine, nothing more or less. Growing up in the Christian faith, under dispensational semi-Calvinism,[5] restitution wasn’t taught. Even the doctrine of repentance was neglected. As I read the Word of God, I gained a deeper understanding of the requirement for restitution.

            A few years later, after spending a considerable amount of time studying the Bible and the central doctrines of the Christian faith, I began to struggle with what I had been taught. Eventually, I rejected most of what I was taught, including the doctrine of eternal security, which I loved. After reading the last chapter, you will probably find the following statement even harder to believe, but it is the truth. It was almost harder for me to give up eternal security than to get right with God in the first place. It was an intense struggle. I spent a considerable amount of time seeking God in fasting and prayer. I came to understand that my feeble attempt to make restitution was just that, a weak attempt. I knew I must do most of it all over again and do it personally this time. That was one of the most difficult and humbling experiences of my life. It was a test. Did I love God enough to humble myself before others and admit the truth? I promised to do it. God came down. I did make restitution. It was a long and involved process for I was evil.

            Most churches, as far as I know, don’t teach the need to make restitution as part of repentance. Some people do it because they know without being told that it is required. Surprisingly, I had an alcoholic come to my office one day to make restitution as part of his healing. I was very blessed, and I think he was too. I wish I had similar stories of professing Christians who have made amends for past sins. How could the Righteous Judge of the universe dismiss the principle of restitution? In the following story, I hope to illustrate the absurdity of claiming that restitution is not a condition of justice, love, faith, and salvation.

A Story

            Rebekah was found guilty of theft from a neighbor’s house. She stole money, jewelry, and clothing. The judge sentenced her for her crime. When the neighbor inquired about the stolen goods, which were still in her possession, the judge said she didn’t need to return them.

            Can you imagine such a ridiculous scene? Who would view this as justice? Now imagine the judge suspends her sentence because Rebekah declares she is sorry for her crimes and promises not to steal anymore. Now, what would you think of the judge if he didn’t require her to return the stolen property? What would you feel about her professed repentance if she didn’t volunteer to return the stolen property? What if she flat-out refused to return the stolen property? Would you believe she was genuinely repentant in either case?

            In Christian churches, we are told the Righteous Judge of the universe doesn’t require that we return stolen property. Most often, nothing at all is said. We are told, by silence from the pulpit or directly, that we can be saved and keep what was stolen. Apparently, what is nonsense in the secular world is real in the spiritual realm.

            Someone might claim they didn’t know about the necessity of restitution. Will God condemn you for that? No, He will not, if you genuinely didn’t know. But now that you do know what your response is? Will you make restitution, to the extent possible, now that you know what God requires? If not, then you must be certain that you are not genuinely repentant. Consequently, you can by no means be forgiven and pardoned while you refuse the conditions of your justification. Biblical evidence for the doctrine of restitution is presented below.

Leviticus 6:1-5

“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and deceives his companion in regards to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, of if he has extorted from his companion, or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things a man may do; then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full, and add to it one-fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering” Leviticus 6:1-5.

            Specific Old Testament laws are no longer applicable today for several reasons. What about this statute? Doesn’t it contain a universally perpetual moral law? I think it is clear, and it remains applicable today. I will provide New Testament evidence for those who are yet undecided.

            Referring to the passage above, all this was required before that person would be forgiven. This principle is repeated throughout the Old Testament. But what about the New Testament? Does it refer to the doctrine of restitution? In Luke 19, we have the story of Zacchaeus.

“And Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much. And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” Luke 19:8-10.

            Would Jesus have made that statement if Zacchaeus refused to restore what he had defrauded others of? Someone might suggest the thief on the cross was promised eternal life when he didn’t do anything but believe. The thief certainly didn’t make restitution. While all that is true, do you argue that the thief had saving faith if he was taken down from the cross and allowed to live, but then refused to restore what he had stolen? He could do nothing but believe, for he was about to die. If you are about to die and are unable to make this right, then don’t worry about making restitution.

            Equally important, Christ taught the principle of love. How is it possible to love our neighbors as ourselves when we refuse to return what we have stolen from our neighbor? It’s not possible. If we refuse to admit what we have done and then return what we have stolen, we make a mockery of loving our neighbor. Can such a person be a Christian? Most teachers in “Israel” today, including Stanley and Ryrie, would say yes. What do you think?

Ezekiel 33

            Let me bring everything together with the message found in the Book of Ezekiel. This passage supports the ideas I have presented throughout this entire book. It addresses eternal security, imputed righteousness, ability, repentance, and restitution. You can dispel it if you like, but that will not change the truth. This passage sums up what it means to love God supremely and our neighbor equally. As you know, that is the central message of both the Old and New Testaments. There is really no way to avoid the truth but to believe what is false. The following passage is lengthy but crucial. Please read it carefully.

“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his wicked way and live. Turn back, turn back, from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’ “And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, “The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.’ “When I say to the righteous, he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed, he will die. “But when I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die” and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, if the wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he will not die. “None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has practiced justice and righteousness; he will surely live. “Yet your fellow citizens say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right’, when it is their own way that is not right. “When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them. “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways” Ezekiel. 33:11-20.

            It’s all right here in this passage: a false sense of security, ability and free will, the consequences of sin, the necessity of repentance and restitution. Ezekiel proclaims that repentance, which includes restitution, restores our relationship (not just fellowship) with God and our neighbor. The gospel, according to much contemporary evangelical theology, guts all of these essential doctrines. It leaves us with the empty notion of trusting that Christ paid for our sins while we remain enemies of God and our neighbor. Yet we are still saved. In all kindness, could Satan have thought of a better way to deceive the religious?

ABILITY AND FREE WILL

            What do you think about this passage in Ezekiel? Does it say anything about our ability to obey God? Does it imply free will or a will that is in complete bondage? Read this and decide, “But when I say to the wicked you shall surely die and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness….he will surely live” Ezekiel 33:14. This was written to the wicked. God clearly declares that evil people can turn from the practice of sin to the practice of justice and righteousness. Not even the slightest hint of inability and free will so totally depraved, that it couldn’t obey the law of God. Just the opposite is conveyed to the open mind and teachable soul.

APPLICABILITY OF THE LAW

            Let’s assume the Law of Moses has been done away with and replaced with the letter/law of Christ. Please tell me how this passage (Ezekiel 33:11-20) would be rewritten to reflect this new law. What would be changed? Would he say the thief didn’t need to return what was stolen? Would love refuse to do these things? Is it unkind of me to say that only a deceived person could believe that love would allow the wicked to continue in sin against God and our neighbor? Doesn’t the second law of love, love your neighbor as yourself, demand that we return what we have stolen from our neighbor? It does. Doesn’t the first law of love, to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, demand that we break off from what hurts God, which is our sinning? You don’t need me to answer these questions.

JUSTIFICATION, IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND IMPUTED OBEDIENCE

            Is there any hint of innocence in this passage? Does Ezekiel give any suggestion that justification is a verdict of not guilty? Ezekiel proclaims that when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, then all his sins will be forgotten. He says nothing about the evil being declared not guilty. He teaches that repentance leads to salvation, and the guilty are set free. The guilty is not declared innocent or not guilty.

            Ezekiel makes no mention of the Savior’s obedience being imputed to the wicked to compensate for their sins, does he? No, he doesn’t. He clearly states that the wicked must turn from sin and practice righteousness personally. There is not even the remotest suggestion that someone else’s obedience could be used to satisfy God and the law instead of the obedience of that person. It definitely doesn’t imply that God would see Christ’s obedience and not the disobedience of the wicked. Ezekiel declares that God will judge “each of you according to his ways,” not the ways of Christ or some other substitute, Ezekiel 33:20.

“Son of man, if a country sins against Me by committing unfaithfulness, and I stretch out My hand against it, destroy its supply of bread, send famine against it, and cut off from it both man and beast, even though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver themselves,” declares the Lord God” Ezekiel 14:14.

 It’s stated explicitly that these three heroes of the faith could not impute their righteousness or obedience to the unfaithful. Doesn’t this convey the idea of personal responsibility? Isn’t personal responsibility everywhere assumed and implied in the Bible? Doesn’t the idea that God sees Christ’s obedience and not our sin destroy the concept of individual responsibility? Yes, yes, and amen.

AM I GUILTY FOR ADAM’S SIN?

            This passage doesn’t directly address this topic. But part of this dogma is that we inherit a totally depraved nature from Adam as a result of being just as guilty as he for his sin. As I just mentioned, did it sound like Ezekiel thought the wicked too depraved to be able to turn from their wickedness? If he did, he indeed hid it well. The concept of personal responsibility is clearly evident in this section of scripture, as seen in Ezekiel 14:14.

ETERNAL SECURITY (Unconditional Salvation-once saved always saved)

            According to this doctrine, the unrighteous “righteous” can never die eternally. God speaks through Ezekiel, “When I say to the righteous, he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die” Ezekiel 33:13. Does it sound like the righteous were eternally secure? Does it sound like he was unconditionally loved and unconditionally saved? Not at all.

            I am not trying to be contentious, but doesn’t the doctrine of eternal security encourage us to “so trust in our righteousness” (the false imputed kind) that we carelessly and presumptuously commit iniquity? There can be no doubt about this. Then we are assured that we shall not die. Sounds like what Satan told Eve. Satan first got Eve to doubt the plain truth by putting a question in her mind, “Hath God really said you will die when you sin?” First the doubt, then the lie, as Satan told Eve, “You surely shall not die” the day when you sin against God, Genesis 3:4. This is being replayed in our day under the teaching of once saved always saved in precisely the same way, first the doubt, then the lie.

            How often could the righteous in this passage sin before they would die? Maybe Stanley is correct; a near-endless amount of sin will not separate professing Christians from God. What does the passage declare? “And you son of man, say to your fellow citizens, “The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression…whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin” Ezekiel 33:12 emphasis added. I really don’t know how to improve upon this word. It’s written, a righteous man dies the very day he sins. Please notice the clarifying emphasis, “in the day” coupled with “on the day” all within the same verse. It really couldn’t be clearer what the author was saying.  I know some will say this is an Old Testament principle and it no longer applies. Explain this passage away if you will, but it will not change the apparent meaning. Very few seem willing to accept this statement as it is written. All too often, the plain meaning is interpreted away. Try something new for a change. Don’t think about what this means to you personally. Now reread this section and let it speak for itself. 

