What is Grace?

[ScottAU]

Who said grace was a licence to sin?? Lets take a look at speed cameras.for eg There are people all over the world who have being driving for 20 years or more and never had a fine. Than came speed cameras. In the beginning there was a 10% leeway, allowing for incorrect tire size and old tachos. and things where not to bad (grace). Than some governments got greedy and changes it to 1KmHr some to the number all of a sudden fines went through the roof and many who had never had fines where suddenly getting them. Where they braking the law on purpose. I doubt it but the law has made no allowance for errors. Again the religious cannot except grace, they are too fixated on doing it themselves, and where is the glory for God in that.

In allHis love

Anyone who believes that one can willfully engage in an act of rebellion to God and remain in a justified state whilst in the comission of the sin believes that grace is a license to sin.

This allusion to being "fixated on doing things ourselves" is nonsense for Jesus Christ Himself commanded US to be doers of the word. Thus WE have to DO something. Being a "doer of the word" does not mean we are "doing it all by ourselves" for it is simply allowing God to work through us yet we must actively participate in the process.

Ridiculously long post. Disregard.

btw, Dan Scott I know your name is Scott. But you have avoided answering my question for some reason. As soon as you answer my question I will cease. Are you the person (or one of them) who sent out those emails addressed from a person named Dan? Answer the question. What are you hiding from?

I answered your question but you must have missed it. Yet that is ok as we are not always focused on every reply as we all have other things to do. My name is Scott not Dan and I never wrote anyone and signed off as Dan. The Dan you are referring to is another person.

I have emailed many pastors though myself and received the same kinds of answers.

What do you think the word atonement means? It means to cover. Christ is our atonement. Our cover. Put on the covering of GOD (our lord Jesus Christ) and have your sins blotted out.

H3722 כָּפַר kaphar (kaw-far') v.
1. to cover (specifically with bitumen)
2. (figuratively) to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel

Atonement or Reconciliation?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDM-7fpOrnA&list=UUkcOaeVfy2QPYjA-i-cgdSg
[/youtube]

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I'm not that Dan.

OK Scott. Thanks for the clarification.

Atonement or Reconciliation video?

Watching video now...

strike 1: DeSario says the Greek word translated reconciliation means 'a return to favor'. Not true. He's using the modern definition of reconciliation, not the Greek definition. The Greek definition points to an exchange, or substitution. Christ took our sins and sin penalty (death); we take his righteousness and life.

G2643 καταλλαγή katallage (kat-al-lag-ay') n.
1. an exchange
2. (figuratively) an adjustment, reconciliation
3. (specially) restoration to the divine favor
[from G2644]

G2644 καταλλάσσω katallasso (kat-al-las'-so) v.
1. to change mutually
2. (figuratively) to reconcile
[from G2596 and G236]

G236 ἀλλάσσω allasso (al-las'-so) v.
1. to change, transform, make different
[from G243]

G243 ἄλλος allos (al'-los) adj.
1. "else," i.e. different

Strike 2 (foul ball): DeSario says that atonement requires 'a mere recognition of facts', whereas reconciliation requires 'repentance and faith proven by deeds'. Only partially true. Reconciliation is a mutual exchange accomplished by both man and GOD. Christ took our sins (fact), and we take his righteousness by acknowledging this fact (repentance and obedient faith).

Strike 3 (yer OUT!): DeSario says the Greek word translated propitiation means mercy. Not true. Greek word means an expiatory, which is something that expiates:

G2435 ἱλαστήριον hilasterion (hil-as-tay'-ree-on) n.
1. an expiatory (place or thing)
2. (concretely) an atoning victim
3. (specially) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple)

Definition of EXPIATE

1 obsolete : to put an end to

2a : to extinguish the guilt incurred by

INNING OVER!

How can you expect me to take your doctrine seriously when your leader can't even get the most basic things right? It's only 7:35 into the video and he's already struck out. I'm not listening to any more of it; I've heard enough. This is the same thing I experience when reading your writings - one fallacy built upon another.

 

[Rex]

There is nothing in the New Testament which even vaguely suggests that the blood of Jesus Christ 'covers' our sins, or the sin of Adam.

