Yeah, this is where we differ. born again, dead again, born again, dead again, born again, dead again. . . . I don't see it in the Bible
Yet you stand firmly behind a daily...sin repent sin repent sin repent? .
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yeah, this is where we differ. born again, dead again, born again, dead again, born again, dead again. . . . I don't see it in the Bible
Ironically the verse you quoted showed the ESV version which reads
Romans 3:25
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
I think this version more accurately states the case.
We are not saved by trusting in the efficacy of the blood. We are cleansed by the blood of Christ through faith in order to enter into Christ. We never see the blood but only the effect of bringing us into His presence. We aren't trusting in an historical event but in a person whom we are coming into close fellowship with.
Hi Episkopos,
I can see why you prefer the ESV in view of some of your other comments, and it's not that I disagree with the meaning the ESV has given (though not sure if it was translated from the majority text), but I believe your emphasis on the risen Christ should not be at the expense of understanding that His blood is eternally significant in His Father's sight, and should be in ours.
There are many pagan rituals which involve the shedding of blood for the appeasement of local gods, and to preach the gospel effectively, the blood of Christ has to be proclaimed as THE BLOOD of an eternal sacrifice - the life of Christ poured out - which has the power to cleanse men from all sin. 1 John 1:7, Acts 13:39, Leviticus 17:11, 14.
To shy away from the life that He lived in purity and perfection, which was put to public ridicule and abuse before being hung on the tree in quite a broken state, humanly speaking, is to miss the parallels which many Christians must embrace to endure to the end of what God has called them to suffer for His Name. If it were not that Christ is literally raised from the dead after such an ordeal, there is nothing for a Christian to hold on to; for surely as one is being mangled by temptation and torture, one is sifted and sifted with regard to one's standing before God. I, personally, needed to understand 'the blood' in situations I have already been through, where knowing it is the blood of Christ which satisfied God, has been the difference between my overcoming and my being overcome. Eph 3:8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
You said to Mark,
I would not make this distinction. If the blood of Christ is not efficacious in God's sight, then it is no use to me either.
You seem to be forgetting that there was - for our benefit, no doubt, as much as for the party in heaven when Christ had ascended - a delay between both His death and His resurrection, and His resurrection and His ascension. Then there was another delay before the Holy Spirit was poured out. These periods of time are all stacked with significance in the OT for our edification and encouragement as we abide in Him. These are alluded to by different NT writers Hebrews 9:23, Acts 2:33 and are a very real part of God's preparation of Israel to receive the Holy Spirit - for the continuation of God's own purposes upon the earth; the earth of our own bodies, if we will yield them to Him.
Now, maybe you aren't 'forgetting' these things, and maybe you aren't an evangelist or a preacher, but to those who are given the message to proclaim, 'the blood' is a very important part of it, especially for those who have certain sins on their conscience, or, who are coming out of an alternative sacrificial system, such as every occult and pagan alternative to faith in the Saviour of the world.
Since when do we have any requirement for blood ourselves?
I accept that the KJV says what it says...it is the interpretation of what it says that is at issue. :)
Hi D.
Ironically the verse you quoted showed the ESV version which reads
Romans 3:25
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
I think this version more accurately states the case.
Such as http://biblia.com/books/kjv/Ro3 instead of ...
Thanks Axehead. I'd wondered about that...
Do you know what the manuscript background is, of the ESV? (Random question. Just wondering. No pressure... really.)
The ESV is not based on the TR. I believe it is Westcott and Hort.
Hi Axehead,
Thank you. I should probably look at it more carefully before forming an opinon, but my impression from previous discussions elsewhere, is that Westcott and Hort's work was not universally acknowledged with acclaim.
Very good points and refreshingly honest! :)Man, I must be a heterodoxical nightmare. I'm reading this and want to go comment on nearly every post. So I figured rather than flooding the spot, I'd hit the ones I could remember.... What I've found on this topic is the idea of someone reaching a point where they do not commit a sin in their life, scares the heck anyone who still sins so they have to react defensively. It's pretty understandable since the Church teaches a sin centric theology and misses the point of the Gospel entirely.
The other issue is peole look at the topic and think "WHAT CAN I DO", "I CAN'T HELP IT", and of course that's true too.
But the result is, rather than exegetics we try to prove our presuppositions to justify our own skin.
It's not very fair. Not to the discussion/argument. I have no denominational ties. While at a glance I'm Wesleyan, I would be happy to debate John Wesley, or Finney and refute some of their claims. I'm sorta unique I guess.... but I'm there honestly.
