To Will or Not To Will?

[Netchaplain]

The willing of the soul and the desire of the "old man" are separate entities within the believer in Christ! With the unsaved, unregenerate soul they are coalesce in their operations. Those reborn do not will after the desires of sin nature. But the unbeliever, being bereft of the new nature and unconcerned for holiness, must will after the desire of the Adamic-nature—being yet under its "reign" and "dominion" (Ro 6:12, 14); and to willingly desire after the old man is where its dominion of sin lies, just as not to will after the desires of the old man is where freedom from sin's dominion is dethroned (Rom 6:18, 22; 8:2).

In my opinion the old man "is" still restrained on the Cross of Christ (is being crucified – Ro 6:6 - KJV) and continues to be nullified from its ability to cause one to will after its desires. Therefore, sin is not the will of believers but the desire of their old man, which is demonstrated in Paul's declaration, "Now then it is no more I (new I) that do it, but sin (old I) that dwelleth in me" (Rom 7:17, 20). "I am crucified with Christ" (am being crucified - Gal 2:20). The "I" here is the old nature of the believer—just as the new I is the implanted nature; both coexisting, with the latter being dominant by the Spirit (Rom 8:13; Gal 5:17; Eph 3:16).

The new nature is "after God created in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph 4:24) and "is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him" (or it - Col 3:10). This new nature after Christ is the "seed" in 1John 3:9, by which when the believer "cannot sin, because he is born of God" (i.e. cannot sin willfully). For, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," i.e. sins not with the new nature, but with the old nature (Rom 7:25).

The absence of the will to desire after the old man has no effect on the Father's forgiveness, which comes  by the Blood of Christ, but rather manifests the "work in you" of the Father (Phil 2:13). It is only through the Cross of Christ "we have redemption through His Blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Col 1:14 – KJV); which forgiveness derives from, not the believer's walk but the Lord Jesus' Cross! Let us be ever aware that continual "presumptuous" (Num 15:30) or "willful" (Heb 10:26) sin not only manifests unbelief, but is also unforgiven!

[4WD]

Let us be ever aware that continual "presumptuous" (Num 15:30) or "willful" (Heb 10:26) sin not only manifests unbelief, but is also unforgiven!

Willful sin and willful sinning are not the same.  Hebrews 10:26 is not speaking of the commission of a sin or even a lot of sins.  It is rather speaking of the a return to the pre-saved condition of a sinner.  It is, after receiving a knowledge of the truth, the rejection of that very truth.  That is much the same message as Hebrews 6:4-6.

As a side note, every sin is a choice and as such every sin is a willful sin.  So clearly Hebrews 10:26 is not about a willful sin.

[DaveW]

As a side note, every sin is a choice and as such every sin is a willful sin.  So clearly Hebrews 10:26 is not about a willful sin.

This is what happens when a common word in the ancient world gets "spiritualized" and becomes an abstract concept rather than a real world thing,

In both testaments the most frequent word translated "sin" (Chata OT; Hamarta NT) was an archery term meaning to miss the target. To miss the target means you were aiming at it, but missed.

That is NOT willful or intentional.

[RB]

Let us be ever aware that continual "presumptuous" (Num 15:30) or "willful" (Heb 10:26) sin not only manifests unbelief, but is also unforgiven!

I fully agree with you up until you said:

but is also unforgiven

In what sense is it unforgiven? Could you be so kind to explain this more in detail? Thank you. RB

[DaveW]

I fully agree with you up until you said: In what sense is it unforgiven? Could you be so kind to explain this more in detail? Thank you. RB

Agreed. There is a difference between "unforgiven" and "unforgivABLE."

[4WD]

This is what happens when a common word in the ancient world gets "spiritualized" and becomes an abstract concept rather than a real world thing,

In both testaments the most frequent word translated "sin" (Chata OT; Hamarta NT) was an archery term meaning to miss the target. To miss the target means you were aiming at it, but missed.

That is NOT willful or intentional.

And that is what happens when you translate incorrectly. Sin is intentional.  It is the choice to disobey. 1Jn 3:4  Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

[DaveW]

And that is what happens when you translate incorrectly. Sin is intentional.  It is the choice to disobey. 1Jn 3:4  Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

What you are talking about is transgression.  That IS intentional. 