I never realized that so many people believe Jesus only forgives pass sins or sins unto the point of being born again.
That by some unknown to myself process, so many people actually believe they become "completely" righteous before God "keeping the law"

If your above statement is true just how is one saved? Explicitly when I find NT evidence that says no flesh will be justified by following the law,
Gal 2:16
Gal 3:1-3
Romans 3:20

The enduring nature of the blood on the mercy seat was related to the fact it was sprinkled there only once a year. We are supposed to be living a life that is sprinkled by the blood of the Lamb through the Spirit, continuously. That is what it means to be 'holy' - to be set apart for God's purposes.

The sins in the old testament were covered until the sacrifice of God, Jesus, and applied to those who by faith believed.
Romans 3:25-27

"because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness,"

Hebrews 10:10
Hebrews 7:27-28
Hebrews 9:12
Hebrews 9:14
1 Cor 6:19-20
1 Cor 7:23
2 Peter 2:1
Gal 3:13-14
Gal 4:4-7
Acts 20:28-30
28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a]which he bought with his own blood.[b]29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. 32 “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Every place I read it says WE should put off the deeds of the flesh, not the new man is free from from the deeds of the flesh.
In every instance it is said WE should put off. not it is completely taken away. The perfect man scenario is a works of the flesh, a false doctrine that enslaves men back into the bondage of the law. Romans 7:22-24

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yet the blotting out and forgiveness of sin is CONDITIONAL on repentance and conversion. The Prodigal Son forsook the pig pen (Luk 15) and Nineveh forsook their wickedness (Jon 3:10). God used both as examples of repentance (Luk 15:10, Mat 12:41). While those verses may not SPECIFICALLY say anything about "former sins" these verses do...

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

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.

Peter did not say that this blind man was purged of his "future sins." In fact is future sins are forgiven in advance then that would completely negate the necessity of repentance.

I challenge you to show me a single scripture in the Bible which teaches that future sins are forgiven in advance.

The blotting out of sin is the atonement Christ made; it is not conditional. It is past tense. A done deal. Man's appropriation of that unconditional grace is dependent on his repentance and faith. Using one of your examples, the father forgave his prodigal son long, long before his son repented and returned.

Romans 3:25 and 2 Peter 1:9 both have an interesting characteristic that indicate they are not necessarily saying what we have been led to believe. The Greek word translated sins in these verses (G265 ἁμάρτημα) is not the normal word used for sin. In fact, it is rarely used in the NT (5x). The Theological Dictionary of the New Tesament (TDNT) states that it can also mean 'punishment of sin', The Concordant Literal Version of the bible translates this word as penalties of sin. A good translation is probably sin consequences, or consequences of sin.

For example, this word is used in the Greek Septuagint rendition of Isaiah 40:2, which says that Jerusalem received from YHWH double the consequences, or penalties, for her sins. This definition makes even more sense when considered in the context of Deuteronomy 19:15:

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15

The phrase 'or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth' makes no sense because it is redundant. However, the bolded word is the Greek ἁμάρτημα (G265), i.e., sin consequence, or effect. Using this definition the sentence makes much more sense.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any effect of sin, or any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15

In every OT scriptural instance of this word listed in the TDNT, the sin consequences definition makes sense.

This leads us back to Romans 3:25:

Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 3:25

A literal translation of this verse using the sin consequences definition makes perfect sense:

Whom GOD purposed as a propitiation shelter through faith in his blood into showing his righteousness through the passing over of the previous consequences of sin.

In other words, the former consequences of sins are passed over for those who place their faith in the blood of the lamb, just like the consequence of sin (death) was passed over on Passover when the death angel passed over Israelite households in Egypt that had placed blood of a lamb on their door lentils.

And again:

But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 2 Peter 1:9

Revisited:

But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his former consequences of sin. 2 Peter 1:9

This doesn't mean that anyone can practice sin and not suffer the consequences. But it does mean that those who desire to live a godly life can rest in the knowledge that the former consequences of their sins have been passed over. It is a great relief to rest in grace knowing that they will not be visited for every little sin by an angry GOD carrying a big stick. This is truly grace.

So things are not as clear cut as you would like to believe, Scott. These verses are hardly the rock solid evidence you need to build your case on.

 

[mjrhealth]

Simple terms, the OT was all about the flesh, the NT is all about grace, but the flesh cannot acceopt something for free so will always try justify works to earn salvation as if God is going to save your fleah. It is dead if you are in Christ. As for the flesh,

Joh_6:63 It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life.

But few walk in the spirit, in teh freedom that is Christ, they prefer the bondage and slavery of the flesh and will never accept grace, there fore remaining under the old and never reaching the truth that again is Jesus.Your flesh is dead to God when you are in Christ, it is you who keeps it alive with your unbelief.