Many of us seek a word from God, but this word is not what most of us have in mind. First, the doubt;

1. about the timing (the day) and the,
2. consequence (eternal death), and then,
3. the lie of eternal security, that sin will not immediately condemn you when you commit it. This has always been the doctrine of the god of this world.

How many Christians, especially those of an Arminian persuasion[6], question the meaning of the Word of God spoken to Adam when He declared that Adam would die, “the day” he ate of the forbidden fruit? Yet when it comes to the same expression in Ezekiel, “the day,” we aren’t to take it literally. It now means that at some unknown date in the future, our sins will catch up to us and we will die. But in Genesis, we are to take it literally. Could it be that Adam was a unique case? Adam died for one sin on the very day he committed it, but we die when we commit more than one sin, possibly a great many sins, at some future unknowable date. Is it unreasonable of me to doubt the accuracy of this interpretation?

            I believe my next point is impossible to refute. In this passage from Ezekiel 33, we also have the promise that the wicked will be pardoned “in the day” when they turn from their sin and practice justice and righteousness. On the very day the wicked repent of sin, they are forgiven and will not stumble because of past sins. What a beautiful promise, “in the day” we repent, we are saved!  I can’t believe anyone would disagree with this truth that the wicked are forgiven “the very day” they repent, not at some future unknown date or after some indeterminable amount of justice and righteousness has been practiced. The very day they turn from their sin, they are forgiven. Now, can this same expression “in the day” mean something different for the righteous person who turns from righteousness and starts to sin? No way!

            Although I believe it is impossible to refute the above point, I understand that some may disregard my comments and refuse to accept them. Therefore, please allow me to pose a few questions for your consideration.

The reason this discussion is critical is that most people, including professing Christian’s, seek to get by with the absolute minimum. If they can get away with some sin, that is what they want to hear. But don’t tell them how much sin it is; it’s much better not to know and leave it open-ended. It is said that we are all imperfect and that we all fall short and sin every day. For if that is true, then we all must be safe. If they can delay repentance for an hour, a week, a month, or a year, they will wait until the last minute to repent. The following questions about sin and its consequences are of critical importance. Our carnal natures want to minimize the amount of self-denial we must put into practice. If your theology allows you to hold back anything from God, then you are deceived. God will not be mocked.

 Is it possible to live without sinning for one whole minute? Who would deny that this is possible? How about one hour? If we can live without sinning for one hour, can we live without sinning for an entire day? Or must we sin every hour of every day in thought, word, and deed?[7] Before I became a disciple of Christ, three sins characterized my life. By the truth and grace of God, I have not committed these sins in many years. If a person can live for years without committing three sins, can a person live for years without committing more than three sins? Or are we doomed to be incorrigible sinners? Is the blood of Christ adequate to cleanse, not white wash, us from all unrighteousness or not?

            How many times have you heard this portion of God’s Word, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?” Romans 3:23. We are told that we must take this passage literally, even though we know that Jesus, a real man in every sense of the word, is an exception. All doesn’t mean everyone.[8] Yet with respect to this passage in Ezekiel, we are not to take the expression “in the day” literally. It doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It means that only Adam died the day he sinned. On the one hand, we know that the very real man, Jesus, is an exception to the statement “all have sinned,” and on the other hand, all of us “Christians” are exceptions to the statement “a righteous man dies the day he sins,” and only Adam and Eve died the day they sinned. Does this make any sense at all? Or am I just splitting hairs?

Is God harsh?

            For some Christians, it seems unbelievably harsh of God to let us damn ourselves for sin on the day we commit it. It seems unreasonable, unfair, and unkind. Is God really like that? As you are aware, I have been advocating for the proper use of reason and logic throughout this book. But remember that reason must always give way to the clear teaching of God’s Word. It’s the foundation. Let’s let the Word instruct us, as hard as it will be, to consider the following facts.

Was God too harsh in the destruction of the Philistines when entire families were killed under His direct orders? Was God too harsh, unfair, and unkind in the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem when women and children were brutally slaughtered? By the way, how many sins did those infants commit? What about the flood on the day of Noah when only eight people were saved? How many young people perished in the flood? Are you in a position to criticize and judge God and declare that He was too harsh? We can be sure of this. God is so wonderful, kind, holy, and just that He had no other viable option, or He would not have destroyed the world.

            Many Christians mistakenly think the New Covenant is more lenient than the Old Covenant. Isn’t that the difference between the two testaments? However, in the New Testament, we find the story of two people who were struck down by God as an example to all of us, for just one sin. Was God excessively harsh in the death of Ananias and Saphira? Acts 5. They were killed for lying. Does God really condemn Christians for “one small sin” such as lying? Are we out of God’s family for just that?[9] That too seems so very harsh of God. According to the book of Revelation 22:15, all liars have their place in the lake of fire. I kindly ask how many lies can we tell before we become liars?[10] Is it three, six, nine, fifteen, or more? What is the number?

How many sins did Satan and his followers commit before they were damned? How many sins did Adam and Eve commit before they died eternally? The evidence suggests that it was a single sin. Maybe God held them to a higher level of accountability than He does us. Where is it written that this is true? Can it be true and God be impartial? Was Adam’s case really unique? Should we assume that one sin brought condemnation to Adam, but somewhere between one sin and too many sins (whatever number that is), all the rest of us are damned? If not one sin, then how many? Isn’t that an important question, which deserves to be answered by those “Arminians” who refuse to accept this truth as revealed in this passage in Ezekiel, among other passages?

Two Standards!

            I have been asked this question: “What happens to a Christian who commits a sin and is suddenly and unexpectedly killed in an accident? Does that Christian really go to hell?” I will answer your question if you answer mine. What happens to unbelievers (non-Christians) when they are suddenly and unexpectedly killed and miss a last opportunity to repent? Do they get heaven anyway? Christians don’t usually have a problem when the unbeliever is suddenly killed and goes to hell. But when a sinning “Christian” is suddenly killed and doesn’t have at least one more opportunity to repent, no matter how many opportunities they might have squandered over many years, it seems unreasonable to think that God will send that person to hell. Are we not back to a double standard and God’s partiality? If unbelievers die for one sin, then must not that be true of believers also? The opposite is also true. If believers are not condemned for an unspecified quantity of sin, then that must be true of unbelievers as well. Or do you believe that God has two standards, a strict standard for the unbeliever and an easier one for the believer? If not one sin, then how many does it take before unbelievers (non-Christians) die eternally?[11]

What are the wages of sin exactly?

            What do we do with Romans chapter 6 verse 23, which states that the wages of sin are death? Are the wages of sin eternal death for non-Christians but eternal life for sinning “Christians”? Is the believer saved until he commits an unspecified number of sins? Is it true that at some unknown future time the sinning “believer” dies, and it is finally accurate that the wages of sin are death? Or is it true that no amount of sin will separate a so-called Christian from eternal life? If it is true that no amount of sin will separate a Christian from eternal life, then the wages of sin are not death, and scripture is a lie.

            In the book of 1 John, we are repeatedly told that the one who sins is born of the devil. We are also told that no one who is born of God sins habitually. All flesh wants the false idea of imputed righteousness, imputed obedience, and eternal security to be accurate. Then we could live with one foot in the kingdom of heaven and one foot in the world. But there is no peace for the wicked, including the wicked “Christian.” Peace with God is everything; why stop short of it? “I will not justify the wicked,” Exodus 23:7. Cease from wickedness, all you who call on the name of Christ, for He never changes and He will never justify the wicked (those presently sinning).

            When Jesus states that the lawless and evildoers will not inherit the kingdom of God, are we to interpret this to mean that they will, in fact, inherit the kingdom of God if they don’t exceed a certain number of sins? Maybe we are not technically lawless and evildoers when we commit just a few sins. Or even a bunch of sins. Perhaps it takes a big basket brimming with sins to be classified as lawless and an evildoer. Is this trifling on my part?

            Richard Taylor wrote a book that I recall vividly. I was an ardent believer in eternal security, and a friend of mine asked me to read Taylor’s book, A Right Conception of Sin.[12] Even today, I can remember how upset and angry I was over that book. It rocked my world, and I wasn’t going down without a fight. Fight as I did, I couldn’t resist the truth and eventually bowed my knees, heart, and mind. In Taylor’s discussion about sin and the doctrine of eternal security, his premise was that the false theology of “once saved, always saved” changed the very nature of sin. Sin, in this false system, no longer produced its deadly effects. But how can the atonement of Christ change the nature of sin? Where in the Bible is such a thing even hinted at?

            What about sin causes it to produce eternal death? Sin has already been defined. Sin is lawlessness and a departure from God’s will and ways. Sin results in eternal death. What is eternal death? Eternal death involves 1) separation from God, 2) depravity, and 3) just punishment. Eternal death is the unavoidable effect of and is always produced by the cause of sin based on these three considerations:

1. The holiness and justice of God.
2. The choice of evil, or unholiness or injustice on man’s part.
3. The principle of the intrinsic antagonism between good and evil, holiness and unholiness, justice and injustice, and light and dark.

The holiness of God demands that the choice of evil results in separation, for how can God have fellowship with sin?[13] The justice of God, combined with our choice of evil and the intrinsic antagonism between good and evil, results in just punishment. How could God fail to attach a penalty for sin without violating His justice? The combination of these three facts always produces eternal death, characterized by separation, guilt, and depravity. The effect is instantaneous, and it remains unchanged. Also, it can never change unless God Himself changes. Items (A) and (C) will never change. The gospel, contends Mr. Taylor, removes the second consideration (B), which is the only principle or consideration that can be altered. Men must cease from evil and learn to do righteousness. This is what the truth does by grace through faith. It turns lawbreakers into lawkeepers. That is excellent news.

Revival impossible!

            If we “Christians” are not condemned for sin, then what do you tell sinning believers? Do you tell them that somewhere between one sin and many sins, they are damned? Or do we resort to the teaching of eternal security[14], imputed righteousness and imputed obedience, and state that no amount of sin will eternally separate a Christian from God? Do we tell them all faithful Christian’s sin daily contrary to Scriptural statements such as, “the one who commits sin is of the devil,” and “no one born of God sins?” Why then do we sit back and wonder in amazement, not understanding why the visible church is as wicked as the rest of the world? Under such teaching, genuine revival is impossible.

Ungodly counsel-our words

            The Word of God declares that by our words we will be justified or condemned. Matthew 12:37. I will never tell a sinning “Christian” that they have time to repent and that while they think it over, they are saved and safe. If they were suddenly and unexpectedly killed, they would perish. Every moment they refuse to repent, their heart hardens, and the wrath of God mounts as His love is repudiated. To say anything else is to encourage their impenitence, and their blood will be charged against the one who deceived them with a false sense of security.