Sin, transgression, iniquity.  All different. Do not confuse them. (even though some NT translators seem to do that)

[Netchaplain]

Willful sin and willful sinning are not the same.  Hebrews 10:26 is not speaking of the commission of a sin or even a lot of sins.  It is rather speaking of the a return to the pre-saved condition of a sinner.  It is, after receiving a knowledge of the truth, the rejection of that very truth.  That is much the same message as Hebrews 6:4-6.

As a side note, every sin is a choice and as such every sin is a willful sin.  So clearly Hebrews 10:26 is not about a willful sin.

Though our understandings vary, I've learned an appreciation for you comments, because they are usually quite applicable to the subject. I believe Heb 6:4-6 is a supposition that "if" they fall away, it would be "impossible" to be saved "again," seeing that Christ would have to be crucified again--an impossibility. The "falling away" (v 6) is not supposed of true believers, as is alluded to by verse 9.

Paul demonstrates the operations of the two natures in Ro 7:15: "For that which I do I allow not." Paraphrased could be "the wrong that I do, I do not will to do." In verses 17 and 20 the two natures are seen. "Now then it is no more I (in his new nature) that do it, but sin (old man) that dwelleth in me."

I see it that Heb 10:26 addresses "receiving the knowledge of the truth (Gospel)," but not receiving the truth. If the Gospel were received they would no longer "sin willfully," instead of knowing (learning of) the truth and not receiving it in faith, thus continuing as they were--in sin.

[Netchaplain]

I fully agree with you up until you said: In what sense is it unforgiven? Could you be so kind to explain this more in detail? Thank you. RB

In my opinion the "unforgiveness" would be due to fact that those who "sin willfully" evince that they are yet to be believers.

[4WD]

Though our understandings vary, I've learned an appreciation for you comments, because they are usually quite applicable to the subject. I believe Heb 6:4-6 is a supposition that "if" they fall away, it would be "impossible" to be saved "again," seeing that Christ would have to be crucified again--an impossibility. The "falling away" (v 6) is not supposed of true believers, as is alluded to by verse 9.

Paul demonstrates the operations of the two natures in Ro 7:15: "For that which I do I allow not." Paraphrased could be "the wrong that I do, I do not will to do." In verses 17 and 20 the two natures are seen. "Now then it is no more I (in his new nature) that do it, but sin (old man) that dwelleth in me."

I see it that Heb 10:26 addresses "receiving the knowledge of the truth (Gospel)," but not receiving the truth. If the Gospel were received they would no longer "sin willfully," instead of knowing (learning of) the truth and not receiving it in faith, thus continuing as they were--in sin.

I have commented a few times on Hebrews 6:4-6.  I believe there is confusion there in most translations.  In the NASB, there is a marginal note that offers the alternative to the word "since" in verse 6.  There is no word "since" in the Greek text.  What the Greek text has are participles "crucifying" and "putting".  In the Greek such participles can be either temporal or causal.  Most translations have chosen to interpret them as causal and thus insert the word since "since".  I think the better choice is to interpret them as temporal as the marginal note in the NASB indicates and insert "while" or "so long as" so that verse 6 reads "and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, while they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame."  That takes on a whole new meaning to the passage. Being saved again once the crucifying and putting to shame ends is consistent with other passages such as Romans 11:21-24 where God says specifically concerning those who have been cut off, "And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again."

I would offer also that verses 4 and 6 present six conditions, namely, (1) once been enlightened, (2) have tasted the heavenly gift, (3) have shared in the Holy Spirit, (4) have tasted the goodness of the word of God (5) have tasted the powers of the age to come, and (6) have fallen away.  Clearly, all six designate conditions attributable only to one who has been saved. To think that such conditions do not relate to believers who have been saved is to not understand even the meaning of salvation.

As I have said on several occasions, where the idea of falling away was discussed, "You can't fall away from where you've never been".

Finally, I think you misinterpret verse 9. The better things are the useful crops (v.7) belonging to salvation that are the very things that are listed in verses 4 and 5 as opposed to the thorns and thistles of verse 8.

[Netchaplain]

As I have said on several occasions, where the idea of falling away was discussed, "You can't fall away from where you've never been".