In all His Love

 

[Rex]

A warning about insulting the Spirit of grace
Heb 10:28-29

[SIZE=80%]28 [/SIZE]Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. [SIZE=80%]29 [/SIZE]How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot,[SIZE=80%]l[/SIZE] who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Zech 12:10

 

[ScottAU]

My comments in blue.

OK Scott. Thanks for the clarification.


Watching video now...

strike 1: DeSario says the Greek word translated reconciliation means 'a return to favor'. Not true. He's using the modern definition of reconciliation, not the Greek definition. The Greek definition points to an exchange, or substitution. Christ took our sins and sin penalty (death) You cannot provide a single scripture which states that Jesus "took your sin penalty." A Christian is indeed released from the penalty of sin via the blood of Christ but nowhere does the Bible teach that Jesus suffered the penalty in your place. Those who hold to Penal Substitution slip and slide around this fundamental flaw of their doctrine in that it is not taught in the Bible.; we take his righteousness and life. We are made the righteousness of God IN Him. There is no transfer of the righteousness of Christ to your account, where does the Bible say anything close to that? It doesn't. God reckons FAITH as righteousness.


G2643 καταλλαγή katallage (kat-al-lag-ay') n.
1. an exchange
2. (figuratively) an adjustment, reconciliation
3. (specially) restoration to the divine favor
[from G2644]

G2644 καταλλάσσω katallasso (kat-al-las'-so) v.
1. to change mutually
2. (figuratively) to reconcile
[from G2596 and G236]

G236 ἀλλάσσω allasso (al-las'-so) v.
1. to change, transform, make different
[from G243]

G243 ἄλλος allos (al'-los) adj.
1. "else," i.e. different

Mike is absolutely correct.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2643: καταλλαγή
καταλλαγή, καταλλαγῆς, ἡ (καταλλάσσω, which see);
1. exchange; of the business of money-changers, exchanging equivalent values ((Aristotle, others)). Hence,
2. adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor, (from Aeschylus on); in the N. T., of the restoration of the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:18f; with the genitive of the one received into favor, τοῦ κόσμου (opposed to ἀποβολή), Romans 11:15; καταλλαγήν ἐλάβομεν, we received the blessing of the recovered favor of God, Romans 5:11; with the genitive of him whose favor is recovered, 2 Macc. 5:20. (Cf. Trench, § lxxvii.)

ref: http://biblesuite.com/greek/2643.htm


2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

We are restored to divine favour through repentance and faith whereby we access the blood and are cleansed of all sin. As new creations we walk in the Spirit fully yielded to God. It is a COMPLETE CHANGE. You doctrine only implies a "partial change" if any because Penal Substitution is merely "salvation by proxy" for it is only a status change as opposed to a literal purifying of the heart. Penal Substitution leaves the convert in a defiled state due to its denial of heeart purity being wrought when one abides in Jesus Christ.

Strike 2 (foul ball): DeSario says that atonement requires 'a mere recognition of facts', whereas reconciliation requires 'repentance and faith proven by deeds'. Only partially true. Reconciliation is a mutual exchange accomplished by both man and GOD. Christ took our sins (fact), and we take his righteousness by acknowledging this fact (repentance and obedient faith). What Mike says is completely true. The gospel message of those who preach Penal Substitution teach that upon "confession of sinfulness" and the "trusting in the Penal Exchange" salvation is assured. The most common method utilised is the "sinners prayer." There is no genuine repentance where the rebellion ceases in this gospel message. It is purely a mental notion. If genuine reconciliation did actually take place the reconciled individual would no longer be engaging in rebellion, the very issue which separates an individual from God in the first place.

You write this...

Christ took our sins (fact), and we take his righteousness by acknowledging this fact (repentance and obedient faith).

There is the "mental notion" of your doctrine. You define "acknowledge this fact" as "repentance and obedient faith." Yet the Bible teaches that repentance is the change of mind which produces a change of action, ie. the rebellion ceases. Obedient faith is being faithful to God which is the complete opposite of engaging in sin.

