Christ only died for past sins...

[n2thelight]

If a believer is committing so many of those listed sins daily that they can’t keep up with repenting of them, I would question whether they’ve ever been born again, and became a new creation, with old things passing away, and all things becoming new.

Matthew 18:21 "Then came Peter to Him, and said, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?"

Matthew 18:22 "Jesus saith unto him, "I say not unto the, until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

 

[quietthinker]

I gave the scriptures that say old sins and past sins are forgiven at salvation, ill stick with scripture.

His sacrifice was for all the sins of the world, once for all time, but God can choose how that sacrifice is applied to us, which requirements are faith and repentance- but when scripture specifies only past sins and old sins are forgiven at salvation, it becomes obvious that we cant PRE-REPENT of our sins before they are committed, thus we must repent of future sins as they are committed, for them to also be forgiven

And as I also said, 1 John 1 confirms that we must confess our sins as Christians, to be cleansed of them.

That’s really not a hard concept to understand- but even if we couldn’t figure our any possible reason why only old sins and past sins are forgiven at salvation- all we are required to do is believe the scriptures, and not our logical reasoning.

Also, Paul lists the sins that will keep a believer out of heaven - many people call them the death penalty sins, and the list isn’t every little sin that can be committed, but adultery, lying, murder, stealing, homosexual relations, drunkenness, etc.

If a believer is committing so many of those listed sins daily that they can’t keep up with repenting of them, I would question whether they’ve ever been born again, and became a new creation, with old things passing away, and all things becoming new.

Shalom Aleichem

The scriptural record of how Jesus related is clear; he required nothing from people for him to forgive them. When people repented it was because of forgiveness being extended. The good news tells us to hear and those that hear ie, take in the good news will repent.

 

[Taken]

SIN of a Hebrew, Tribesman, Jew - was TRANSGRESSION of the LAW.

Hebrew - Mosaic - Levitical LAWS INCLUDED -
Men Against God - AND Men Against their Hebrew, Tribesmen, Jewish Brethren.

PAST SINS - Of Hebrews, Tribesmen, Jews were repeatedly FORGIVEN BY the giving of Animal Blood.

FUTURE SINS - OF Hebrews, Tribesmen Jews were repeatedly AGAIN FORGIVEN BY the giving of Animal Blood.

A person FAILING to HEAR, LISTEN, and UNDERSTAND, WHAT IS "NEW KNOWLEGE TO THEIR EARS"...
AND THAT person ASKS a Question, EXPRESSLY REVEALING, THEY FAILED TO HEAR, LISTEN, UNDERSTAND....THE NEW KNOWLEDGE
* THEY ARE GIVEN AN "NEW" answer THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND (coupled with an) "OLD" answer, they DO Understand.

IN CONTEXT -
Peter was A JEW!
Peter was UNDER the LAW!
UNDER THE LAW, "men called transgression of MEN AGAINST MEN"....A SIN.
UNDER THE LAW, "men forgave men of Sin"!

IN CONTEXT -
Peter (as a Jew, UNDERTHE LAW) is asking Jesus a question.

Matt 18:
[21] Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Jesus (IN TRUTH), gives AN ANSWER...
That APPLIES TO BOTH...
A man UNDER the LAW;
AND
A man NOT UNDER THE LAW.

Matt 18:
[22] Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

* A man UNDER the LAW...
"Forgive the man who"...SINS AGAINST YOU, seventy times seven.

* A man NOT UNDER the LAW...
"Forgive a man of SIN"......"I SAY NOT".

IF A MAN HAS HEARD, LISTENED, UNDERSTOOD....that man would be PREPARED TO "RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH".

THE TRUTH IS:
UNDER the LAW...man against man was a SIN.
UNDER the LAW...men forgave men of sin.

THE TRUTH IS:
A man NOT UNDER THE LAW...IS A man WHOSE SIN IS Against God!
A man NOT UNDER THE LAW...IS ONLY FORGIVEN HIS SIN.....BY GOD!
Men NOT UNDER THE LAW...DO NOT FORGIVE men of SIN.

It's NOT a BIG MYSTERY...
Men Screech at the top of their lungs...they are GENTILES...and NOT UNDER THE LAW...

While ACCUSING MEN of "SINNING AGAINST THEM"...

THEN Run to the Scriptures, and QUOTE the words OF A MAN (who IS UNDER THE LAW),
And say....SEE....Scripture says...men sin against men...and men forgive men of sin.

SO WHY THE CONFUSION?
NOT A MYSTERY.
A Catholic taught LIE for centuries...
Not under the LAW, but yet the LAW applies!
And Catholic men to the Rescue...
Giving themselves; the TITLE "father"... and "THEY" Putting themselves "IN" GODS STEAD ...over and over and over and over ...FORGIVE your sin.
An utter FARCE.