            “Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke 17:1-2 KJV.

Those who tell others that they have an indefinite period of time to repent or that they are eternally secure in their ongoing sin are guilty of this offence, whether they acknowledge it or not. Jesus said woe to them who cause others to trifle with sin in any way. Listen to what Jesus said, “It would be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than he should offend one of these little ones.”  By our words, we will be justified or condemned.

Sin in the Old and New Testaments

            In the Old Testament, how often could a Jew sin before atonement was required? Was atonement required for every sin or just after some unspecified number of sins had been committed? If you are even remotely familiar with the Old Testament, you will know that every sin required atonement. Even sins committed unwittingly or in ignorance required general atonement, followed by specific atonement when discovered. 

Sinning Jews were still part of the covenant and the nation of Israel unless and until they sinned with a high hand or refused God’s remedy for atonement and stubbornly refused to repent. What did the covenant represent for the Jew? It represented God’s intentions toward them for good, not evil. By the covenant, He committed Himself to correct, discipline, instruct, redeem, and encourage His children. But only repentance would keep the sinner in the covenant. The impenitent lost all the benefits of the covenant. In a limited sense, there is a covering for “sins” committed in ignorance, unintentionally, or unwittingly. However, once the sin had been discovered, it required atonement for forgiveness and to remain in the covenant. The application today is that we may technically do or neglect something that is a “sin,” but God doesn’t condemn us for that “sin” if it was done in ignorance or unintentionally. However, once God shines the light on that behavior, act, or attitude, we must repent, or we will not receive forgiveness and remain justified.

Even if we can’t agree that sins of ignorance, unwitting sins, or unintentional sins are New Testament sins, I think we can all agree that sin proper is a voluntary transgression of the law. If we willfully disobey God, we sin. I think almost all of us would agree on that. I think we could all agree that violating the 10 Commandments is a sin. We might disagree about the Sabbath laws, but the other nine would, I believe, yield a general agreement.

We might disagree that all worry is sin, that all doubt is sin, that mistakes are sin, that eating a little too much is sin, and so on. But we can all agree that things such as fornication, adultery, stealing, gossiping, sexual perversions, lusting, covetousness, taking God’s name in vain, telling lies about our neighbor, worshiping idols, etc, are real sins in both the Old and New Testaments.

I am writing about the deliberate, intentional type of disobedience that we all agree is sin. Please keep this in mind. Author Dan Corner believes that there are certain sins, such as worry, that are genuine New Testament sins but not sins that condemn us to hell.[15] The Roman Catholic Church also differentiates between venial and mortal sins. Let us not focus on venial sins, whether defined by Protestants or Catholics. Let us focus primarily on mortal sins, those sins that destroy eternal life and result in eternal damnation. You can call the other venial sins if you like, or lesser sins that don’t destroy eternal life. I don’t believe venial sins are real sins in God’s eyes. Why? It makes it very hard to reconcile the teachings of 1 John, among many other passages, which state that children of God don’t sin habitually. If we can unknowingly sin or if human frailty is sinful, then how can these passages be actual? In other words, if venial sins are real sins, how can we intelligently understand those New Testament passages of scripture that tell us that Christians don’t live in or practice sin? The New Testament doesn’t say that children of God don’t commit mortal sins, but do commit venial sins. Who could make sense of that?[16]

There is a sin unto death.

“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. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself and that the wicked one toucheth him not”. 1 John 5:16-18 KJV.

Mr. Corner contends that there is clearly a sin unto death. Eternal Security teachers often tie this passage to 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, which discusses those who partake in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, resulting in physical death: “A number of you have fallen asleep.”  Please recall my earlier discussion about this passage. Even if it is true that some sins cause physical death, it doesn’t mean eternal death is not the consequence at the same time. Moreover, once saved, always saved, teachers might draw attention to the physical death of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5:3-10. The fact that eternal security teachers generally tie death to physical death and not eternal death has been illuminated often in these pages. Mr. Corner’s point is that some sin leads to eternal death and others do not, and this passage in 1 John is about eternal death, not just physical death.

New Testament sin is an intelligent and deliberate refusal to obey a known law or command of God. To insist that sin includes unknown acts is to make sin consist of the letter versus the spirit of the law of God. If there is a fundamental difference between the Testaments, it is this: God looks on the heart, not just the letter. Calvinism’s legalistic definition of sin is according to the letter of the law, not the spirit. The New Testament is all about the spirit and not the letter.

If we can sin without knowing it, then 1 John and many other passages must be lies because none of us can knowingly live without habitual sin in our lives.  If we sin in thought, word, and deed daily, then the blood of Christ is not sufficient, and the most challenging problem in our world, salvation from sin, is impossible for God. Seriously, what do you think a loving God is concerned about? Do you really think He is upset about our mistakes, errors, and miscalculations done from a pure heart? Is God judging us according to the letter or the spirit of the law? What do you make God out to be? Would you treat your children that way? I pray not.

The Sin of Adultery

If you commit one “not so small sin”, such as adultery, are you still saved? Do you really believe that if you commit adultery, you are in a justified state? Someone I talked with admitted that one act of adultery is sufficient to damn the “Christian’s” soul, but he just can’t accept the idea that on the day we sin, we die. If this is true, what we are left with is that certain sins cause us to die the day we commit them, but lesser sins don’t cause immediate condemnation. This sounds very similar to Mr. Corner’s and the Roman Catholic idea of mortal and venial sins already referred to. Maybe the Roman Catholic Church has been right all along. Stanley doesn’t believe that adultery kills eternal life. He believes that you can continue to commit adultery and still be a child of God. I am not being mean-spirited, but could Satan think of a better deception? If so, what?[17] If not, one act of adultery may be after the fifth time you are condemned. Who knows, maybe you can commit adultery, murder, and other such sins twelve hundred times before you are damned.[18] Then what do we do with passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, which states emphatically that those who commit these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God? Was the apostle mistaken for unrighteous “Christians” do inherit the kingdom even if they commit the very sins listed in the passage as long as they don’t exceed some unspecified number?

King David

Was King David in a justified state after his sin of adultery? The sin of adultery then led to the sin of murder. Was David saved all the while he was an unrepentant adulterer and murderer? I know the ‘once saved, always saved’ crowd claims that he was, but it is not true. If impenitent David were suddenly and unexpectedly killed, he would have gone to hell. Or did God give David a grace time out between his sin and repentance before he stood condemned? Where is it written that such a thing is true? Is this not just wishful thinking of a carnal mind? And if it is true that God gave David and gives all of us sinning “Christians” some period of time to repent, then how much time do we have? Is it an hour, a day, a month, a year, or what? In my untrained minority opinion, only the religiously gullible could believe such a thing. If a man steals a car, is he guilty when he commits the crime or only when a certain amount of time has elapsed without his repentance? Does the judge give criminals a free pass for hours, days, or weeks before they are actually guilty? Can you think of any crime that isn’t a crime the moment it is committed? Can you think of any criminal that isn’t a criminal the moment they commit a crime? This is ridiculous.

The word of God tells us that David was a man after God’s own heart. Could anyone possibly believe this to mean that while David was an unrepentant murderer and adulterer, he was a man after God’s own heart? Surely, we all understand this to mean that for most of his life, David loved God supremely, and his conduct revealed that love. However, when David committed these sins, he was a man after his own heart, not God’s. Praise God, David repented of his sin and found forgiveness and salvation.

David prayed that God would restore unto him the joy of his salvation. I know that some say we can have salvation without the joy, but the real meaning is that David lost the joy of salvation because he lost his salvation as a result of his sin. The joy returned when he repented of his sin. The joy of salvation is inseparable from the reality of salvation. This joy is more than just a fleeting feeling. It is a heart and mind consciously aware of God’s acceptance. No unrepentant murderer or adulterer has the joy of salvation.

Definition of an adulterer and murderer

Let me draw your attention to the law of God, which clearly and irrefutably tells us that one act of adultery makes a person an adulterer and that one act of murder makes a person a murderer, both sins subjecting the guilty to death. In the New Testament, we have the Word of God clearly telling us that no murderer or adulterer has eternal life abiding in them (1 John) and that they (murderers and adulterers) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Without repentance, David would have gone to hell. God’s Word is obvious.

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10. KJV.

“And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he dies, he is a murderer:  the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with a throwing stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.” Numbers 35:16,17 KJV.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, but you were washed, but ye are sanctified…”1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8 KJV.  The second death is eternal death, to be separated from God forever.

The role of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth. Would the Spirit of God interpret these passages differently? Would God tell anyone what amounts to the exact opposite of these truths? Preachers and teachers all across America are contradicting the Spirit of God. When God says the wages of sin are death, eternal security teachers tell us that the wages of sin are not death for sinning Christians, only for sinning non-Christians. When God says murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, once saved always saved teachers tell us that Christian liars, Christian murderers, and Christian whoremongers will not have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. They are making the Word of God void.

How many times can a person be born again?

            Then there are those believers who can’t accept the idea that they are born again and die when they sin. Over and over this is repeated. That seems ridiculous to them. Is our relationship with God like that? Are we constantly in and out of His family? Doesn’t the Bible declare that God’s mercies are new every morning? Isn’t He full of compassion and long-suffering? Doesn’t God discipline His children? Yes, yes, and amen. All of these statements are true. Yes, all of these are true, along with what Ezekiel wrote: a person dies the very day they sin. It is not an either-or proposition.

The new birth is a reconciled relationship with God. What is reconciled today can be undone tomorrow, requiring a new reconciliation. God does not want us to be condemned along with the world. To that end, He earnestly seeks those who are lost, especially those who claim to love Him. God is not willing that any should perish; therefore, His mercies are new every day for all of us who meet the conditions. Those who confess and forsake their sin will find mercy, and no one else. Yet to maintain that we can commit some unknown number of sins or postpone repentance for an indefinite period of time, before the wages of sin are death, is to say that confessing and forsaking are not required to find mercy. Clearly, this is a direct contradiction to this truth.