Strike 3 (yer OUT!): DeSario says the Greek word translated propitiation means mercy. Not true. Greek word means an expiatory, which is something that expiates:

G2435 ἱλαστήριον hilasterion (hil-as-tay'-ree-on) n.
1. an expiatory (place or thing)
2. (concretely) an atoning victim
3. (specially) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): - mercyseat, propitiation.
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=2435

Definition of EXPIATE

1 obsolete : to put an end to

2a : to extinguish the guilt incurred by
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expiate


Mike is actually correct again. The expiation of sin IS the mercy of God. The word literally means MERCY SEAT. Why did you leave that out of your definitions? Why didn't you reference the definitions you provided?

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2435: ἱλαστήριος

ἱλαστήριος, ἱλαστηρια, ἱλαστήριον (ἱλάσκομαι, which see), relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory: μνῆμα ἱλαστήριον, a monument built to propitiate God, Josephus, Antiquities 16, 7, 1; ἱλαστήριος θάνατος, 4 Macc. 17:22; χεῖρας ἱκετηριους, εἰ βούλει δέ ἱλαστηριους, ἐκτείνας Θεῷ, Niceph. in act. SS. edition Mai, vol. v., p. 335, 17. Neuter τό ἱλαστήριον, as a substantive, a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation (German Versöhnungs- oderSühnmittel); cf. Winer's Grammar, 96 (91); (592 (551)). So used of:
1. the well-known cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins were expiated); hence, the lid of expiation, the propitiatory, Vulg.propitiatorium; Luth.Gnadensruhl (A. V. mercy-seat): Hebrews 9:5 (the Sept. Exodus 25:18ff; Leviticus 16:2, etc.; more fully ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα, Exodus 25:17; Exodus 38:7 (Exodus 37:6), for the Hebrew כַּפֹּרֶת, from כִּפֶּר to cover, namely, sins, i. e. to pardon). Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Luther, Grotius, Tholuck, Wilke, Philippi, Umbreit (Cremer (4te Aufl.)) and others give this meaning to the word also in Romans 3:25, viz. that Christ, besprinkled with his own blood, was truly that which the cover or 'mercy-seat' had been typically, i. e., the sign and pledge of expiation; but in opposed to this interpretation see Fritzsche, Meyer, Van Hengel (Godet, Oltramare) and others at the passage
2. an expiatory sacrifice; a piacular victim (Vulg.propitiatio): Romans 3:25 (after the analogy of the words χαριστηρια sacrifices expressive of gratitude, thank-offerings, σωτηρία sacrifices for safety obtained. On the other hand, in Dio Chrysostom or. 11, 121, p. 355, Reiske edition, the reference is not to a sacrifice but to a monument, as the preceding words show: καταλείψειν γάρ αὐτούς ἀνάθημα κάλλιστον καί μέγιστον τῇ Ἀθηνα καί ἐπιγράψειν, ἱλαστήριον Ἀχαιοι τῇ Ἰλιαδι). (See the full discussion of the word in Dr. Jets. Morison, Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 281-303.)

ref: http://biblesuite.com/greek/2435.htm

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.




INNING OVER!



How can you expect me to take your doctrine seriously when your leader can't even get the most basic things right? It's only 7:35 into the video and he's already struck out. I'm not listening to any more of it; I've heard enough. This is the same thing I experience when reading your writings - one fallacy built upon another. Mike is not my leader, he is simply a very sound teacher. My leader is Jesus Christ.

You watched 7 minutes and 35 seconds looking for gnats to strain at and by selectively quoting varuous definitions (you obviously did not do any in depth research) you have made erroneous conclusions.

You do not love the truth. Scroll up and look at the definitions I sources and posted, for they prove you have erred in what you have written.

It is the same with the Bible verses I show you, you have ZERO response to them because they plainly prove you wrong. Thus you just stick your fingers in your ears and have refused to listen.

My comments in blue.

The blotting out of sin is the atonement Christ made; it is not conditional. It is past tense. A done deal. Man's appropriation of that unconditional grace is dependent on his repentance and faith. Using one of your examples, the father forgave his prodigal son long, long before his son repented and returned. Prove that statement with Scripture. Where does the Bible state that the Father forgave the son long before his son repented and returned? The Bible says no such thing and that is why you will not be able to support your statement. Your statement is not true, the Bible clearly teaches the opposite.

Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.