THE TRUTH IS:
Jesus GAVE HIS BLOOD ONCE.
Jesus' BLOOD ONCE AND FOREVER FORGIVES ALL SIN OF A (Heartfully WILLING SUBMISSIVE) MAN WHO HAS SINNED AGAINST GOD, AND FURTHER KEEPS (BY THE POWER OF GOD) THAT MAN FROM EVER AGAIN SINNING AGAINST GOD.

* NOT UNDER THE LAW....YET UNDER THE LAW....
Pffff, Satan's Influence, the Catholic Church embraces, regurtates, and captures the minds of the weak to blindly follow along.
Evil Wickedness on its face.

* Utterly Rejected by those "IN" Christ, who "ARE" they, born of:
the SEED of God, FORGIVEN of SIN, ONCE AND FOREVER, BY the Lord God Himself!
There IS NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE man to COMMIT Future SIN!

 

[FHII]

I gave the scriptures that say old sins and past sins are forgiven at salvation, ill stick with scripture.

His sacrifice was for all the sins of the world, once for all time, but God can choose how that sacrifice is applied to us, which requirements are faith and repentance- but when scripture specifies only past sins and old sins are forgiven at salvation, it becomes obvious that we cant PRE-REPENT of our sins before they are committed, thus we must repent of future sins as they are committed, for them to also be forgiven

And as I also said, 1 John 1 confirms that we must confess our sins as Christians, to be cleansed of them.

That’s really not a hard concept to understand- but even if we couldn’t figure our any possible reason why only old sins and past sins are forgiven at salvation- all we are required to do is believe the scriptures, and not our logical reasoning.

Also, Paul lists the sins that will keep a believer out of heaven - many people call them the death penalty sins, and the list isn’t every little sin that can be committed, but adultery, lying, murder, stealing, homosexual relations, drunkenness, etc.

If a believer is committing so many of those listed sins daily that they can’t keep up with repenting of them, I would question whether they’ve ever been born again, and became a new creation, with old things passing away, and all things becoming new.

Shalom Aleichem

In light of Curtis's rebuttal I'd line to ask him and everyone else some questions:

1. Given that animal sacrifice was enough to cover passed sins, what exactly did Jesus do with his sacrifice IF that too only covered passed sins?

2. There are verses which say Jesus's sacrifice covered passed sins. But if say you follow the scripture, what do you do with the verses that state his sacrifice covers present and future sins? (I did give them and elude to them).

3. If God forgives a sin here and there, where is the cutoff point?

4. Given that Jesus, Paul and James all eluded to the fact that if you are guilty of one sin, you are guilty of all sin, is it possible to repent of every sin you commit every day?

 

[marks]

1. Given that animal sacrifice was enough to cover passed sins, what exactly did Jesus do with his sacrifice IF that too only covered passed sins?

Everyone alive now, all of our sins were later than Jesus' death. Later than those words that were written. So if Jesus died for "sins that were past", and that other sins were not died for, what then? All of our sins were yet future.

Much love!

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;


Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh SAINTS.


Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.


Eph 5:5 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.


Eph 5:6 Let no man DECEIVE you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the WRATH of God upon the children of disobedience.


Eph 5:7 Be not YE therefore partakers WITH them.

You: love God and do as you please.

Paul: let no man deceive you with vain words.

ME: ....Put on your “ Thinking Cap” .....Try to understand. All those Bad Things you listed? If you “ Love God”..... the likelihood that you will do these things will vastly diminish....A True Love for God is a better motivator for “ Christian Behavior” than fear or will-power or self-control

Love God and the things that please Him will happen naturally....bad things will fall by the way- side....Love is the end-all and be- all as far as Christianity is concerned .....it’s much more than “ don’t do this and do do that” ......your God is too small....

 

[MatthewG]

Christ's sacrifice was all sufficient for all of the believers sins.

 

[MatthewG]

Not just believers but all of the worlds sins.

 

[Curtis]

ME: ....Put on your “ Thinking Cap” .....Try to understand. All those Bad Things you listed? If you “ Love God”..... the likelihood that you will do these things will vastly diminish....A True Love for God is a better motivator for “ Christian Behavior” than fear or will-power or self-control

Love God and the things that please Him will happen naturally....bad things will fall by the way- side....Love is the end-all and be- all as far as Christianity is concerned .....it’s much more than “ don’t do this and do do that” ......your God is too small....

If that were true, there’d be no need to specifically warn the brethren to not be deceived.

I’m not talking just one isolated warning, but many specific warnings.

And reading Romans 7 and 8 together- since they are about the conflict believers have between our flesh driving us to sin, vs. walking in the spirit - with a warning about letting the flesh win causing death - spiritual death.