If one is falsely professing Christianity (and there have always many) he will be falling away from it, but not from a genuine profession of Christianity:

"Falling away, so as to perish, may be supposed, and is true of many professors of religion; who may fall from the profession of the Gospel they have made, and from the truth of it, and into an open denial of it; yea, into an hatred and persecution of what they once received the external knowledge of; and so shall fall short of heaven, and into condemnation." -John Gill

"Having fallen away." "There is no if in the Greek in this place - "having fallen away." Dr. John P. Wilson. It is not an affirmation that any had actually fallen away, or that in fact they would do it; but the statement is, that "on the supposition that they had fallen away," it would be impossible to renew them again. It is the same as supposing a case which in fact might never occur: as if we should say, "had a man fallen down a precipice it would be impossible to save him," or "had the child fallen into the stream he would certainly have been drowned."  -Albert Barnes

[RB]

In my opinion the "unforgiveness" would be due to fact that those who "sin willfully" evince that they are yet to be believers.

Okay, then please tell me........in WHAT SENSE is there NO forgiveness? You still have not answered my question, I trust I made myself simple and clear. So, I must ask again:  "cannot an unbeliever who has not committed the unpardonable sin be forgiven of all sins"? I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but truly desire clarification for others edification, and to keep the truth as pure as we possibly can.

In my opinion the "unforgiveness" would be due to fact that those who "sin willfully" evince that they are yet to be believers.

Do you believe David sinned "willfully" when he committed adultery and then killed Uriah the Hittite, and on top of all of his sins BLAMED Uriah's death ON GOD!

2nd Samuel 11:21-27~"Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. So the messenger went, and came and shewed David all that Joab had sent him for. And the messenger said unto David, Surely the men prevailed against us, and came out unto us into the field, and we were upon them even unto the entering of the gate. And the shooters shot from off the wall upon thy servants; and some of the king's servants be dead, and thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. Then David said unto the messenger, Thus shalt thou say unto Joab, Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth one as well as another: make thy battle more strong against the city, and overthrow it: and encourage thou him. And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.

It was David that instructed Joab to put Uriah in the very heart of the battle so his chances of being killed were much higher in order to cover up his sin~now, was not that willfully sinning?   

[DaveW]

Do you believe David sinned "willfully" when he committed adultery and then killed Uriah the Hittite, and on top of all of his sins BLAMED Uriah's death ON GOD!

It was David that instructed Joab to put Uriah in the very heart of the battle so his chances of being killed were much higher in order to cover up his sin~now, was not that willfully sinning?

Those were transgressions.

[RB]

Those were transgressions.

Okay, but were they done in ignorance, or, willfully with knowledge?

Psalm 19~"Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

[DaveW]

Okay, but were they done in ignorance, or, willfully with knowledge?

Transgression means it was willful, WITH knowledge.


Sin = missing the mark.  Trying to obey but falling short of the goal.
Transgression = willful disobedience
Iniquity =  trans-generational effects of sins and transgressions

[4WD]

If one is falsely professing Christianity (and there have always many) he will be falling away from it, but not from a genuine profession of Christianity:

If one is falsely professing Christianity, then one would never have enjoyed the five benefits listed in verses 4 and 5.  Those could only be realized by one for whom God had indeed saved.

I would also add here that if it is impossible for one who has been saved to "fall away", then the entire book of Hebrews is a fools errand.  The Hebrews, to whom it was written, had not only become discouraged and weak due to the persecutions they were experiencing because of their Christian faith, but some had thought of going back to Judaism. This is why they are admonished several times in Hebrews to keep to their faith and to endure (Hebrews 2:1; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 4:11; Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 6:11; Hebrews 10:23; Hebrews 10:35-36; Hebrews 13:7). And the author also tells them very severely what it means if someone who professed his faith in the gospel apostatizes to his former life in Judaism.

"Falling away, so as to perish, may be supposed, and is true of many professors of religion; who may fall from the profession of the Gospel they have made, and from the truth of it, and into an open denial of it; yea, into an hatred and persecution of what they once received the external knowledge of; and so shall fall short of heaven, and into condemnation." -John Gill

I very much appreciate a lot of John Gill's commentary on the Scriptures. However, as you are no doubt aware, John Gill is a dedicated Calvinist.  His soteriology is driven not by what is revealed in God's word but entirely by the false doctrine of Total Depravity.  Therefore he is duty bound to argue against any possibility of apostacy of one whom God has saved, no matter the truth of any passages in the Bible which state otherwise.