Romans 3:25 and 2 Peter 1:9 both have an interesting characteristic that indicate they are not necessarily saying what we have been led to believe. The Greek word translated sins in these verses (G265 ἁμάρτημα) is not the normal word used for sin. The word "sin" in 2Pet 1:9 is G266 and it is used prolifically throughout the NT. Look it up, Your assertion that Rom 3:25 and 2Pet 1:9 use the same rare word is incorrect. Rom 3:25 is G265. In fact, it is rarely used in the NT (5x). The Theological Dictionary of the New Tesament (TDNT) states that it can also mean 'punishment of sin', The Concordant Literal Version of the bible translates this word as penalties of sin. A good translation is probably sin consequences, or consequences of sin. What does that prove? That the punishment due PAST SIN is remitted. The problem you face is that you are teaching that future sins are forgiven in advance. If that is true then where is it taught in the Bible? I provided two specific passages which speak of past sins being forgiven.




For example, this word is used in the Greek Septuagint rendition of Isaiah 40:2, which says that Jerusalem received from YHWH double the consequences, or penalties, for her sins. This definition makes even more sense when considered in the context of Deuteronomy 19:15:

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15

The phrase 'or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth' makes no sense because it is redundant. However, the bolded word is the Greek ἁμάρτημα (G265), i.e., sin consequence, or effect. Using this definition the sentence makes much more sense.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any effect of sin, or any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15

In every OT scriptural instance of this word listed in the TDNT, the sin consequences definition makes sense.

This leads us back to Romans 3:25:

Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 3:25

A literal translation of this verse using the sin consequences definition makes perfect sense:

Whom GOD purposed as a propitiation shelter through faith in his blood into showing his righteousness through the passing over of the previous consequences of sin.

In other words, the former consequences of sins are passed over for those who place their faith in the blood of the lamb, just like the consequence of sin (death) was passed over on Passover when the death angel passed over Israelite households in Egypt that had placed blood of a lamb on their door lentils.

And again:

But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 2 Peter 1:9

Revisited:

But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his former consequences of sin. 2 Peter 1:9

This doesn't mean that anyone can practice sin and not suffer the consequences. But it does mean that those who desire to live a godly life can rest in the knowledge that the former consequences of their sins have been passed over. It is a great relief to rest in grace knowing that they will not be visited for every little sin by an angry GOD carrying a big stick. This is truly grace.

So things are not as clear cut as you would like to believe, Scott. These verses are hardly the rock solid evidence you need to build your case on. Oh yes they are, all you did was a rhetorical dance. Those two verses specifically teach that it is PAST SINS that are remitted, not future sins being forgiven in advance. If future sins are forgiven in advance then "repentance for remission" makes no sense for you are teaching that sins are remitted BEFORE repentance.

The Bible is very clear..

Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

Eze 18:27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
Eze 18:28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Isa 1:16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
Isa 1:17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Isa 1:19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Jer 26:13 Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

Jas 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
2Ti 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

How much clearer could it be? The rebellion must stop BEFORE mercy is granted. The entire Bible is in perfect harmony with this principle. Why fight against it? Why speak against such a thing? Those who do are opposing God.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

OK I've figured out how I can work with your long posts.

You cannot provide a single scripture which states that Jesus "took your sin penalty." A Christian is indeed released from the penalty of sin via the blood of Christ but nowhere does the Bible teach that Jesus suffered the penalty in your place.

How is one released from the penalty of sin if Jesus did not pay the penalty? You grossly dishonor GOD's holiness and cry for justice by stating that he just forgives sin without requiring payment. It contradicts what is clearly witnessed:

And Joshua said to all the people, In no way will you be able to serve the LORD; for he is holy, and God is jealous. This one will not forgive your sin penalties, or your sins. Joshua 24:19

The bolded word above means sin penalties as I discussed in a previous post. It is found in the Septuagint.

Again the witness of scripture (abbreviated for easier reading):

This one bore our sins, and on account of us he was grieved. ... But he was wounded through our sins, and he was made infirm through our lawless deeds. ... We all were wandered as sheep. Man in his way was wandered, and the LORD delivered him up for our sins. ... For his life was lifyed up away from the land. Through the lawless deeds of my people he was led unto death. ... and he shall bear their sins. ... and he was considered among the lawless ones; and he himself bore the sins of many, and he was delivered up through their lawless deeds. Isaiah 53:4-12

Whoever breaks a law becomes debtor to that law. Those under the law of GOD were debtors to that law. Christ paid that debt. Reconciliation means an exchange; He bore the penalty for our sins (fact, done deal, over), and that eternal reality is imputed to us when we repent and believe. It is not imputed to those who don't believe.