The hyper grace false teaching is OSAS on steroids- in discussions with those people, I’ve been told that scriptures from Paul are legalism, and that “say what you will, the more sin abounds, the more grace abounds” which is backwards from what Paul wrote.

Their message is, all sins have been forgiven at salvation, therefore none of your sins count - leaving you free to sin all you want, and never repent, with no eternal penalty.

Maranatha

 

[Curtis]

In light of Curtis's rebuttal I'd line to ask him and everyone else some questions:

1. Given that animal sacrifice was enough to cover passed sins, what exactly did Jesus do with his sacrifice IF that too only covered passed sins?

2. There are verses which say Jesus's sacrifice covered passed sins. But if say you follow the scripture, what do you do with the verses that state his sacrifice covers present and future sins? (I did give them and elude to them).

3. If God forgives a sin here and there, where is the cutoff point?

4. Given that Jesus, Paul and James all eluded to the fact that if you are guilty of one sin, you are guilty of all sin, is it possible to repent of every sin you commit every day?

You are absolutely not getting it.

Jesus died for all the sins of the whole world, but the salvational criteria for His atonement to be applied to anyone, is faith and repentance of sins.

Human logic thinks that since His atonement is for all sins, then all sins are forgiven at salvation when we repent.

But God’s word says twice, that old sins and past sins are forgiven- not future sins - thus it becomes obvious that only sins repented of are forgiven at salvation, and that we can’t repent ahead of time for future sins - thus future sins must be repented of when committed, to have His atonement also be applied to those sins, as it already was for our past sins.

It has nothing to do with claiming He didn’t pay for all sins. It has everything to do with when and how His atonement is applied to our sins.

1 John 1:1-9 is where John talks about our need as believers to walk in the light, and that if we say we have fellowship with God but walk in darkness we lie, while on the other hand if we claim to NEVER sin as believers, the truth is also not in us - but IF WE, including himself, confess our sins, He forgives them.

This shows the process of Christians having their future sins forgiven by confessing them as they commit them..

Maranatha

 

[Curtis]

Everyone alive now, all of our sins were later than Jesus' death. Later than those words that were written. So if Jesus died for "sins that were past", and that other sins were not died for, what then? All of our sins were yet future.

Much love![/QUOTEs

Scripture clearly shows Jesus died for all the sins of all people , but it takes repentance to apply His atonement to our sins, yet we can’t pre-repent of sins not yet committed, so only old and past sins are forgiven at salvation. New sins thus are forgiven after salvation by repenting when they have been committed, then His atonement is applied to thos3 sins, too..

This is not a hard concept to understand.

 

[Curtis]

Scripture clearly shows Jesus died for all the sins of all people , but it takes repentance to apply His atonement to our sins - yet we can’t pre-repent of sins not yet committed, so only old and past sins are forgiven at salvation.

New sins thus are forgiven after salvation by repenting when they have been committed, then His atonement is applied to those sins, too..

This is not a hard concept to understand.

2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was PURGED from his OLD SINS.


Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to bea propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of SINS THAT ARE PAST through the forbearance of God;

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

You can take umbrage at people using the terms "hyper-grace" or "greasy grace", consider the use of such terms blasphemy, and quote Romanist ministers all you want, but the truth of God > Romanism:

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" - Rom. 6:1-2

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? - Rom. 6:15-16

Interestingly enough, an eerily similar lie as the modern fable that Christ's sacrifice covered future sins had evidently been taught in the 1st century congregations:

"For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."- Jude 1:4

When looking at their theology concerning grace and Christ's sacrifice, it becomes obvious that Romanists don't actually understand what grace is or even why Christ came to die as a human being. Like most Romanists, your tremendously flawed understanding of grace comes from not realizing Paul was mostly addressing the Pharisees' traditions in Galatians, not the Law:

As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." - Gal. 6:12-13, 15

The problem isn't that people believe Christ's sacrifice is ineffective at blotting out sins. The problem is that people like yourself reject what the Bible says about how Christ's sacrifice is actually applied because you hypocritically believe your understanding of scripture is above reproach or any need for correction. The argument that Christ's sacrifice is applied to sins that haven't been committed is equally as nonsensical as taking a car to a body shop for a malfunction that hasn't happened yet.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

The argument that Christ's sacrifice is applied to sins that haven't been committed is equally as nonsensical as taking a car to a body shop for a malfunction that hasn't happened yet.

Probably about as nonsensical as saying: WHEN "CHRIST Died for all my sins,"

that ALL my sins were STILL YET FUTURE! eh?