Some dilemmas in the conversation.
Last third of Romand 7 Paul seems to say HE personally struggles with the flesh daily. Except in Romans 7:5 he says he's not in the flesh any longer. So that would imply there is something to figure out, or Paul was an idiot.
Another dilemma is people associate the word FLESH/SARX with the human body which is SOMA. (although sometimes Sarx is used for the body whole, but context context context... it's usually pretty obvious.)
Another dilemma is people ask, "who have you met that is sinless"? Well, probably more than I've met that raised from the dead after three days.... what's the point of that?
People can't imagine how they could stop sinning, but God doesn't leave it up to man to accomplish. Can we not trust GOD to do what He says He will do?
People imply there are two natures that battle inside of them, sinful nature and Christ's Spirit, except scripture says point blank that position is a farce. See Romans 8:9.
So, here's a quick summary of my understanding.
I can't claim to be indwelled by the Spirit as I still have a sinful nature. Romans 8:9
I can't claim to walk by the Spirit as I still give into temptations, Gal 5:16.
I can't claim to know Him, 1 john 3:6.
I can't claim to yet be in fellowship with Him, 1 john chapter 1.
I can't claim to be born of Him, 1 john 3:9/5:18.
Another interesting thing that pops up in these chats, there are a lot of verses that say "IF" and people assume whatever the most beneficial conclusion is, belongs to them. 8:9 above is an example. IF I am indwelled by the Spirit I am no longer in the flesh. Well, if I still have a flesh nature, then the logic says I'm not yet indwelled by the Spirit. But people just ignore all that and make the claim of having both.
The last thing that interferes with logic in this conversation is Paul spoke as a Mature believer. He's on record as saying he speaks different things to the mature believers, or those that are perfect.... (the word for Perfect in Greek is synonomous with our word for Mature when we discuss human spiritual growth.) So, Paul speaks to the milk drinkers in simpler ways so they can understand.
Why is it that if Paul says WE, the milk drinkers still growing assume that means themselves, rather than the WE that are the mature believers that Paul writes to them as?
Very good points and refreshingly honest! :)
The NT account presents us with many dilemmas and scandals. The way to understand the meaning of these is not to quickly explain them away with a superficial argument.
Anyone claiming to be sinless in thought,word,deed,intention and motive is a liar and the truth is not in them.....they are puffed up and full of pride
The following passages are but a few of the many that are pointless if it is possible to be perfect in this life
"and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors".....not talking about the bank or mortage company here,it is God forgiving our sins against him as we forgive those who sin against us
"blessed is the man to whom the lord will not impute sin" impute means to assign to,why would the bible ever say that about someone who was perfect ? again it would be pointless.
"blessed are they who's iniquities are forgiven and who's sins are covered" the perfect man or woman by definition does not need their sins covered.
"if any man sin we have an advocate with the father" the perfect man or woman needs no advocate.
And last but not least
"if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleans us from all unrightousness"....perfect men and women have no need of such.
The man or woman of God loves the word of God and the law of God,it is their most sincere desire to not sin and God will keep them on the path of rightousness and will hold them up should they fall because the rightous man or woamn gets up when they fall.....the perfect of course never fall so i guss its just another part of the bible that does not apply to them.
I will say it again....anyone who claims perfection in this life and in this flesh is a liar and the truth is not in them,they are false teachers and are feeding egos and leading people into Hell...which they themselves will not escape.
Anyone claiming to be sinless in thought,word,deed,intention and motive is a liar and the truth is not in them.....they are puffed up and full of pride
The following passages are but a few of the many that are pointless if it is possible to be perfect in this life
"and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors".....
not talking about the bank or mortage company here,it is God forgiving our sins against him as we forgive those who sin against us
"blessed is the man to whom the lord will not impute sin" impute means to assign to,why would the bible ever say that about someone who was perfect ? again it would be pointless.
"blessed are they who's iniquities are forgiven and who's sins are covered" the perfect man or woman by definition does not need their sins covered.
"if any man sin we have an advocate with the father" the perfect man or woman needs no advocate.
And last but not least
"if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleans us from all unrightousness"....perfect men and women have no need of such.
(your argument says he can't keep them there.. you have to attend that he fails if he tries.)The man or woman of God loves the word of God and the law of God,it is their most sincere desire to not sin and God will keep them on the path of rightousness
and will hold them up should they fall because the rightous man or woamn gets up when they fall.....the perfect of course never fall so i guss its just another part of the bible that does not apply to them.