[DaveW]

If one is falsely professing Christianity, then one would never have enjoyed the five benefits listed in verses 4 and 5.  Those could only be realized by one for whom God had indeed saved.

I completely agree on this point.  How can one be a "partaker of the Holy Spirit" if they are not born again?

[Jaime]

That is true. An obvious point lost on some. Also, i agree with 4WD, it is IMPOSSIBLE to fall from where someone hasn't been. In other words, it is NOT possible for me to fall off the edge of the Grand Canyon since I have never been there. That OBVIOUS detail is an essential detail  to understand whether we are talking about falling from the rim of the Grand Canyon or falling away from God.

[RB]

If one is falsely professing Christianity, then one would never have enjoyed the five benefits listed in verses 4 and 5.  Those could only be realized by one for whom God had indeed saved.

I would also add here that if it is impossible for one who has been saved to "fall away", then the entire book of Hebrews is a fools errand.  The Hebrews, to whom it was written, had not only become discouraged and weak due to the persecutions they were experiencing because of their Christian faith, but some had thought of going back to Judaism. This is why they are admonished several times in Hebrews to keep to their faith and to endure (Hebrews 2:1; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 4:11; Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 6:11; Hebrews 10:23; Hebrews 10:35-36; Hebrews 13:7). And the author also tells them very severely what it means if someone who professed his faith in the gospel apostatizes to his former life in Judaism. I very much appreciate a lot of John Gill's commentary on the Scriptures. However, as you are no doubt aware, John Gill is a dedicated Calvinist.  His soteriology is driven not by what is revealed in God's word but entirely by the false doctrine of Total Depravity.  Therefore he is duty bound to argue against any possibility of apostacy of one whom God has saved, no matter the truth of any passages in the Bible which state otherwise.

I'm debating on if I want to jump in and consider those scriptures you gave above~for my view is different than those of a Calvinist, yet, also much different than your understanding. There is a salvation that believers can lose. Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE to CONTINUE to RENEW a person ONCE they have been PARTAKERS of the Holy Ghost, a message that many Baptist has never yet learn!

Does anyone have that drug they gave to President Trump that made him think he was superman, I NEED IT before I start down this path?

I would also add here that if it is impossible for one who has been saved to "fall away", then the entire book of Hebrews is a fools errand.

Agreed.    Later....RB

[Netchaplain]

Again, "It is not an affirmation that any had actually fallen away, or that in fact they would do it; but the statement is, that "on the supposition that they had fallen away," it would be impossible to renew them again. It is the same as supposing a case which in fact might never occur: as if we should say, "had a man fallen down a precipice it would be impossible to save him," or "had the child fallen into the stream he would certainly have been drowned."  -Albert Barnes (1798-1870)

[4WD]

Again, "It is not an affirmation that any had actually fallen away, or that in fact they would do it; but the statement is, that "on the supposition that they had fallen away," it would be impossible to renew them again. It is the same as supposing a case which in fact might never occur: as if we should say, "had a man fallen down a precipice it would be impossible to save him," or "had the child fallen into the stream he would certainly have been drowned."  -Albert Barnes (1798-1870)

Even in that case, there is no implication that it is impossible to fall down a precipice or that it is impossible for a child to fall into a stream.  And that is the case that you are trying to make.  It is very definitely an affirmation that they could indeed fall away.  Otherwise why bother with such a warning?  One doesn't issue warnings against something that can't possibly happen.  And the whole purpose of Hebrews is to warn against apostacy from Christianity back to Judaism.

[4WD]

I'm debating on if I want to jump in and consider those scriptures you gave above~for my view is different than those of a Calvinist, yet, also much different than your understanding. There is a salvation that believers can lose.

I would guess the salvation that you think one can lose has little or nothing to do with the only salvation that really matters, namely, spiritual salvation to eternal life in heaven.

