Justification whilst one's heart is still evil!

No formatting in a post? Just a text block? I fixed it with HTML tags.

I believe there is an important distinction to be made here, but I would also caution against drawing a conclusion beyond what the Scriptures themselves establish.

John says, “My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1, ASV). Notice both parts of the apostle’s statement. His purpose is that we should not sin; his provision for our failure is not that sin is inconsequential, but that we have an Advocate with the Father. The provision of an Advocate is not permission to sin, and the command not to sin does not require us to deny the reality of human weakness.

I would also observe that perfection and maturity are not always distinct concepts in the New Testament. The Greek word teleios can describe that which is complete, mature, or full-grown, according to its context. We ought not to impose upon every occurrence of perfection the modern notion of absolute flawlessness, nor ought we to diminish the biblical demand for genuine holiness by appealing to human frailty.

Nevertheless, I believe the example of our Lord in Hebrews 12 is especially pertinent to this discussion.

The writer says:

“FOR YE HAVE NOT YET RESISTED UNTO BLOOD, STRIVING AGAINST SIN: and ye have forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons,

MY SON, REGARD NOT LIGHTLY THE CHASTENING OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN THOU ART REPROVED OF HIM;
FOR WHOM THE LORD LOVETH HE CHASTENETH,
AND SCOURGETH EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVETH.

It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not?” (Hebrews 12:4–7, ASV).

Consider carefully what the passage teaches. The writer does not present divine discipline exclusively as punishment for wrongdoing. Indeed, he explains that the Lord disciplines His children for their benefit, “that we may be partakers of his holiness” (verse 10). He further says that chastening, though grievous in the present, “yieldeth peaceable fruit unto them that have been exercised thereby, even the fruit of righteousness” (verse 11).

Here, then, is a truth that ought not to be overlooked: God does not merely deal with His children in response to their failures; He also disciplines them for their formation in holiness.

Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is the supreme example. Hebrews 5:8 says that, “though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” We must not misconstrue this as implying that Christ was ever disobedient or needed correction for sin. Rather, through suffering, He experienced and fulfilled obedience in its appointed course. The passage demonstrates that suffering and divine discipline cannot always be reduced to punishment for personal transgression.

Therefore, whatever terminology William Tyndale employed, Hebrews 12 gives us reason to distinguish between discipline that forms the obedient child and discipline that corrects the disobedient child. The Father’s dealings with His children are directed toward holiness, righteousness, and the peaceable fruit of a life brought into conformity with His will.

This matters when we consider the question of whether a Christian may commit adultery or murder and nevertheless remain in a right relationship with God.

We must not confuse the existence of divine patience with divine approval. That God may grant a sinner time to repent does not mean that the sinner’s present conduct is acceptable to Him. Nor does the fact that a person has not yet received the final judgment of his rebellion establish that he remains in an approved spiritual condition throughout that rebellion.

Romans 2:4 warns that the goodness of God leads us to repentance. Verse 5 then warns against those who, through hardness and an impenitent heart, treasure up wrath for themselves. The very patience that affords an opportunity for repentance aggravates rather than excuses the guilt of refusing to repent.

At the same time, we must distinguish between a person who sins through weakness and grieves over his failure, seeking the Lord’s forgiveness and help, and a person who knowingly embraces unrighteousness and makes peace with his rebellion. Scripture does not treat these conditions as identical.

Consider, for example, a father who discovers that a man has molested his child and, overcome by grief and rage in a sudden encounter, brutally kills the offender in vengeance. His act is unquestionably sinful; the wickedness of the offense against his child does not authorize him to take vengeance into his own hands (Romans 12:19). Yet there is a distinction between this man, who commits a terrible sin in a moment of overwhelming passion and human weakness, and a man who coolly resolves to murder his neighbor, makes deliberate preparations to accomplish it, and persists in his intention without remorse. Both acts are sinful, and neither should be excused. Nevertheless, the circumstances, disposition of heart, and response to the truth are not identical. One may be overcome in a sudden encounter by a passion he ought to have governed; the other may knowingly cultivate his evil intention and deliberately carry it into effect.

This distinction does not make the first man’s sin righteous, nor does it establish that he remains in a right relationship with God merely because his transgression arose under extraordinary circumstances. Rather, it illustrates why we must distinguish the act itself from the disposition and response of the person who commits it. Does he subsequently acknowledge his guilt, humble himself before God, and genuinely repent? (as David did) Or does he justify his vengeance, defend his conduct as righteous, and remain resolved to act similarly again? (as did Lamech in Genesis) The first response is consistent with a conscience awakened to sin and a heart seeking restoration; the second reveals the danger of making peace with unrighteousness.