I will say it again....anyone who claims perfection in this life and in this flesh is a liar
and the truth is not in them,they are false teachers and are feeding egos and leading people into Hell...which they themselves will not escape.
Yet you stand firmly behind a daily...sin repent sin repent sin repent? .
Ahh...yeah....that's what the bible teaches. It's not talking about...going out and stealing something then saying 'sorry God'...then verbally abusing someone and saying afterwards 'sorry God'...then going home to your live in girlfriend/boyfriend, whom you are not married to, sleeping with them, and saying 'sorry God'.
Before repentance you have confession. You describe confession above and mention repentance here... why are you mixing the two and interchanging them as if they were synonyms?Your very actions show that you are not, in fact sorry, and that you fully intend on continuing on in whatever behaviour you choose.
This is not repenting, as biblical repenting involves feeling a heart grief at your behaviour and how it offends God..and a true intent to stop that behaviour.
When the bible talks about a Christian sinning and repenting, it's talking about true repentance, which follows sin unlike the above sinning with intent.
A Christian is not perfect...
the bible teaches us that we will only reach perfection once we are dead and are given a new body.
So even if we love Jesus and are pursuing him with the power of the Holy Spirit, we are still very likely to stumble...several times a day! A stray thought or comment, the anger or impatience we show others, the curse that slips out when some idiot cuts us off in traffic dangerously, the Sunday morning we stay in bed because we'd rather sleep than worship Jesus with others.
We don't look down the barrel of these things and do them even though we know them to be sin....they bubble to the surface, an indication of how essentially broken we are as people. It's these things that remind us every single day how much we need Jesus and his gift of grace, of how lost we would be without him.
This is why we do repent...
because we love him, need him and don't want to sin. It's our very saved nature that allows us to repent...to see the need of it. It's the Holy Spirit who guides us to repent, and gives us the ability to not turn back to that behaviour. So I cannot agree, scripturally, with the idea that when we sin, we are dead...but somehow while we are dead, we manage to come alive...which makes us perfect....and yet somehow, while we are perfect, we suddenly manage to die again. Thats not biblical...it's doesn't even make sense. Sorry.
If you slept with them, you ARE married to them. There is no sin there, until you sleep with another. You lack a formality, not a marriage. Col 2 would be a good read about those making up rules rather than the substance of what was taught.
Before repentance you have confession. You describe confession above and mention repentance here... why are you mixing the two and interchanging them as if they were synonyms?
If you repented, you never commit that sin again. If you repented from sins, you never sin again.
Paul said himself and others were. He taught different things to the perfect believers, and he wrote that he was to present those people to Christ at his return as perfect, and that was apparently when they thought to see His return in their lives. For you to come down so hard on someone, it would be less distracting if your claims held up to scripture.
THAT IS NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE. I will buy you an amazon gift card fo r20 bucks if you can find it.
Most of those things wouldn't be sins. Anger isn't a sin. Not going to church isn't a sin. Sin is not the purpose of Christ. He came for much more than salvation. His arrival wasn't only about sins. The GOSPEL does not deal with sin but with love. I would REALLY encourage you to study more and listen less to those teaching this stuff.... it's shallow and disruptive to scripture's claims.
YOu don't do repent, HE repents you. HE does the changing not you. HOWEVER it's done through what you do. Who parted the red sea, God or Moses. But MOSES did all the work, held the stick, etc...
This is NOT the words to say someone else isn't biblical.
Perhaps if there was less accusing and more discussing this would go along better.
I'm seeing and mostly getting NOT DISCUSSIONS but people trying to tell the world HOW IT IS BY GAWD! Can we stop that and stick to the arguments and make positions you support with context and scripture? Rather than make "NU UHS!" but never back them up?
Yeah, this is where we differ. born again, dead again, born again, dead again, born again, dead again. . . . I don't see it in the Bible.
Yet you stand firmly behind a daily...sin repent sin repent sin repent? .
hi Rach,
I think it is important to remember what the fruit of the Spirit is ...... none of it is morality.......instead, it is all different aspects of love towards God and others. So, perhaps, personal, chronic sinful behavior may not be the fruit that Paul was talking about when he was pointing out how to tell if someone is not following Christ. It makes more sense to me that bitterness, hateful, fatalism is the fruit of a person living in darkness rather than chronic sin.