[Netchaplain]

I think Gill has possible good view too:

"It is better therefore to retain the word "enlightened," in its proper sense, and to understand it of persons enlightened with Gospel knowledge; there are some who are savingly enlightened by the Spirit of God, to see the impurity of their hearts and actions, and their impotency to perform that which is good, the imperfection of their own righteousness to justify them, their lost state and condition by nature, and to see Christ and salvation by him, and their interest in it.

"These being "once" enlightened, never become darkness, or ever so fall as to perish; for if God had a mind to destroy them, he would never have shown them these things, and therefore cannot be the persons designed here; unless we render the words, as the Syriac version does, "it is impossible"—Nwjxy bwtd, "that they should sin again"; so as to die spiritually, lose the grace of God, and stand in need of a new work upon them, which would be impossible to be done.

"But rather such are meant, who are so enlightened as to see the evil effects of sin, but not the evil that is in sin; to see the good things which come by Christ, but not the goodness that is in Christ; so as to reform externally, but not to be sanctified internally; to have knowledge of the Gospel doctrinally, but not experimentally; yea, to have such light into it, as to be able to preach it to others, and yet be destitute of the grace of God."

[4WD]

I think Gill has possible good view too:

"It is better therefore to retain the word "enlightened," in its proper sense, and to understand it of persons enlightened with Gospel knowledge; there are some who are savingly enlightened by the Spirit of God, to see the impurity of their hearts and actions, and their impotency to perform that which is good, the imperfection of their own righteousness to justify them, their lost state and condition by nature, and to see Christ and salvation by him, and their interest in it.

"These being "once" enlightened, never become darkness, or ever so fall as to perish; for if God had a mind to destroy them, he would never have shown them these things, and therefore cannot be the persons designed here; unless we render the words, as the Syriac version does, "it is impossible"—Nwjxy bwtd, "that they should sin again"; so as to die spiritually, lose the grace of God, and stand in need of a new work upon them, which would be impossible to be done.

"But rather such are meant, who are so enlightened as to see the evil effects of sin, but not the evil that is in sin; to see the good things which come by Christ, but not the goodness that is in Christ; so as to reform externally, but not to be sanctified internally; to have knowledge of the Gospel doctrinally, but not experimentally; yea, to have such light into it, as to be able to preach it to others, and yet be destitute of the grace of God."

Netchaplain, that is just so much weaslewording by a Calvinist who cannot possibly reconcile the truth of what the passage says with his belief in the false doctrine of Total Depravity.  There simply is no way to interpret the five qualities listed as anything other than the qualities of a Christian. The writer presents him as  one who has believed in the gospel message, has repented, [has been baptized], has received the forgiveness of his sins and received the gift of the Holy Spirit; that is, he has been saved; he was a Christian.  He has fallen away.  That is who the writer is speaking about.  Now he is not accusing any of his readers as being such a person (v.9).  It is a warning.  It is a warning that no one should take lightly or dismiss.  I would suggest that you read Adam Clarke.  I don't agree with everything he says about the passage, but he is considerably closer to the true meaning that John Gill.  If you do not have Clarke available, let me know and I will post a copy for you or you can find it here:

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/

[Netchaplain]

I would suggest that you read Adam Clarke.  I don't agree with everything he says about the passage, but he is considerably closer to the true meaning that John Gill.  If you do not have Clarke available, let me know and I will post a copy for you or you can find it here

I agree about Clark, I find his comments are often obviously incorrect, and it's so frequent I don't use him at all.

To me, everything about one being saved from self's nature is permanent, or what would be the sense? It's when we mistakenly cross what we have become in salvation, and what we now do within it that confuses many. The prior has no contributor but God, and the latter as our part, is always growth-in-Christ related, thereby manifesting and glorifying Him in our lives.

There are only unreasonable concepts related to thinking that God cannot keep one saved. Two significant confusions in my opinion are--why would God supposedly save someone when He would foreknow they will loose desire for it, none of which has any sense to it. The other is the misunderstanding that God's "work" - Phil 2:13 - is exactly what keeps one from ever loosing desire for Him, as it requires His grace and love to ensure the believer will always "desire and do His good pleasure."

It's commonly seen that Scripture is difficult in the matter of permanency because it's often presented in a way that seems to support both concepts (but we know only one is true), and I believe the purpose is that it requires a certain amount of ongoing reading and studying of the Word, esp. in the NT.