Those who hold to Penal Substitution slip and slide around this fundamental flaw of their doctrine in that it is not taught in the Bible.; we take his righteousness and life. We are made the righteousness of God IN Him. There is no transfer of the righteousness of Christ to your account, where does the Bible say anything close to that? It doesn't. God reckons FAITH as righteousness.

GOD reckons his faith into righteousness; not just any faith. His faith is believing into the lamb of GOD, whose blood eternally covers the mercy seat. This atonement (covering) blots out the former penalties of sin for all who trust in that atonement.

It's all there in the bible, Scott. You just can't see it because of your unbelief. Do the sensible thing and humble yourself to ask GOD to reveal it to your heart. I am asking GOD to show me if what you are saying is true.

We are made the righteousness of God IN Him. There is no transfer of the righteousness of Christ to your account, where does the Bible say anything close to that? It doesn't. God reckons FAITH as righteousness.

The first sentence is true; we are made the righteousness of GOD in Christ. But faith is not righteousness; Christ is righteousness. So your statement that GOD reckons faith AS righteousness is false. GOD reckons faith in the blood of the lamb INTO righteousness. You are merely attempting to define the act of faith (whatever that means to your mind) as being righteousness. You've simply turned faith into a work of law, i.e., a work of the flesh. The reality, though, is that the faith of Christ is the means of appropriating righteousness, who is Christ himself.


Scott,

Do you believe that Christ, the high priest, is currently making atonement (as defined by H3722 כָּפַר kaphar) for the sins of his people in the holy of holies?

Please just say yes or no. We don't need a lengthy exposition on such a simple question.

The word "sin" in 2Pet 1:9 is G266 and it is used prolifically throughout the NT. Look it up, Your assertion that Rom 3:25 and 2Pet 1:9 use the same rare word is incorrect.

Well I was surprised to find that 2 Peter 1:9 does have G266 (sins). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (which is probably the preeminent NT dictionary) says that that verse uses G265 (sin effects). That made me think that different manuscripts have different readings; and after some investigation found that is indeed the case.

Codex Vaticanus has G266, and Codices Alexandrinus. and Sinaiticus have G265. So someone somewhere changed this word.

So we're back to my original conclusion - things are not as clear cut as you would like to believe, Scott. These verses are hardly the rock solid evidence you need to build your case on.

Those two verses specifically teach that it is PAST SINS that are remitted, not future sins being forgiven in advance. If future sins are forgiven in advance then "repentance for remission" makes no sense for you are teaching that sins are remitted BEFORE repentance.

You missed the point entirely. I'm not so sure those verses (Roman 3:25; 2 Peter 1:9) are saying what you say they do, i.e. that only a person's sins that occurred before repentance are forgiven. I'm beginning to think that what they are really saying is that the penalties of sin that formerly occurred under the law before the cross are forgiven. In other words, those in Christ are no longer subject to the penalties of breaking the law that occurred in the former dispensation. This interpretation is entirely consistent with Paul's teachings on grace; and undermines your whole theology, which is largely based on these two verses.

Regarding future sins being forgiven, the high priest abides continually in the holy place making atonement for his people's sins with the blood of his sacrifice. It's not that future sins are already forgiven (which is really just a preposterous statement), but forgiveness will be there in the future if it is needed. The fact that you do not see the abiding forgiveness shows the blindness of your heart and mind.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi ChristRoseFromTheDead,

Thanks for your reply to my post. Would you mind doing something for me, since you seem to have access to a better library than I do? Could you please look at the word 'cover', in 'love shall cover a multitude of sins' (Peter speaking, I believe) and say whether it's the same word in the Septuagint which is used instead of the Hebrew (with regard to the blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat)? Many thanks.


Moving on. I believe Scott has this verse in mind:

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

It seems clear that Paul is referring to Abraham's faith, which I agree - if this is what you are saying - is a response to the faith God exercises when He speaks to any of us; it is His desired response to Him, that we should believe. He acknowledges our faith by carrying out His original word. Romans 1:17, Romans 3:22 'righteousness of God ... upon all them that believe'. I'm not ignoring that this is by the faith of Jesus Christ. Scott's point is that to those who believe, the righteousness of God is given.


In passing, I find your accusations that Scott is in 'unbelief', totally unbecoming. You may be feeling exasperated, but that is an unnecessary slur.