Pride

            Why do some, not all, Christians have a problem with the idea that one sin is sufficient to damn them? Could it be pride that prevents them from accepting this truth? They don’t live consistent, righteous lives; therefore, this can’t be true, for that would mean they are not justified and saved. How can that be, for they pray, read the Bible, attend church, participate in a Bible study, and give money to the work of God? They feel saved. They think they are saved. Their pastor and friends tell them they are saved. It never enters their mind that they may be mistaken and deceived. Others like me are deceived, not them, for they are pretty good Christians. They reason that they are much better Christians than most Christians they know. It never occurs to them that salvation is a higher experience than they have known. Let me be honest and say that it appears to me that I may not be saved. Yet I don’t live in fear because I have determined to follow Jesus no matter the cost. Pride will keep many from heaven and a victorious life on earth. Contrary to what many of us have been taught in church, a victorious life is the norm for children of God. Read 1 John, especially chapter 5, and verify this for yourself.

Strange doctrine?

            Isn’t it curious that many Christians have little problem believing that they and their children are involuntarily born sinners guilty of Adam’s sin and worthy of eternal torment in hell? Yet, they strongly object to the idea that a Christian who sins is damned the day they sin? How is this possible? Surely if it is harsh and unreasonable of God to condemn a Christian for sin on the day they deliberately commit that sin, then it must be exceedingly malevolent of God to create us, either directly or indirectly, without the capacity to obey Him to avoid sin and its consequence of hell. They believe we are born sinners who can do nothing but sin. Yet we deserve eternal torment for this. Additionally, they seem to have little problem worshiping a God who holds them guilty for another man’s (Adam’s) sin. Why does it seem so unreasonable to suggest that God condemns Christians for one sin on the very day they knowingly and deliberately sin? It is a marvel to me. Maybe I am just too shallow to understand it.

The authors claim!

            Eventually, the question arises about my life. Do I live this way? Do I live without sinning? I have not claimed any level of holiness in this book. Perhaps I sin in thought, word, and deed every day, just as Stanley believes all true Christians do. If that is true, then the Word of God declares that I am lost. Maybe I live habitually without sin. Bottom line is that it really doesn’t matter if I don’t live up to this standard. The fact that you and I don’t live up to God’s word is no reason to dilute His truth and fall short of His promises. A false comfort is apparently acceptable to many. Unfortunately, a false comfort is a sweet poison. Don’t swallow it. Narrow is the way and few are those who find it. Maybe the narrow way is narrower than you think.

1 John 1:8 and 2:1 teach what?

            “My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” 1 John 2:1. This verse declares that God expects us not to sin. But then He declares that if we do sin, we have an Advocate. Notice that it doesn’t state “when we sin,” as if it were an inevitability that we would always continue to sin, as Stanley thinks. “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” 1 John 1:7. Stanley, and others like him, want us to believe that the blood of Jesus will not cleanse us from all sin or even most sin but that we will practice sin all of our lives. To sin habitually or practice sin is sin as a way of life or a lifestyle of sinning.[19] Sin always results in eternal death. Those who confess and forsake their sins will find mercy, and only those who meet these conditions.

1 John 1:8 is often referred to as evidence that we Christians never stop sinning, for it says, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” If it is true, that Christians never stop sinning, that thought would be at variance with the rest of the book, which makes it clear that “No one who abides in Him sins” 1 John 3:6 and “the one who practices sin is of the devil” 1 John 3:8 and “We know that no one who is born of God sins” 1 John 5:18. 1 John 1:8 does not teach that Christians practice sin all their lives. It states that the one who says they have never sinned in the first place, such as the Jewish religious elite who maintained that they were not sinners needing a savior, is deceived, for who among us is without any sin? Do you know anyone who is absolutely perfect and has never committed even one sin in their life? Which of us doesn’t need a savior to cleanse us from all sin? To be cleansed of sin is to be forgiven of the guilt and to stop sinning. (1 John 1:7).

Please remember that the remnant of faithful disciples is tiny. Few are those who enter by the narrow gate. The few will not draw attention to themselves. Why don’t we try to determine the truth first and then let it take its course? I would rather find out now than later when it’s too late to do anything about it. How about you? Wouldn’t you want to know now if you’re not right with God? Will God ever ask you to do or be anything you can’t do or be? May it never be.

Do Christians sin?

            Do real Christians sin? Yes, they do. But their lives are characterized by righteousness, not sin. It can be said of them that sin is the exception in their lives, not the rule. Real Christians repent when they sin, and without repentance, they can’t be forgiven and remain justified. Are my comments heretical?[20] Or is it more evangelical to believe true Christians may never decide to repent of even a few sins? Can a genuine Christian sin, not repent for days, and still be in a justified state? I fear that if you believe that falsehood, you may not make it to His glorious kingdom. This sin question is the test of our faith. I am willing to test my profession of faith in Jesus based on these truths. How about you?

A plan for or against sin!

            Do you have a plan? If you don’t plan on living without all sin in your life, you do plan on living in some amount of sin.[21] Think about this statement. If you don’t intend on getting rid of all sin, then you do plan on living in so much sin. How can it be any other way? Please take this to God in prayer and tell Him how much sin you plan on living in. Or tell God that you don’t know how much sin you will continue to live in or practice, but you know that you can’t stop sinning, and consequently, it seems to be a waste of time to attempt to stop. Tell God that you continue to sin so that you will stay humble and not be like those arrogant perfectionists, Arminians, and legalists who are always trying to stop sinning. You might even ask Him how much sin would be pleasingly acceptable to Him. Tell Him how much you love Him, and then tell Him you plan on living in so much sin the rest of your life. Or say to Him that He failed in making adequate provision for your redemption by the atonement of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit? Can you do that? Oh shame, where is your face!

            And if you do have a plan to live without all sin in your life, what are you doing to execute your strategy? Are you using effective means to achieve your objective? If not, then you are deceived.

Does God expect, even condone, sin in our lives?

            Be careful about what you allow in your life. If you believe that a certain amount of sin is normal Christian experience, then you must believe that God permits, even expects, this and that you are safe in your ongoing practice of sin. If you allow any sin in your life, you will have a most difficult time determining how much sin, from day to day, is consistent with your profession of faith in Christ. Rest assured, the amount of permissible sin you condone will continue to increase and not decrease. It will not be static.

The blind following the blind!

            Clearly, you can live anyway you want. You don’t answer to me. Just remember what Jesus taught about the blind follower who followed a blind guide. The end was the same for both, the pit or the ditch. You might want to take that seriously. Do not trust in your feelings or your intellectual rationalizations of your current state. It’s so easy to do. Only the truth, found in the Word of God, will set you free. Feelings, experiences, impressions, and unsanctified reasoning are deceptive. The pure, simple Word of God clearly states that the person who sins (lives in or practices sin) is born of the devil and is not born of God. This is unambiguous.[22] Accept it or reject it.

Sin and judgment

            Please be cautious about the amount of compromise and sin you permit in your life. Someday, each of us will stand before our God and give an account of our lives. What excuses do you think He will find acceptable? Will you do what Adam did and try to blame God for your sin? Or maybe you don’t believe that sin is such a big deal or that certain sins are not such a big deal. Sure, murder is a big sin, but is lying really such a bad sin? It is easy to rationalize such thinking when sin is thought of as a single act, but not when sin is understood as a unit or life that has rejected God’s authority and rule. Sin is a heart that has told God to go to hell. Now tell me you don’t think all sin is terrible. Sin is the heart in rebellion against God and His ways.

Here comes the judge———- our experience.

            I consistently meet with people who say their experience doesn’t justify or determine their beliefs. However, immediately after stating that proposition, they often deny what I am presenting here with an account of their personal experiences, feelings, and intellectual beliefs. Translated, they might be living in sin, and it must be okay. Most, I think, are deceived.[23]  And the only way not to be deceived is to apply the truth to our experiences, opinions, and beliefs. Does the Spirit of God overlook the Word of God and permit us to trust in our own feelings, beliefs, and impressions? The Spirit of God always uses the Word of God, and so must we.

Sanctification and the sin question…the big question!

The carnal “believer” reasons that these passages in 1 John can’t mean what they state because that would mean they are not right with God (saved and justified), but they feel right, and their conscience bothers them very little. So, how do we explain the struggle of sanctification that all Christians go through? God must allow for a certain amount of sin in our lives, right? How do we explain growth in grace and Christian maturity? Must both of these be described in the context of our continued sin? And if so, how do we reconcile the obvious teachings of Scripture that no person born of God continues sinning?

            Let’s see if we can figure this out. I think we would all agree that sin, properly so called, is a violation of the law of God.[24] Sin is unrighteousness and ungodliness. To support my argument, I will reference only a few explicit passages from the New Testament.[25] In the following verses, we are told that those who practice unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God. Anyone who commits these sins is unrighteous, including those who profess Christ. These people may have been really saved at one time. The unrighteous in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is defined as;

Fornicators (and adulterers in the KJV are added). Words are given different meanings over time. Today, sex between unmarried persons is sometimes called fornication, and sex with someone not your spouse is the sin of adultery. Other sexual perversions are also included in this without a doubt.

Idolaters. The person who worships idols is an idolater. The person who gives blind and excessive devotion to someone or something other than God is an idolater.

Effeminate. Those who display qualities or characteristics more often associated with women than men are effeminate.

Homosexuals (or abusers of themselves with mankind in the KJV).  Those who have sex with a person of the same gender are homosexuals. Those who lust after someone of the same gender are also sinning.

Thieves. Those who steal what belongs to another are thieves.

Covetous. Those who excessively and culpably desire the possessions of another person are covetous.

Drunkards. Those who drink alcohol to excess, whereby their mental and physical faculties are impaired, are drunkards. Drug abusers of both legal and illegal drugs are included in this.

Revilers. Those who use abusive language and who rebuke or criticize harshly are revilers.

Swindlers (or extortioners in the KJV). Those who cheat or defraud to obtain money or possessions are swindlers. Extortion implies the illegal abuse of power to gain an advantage. Alternatively, it may refer to an excessive charge, fee, or interest.

In the book of Galatians, the deeds of the flesh are;

The list in the KJV includes these sins: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings.

Immorality. Those who commit things contrary to God’s law, especially such things as fornication, homosexuality, and adultery, commit immorality.

Impurity. Impurity is a state of contamination, uncleanness, and sin, making a person polluted and inferior in moral quality.

Sensuality. A person who is excessively devoted to sensual pleasures, especially those of a sexual nature, but not limited to just sexual pleasures, is guilty of the sin of sensuality. Those people who are controlled by their emotions and feelings fall into this category. Many professing Christians, I fear, have a religion based on emotions, feelings, and sensuality.

Idolatry.

Sorcery. The use of supernatural power through spirits and witchcraft is the sin of sorcery.

