A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

1. Concerning Saul, you say, "So my answer would be that no one can judge him." Well, the Spirit departed from him, God became his enemy, the Lord departed from him, he committed suicide - but you still aren't sure. OK, I can accept that you do not know - which was your first response: you said, "I honestly do not know..." Now you've moved forward to: "No one can judge him". That's a shade different, and I submit that you do not know that to be the case. Just because you do not know in no way implies that no one else can. Most scholars do not question that King Saul was ultimately lost, but they are divided on his initial salvation. 2. "He exercised his choice of rejecting God which is not a sin." You continually assert that rejecting God is not a sin, but you have yet to prove it. Your proof is your assertion. Who said "rejecting God is not a sin?" You and no one else. More on that later. 3. You: "I don't care if you forsake God and he forsakes you because it's a totally different thing than rejection." Is it? "Forsake" (Gr. egkataleipï¿½ï¿½) simply means to "totally abandon, desert" (Thayer's Lexicon), while "reject" (Gr. atheteo) means "to despise and set aside." (Thayer's Lexicon) Your position is that one can "despise and set aside God" and, in so doing, did not sin. I said the two words are shades of the same meaning, and they are: "totally abandon, desert, set aside". What's the difference? Not a bit! In fact, if you'll kindly take a look at the word "defection" at Thesaurus.com, you will see that the definition is "abandonment", and the synonyms, s-y-n-o-n-y-m-s, include ... what? ... both "rejection" and "forsaking." Yet you stand up against two words used as synonyms for "defection" and declare, "I don't care if you forsake God and he forsakes you because it's a totally different thing than rejection." Totally different, eh? I said they were shades of the same concept; you denied it; and I've proved it. 5. You say, "The Law is flawed which means that the basis of right and wrong was flawed and "every man did as his own will"." Well, you place the "every man did his own will" in quotes, but I fail to see a reference. You say, "The Law is flawed", and further define "flawed" as "the basis of right and wrong was flawed." Well, the cornerstone of the Mosaic Law was the Ten Commandments written by God on Sinai - yet you claim the "basis was all wrong." Tell us, please: in what respect was the basis all wrong? Better yet, tell us who caused it to be wrong - since God authored it. 6. "I have proven that it is rejecting God that will make you eternally lost and that choice is not a sin." I call upon you to prove that "rejecting God is not a sin." You made the assertion; now take the Bible and prove it. It is a mere unsubstantiated play on words, and the theory goes that when a person rejects God, he then necessarily sins, so there you are. I asked him if a person could reject God and not sin. No answer. It's six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other. 7. "But the rejecting of God is not the thought of the heart." Well, now we have it: "rejection" is neither a thought nor an action. Do tell, WHAT is it? I was under the vague impression that the vast majority of human activity is either a "thought" or an "action", but now you have discovered a third category, "rejection" (which is neither a thought nor an action). What in the world is it, then? Why do you not give us a positive, plain, declarative definition of "rejection" in a way that it is neither a "thought" nor an "action"? I submit that you can't do it. The challenge is yours. 8. "I would not say that rejecting God is evil." I know what you say: "rejection isn't evil, rejection isn't a sin, rejection isn't a thought" - but have you noticed that you've yet to tell us what it IS? You specialize by telling us all the things it isn't, and by the time you're done, "rejection" really isn't anything. It's not a thought, an action, a sin, evil, or anything else. And I await your analysis of why "rejection" and "forsaking" are synonyms for "defection". You've drawn an imaginary distinction between the two. 9. "Evil thoughts are sin but the rejecting of Christ is not because the Lord gave us this choice." Here's your reasoning: "We have a choice of whether to reject Christ or not." "The Lord gave us this choice." "Since the choice came from the Lord, it is not a sin." The fact that there IS a choice is not a sin, per se, but do you not see that I could prove rape and murder are not sins by the same logic? "We have a choice of whether to rape and murder." "The Lord gave us this choice." "Since the choice came from the Lord, it is not a sin." Want to see it applied to the mental rather than physical? "We have a choice of whether to look upon a woman and lust." "The Lord gave us this choice." Since the choice came from the Lord, it is not a sin." Don't you see, sir, that your own logic turns against you? By your logic, I could prove every sin under the sun is NOT a sin because God gave us a choice in the matter. The trouble: your logic on the matter is flawed to start with. The very fact that there is a choice is supportive of my concept, not yours. Every sin is a choice, isn't it? I ask you to name one that isn't. 10. In reference to Matt 5: 28 - "looking on a woman to lust", you ask, "So? What's you're point. This is one instance where God says that lusting is a sin." This is the point: whether the person committed any specific physical act or not, just the thought was the sin - that's what the point is. If a person forsakes God, rejects God, defects from God, abandons God, or whatever, the thought process alone desertion is not a sin, but the conclusion - rejection and desertion - is. Yet stand up and say, "No, it's not, but it might result in a sin." I will point out the latter part of Rom 14: 23, " ... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Alrighty, is your contention that "rejecting God" is (1) "of faith" or (2) "not of faith." Certainly if you say "rejecting God" is "not of faith", then I'll reply that it is sin - and away with your contention. And James 2: 17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Is "rejecting God" good? How about "not rejecting God"? Would that be "good"? If so, I'll insert it, "To him that knoweth to 'not reject God', and doeth it not, (i. e., double-negative: does reject God), to him it is sin." 11. "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Yet you say, "When I have proven that the rejecting of God is what takes us to hell and that is not a sin." Your sins separated you from God, but rejecting God causes eternal separation, yet it's not a sin? Shades of old Aristostle! According to you, sin isn't even what lands a person in hell. 12. "God gave us this freedom to ultimately choose if we reject him or not which is why it is not a sin. The exercising of this is a God-given right." Correct to the 2nd sentence, but technically, the choice to commit adultery is a God-given right. I have that choice, do I not? But according to you, "this freedom to ultimately choose = why it is not a sin." Again, tell us exactly what sin is NOT a choice. I'd like to see a list. To summarize, con's contention on the proposition is over the word "sin" - that's all it amounts to. He asserts that "rejecting God" and "forsaking God" are "totally different things", despite the fact that they are synonyms for the same word, "defection". He attempts this maneuver to escape the force of certain passages. He asserts, without foundation, that the total defection from, desertion of, and rejection of God is not a sin, but, in so doing, he must claim that "rejection of God" is "of faith" because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." I maintain that his hands are tied on that verse alone. Thanks. I wait your negation.