The other comment I'd like to make, is that you seem not to grasp that the word 'eternal' is also a constant reference to this very second right now. It is on this point that Scott is holding out: that if your heart was cleansed by the blood in the previous millisecond, it is being cleansed by the blood now - unless you have committed a sin by choice. One is not sinning per se.


No-one coming to Christ can reasonably ask for forgiveness for sins they have not yet committed. Salvation doesn't work that way - not that you've actually stated you believe that it does. Scott's point is, that it is the now reality to have a clean heart, and that the battle with the flesh feels entirely different if one has a clean heart ('heart purity') because now there is something REAL to defend which is of eternal significance, not only to God, but to the believer.

If one believes one cannot have a clean heart, but rather some mystical effect of Christ's death is being imputed (but not experienced), one is neither believing the gospel nor in receipt of the very real benefits of faith in the risen Christ.


All the discussion about putting on the new man, is less about ceasing from sin, and more about allowing the empowering grace of God to overrule all previously ingrained instinctive/natural or cultivated attitudes and behaviours to the challenges of daily living, so that the life of Christ is continuously in the ascendancy. If this had not been Paul's experience, he could not have written the Ephesian letter, honestly. But it was his testimony - that from having regarded Gentiles as 'enemies', and even his own kinsman who were the only Christians alive when he was persecuting them, he now cared for their souls deeply, and cherished them as a nurse, labouring at his own expense to minister to them.

In saying 'putting on the new man is less about ceasing from sin', what I mean is, there is a good detailed description of it in 2 Corinthians 4:1 all the way through to 2 Corinthians 7:1. Not only Paul, but Peter makes it clear, that ceasing from sin is possible, and expected. 1 Peter 4:1 Of course, John agrees with both of them, by his use of the phrase. 'if any man sin'.

Your thesis that the flesh is in a constant state of defilement, despite the washing of the word in John 15:3, goes against Paul's statement that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that the defilement (by sin) of one of those bodies, will defile the whole temple, and that defiling person will be disinherited of the kingdom of God.


What is coming through your posts in your introduction of the word 'consequences' is an idea that those consequences were not simply the effect of the law (of Moses) operating in respect of those sins. In that respect, the word 'consequences' where you have put it, adds no sense at all, since the consequence would have been either sacrifices, or death, both of which 'consequences' Jesus took part in for each one of us. Our response to this is supposed to be heartfelt gratitude and appreciation, that we have been released from the eternal consquences of sin, when we believe in Him. The spiritual reality of it comes to us through the operation of the Holy Spirit, and we are actually cleansed of our sins. It is not just a concept which has no palpable resonance in our hearts and souls. Thus having ACTUALLY received a pure heart from God, there should be every intention on the part of the one who now knows Him as Father, to walk in all things pleasing to Him, cherishing the flame which He has set alight by His Spirit.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Hi ChristRoseFromTheDead,

Thanks for your reply to my post. Would you mind doing something for me, since you seem to have access to a better library than I do? Could you please look at the word 'cover', in 'love shall cover a multitude of sins' (Peter speaking, I believe) and say whether it's the same word in the Septuagint which is used instead of the Hebrew (with regard to the blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat)? Many thanks.

Glad to help in this regard (and that goes for any time you need help with something).

They are not the same word:

1 Peter 4:8 - covers
G2572 καλύπτω kalupto (kal-oop'-to) v.
1. to cover up
{literally or figuratively}

atonement in LXX
ἐξιλάσωμαι (no Strong's #)
To appease, reconcile, expiate, atone, propitiate.

In passing, I find your accusations that Scott is in 'unbelief', totally unbecoming. You may be feeling exasperated, but that is an unnecessary slur.

What a crock. I consider Scott to be an enemy of the cross of Christ and one of satan's messengers. Scott surely believes in something, but it is not the faith of Christ.

The other comment I'd like to make, is that you seem not to grasp that the word 'eternal' is also a constant reference to this very second right now. It is on this point that Scott is holding out: that if your heart was cleansed by the blood in the previous millisecond, it is being cleansed by the blood now - unless you have committed a sin by choice. One is not sinning per se.

No-one coming to Christ can reasonably ask for forgiveness for sins they have not yet committed. Salvation doesn't work that way - not that you've actually stated you believe that it does. Scott's point is, that it is the now reality to have a clean heart, and that the battle with the flesh feels entirely different if one has a clean heart ('heart purity') because now there is something REAL to defend which is of eternal significance, not only to God, but to the believer.