Enmities. Those who have a deep-seated hatred of another, often a mutual hatred, are guilty of the sin of enmity.

Strife. Those who stir up heated and often violent dissension or bitter conflict are guilty of the sin of strife. This is the opposite of peace-making.

Jealousy. Those who are fearful of being supplanted and of losing another’s affection can be said to be jealous. Is that always a sin? Or is the sin of jealousy in being resentful and bitter of others who have more possessions, or who are better looking, or have more talent and gifts than we do? Not all jealousy is sin. God is a jealous God.

Outbursts of anger. Those whose rage and frequent outbursts of anger hurt others and cause conflicts are guilty of this sin.

Disputes. To quarrel angrily is to be committing this sin.

Dissensions. Refusal to conform to the truth or authority of God is the sin of dissension. Not to obey the law of the land, when it isn’t a violation of God’s laws, is the sin of dissension.

Factions.  This sin involves forming a contentious minority and arousing conflict and internal dissension. The implication is that this is done for selfish or impure purposes, not Godly purposes.

Envying. A feeling of discontent aroused by desire for the possessions, qualities, or position of another person is the sin of envy.

Drunkenness

Carousing. To drink and party excessively is the sin of carousing. Those who love or lust after “partying” are guilty of this sin even if they don’t do it.

We are emphatically told that those who practice such things, especially those who profess faith in Christ, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:21.

In the book of Ephesians, the deeds of the flesh or unrighteous acts are listed as;

Immorality.

Impurity.

Greed.  An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially money, is the sin of greed. The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil and is a form of greed.

Filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting.

Covetousness.

Idolatry.

(The KJV reads: “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater hath any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God.”)

Please note. In the fall of 2025, I am adding my book to the website. At the end of this chapter, I have included a brief explanation of these words using ChatGPT. When I first wrote this, there was no such resource available.

In Ephesians 5:5-6, we are clearly told that those who engage in such behavior do not have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Not once in any of these three passages does it state that Christians possess Christ’s righteousness and Christ’s obedience, and their standing before the Father is righteous, while their state or practice on earth is sinful and unrighteous. Anyone, especially a so-called Christian, who commits these sins is unrighteous and will not under any circumstances inherit the kingdom of God and of Christ. Moreover, in 1 John, we are told that no one born of God sins, including the sins just listed.[26] Could it be any clearer for those with eyes to see and ears to hear?

The letter versus the spirit

Jesus informed us that a person is an adulterer if they lust after another, even if they never actually commit the act itself. He explained that out of the heart come the issues of life and sin. Sin, as I stated earlier, is not just a single act. It is a unit, a heart that loves self, not God, supremely. First, the heart becomes corrupt, then sin flows as naturally as day follows night. Sin is always a matter of the heart, or what or whom we are ultimately living for. If our motive, our life’s primary purpose or goal, is pure, all things will be pure (Titus 1:15). But if not, nothing we do will be pure, for it comes out of a polluted or sinful heart. Sin is self-first and everyone else last, including God. Sin is a heart set on self-gratification, no matter if it violates God’s law or who suffers in the process. Sin, any sin, is rebellion against God. There are many ways to define sin beyond these few descriptions.[27] Sin is usually defined as a specific act. That is true but incomplete. Never forget that every moral act comes from the will or heart. A person may look righteous on the outside but be a terrible sinner nonetheless because all their righteousness is for show and what accrues to them. The Pharisees are a prime example. As to the law of outward observance, they looked perfect and blameless. As to the heart, they were dead in sin. You see, it is possible to be “innocent” of breaking the letter of the law while being guilty of breaking the spirit of the law. Jesus’s condemnation of them was in accordance with the spirit of the law.

Do you recall Jesus talking about David when he broke the letter of the law by eating consecrated bread? Do you remember the controversy surrounding Jesus and the disciples working on the Sabbath day when they plucked grain in the field as they walked through? Technically, they were all guilty of breaking the letter of the law. Did God hold them guilty of sin? No, He did not.

Motive, purpose, and true grace

Motive, or the ultimate purpose in life, is critically important. Titus says to the pure, All things are pure. The pure in heart are sanctified in grace and pleasing to God. If we are really and truly living for God, we will not sin. Let me shock you by saying that sinning is impossible when our heart is truly set on God.[28] We will not commit the sins I just listed outwardly or inwardly. God promised us a new heart. That promise is the New Covenant, which was founded on better promises than the Old Covenant. This is the true grace of God, which instructs us to deny ungodliness and promises us victory through the grace of God, as stated in Titus 2:11-12. This is what is meant in 1 John when we are told that we will be cleansed from all unrighteousness.

The Christian struggle: three aspects of sanctification         

How do we explain the experience of sincere Christians who struggle and are not living up to the “Christian” standard? They look at their lives and see themselves falling short in numerous ways. Are they saved or not? To answer these questions, we need to take a moment to discuss sanctification. Sanctification, in my opinion, has three aspects. The first is initial sanctification, which goes before or accompanies justification. The second aspect is progressive sanctification. It is the process whereby God continues His work in our lives, especially as it pertains to the hidden issues of life, battles with our flesh, and our motives. His purpose is to cleanse us so that our motives and resulting actions and behaviors will be pure because they come from a pure heart. The ultimate expression of this is entire sanctification or entire consecration, where we consistently live up to the standard that we believe God requires of us as we understand His Word. We habitually live up to the light we have.

I want to focus on the progressive aspect of sanctification. It is not always easy to know our motive or our own heart because we are not used to thinking about sin and holiness in such terms. We usually think of sin and holiness as specific acts, rather than a matter of the heart or the motive or ultimate purpose in life. That is very unfortunate. Sin always proceeds from a heart that has departed from the living God, even if just momentarily. If the process of progressive sanctification implies that we continue to commit these sins (just listed above, 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 5, Eph. 5) and still have eternal life, we must be self-deceived, for these passages leave no doubt that the post-salvation continuation of sin is incompatible with justification, salvation, and inheriting the Kingdom of God. The unrighteous, including professing Christians, will not inherit the kingdom of God and of Christ. The one who lives in sin is born of the devil, according to 1 John.

Progressive sanctification and sin

What does progressive sanctification entail? Can it mean that a born-again child of God continues to commit and practice these sins? Reread the list. Are fornicators, adulterers, liars, idolaters, the covetous, lovers of money, the immoral, drunkards, witches, thieves, murderers, and the envious justified and saved? The Word of God declares that they are not and they will not inherit the kingdom of God and of Christ. How can it honestly be argued that someone who continues to sin with a high hand, loves God supremely, and aspires to please God? Impossible. Oh yes, they may wish to please God, but there is no virtue or holiness in merely wishing or desiring to please God. These are involuntary states of the emotions and have no virtue whatsoever, being simply a feeling or emotion. Only when the will or heart is actually moved and resulting behavior changes are there new life, saving faith, and holiness. Emotions such as desiring, wishing, wanting, and feeling often exist without any virtue or holiness whatsoever. This is where many so-called Christians are deceived.

You will not find any scripture where God commands us or implies that we should give up sin slowly or gradually over time. To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus told her to go and sin no more. Jesus called for immediate and complete surrender and cessation of all sin right then and there. The idea that we can only expect a slow and gradual cessation of sin in our own lives and in the lives of others is a doctrine of demons. It is not a scriptural truth. But I hear it all the time. The very idea of giving up sin slowly and gradually over time is ridiculous and offensive. Imagine a law that gave criminals, such as a murderer, multiple free crimes before they would be prosecuted. Imagine the insanity of suggesting that rapists are only expected to give up their raping slowly. What kind of a King would tell his subjects that he is satisfied with gradual obedience to his laws? Sin is rebellion against God. Putting off some sin is still holding on to rebellion against God. All rebellion must cease.

How we spend our time, talent, and treasure

Some sincere Christians think that if they are not praying every moment of the day or reading the Bible continuously, they are sinning. I see no Biblical support for such a notion.

What is the standard by which we may judge these matters? Is it the standard of 150 years ago and the practice of piety back then? Or is it what we perceive to be the apostolic standard? Does anyone really agree on what either standard actually looked like?

 Does God allow for any discretionary use of our time, talent, and treasure? Does God allow us to produce less fruit than the maximum possible if we were only better disciplined and more motivated? Is it possible to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and not produce the maximum amount of fruit we might if we were red hot 24-7? I recall scripture stating that a particular “good” king loved God, yet left the high places standing. We must be careful in how we judge these matters of the heart.

If we watch TV a little too much, is that a sin? What is too much? If we struggle to spend more and more time with God in prayer and study, and turn off the TV, is it a sin until we completely turn off the TV? Is all struggle and wrestling with the flesh and temptation sinful? When is it not immoral? What does that look like?

Is the New Testament standard or expectation of giving different from the Old Testament? I believe it is. What then is the New Testament expectation? If it is not 10% what then is the standard? Perhaps some individuals should consider giving more than 10%.

Is it possible to be a little slow about our own spiritual growth and not sin? Or are we required to expend 100% effort 100% of the time? What would that really look like? Are we required to work ourselves into a state of exhaustion and premature death? Is there room for rest, recreation, and steady, albeit slow, growth? Finishing the race is just as important as starting it. Some who begin fast never finish.

Or is all this a damnable sowing to the flesh that will exclude us from the kingdom of God? If all this is sin, as the New Covenant defines it, then how do we reconcile this with 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, Galatians 5, and 1 John, which state that no one born of God sins habitually?

Is anger always sinful?

 Some sincere Christian’s think that all anger is sin. Is it possible to be angry and not sin? Didn’t Jesus get angry and frustrated with people? He did. Doesn’t the Word of God declare that God the Father is furious with the wicked every day? It does. Clearly, we want to minimize unbecoming reactions in ourselves. We Christians strive to maintain self-control at all times.

            Have you ever been angry at an inanimate object? Haven’t we all. Is all this sin? I have been furious at pencils, cars, rocks, and holes in the road. I have been frustrated and angry when trying to do a project without the right tools. Clearly, all this can give way to sin, but to feel angry and irritated over such things is common to humanity, and only a legalist definition of sin would suggest that these things are damnable offences against God.

Impatience

Can a real Christian be impatient, every once in a while, or is it always sinful? Patience is a fruit of the spirit, right, Galatians 5? But impatience is not listed as a sin in the passages just cited. Is there a place in between being a little impatient occasionally and not possessing the perfect fruit of the Spirit that is not sin? But what is impatience?[29] Most people think of it as an emotional state, but is that the case? Jesus appeared to be impatient from time to time, didn’t he? Was He not full of the fruit of the Spirit of God? He was.