 

[Curtis]

When looking at their theology concerning grace and Christ's sacrifice, it becomes obvious that Romanists don't actually understand what grace is or even why Christ came to die as a human being. Like most Romanists, your tremendously flawed understanding of grace comes from not realizing Paul was mostly addressing the Pharisees' traditions in Galatians, not the Law:

First of all, I have no connection to any Catholic Church, so you can drop your Romanist assumption.

You showed immediately in your reply by using the term ROMANIST as pertains to me, that you are in error, exacerbated by your erroneous claim thar Paul never addresses that Christians are not under the law of Moses in his writing.

Secondly, that Paul emphasizes in all his epistles, the fact that Christians are not in any way under the law of Moses, is unequivocally evident in his writings.

There was a serious controversy in Paul’s day, because there many of the Jewish Christians claimed that gentile believers were still required to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.


It got bad enough that all the apostles and church leaders met in Acts 15 to decide what should be done about the problem.


Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.


They decided gentile believers were not under the law of Moses, and Peter called the law of Moses a yoke of burden:


Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,

Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Therefore Paul’s writings - since he is the apostle TO the gentiles (Galatians 5:8)- he emphasizes continually that gentile believers are saved apart from works of the law of Moses.


Every time Paul mentions law, the law, works of the law, works, or works of righteousness*, he is always referring to the works of the law of Moses.
( * Deuteronomy 6:25 keeping the works of the law of Moses was their righteousness)

To claim Paul was only talking about the Pharisees is preposterous. You can’t actually read all of Paul’s epistles and come to that conclusion:

Paul states things like Christians are dead to the law, and now are married to Jesus instead of the law, and have been DELIVERED FROM the law, that the law was temporary until faith and Jesus came:


Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.


Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not inthe oldness of the letter.


Or that the law doesn’t apply to Christians, just to the unconverted, because the law is NOT MEANT for a RIGHTEOUS MAN, but for the UNGODLY and for MURDERERS:


1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderersof fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,


1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


Christians are the righteousness of God in Christ, thus the law is null and void for us.


Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:


Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed bythe law and the prophets;


Thus the law of Moses hasn’t passed away, it just doesn’t apply to those born again, since it’s only meant for the ungodly and murderers, etc. 1 Tim 1:9 above.


And Paul says that BEFORE faith came, we were imprisoned by the law, locked up by it until the coming of Christ, and now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian:


Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.


Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.


Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul writes extensively against their error, which was addressed above in Acts 15, of wanting to still be under the law of Moses:

Gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. C
As always, the context of Ephesians chapter 2 is works of the law of Moses.

And in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul states the shocking fact that the covenant given on Mount Sinai is slavery and bondage!

In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul states that the ten commands given to Moses on the mountain, is the letter that kills, the ministry of DEATH which he contrasts with the ministry of the Spirit in the new covenant, which gives LIFE instead of death, and says the apostles are the ministers of the new covenant, not of the old, which passed away.

Ergo, your astonishing claim about Paul and his contending against Christians keeping the law of Moses, has been shown to be highly erroneous.

 

[Wrangler]

So I've been encountering this position a lot lately, that Christ's once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary only covers the past sins of Christians.

Great thread. I think there is confusion over 2 sets of ideals:

1. Salvation v Sanctification
2. Eternal v Temporal Consequences of Sin

Although I am saved, I still Sin. Today, learned a bill was not paid on time, leading to the temporal consequence of a late fee added to my bill.

 

[Curtis]

Not just believers but all of the worlds sins.

His atonement is only applied via faith in Christ and repentance.

Hopefully you’re not promoting universalism.

Shalom

 

[Curtis]

Great thread. I think there is confusion over 2 sets of ideals:

1. Salvation v Sanctification
2. Eternal v Temporal Consequences of Sin

Although I am saved, I still Sin. Today, learned a bill was not paid on time, leading to the temporal consequence of a late fee added to my bill.

Paul lists the sins that keep believers from heaven. It’s not every little sin that there is.

It’s adultery, stealing, lying, drunkenness, murder, homosexual relations, etc.

 

[quietthinker]

His atonement is only applied via faith in Christ and repentance.

Hopefully you’re not promoting universalism.

Shalom

I would say his atonement is applied without repentance and without faith.....and I would also say, you would put me into the category of Universalist, which, as a matter of fact, I am not. The question is, can you understand that?

 

[Curtis]

I would say his atonement is applied without repentance and without faith.....and I would also say, you would put me into the category of Universalist, which, as a matter of fact, I am not. The question is, can you understand that?

If you claim there’s no free will to either choose to receive Jesus, and choose to repent, or instead reject Jesus and/or reject the need to repent, then you share the grievous error of reformed election dogma.

Either way, it’s a requirement of salvation to believe in Jesus and to repent of sins, no matter what your reasoning or proof texting claims.

Maranatha