If one believes one cannot have a clean heart, but rather some mystical effect of Christ's death is being imputed (but not experienced), one is neither believing the gospel nor in receipt of the very real benefits of faith in the risen Christ.


All the discussion about putting on the new man, is less about ceasing from sin, and more about allowing the empowering grace of God to overrule all previously ingrained instinctive/natural or cultivated attitudes and behaviours to the challenges of daily living, so that the life of Christ is continuously in the ascendancy. If this had not been Paul's experience, he could not have written the Ephesian letter, honestly. But it was his testimony - that from having regarded Gentiles as 'enemies', and even his own kinsman who were the only Christians alive when he was persecuting them, he now cared for their souls deeply, and cherished them as a nurse, labouring at his own expense to minister to them.

In saying 'putting on the new man is less about ceasing from sin', what I mean is, there is a good detailed description of it in 2 Corinthians 4:1 all the way through to 2 Corinthians 7:1. Not only Paul, but Peter makes it clear, that ceasing from sin is possible, and expected. 1 Peter 4:1 Of course, John agrees with both of them, by his use of the phrase. 'if any man sin'.

I say amen to everything you said. However, I think you are reading this into Scott's beliefs. I don't believe this is what Scott believes at all. If it is, he is completely incapable of explaining what he believes.

Your thesis that the flesh is in a constant state of defilement, despite the washing of the word in John 15:3, goes against Paul's statement that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that the defilement (by sin) of one of those bodies, will defile the whole temple, and that defiling person will be disinherited of the kingdom of God.

You are right on this point. Defilement is the wrong word to use; corruption is more correct. We have a corrupted nature that is sanctified (cleansed) by the anointing and washing. Thank you for pointing this out.

What is coming through your posts in your introduction of the word 'consequences' is an idea that those consequences were not simply the effect of the law (of Moses) operating in respect of those sins. In that respect, the word 'consequences' where you have put it, adds no sense at all, since the consequence would have been either sacrifices, or death, both of which 'consequences' Jesus took part in for each one of us. Our response to this is supposed to be heartfelt gratitude and appreciation, that we have been released from the eternal consquences of sin, when we believe in Him. The spiritual reality of it comes to us through the operation of the Holy Spirit, and we are actually cleansed of our sins. It is not just a concept which has no palpable resonance in our hearts and souls. Thus having ACTUALLY received a pure heart from God, there should be every intention on the part of the one who now knows Him as Father, to walk in all things pleasing to Him, cherishing the flame which He has set alight by His Spirit.

I'm not sure at the moment what to think about this, but I would like to explore it with you. I really do like discussing things with you because you are intelligent, thoughtful, gentle and discerning.

Let me state something a little differently that I expressed above to see if we can find some clarity. Keep in mind I'm exploring this as I write:

I'm not so sure Roman 3:25 and 2 Peter 1:9 are saying that only a person's sins that occurred before repentance are forgiven. I'm beginning to think that what they are really saying is that GOD's righteousness now passes over the sin penalty (eternal death) that existed before the cross. This interpretation is entirely consistent with Paul's teachings on grace.

In Romans 3:25, the Greek word translated past is:

G4266 προγίνομαι proginomai (prog-in'-om-ai) v.
1. to be already, i.e. have previousy transpired
[from G4253 and G1096]

G4253 πρό pro (proh') prep.
1. "fore", i.e. in front of, prior to

G1096 γίνομαι ginomai (ghin'-om-ai) v.
1. to cause to be ("gen"-erate)

In others words, existing before.

In Romans 3:25, the Greek word translated remission is:

G3929 πάρεσις paresis (par'-es-is) n.
1. pretermission, i.e. toleration
[from G2935]

Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words

PASSING OVER
paresis (πάρεσις, 3929), primarily “a letting go, dismissal” (akin to pariemi, “to let alone, loosen”), denotes “a passing by” or “praetermission (of sin),” “a suspension of judgment,” or “withholding of punishment,” Rom. 3:25, rv, “passing over” (kjv, “remission”), with reference to sins committed previously to the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, the “passing by” not being a matter of divine disregard but of forbearance


Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament)

4217 πάρεσις (paresis), εως (eōs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 3929; TDNT 1.509—LN 30.49 disregard, leaving unpunished, passing over (Ro 3:25+)

​

As a pattern of this reality, the judgment, or sin penalty, for the children of Israel's sins passed over their dwellings on Passover. Their sins weren't passed over; as an act of grace the judgment for their sins passed over them.​