Food and beverages

Can a real Christian drink pop, tea, or coffee? Can real Christians truly enjoy some of the delicacies of this life without compromising their faith? If we overeat from time to time, is that a sin? What is too much? Who defines this? Who has the authority to determine what this means? Is it one of the unrighteous sins or practices listed above that will keep us out of the kingdom of God? If we are overweight, does that mean we are sinning? Surely in each of these cases it might mean sin, but does it always mean we are sinning if we are struggling with these issues and not the perfect model of discipline? Or is this the process of progressive sanctification, whereby we are becoming more like Christ in every area and aspect of our lives, but not living in the constant practice of sin? It is in my opinion.

Personally, I have areas of my life that I am still working on, thanks to God’s grace. I want more of God and want to continue to grow in my usefulness. I want to be more fruitful. I struggle with spending more time alone with God, fasting more frequently, praying more, and becoming more like Him, who first loved me. Sometimes I am too tired to read and I sit in front of the TV. I struggle with temptations common to man. Is this struggle all sin? I don’t think so. I don’t think I will ever fully mature in my faith in God. Yes, in this sense, I fall short. However, I don’t believe I am living in sin or that the word of God condemns me. I believe God is working on and in me, conforming me to the image of Jesus Christ. My heart is fixed on God, but my flesh is weak. To my knowledge, I don’t practice any of the sins listed in the passages above, yet I am still not where I want to be, nor do I have all of God that I expect to have. Is any of this making sense?

Does sanctification mean we lie, steal, and fornicate less often?

Isn’t the question itself disgusting? Yet this is the theology of the men I have quoted and most of the nominal church. Even worse, reducing sinning at all might not even have been required. Just the opposite, we are told to expect to sin every day for the rest of our lives.

Can our sanctification mean that we become more kind, more loving, and gentler without meaning that we are sinning if we don’t immediately manifest these virtues with absolute perfection and the perfection of Christ Himself? I believe this is true of progressive sanctification. Or is progressive sanctification the process of throwing off a little sin now and then? I firmly believe that the notion of stopping a few sins over time, as we feel like it, is incompatible with the truth and contradicts the passages just mentioned. Does progressive sanctification mean that we fornicate, steal, and lie a little less often as the years go by, or that we lust and covet less and less but never fully put it out of our lives, or that we worship and serve other Gods less and less as it suits us? May it never be!

Is worry a sin?

            We are told not to be anxious. We are not to worry. What does that look like? Does it mean that we are never to feel nervous or concerned about anything? But how can that be when feelings are not under our direct, immediate control and are involuntary states? What does the injunction really mean in practical terms? If this is called a sin, as many do, why is it not listed as a sin that will keep us from inheriting the Kingdom of God? Surely there are degrees of sin in the Bible, as it is plainly taught, but does that mean there are sins we can commit that will not keep us out of the Kingdom? Refer to my earlier comments. The Roman Catholic Church teaches about venial and mortal sins. Venial sins do not kill eternal life, but mortal sins must be confessed, or condemnation is the consequence. I believe the things listed in the passages, such as those above, are sinful acts and states, which damn the person living in them. I would not necessarily call all worry sinful. It might be, but it might also just be a natural emotional response that doesn’t constitute a sin. However, to park or reside in a state of worry and lose confidence in God and to enter into unbelief is sin.

Lukewarm, no problem

In Revelation 3, Jesus told the lukewarm that He would vomit them out of His mouth. He stated categorically that when he warns them, he expects them to repent of this state. Being lukewarm is not listed in any of the three passages above, per se. However, it is hard to imagine that when a person is lukewarm, they are not at the same time committing the sins mentioned. It is best not to be lukewarm. That is my advice to you: repent and ask Christ to stir you up as you stir yourself up by meditating on the Word of God.

To piously lament being lukewarm and to refuse to get into the Word of God is self-deception. And this is precisely what many do. They say they are heart-sick about being lukewarm, but will not spend the necessary time in God’s word. They spend more time creating excuses than they seem to seek the face of God.

Bearing fruit is optional, or is it?

Bearing fruit is not optional for a child of God. From the parables, we understand that God works in our lives over time, so that we bear increasing amounts of fruit; however, not bearing fruit brings condemnation. My advice is to bear fruit for God. What is fruit for God? Loving obedience to God (saving faith) is the only fruit that is worthy of His Holy name. Bearing fruit for God may also include spreading the Word, planting the seeds of truth, and harvesting souls. But only as these are done with a view to the Glory of God, are they really fruit. If our motive is to please the God we profess to love, trust, and fear, everything we do will be acceptable to Him as godly fruit.

Is our conscience an infallible guide?

Clearly, if we think something is a sin and we do it anyway or neglect to do it, it is a sin for us. Now, what can be said of such a person? Can it be said that knowing the wrong and doing it anyway is loving God supremely and fulfilling the first commandment? Does such a person have the fundamental objective of pleasing God? Do we honestly think that a person who deliberately disobeys God is in a justified state? Impossible.[30]

Our conscience can be seared as with a hot iron, says the Bible. Have you never experienced this? I have. Our conscience is not an infallible guide. Only the Bible is a true and trustworthy guide, and only it can be relied upon.

What’s the problem?

            The problem is that Christians are being taught that they can live an ungodly or habitually unsanctified life and still be on their way to glory. Sin, under the permissive teaching of eternal security and similar doctrines, is no longer the issue, for they have been taught that Christ, in some form or fashion, excuses our personal sin. We are being taught that sin is a normal Christian experience and that we should expect to sin every day. Even gross sins such as adultery are now very often thought to be no evidence whatsoever that the person is unsaved. People who are saved usually live in these sins, according to the antinomians of our day.

Today we have Christian fornicators, Christian adulterers, Christian drunkards and Christian drug addicts, Christian homosexuals, Christian thieves, Christian witches, Christian idolaters, Christian liars, Christian murderers, and Christian sinners of all types and degrees. My Bible teaches me that such were some of you, not such are some of you, 1 Corinthians 6:10. The truth has fallen in the streets, and worse than that, the truth has fallen in the evangelical Christian church.

            This book addresses the problems caused by the false doctrines taught in our churches today. False doctrines inevitably lead to a carnal lifestyle among those who embrace them. Fortunately, a few adherents live above what their doctrines permit. Praise God for that. Only God knows the harm caused by these false doctrines. Do you want an explanation for the moral crisis in the organized church and the United States? Look no further, you have found it.

The author’s perspective

            Personally, I have determined to repent of anything and everything that displeases God quickly. My stated objective is to put off all sin. If I really do this, then it is an actual objective. If I make excuses and rationalize my disobedience, then my stated objective is a lie, which has deceived me. What else is truly consistent with a genuine profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

            I don’t have a complete answer that will satisfy every question. I hope that I have brought some clarity to the discussion. This is a complex subject filled with strong emotions. I believe it is crucial to consider these issues carefully.

I get no royalties from those who accept this teaching.  I don’t want you to send me money or buy my book. I am not asking you to join my church or follow me. I don’t want anything of yours. However, what I do want is for you to give God what He deserves and demands. My accepting these truths doesn’t win me friends or gain me prestige. It does the opposite. I know I will be called names and an enemy of the gospel. Why would I want this to be true? There is only one reason. It’s true because God’s Word says it’s true. Not because I say it’s true. Could I be wrong? Of course, I could be mistaken. I honestly don’t think so. But what about you? Could you be wrong? If my interpretations are incorrect, then what are your answers to my questions?

            Thank you for bearing with me in this section. I have been repetitious by design. (The Bible is excessively repetitious, isn’t it?) I have found that if I don’t search out all of my hiding places, I tend to find excuses for my backsliding. I find it helpful to examine the truth from a variety of perspectives, which may be tedious for some of you.

Back to Ezekiel 33—the wicked can repent and live a holy life

            “But when I say to the wicked, ‘you shall surely die’…and he walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he will not die” Ezekiel 33:14-15.

Could the wicked repent? Is this not a promise to the wicked, telling them to repent and walk righteously, that they will live? Remember, Stanley’s interpretation of the Hebrew passages? God expects the wicked to turn from sin and ‘walk by the statutes, which ensure life without committing iniquity.’ Can you believe that? Was God demanding sinless perfection of those without the least ability to comply? Does God really believe the repentant can live without sinning, or was He mocking the Jew? Sounds like Ezekiel believed in the adequacy of the blood to cleanse us from habitual sin. If we can be cleansed from the practice of sin, can we be washed to the extent that sin is an exception in our lives rather than the rule? Is Christ’s blood adequate for this task or not? Unfortunately, teachers of eternal security do not believe Christ’s blood is sufficient to cleanse us from the practice of sin. Furthermore, they don’t think all things are possible for God. They believe God can’t cleanse His children from sinning. They don’t think it’s possible for God to eradicate or even effectively subdue the sinful nature.[31] Ezekiel’s understanding of God differs from theirs. Which are you going to believe and follow?

            Doesn’t the Bible declare that we can do all things through Christ, who gives us strength?  According to Stanley, Ryrie, and most believers I have known, this statement is not valid, for the one thing that Christians can’t do is to stop sinning. Dear Christian, you can’t do all things through Christ. Apparently, Christ’s strength isn’t sufficient, and the blood of Christ isn’t adequate. What a fool I must be, for I actually believe these promises are literally true. All of these Biblical texts should be qualified with a proviso. We can do almost all things, and nothing but forsaking sin is impossible to God. That alone is impossible for God. God can’t create in us a clean heart, and the promise of a new heart is a lie. Poor King David, too bad he didn’t know that this is impossible for God. He wouldn’t have foolishly prayed for a clean heart.

REPENTANCE AND RESTITUTION

            Will God forgive the sins of the wicked, including wicked “Christians”, if they don’t return what they have stolen?

“But when I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die’ and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, if wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life with out committing iniquity, he will surely live; he will not die” Ezekiel 33.14-15. 

Will God overlook the fact that professing Christians refuse to give back what they have stolen? Does it sound like God made restitution optional back then? Is it optional today?

How many professing Christians cheat on their taxes, fabricate stories to deceive, defraud their employees, make pledges but don’t fulfill them, run up credit card or other debt without proper repayment, manipulate others, steal time and materials from their employers, rob stores, steal from an insurance company or similar business, and abuse governmental provisions? All such persons are a blight on the name of Jesus Christ. Hypocrites all! Without complete repentance, including restitution, when possible, they can’t be saved.