We must be equally careful not to presume that the intensity of a person’s emotions excuses his conduct, or that a person’s outward composure necessarily proves a more hardened heart. God judges righteously, knowing the heart in its entirety. Our point is not to pronounce the eternal standing of either man, but to recognize that the Scriptures distinguish between stumbling into sin and giving oneself over to it. Divine mercy is not an excuse for either, but it is the ground upon which the penitent may seek forgiveness and cleansing.

John himself makes this distinction. He writes that those who claim fellowship with God while walking in darkness lie and do not the truth (1 John 1:6). He also declares that if “we” confess “our” sins, God is faithful and righteous to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (verse 9). These statements belong together. Fellowship with God cannot be reconciled with a settled commitment to darkness, yet the remedy for “our” sins includes confession, cleansing, and the advocacy of Jesus Christ.

We should therefore be careful about saying either that a Christian may persist in grave, unrepented wickedness without consequence, or that every sin committed by a Christian necessarily establishes that he has been finally severed from God. Both conclusions require us to say more than the individual texts necessarily say.

The question is not merely whether a person has sinned. The question is also how he responds to the word of God, to the conviction of his conscience, and to the discipline of his heavenly Father. Does he humble himself, confess his sin, and turn from it? Or does he harden himself against correction and continue in unrighteousness?

Hebrews 12 does not teach us to regard discipline as an alternative to holiness. It teaches us that the Father disciplines us for the sake of holiness. Neither does the doctrine of grace permit us to regard the old life of sin as compatible with the new life in Christ.

Paul asks, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” His answer is unequivocal: “God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?” (Romans 6:1–2, ASV). He goes on to say that we are to reckon ourselves dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus, and to yield ourselves unto God as those alive from the dead (verses 11–13).

That is not justification in sin. It is a call to abandon sin and live unto God.

Yet we must also remember that the Christian life is one of growth. The same apostle who commands us not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies also exhorts the brethren to present themselves as servants of righteousness (Romans 6:12–19). His exhortation presupposes the continuing necessity of obedience, vigilance, and growth. It does not authorize rebellion, but neither does it require us to pretend that every child of God has already attained the fullness of mature Christian character.

This is where the language of maturity becomes important. The goal is not a perpetual accommodation to sin, but growth toward the fullness of the life God intends for us. We are to be transformed, renewed, disciplined, and conformed to the image of His Son.

Consequently, I would not resolve this question merely by dismissing forensic language or every distinction between justification and sanctification. The more fundamental question is whether our understanding of justification is faithful to the whole counsel of God. Whatever terminology we employ, it must never be used to excuse unrighteousness or to sever forgiveness from repentance and the pursuit of holiness.

The grace that forgives is not an endorsement of the sin forgiven. The mercy that receives the penitent does not make rebellion righteous. And the patience of God is not a promise that an impenitent person may remain indefinitely in rebellion without judgment.

Our confidence is in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, our Advocate with the Father; our calling is to abide in Him, walk in the light, CONFESS our sins (which entails a continuing need for that catharsis), and bear the fruit of righteousness. We must neither presume upon His mercy nor despair of it when we are genuinely repentant.

The Father’s purpose is not merely to leave us in a favorable position while permitting us to remain unchanged. He disciplines us that we may partake of His holiness (set-apartness from worldliness and sin). He desires that we should grow into maturity, that our love may be perfected, and that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.

As John writes:

“Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, even so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17, ASV).

John does not merely warn against denying particular acts of sin; he writes:

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8, ASV).

The apostle includes himself among those who confess their sins: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (verse 9).

This reinforces the distinction between acknowledging the reality of sin and making peace with the practice of sin. John does not teach that Christians must pretend they have attained a state in which they have no need of confession, cleansing, or the advocacy of Christ. Indeed, he writes these things so that his readers may not sin, while providing for the possibility that some one OF THEM may sin (1 John 2:1).

The point, then, is not that the repentant Christian never has any sin to confess, but that he does not excuse, cherish, or defend his sin. He brings it into the light, acknowledges it before God, and seeks cleansing. The person who walks in darkness, by contrast, denies the truth by claiming fellowship with God while persisting in a course incompatible with that fellowship (1 John 1:6).

John’s answer is neither the self-deception that “I have not sin. Ever.” nor complacency toward sin, but honest confession, divine cleansing, and a life directed toward obedience.

He tells us that we may know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Paul gives us a whole list —Murderers adulterers fornicators etc “shall not inherit the kingdom of God”, he says. Then we must certainly not be a murderer, that is “one who murders”. Or likewise one who adulterates. Or one who fornicates or sodomizes or steals or one who loves and practices a lie. What then about the one who steals for hunger’s sake in the midst of poverty, out of weakness and spiritual immaturity, and then the next day repents towards God and makes full restitution towards the one wronged? He is immature for certain. I am sure of that.