            I have used restitution very narrowly. The concept has broader application than just theft and robbery. Making amends with those whom we have hurt includes other non-financial offences against our neighbor. Husbands, do you need to make amends with your wife? Do you need to ask her for forgiveness for the way you have treated her? Mothers and Fathers, do you need to make things right with your children? Children, do you need to ask your parents for forgiveness for the hurt you have caused them? Great discretion and wisdom are required. I had a friend confide in me that he had committed adultery. We were discussing restitution, and he inquired whether he should inform his wife of this one act of unfaithfulness committed a few years earlier, which had not been repeated. You may disagree, but I told him not to say a word. I believed his repentance was genuine. Love sometimes requires that we set aside the letter of the law. Love sometimes means we keep our mouths shut. Why hurt his wife for the one sin? How would that help?

FINAL THOUGHTS

            Remember, it’s not the hearers of the law that will be justified but the doers of the law, Romans 2:3.

What an essential and beautiful passage of scripture. How often have you heard this passage preached on or written about? The men I have quoted teach the opposite of this truth. Don’t they teach that the hearers of the law are justified and the doers of the law are non-existent?[32] Indeed, they do. Sinners are lawbreakers. They are hearers of the law, not doers of the law. The beauty of the gospel is that it turns lawbreakers into lawkeepers. These repentant doers of the law are justified and sanctified by grace through faith. This is gospel justification, not forensic justification. Only those without any sin can be forensically justified. Sinners are worthy of eternal death, but they find pardon and adoption when they repent of all sin and believe in Jesus.

It seems clear that loving obedience to God is the very essence of life, the gospel, and the Bible. In many, perhaps most, contemporary theologies, obedience to God becomes an unrealistic option to life with God rather than the very heart of it. Bottom line, with all these lies that have become truth, is that we can be saved and not love God supremely or our neighbor equally. In other words, we can be heaven-bound while constantly breaking the two most important commandments of God. We can be Christians and habitually not obey Jesus Christ. We can be saved by grace through faith and still sin like we love the Devil supremely. We can be genuine Christians without making Christ Lord of our lives. If that is how you really live, regardless of your profession, then know for sure that you will lose your immortal soul if you don’t repent. I genuinely believe that. I care enough about God to tell you the truth. There is no end to those who will tell you that you can live a life of sin and still go to heaven. You will have no trouble finding those who will extend to you this false comfort. However, the truth is the only sure comfort we have in this life.

            As the leaders of the organized church go, so go its members. As the church goes, so goes the world. When the church declines morally, the world and culture will follow. Look no further than the organized church for an explanation for the moral crisis in America. Look at what church leadership is telling us. Many are telling us that we are holy when we are not. We are told we can be holy and unholy at the same time. We can go backwards and forwards at the same time. We can be followers of Christ and not follow Him. Jesus said Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for a tree is known by its fruit. Jesus also said a good tree can’t bring forth evil fruit. Not according to contemporary theology, for a good tree will almost always produce bad fruit. All of these lies that have become truth have the same practical effect.

         The result is to teach Christians not to fear God. Without the fear of God in the organized or visible church, there is no limit to the wickedness Christians will practice.

         We are told that the fear of God is the awe and reverence of God. Additionally, we are told that we can have the fear of God while continuing to sin. Is this not another lie from the enemy of our souls?

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths”, 2 Timothy 4:3.

Suppose this isn’t a perfect description of the theology of many so-called Christians, then I do know how to describe it better. Does it apply to you? Do you reject what I am saying because that might mean you need to make some changes in your belief system and life?

            Suppose Christians believe they can continue committing sins such as lying, stealing, cheating, fornicating, adultery, slander, and sodomy and still go to heaven. How can a thinking person seriously believe Christians will undertake social reforms? These social reforms are desperately needed. Abortion (legalized murder) is still the law of the land. Pornography, violence, and racism, among other sinful behaviors, continue to escalate. If so-called Christians refuse to curb their sinning, what leads us to believe societal reformation is anything but blind credulity? “Christians” might well be committing these very sins, which cry out for social transformation.

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV.

How often have you heard this passage of scripture? Many Christians can quote it by heart. It makes me very upset that the clearly written conditions for God hearing and answering are being unmet because of the teaching of carnal Christianity, including once saved always saved and all that entails. Do you wonder why the promise of revival[33] is unfilled? Our so-called leaders and shepherds are telling us that it is impossible and God doesn’t really expect us to comply with the conditions. Because of the teaching of men, such as those I have quoted, revival and the healing of our land will not occur unless we believe and obey God and not man. When Pastors and teachers tell us that it is normal “Christian” practice to sin or not turn from our wicked ways, then our land will not be healed, nor will our sins be forgiven.  These folks are calling God a liar, teaching unbelief, and promoting sin. As a result, many people will go to hell—woe to them who cause others who believe in Jesus to stumble in sin.

What about grace?

         What about the grace of God? Antinomians, which is an accurate label for the majority of churchgoers, believe they have the only correct definition of grace. They are quick to point out that anyone who disagrees with them is denying the doctrine of grace and is somehow a legalist. They think God is one-sided and that His grace allows us to do just about anything we want without the threat of eternal damnation. Their idea of grace is a license to sin without eternal damnation as a consequence. Scripture warns us about ungodly persons who get a foothold in our congregations, “who turn the grace of God into licentiousness” Jude 4. Real Biblical grace is a beautiful thing. No person can live without true grace. No sinner can be saved apart from the grace of God. We are saved by grace through faith. No Christian will persevere to final salvation apart from God’s grace. And the fault will be theirs and not God’s.

In Romans 6:1, we read, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue to sin that grace might increase?” Yes, says the doctrine of eternal security. This is precisely what the teaching of once saved always saved declares. It tells those who buy the lie that grace will, in fact, increase as your personal sin increases. And what does the Apostle say? “May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Romans 6:2. If we have died to sin, that is, if we have stopped sinning, how can we continue to sin? It is not possible. If we continue to sin, we have not experienced the true grace of God, nor have we died to sin.

The apostle of grace tells us, “Do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts” Romans 6:12. “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but grace. What then, shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Romans 6:14,15. Here again, Paul, the apostle of grace, tells us that grace does not excuse a person from obedience to the law. The truth is that grace turns us into law keepers, who are no longer under the curse of the law because we have ceased from sin or lawbreaking.  Grace constantly changes the heart to love, obey, honor, and appreciate God. And when the heart is changed, the law is no longer a hard taskmaster.

The Bible alone defines the concept of God’s grace. Do you know the following? The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and to live sensibly and righteously in the present evil age, Titus 2. Grace is much more than unmerited favor. The grace of God is consistently cleansing and holiness-producing. Those who use the grace of God as an excuse for carnal living are deceived. True grace produces repentance, faith, and every other Biblical virtue. The passage in Titus 1:1, as I have mentioned a few times, states that the grace of God is according to godliness. True grace always promotes and encourages God like behavior in us.

         I have written very directly with loving candor. It’s not my intention to denigrate the character of any of those I have quoted. I have challenged their doctrines and ideas, not them. I assume the best about these men. They are in challenging positions. If I were in the same position, I might do worse. It’s a rare person who dares to tell the whole truth. While the worker is worthy of their wage, few workers can resist becoming enslaved by it.

            As you consider what I have written, please keep in mind that it doesn’t make any difference if you don’t know of anyone who lives without constant sinning. Just because you don’t know them personally doesn’t mean they are not out there. Remember, the remnant will not draw attention to themselves and might even say they are not part of the remnant. Your experience doesn’t determine whether or not something is true. Neither does mine. Maybe your experience doesn’t meet God’s requirements. Will you sleep on in sin or break up your fallow ground and repent? When Jesus said difficult things to His disciples, most of them left Him. They were unwilling to accept the whole truth. Jesus asked those closest to Him if they too were going to depart. Peter responded to Jesus and said, ‘To whom can they go?’ For He had the words of life. What are you going to do with the words of life? What am I going to do with the words of life?

            If I am wrong in what I have written and you change your life accordingly, what is the downside for you? What am I asking you to do? I am asking you to give your whole life to God without conditions and excuses. Is that such a terrible thing? Some of you will reject my teaching because you want to live without fear and guilt while you continue to sin and have your own way. You are the lord of your life, and you might share some of that with God, as long as it doesn’t cost too much. I understand, but at least be honest about it and stop pretending to be something you are not. Only a hypocrite pretends to be something they are not. Some so-called Christians want to settle into a life of ease, and woe to anyone who attempts to shake them out of their comfort zone. Listen to Jeremiah.

“Your prophets have seen for you false and foolish visions; And they have not exposed your iniquity so as to restore you from captivity, but they have seen for you false and misleading oracles” Lamentations 2:14.

An authentic prophetic voice is more concerned with exposing sin than impressing people with signs and wonders.

            Listen to what the prophet Ezekiel said, “Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.” Ezekiel 13:22 KJV emphasis added.

The false doctrines I have addressed in this book most definitely strengthen the hands of the wicked by promising the unrepentant “Christian” eternal life. In the Books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the false prophets promised the Jews life without their complete departure from their wicked ways. Is this not precisely what is going on today? It is most assuredly. We have a countless number of pastors, teachers, and prophets telling us that living in sin is a normal Christian experience and that the promise of eternal life doesn’t depend on our repentance from sin. Run away from such false teaching.

            Jesus said He came to give us life and that more abundantly. Doesn’t it take wholehearted devotion to Him to experience this abundant life? This book is about what our Lord has promised to all those who meet the conditions. He stands at the door knocking, but we must open the door and invite Him in. All these lies that have become truth detract from what God wants for us. We are told that we can be halfhearted followers, lose a few blessings in the process, and still get to heaven. Please don’t believe that, for it will cost you your immortal soul.

            Even so, come quickly, dear blessed Jesus Christ, our God. Almighty God, we need another deliverance like the one You accomplished for Moses and the Jews. You told Moses that You had come down personally to deliver Your people. Nothing else will work. We must have you come down to deliver us again. There is no other answer.