I pray God give me the grace to grow unto maturity. I am not perfect. I am not mature enough. I fail too often. ‘Once’ is too often to fail the One who gave everything for my sake. Every day I take up His promise that He made for people like me who “lack wisdom”. Shall I ever have enough of His wisdom? “If any one lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives without reproach to them who ask. But let him ask in faith with no doubting.” (Paraphrase of James epistle). 

When you or those that read this approach our Lord in prayer, please ask our Father on my behalf “Help brother John, because he is far weaker and imperfect than he would prefer to be”.

Hi brother. I guess would I like to tell you I really appreciate your attitude towards indwelling sin. I believe the Salvation which Jesus offers us can truly allow us to walk in Victory and live above reproach. I personally do not live with indwelling sin in my life. I do not call myself a sinner. I am a saint of God. Now, I can only imagine someone out there is probably reading my post saying “how dare you, Nathanael? You are self- righteous! There is none Good, no not one!” I will also say now that I have absolutely nothing to boast of. Jesus simply saved me from my sin. In him alone do I glory. I am simply passing on the Gospel of Hope. If Jesus cast legions of Demons out of the Man in the Tombs, he can do the same for you and me. I guess will also say I am grieved for David’s sake. Please bear with me, I love David and his family deeply. However, I will not let my feelings get in the way. I too, have wondered why David at times, talks that way. Based upon some of his audio cds, particularly concerning the Kingdom Life, I give him the benefit of doubt. But brother I want you to know I fully appreciate your concerns. God bless you. Thanks for bringing it up.

When Jesus says, “I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven”, He explains in parable that this is to align our approach to forgiveness and mercy with that of our Heavenly Father. He therefore implicitly states that our Father forgives all who repent. The writer Ezekiel states this explicitly. This means that if one could truly repent upon sinning against his brother in 70 times 7 different ways in one day, he could be forgiven by his obedient brother and his Heavenly Father. The limiting constraint is presented not as being the Mercifulness of the Father, but whether men will repent indeed. He says that neither should our limiting constraint of forgiveness be our own willingness to extend mercy, but rather that it should be whether or not our brother comes to us and repents of the wrong. 

Thank you brother John for sharing. My mind travels to the Last Supper. In the anabaptist church where I attend, twice a year we have communion as a congregation. And I struggle with some of my church’s traditions. I sometimes, feel like we hold a much higher standard than Jesus even did, concerning who is “worthy to partake” And confession was not even needed. Jesus already knew. He knew every mistake they were going to make that night.

My best hope is that brother Bercot believes the same as the brother of Jesus, who wrote “for we all make many stumbles; if any one in word doth not stumble, this one is a perfect man, able to bridle also the whole body;”. 

Brethren,

Thank you for the responses. However, I must point out that my primary question has been completely bypassed:

How does David Bercot's "time to repent on the vine" functionally differ from William Tyndale's claim that a believer's murder or adultery is covered under grace and does not bring the damnation of the law?

Brother John Mark, in post #3, you brushed Tyndale aside by stating that whatever terminology William Tyndale employed, Hebrews 12 gives us reason to distinguish between discipline that forms the obedient child and discipline that corrects the disobedient child. But you never answered the question. Instead, you proceeded to defend the very premise Tyndale articulated.

Consider what you wrote regarding a father who kills an offender in vengeance: you classified murder committed in a moment of "overwhelming passion and human weakness" as distinct from a premeditated act, arguing that such a person has not necessarily severed their relationship with God. But that is the exact theological maneuver Tyndale made.

Tyndale wrote that if a believer sins, even if it be murder, theft, or adultery, he does it not of purpose, but of infirmity, chance, and some great temptation that hath overcome him, and therefore it is under mercy and grace, so that his father shall scourge him, but not cast him away, or damn him.

Calling murder an "infirmity," "human weakness," or "a failure to govern passion" does not change what Scripture calls it. The Holy Ghost explicitly categorises murder and adultery as works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Scripture never classifies capital transgressions as sins of ignorance or human frailty (Numbers 15:27-31). Paul warns without qualification: they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Furthermore, misapplying Hebrews 12 to provide an umbrella for high-handed wickedness distorts the passage. Hebrews 12:4 begins: Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. God chastens His children through trials and persecution to make them partakers of His holiness (v. 10), not to maintain an ongoing marital buffer for a believer actively committing murder or adultery. Just two chapters earlier, the author states plainly:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Jesus gave no indication of a temporary grace buffer on the vine for workers of iniquity. He said in John 15:6 that if a man abide not in Him, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

A branch does not produce the deadly poison of murder or adultery while remaining plugged into the life-giving sap of the True Vine. Jesus did teach in Matthew 7:18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Abiding in Christ is explicitly defined by keeping His commandments (John 15:10).

The moment a person turns to deliberate, high-handed wickedness, like adultery or murder, they have departed from the light and chosen darkness, they are severed, they are no longer a good tree. God in His long-suffering may grant them space to repent - just as He granted space to Jezebel (Revelation 2:21) - but divine patience is not the same as being "still saved" or remaining "in the relationship" while committing heinous crimes.

The silence on the Tyndale comparison is telling. Bercot's "marital buffer" and Tyndale's "venial murder under grace" are functional twins. Both stem from the foundational error of positional justification: the belief that God declares an unregenerate person righteous on the front end ("Phase 1" in Bercot's lecture), which inevitably forces the system to invent a legal buffer to keep them "saved" on the back end when they fall into wickedness.

Brother Nathanael stated the truth simply: Jesus came to save us from our sins, not to grant us a cover to sin and remain on the vine. A soul is either a servant of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness (Romans 6:16). There is no middle ground.

How is it possible that on a forum elevating the early church and holiness we can be defending murder and adultery as being permissible for a time? That absolutely blows my mind!

Brother Scott, I actually said:

Brother John Mark,

I appreciate you clarifying your position. When I used the word "permissible," I was not suggesting that you or David Bercot view murder or adultery as lawful, commendable, or morally approved. My point was about functional permissibility:

if a theological framework teaches that a believer can commit murder or adultery and remain "saved," "still married," and "on the vine" while God gives them time to repent, it has created a temporary legal umbrella where high-handed sin is permitted to occur without costing the sinner their union with Christ.

That kind of teaching is clearly implying that "salvation" is purely forensic or positional, because then salvation is obviously not from sin, but rather serves as a cloak for sin.

You stated clearly in your reply that you do not believe in such a probationary buffer, that such a man does not remain in a right relationship with God, and you affirmed without hesitation that "no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15) and that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I agree with your scriptural assessment completely. But brother, if you hold to that, don't you see that you have refuted David Bercot's teaching?

I was strongly recommended this website, but as I started reading through the courses I began to see positional salvation being clearly taught alongside religious works. I began to think, wow, this is just the same error as taught in Protestantism, just dressed up in Anabaptist clothing. I mean, is it not?

Look again at what David Bercot explicitly stated on Anabaptist Perspectives:

"...you can commit a heinous sin, I mean you can be committing adultery, you can commit a, you know, a terrible crime, even murder somebody, and that doesn't mean necessarily you've been cut off the vine at that point. He gives you time to repent... you're still married, I mean the relationship is still there... You're still in that relationship until at such point, you know, He cuts you off the vine..."

David Bercot did not say God gives the sinner time to repent before physical death or final judgment. He explicitly said: you have not necessarily been cut off the vine, and you are still in that relationship while committing adultery or murder.

Those two statements cannot both be true:

1. If 1 John 3:15 is literal and true, that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him, then the very moment a believer commits murder, they have severed themselves from eternal life. Because Jesus Christ is that eternal life (1 John 5:20), they are, by definition, cut off from the Vine immediately (John 15:6).

2. If David Bercot is correct that a believer committing murder or adultery is "still in that relationship" and has "not necessarily been cut off the vine," then there exists an interval where a person possesses salvation and union with Christ while simultaneously committing capital works of the flesh.

That is why I brought up William Tyndale. Tyndale did not teach that murder was morally good or without consequence; he taught that when a believer commits murder or adultery, it is an infirmity under grace, so God "shall scourge him, but not cast him away, or damn him." Functionally, Bercot's "time to repent on the vine without being cast off" produces the exact same result: a positional safety net during the commission of wicked works.

Think what that framework teaches valuable souls: You CAN sin and not surely die. If I can commit adultery or murder due to a moment of weakness, then I can lie, cheat, or view pornography - surely not as bad as adultery or murder, right? The result being sin among the brethren because that is just the normal thing. David Bercot did in fact say we sin every day. What are we meant to do with that? Accept that or ignore it? That's dangerous teaching, and if people believe it, where is their guard?

They will very easily likewise believe in a positional salvation where their old man is still alive and enter a Christianity with their old man regulated by outward rules (i.e. in this context drawn from the Sermon on the Mount) and yet completely miss what it means to be set free indeed (John 8:36).

Brother Nathanael pointed out the real dilemma earlier: as citizens of the Kingdom of God, the moment we commit high-handed rebellion against our King, we are outlaws. God's long-suffering may grant space to repent (Revelation 2:21), but divine patience is not the same as being "still on the vine." What I hope to accomplish is simply to uphold the biblical truth that we abide in Christ only as we walk in the light and keep His commandments (1 John 3:24).