RGH

Definitions of Sin Lists in Paul’s Writings-ChatGPT

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-7, the Apostle Paul provides lists of sins that exclude people from inheriting the kingdom of God. While overlapping, each list has distinct terms. Below is a structured comparison with the KJV term, the Greek word, and definitions in the context of Paul’s writings.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

KJV Term	Greek Word	Definition
Fornicators	πόρνοι (pornoi)	Sexual immorality, especially unlawful or unmarried intercourse
Idolaters	εἰδωλολάτραι (eidololatrai)	Worshipers of false gods
Adulterers	μοιχοί (moichoi)	Unfaithful to the marriage covenant
Effeminate	μαλακοί (malakoi)	Lit. ‘soft’; passive partners in homosexual acts or moral weakness
Abusers of themselves with mankind	ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai)	Lit. ‘male-bedder’; homosexual practice
Thieves	κλέπται (kleptai)	Stealers, robbers
Covetous	πλεονέκται (pleonektai)	Greedy, grasping for more
Drunkards	μέθυσοι (methysoi)	Habitual intoxication
Revilers	λοίδοροι (loidoroi)	Abusive, slanderous speakers
Extortioners	ἅρπαγες (harpages)	Violent robbers, oppressors, seizing by force

Galatians 5:19–21

KJV Term	Greek Word	Definition
Adultery	μοιχεία (moicheia)	Violation of marriage covenant
Fornication	πορνεία (porneia)	General sexual immorality
Uncleanness	ἀκαθαρσία (akatharsia)	Moral impurity, indecency
Lasciviousness	ἀσέλγεια (aselgeia)	Shameless sensuality, debauchery
Idolatry	εἰδωλολατρία (eidololatria)	Worship of false gods or idols
Witchcraft	φαρμακεία (pharmakeia)	Sorcery, magic, drug-induced spells
Hatred	ἔχθραι (echthrai)	Enmity, hostility
Variance	ἔρις (eris)	Quarreling, contention
Emulations	ζῆλος (zēlos)	Jealousy, rivalry
Wrath	θυμοί (thymoi)	Fits of rage, violent anger
Strife	ἐριθεῖαι (eritheiai)	Selfish ambition, factionalism
Seditions	διχοστασίαι (dichostasiai)	Divisions, dissensions
Heresies	αἱρέσεις (haireseis)	Factions, sects, divisive teachings
Envyings	φθόνοι (phthonoi)	Resentment, jealousy of others’ success
Murders	φόνοι (phonoi)	Taking of human life unjustly
Drunkenness	μέθαι (methai)	Habitual intoxication
Revellings	κῶμοι (kōmoi)	Wild parties, carousing

Ephesians 5:3–7

KJV Term	Greek Word	Definition
Fornication	πορνεία (porneia)	Sexual immorality in general
Uncleanness	ἀκαθαρσία (akatharsia)	Impurity of life or thought
Covetousness	πλεονεξία (pleonexia)	Greed, desire for more
Whoremonger	πόρνος (pornos)	Sexually immoral person, one who lives in immorality
Covetous man (idolater)	πλεονέκτης (pleonektēs)	Greedy person, equated with idolatry

---

[1] Refer to my earlier comments about the ground versus the conditions of salvation. The ground of salvation is the “that for the sake of which” while the conditions of salvation are the “that not without which.”

[2] Ibid. p.1950. Not a quote, reference only.

[3] Faith Works, John F. MacArthur, Jr. Ibid.  Appendix.

[4] I didn’t say the one proper denomination or organized church gathering. Within many denominations resides the remnant of God. But never forget that there is one true gospel. Jesus claimed to be the only way, the truth, and the life, in contradistinction to all others before Him or after Him. Praise His wonderful name.

[5] Semi-Calvinism is meant to describe those who hold to some but not all the precepts listed in an earlier chapter. My early mentors were trained at Dallas Theological Seminary.

[6] Some “Arminians” hold to a position that is indistinguishable from Calvinism in that it allows for a certain amount of sin or an indeterminate length of time in sin before condemnation arises. I use the term Arminian in a general sense to indicate those who reject the doctrine of once saved always saved.

[7] At this juncture, I am not addressing what the Old Testament refers to as sins of ignorance, unwitting sins, or unintentional sins. I am referring to willful sins (intelligent, deliberate, and intentional), which are described in such passages as 1 Cor. 6:9, Gal. 5:21, and Eph. 5:5-6.

[8] Romans 3:23 is often used to argue that Christians sin every day in thought, word, and deed. But doesn’t the Word of God say that in every generation there is a righteous remnant? Are we to assume that even the righteous remnant sins habitually? What about Noah, Job, and Moses? Did they sin every day in thought, word, and deed? Where is it written that is true?  What does scripture say about the parents of John the Baptist? God said they were blameless and holy. They certainly didn’t sin every day.

[9] Or did God punish them by sending them to heaven before they lived a whole carnal and wicked life?

[10]  Again, a liar is a person who intentionally deceives another to gain a selfish advantage. A person may unintentionally “lie” by teaching or telling a falsehood, all done in ignorance. I don’t believe that God views such a person as a liar. Their hearts aren’t against the truth, nor are they trying to deceive.

[11] You will recall that Charles Stanley believes that the unsaved are condemned for unbelief and not sin, as if unbelief isn’t a sin. Stanley says it is not adultery and such sins that damn us, but unbelief. He also believes that a person can cease believing and still be saved, in contradiction to his own theology.

[12] A Right Conception of Sin by Richard S. Taylor, Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City. Page 25-27. Not a full quote, reference only.

[13] OSAS advocates acknowledge this much; there is a break in fellowship between God and the sinner. However, they believe that fellowship and relationship are two distinct arrangements. A person can be child of God but have no fellowship with his father. Please see previous comments.

[14] Some proponents of eternal security believe that a person who sins habitually or doesn’t persevere was never saved in the first place while the radical no-lordship crowd believes a real Christian may act exactly like the unsaved and still go to heaven.

[15] The Myth of Eternal Security, Dan Corner, Evangelical Outreach, P.O. Box 265, Washington, Pa. 15301.2005. See also his book, The Believers Conditional Security, Evangelical Outreach. Mr. Corner lists things such as worry, unthankfulness, and lack of humility as examples of sin that don’t exclude us from heaven and are not sins unto death, page 126.

[16] I well remember the distinction given in a Roman Catholic booklet regarding the difference between venial and mortal sins. The Church stated that getting slightly drunk is a venial sin whereas getting really drunk is a mortal sin. Go figure!

[17] The two extremes are a sinner’s salvation by works alone and salvation by a faith alone without works of loving obedience. Both are wrong. Our enemy uses both extremes to deceive mankind.

[18] If a person can commit a sin and not repent for a time without condemnation, then the principle of imputed obedience must be true at least to a degree. If a person can commit many sins before condemnation arises then the principle of imputed obedience is true. If a person can sin and refuse repentance for a period of time then imputed obedience must be true. I disagree with the principle of imputed obedience and all the other errors of Calvinism, therefore sin must result in condemnation.

[19] Sin as a way of life always produces a seared conscience. I have heard it said that a true Christian can not continue to sin without his or her conscience bothering them and that is all that is meant by such passages of scripture referenced in 1 John. What nonsense for anyone who sins daily will sear their conscience including so called spirit filled Christians.

[20] Charles H. Spurgeon and others think so.

[21] If sin is defined so broadly that it includes the typical Calvinistic understanding which includes mistakes, faults, emotional highs and lows, errors, oversights etc, then no person can claim to be without sin ever. We are frail humans who know in part. Sin is a known transgression of the law of God. Sin is lawlessness. Furthermore, if a person can really sin without knowing it then it is as impossible to repent of such sin as it is to fly by flapping your arms. If sin is the same as being human then we will never cease from sin until we cease being human beings. That is why many believers think that our death, not Jesus’s death, is our savior from sin.

[22] Refer to my earlier comments about attempts to deny this truth by suggesting that God sees the obedience of Christ and not our sin. Therefore, we don’t practice sin (our standing or position before God) even though we do actually practice sin (our state and our practice). The Father sees our position in Christ, not our actual sinful state.

[23] To a degree, each of us has views that are a product of our experiences. But what governs? Our experience, feeling, emotions, intellect, or the Word of God?

[24] Refer to my earlier comments about those who state that sin is anything short of the Glory of God, whatever that means.

[25] Please note that these three NT passages reference sins that are clear and unmistakable violations of the OT Decalogue or the 10 commandments. In Chapter 3, I refuted the false teaching that the moral law and the 10 Commandments of God in the OT are abrogated for NT believers.

[26] You will, of course, recognize these sins as specific violations of the 10 Commandments. Add to this list the truth taught in Revelation that all liars will go to hell, and we have a general idea of what unrighteousness or sin entails in the New Testament. And the New Testament mirrors the Old Testament in most respects. Refer to Chapter 3. This list is not meant to include everything that constitutes sin, but rather to be representative.

[27] Author Dan Corner defines sin this way: everything that doesn’t come from faith Romans 14:23, knowing to do good without doing it James 4:17, lawlessness 1John 3:4 and all wrongdoing 1John 5:17. Ibid, pg.125.

[28] “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.” I John 3:9. KJV.

[29] It is beyond the scope of this book to get into, but patience is perseverance and endurance, not a feeling. Many Christians mistake feelings for piety. A truly pious person will feel strongly from time to time, but an unsaved person may also feel strongly about religious matters. One is saved, the other is not. One has an obedient and saving faith; the other has the faith of demons, which is a disobedient faith.

[30] This is a Romans chapter 7 experience that many say is the best we “Christians” can do in this life. I disagree that Romans Chapter 7 is a picture of a genuine Christian or of Paul, the saint of God. If sin is defined broadly to include temptation, human frailty, feeling, and so on, then who can live without sin? No one. If sin is anything short of the Glory of God, who can define it? Therefore, these passages I have quoted are all lies, and imputed obedience better be true, or we are lost. But if these passages are lies, which state that those who are born of God don’t practice sin, why would we believe any of the Bible? The crowd that espouses eternal security defines sin so broadly that we know God can’t hold us responsible or accountable to live without sin, for we know, down deep, that it is not within our power to comply. That explains why many so-called Christians don’t even seem bothered that they live in sin.

[31] Even with our free will intact nothing is impossible to God when He encounters a willing mind.

[32] I understand and agree that Paul is addressing the fact that the Jews, along with the rest of humanity, are not doers of the law in their unregenerate state. Those who have been born again by the grace of God, through faith, become doers, not simply hearers, of the law. The passage applies before and after conversion.  Remember that God will not justify the wicked (those who are presently doing evil), as stated in Exodus 23:7.

[33] True revival as opposed to counterfeit revival is a subject of much confusion. Much of what is called revival today is about signs and wonders and not holiness and repentance.