Are our sins taken away or just covered?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
I know there are many verses in the bible - MANY- that show us that our sins are actually taken away when they are forgiven (“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, “I will blot out your transgressions”, etc.). And, in Karl’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” he says that the few times in the bible where it mentions our sins are ‘covered’ it’s not referring to forgiveness of sins by God, but to the forgiveness of one man’s sins by another. (page 168). …but, this is where I get confused.

There is one verse that always gets mentioned to me to demonstrate that our sins are covered *by God *and it stumps me and I don’t know how to respond, other than showing all the verses that show otherwise. But that really doesn’t explain the verse in question. It is in Romans 4:6-8 and it’s talking about David declaring the blessings of God - so it does seem to say God is covering our sins. Here are the verses:

*“So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
**Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.”
*Doesn’t this seem to say that God covers our sins when they are forgiven, while other passages clearly say our sins are taken away and removed? How can these passages that seem to say different things be reconciled?
 
To add a little fuel to the mix:

Nehemiah 4:5
And cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out from before thee: for they have provoked thee to anger before the builders.
Psalm 32:1
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Psalm 85:2
Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Selah.
Proverbs 10:12
Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.
Romans 4:7
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
1 Peter 4:8
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

I haven’t looked to see if the same Greek words are used in each, but I pulled these from Young’s Literal Translation - they *should *be the same.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
I heard when I was a protestant that our sins were “like dunghills, covered with purest snow” after we were saved.
Well, I object to that.

Christ took on our sins. When we confess, are absolved and do penance, those sins are forgiven not just covered up. They are gone as “far as the east is from the west”.

That does not mean I won’t need some time in purgatory. But by being a loving obedient child of God, I hope to lessen the time I must spend there. Gold must be purified as by fire to remove the dross and become pure to paraphrase Paul. Though I am forgiven I carry within my soul imperfections which must be removed. Nothing impure may enter heaven.

Is this within the teachings of the Church? I think it is. Please clarify for me if it is not. Thanks. 🙂
 
You’re playing at Semantics here.

Psalm 103:12 12
As far as the east is from the west, so far have our sins been removed from us.
Sin is washed away (Acts 22:16)

When sin is forgiven, it no longer exists, otherwise it could be brought back up…we become a new creation.
 
The previous posts explain the taking away and
the covering of sins very nicely…

The following verses, from Rev 18, demonstrate
what happens when sin is unconfessed…

“4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.”

“If we confess our sins God is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL
iniquity.” 1 Jn 1:9

Something that has me wondering is this… Jesus
told His disciples to be “IN” the world but not “OF”
the world. In the above verse the Spirit is telling
believers to “come out of her.” This “her” is
obviously very repugnant to the Lord and He does
not want His beloved children to be associated with
“her.”

Who is the “her” referring to??

Curious in Texas!!! :confused:

CactusJack
 
Yerusalyim said:
When sin is forgiven, it no longer exists, otherwise it could be brought back up…we become a new creation.
Click to expand...

God promises that “I will remember your sins no more.” But if you can remember your sins, then they have not been forgotten yet as no man can have knowledge or remembrance of something that God has forgotten.

The problem is that many people want to look upon the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as a one-time wiping out of all sin, period. This makes losing one’s debts very quick and pain free. But if you cheat me out of $10, and I decide to forgive that debt, though you no longer owe me $10, you are still guilty of cheating. This is why during the OT sacrifices, the ola (immolated burnt offering) was divided into two sacrifices, the Hattat (for the sin) and the Asham (for the guilt… yes, I probably spelt those terms wrong.)

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross opens the way for the debts to be forgiven. But that does not erase the fact that we did comitt the sin and are still guilty of that action; this is where purgatory comes in. After forgiveness and purgation are fulfilled for everyone involved, then will God remember it no more. But this is a process that starts with contrition and repentence now, and is finalized much later in the future.

It is a mistake to read the “forgiveness” of sin via the merits of Christ in an immediate “done now once and for all” frame of mind.

Thal59
 
40.png
Yerusalyim:
You’re playing at Semantics here.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is not an issue of semantics. The debate over “imputed” righteousness (Luther’s snow-covered dunghill example) and “imparted” righteousness (traditional Catholic teaching) was a significant part of the Protestant Reformation, including the German Reformation, the Swiss Reformation, and even the English Reformation.

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
Actually, this is not an issue of semantics. The debate over “imputed” righteousness (Luther’s snow-covered dunghill example) and “imparted” righteousness (traditional Catholic teaching) was a significant part of the Protestant Reformation, including the German Reformation, the Swiss Reformation, and even the English Reformation.

Blessings,
Click to expand...
I never thought of it this way - but that’s an excellent point, David. This does actually get down to imputed versus infused righteousness. But, even with that - I don’t think any of these posts really answer my question. How do you reconcile the fact that sometimes Scripture says our sins are ‘covered’ (which would impy imputed righteousness - he declares us clean) and at other times it says God ‘takes them away’ (which would imply infused righteousness - he makes us clean)?
 
40.png
Elzee:
Doesn’t this seem to say that God covers our sins when they are forgiven, while other passages clearly say our sins are taken away and removed? How can these passages that seem to say different things be reconciled?
Click to expand...
I dont mean to be a party pooper, but how is this question important?
Is it only important theologically? Is it only important to attack Catholic theology?
When you ask are our sins covered, what EXACTLY do you mean by that verb? Its completely senseless to me, the concept of “covering” an immaterial object. And what, exactly, would be the point of “covering” it? God is omniscient. It seems a silly concept and a minimally useful one at that.
 
Philthy…

You raise an excellent point on the matter of
covering…

Until Jesus came the people of Israel relied
upon the shed blood of sacrificial lambs, bulls,
dove, etc, for their sins to be covered and dealt
with. These “shadows” pointed to a future sacrifice.

When Christ came on the scene His cousin, John
the Baptist, identified Him as “The Lamb of God
who takes AWAY the sins of the world.”

Finally the Messiah had arrived with the
Exceedingly Great and Good News!!!

Unfortunately most of the religious Jews of that
time were looking for another kind of salvation…
They were looking for someone to deliver them
from Roman oppression… a political messiah, if
you will.

Most of them were not aware of the prophecy in
Isaiah 53 which speaks of the suffering servant
king…

Here are a few verses…

4 “Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
6 We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.”

As one saint said, some years ago… “Jesus paid
a debt He didn’t owe because we all had debts we
couldn’t pay!”

I do not pretend to understand God’s ways nor His
amazing mercy and grace. I have enough
trouble forgetting my sinful mistakes and those of
others. But according to the words of Christ and
His apostles and prophets of old, God completely
forgets the sins of a repentent sinner.

Again, to emphasize this, I quote St. John…

“If we confess our sins God is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and cleanse us of ALL
unrighteousness.” 1 Jn 1:9

Does this mean we have libertty to continue
sinning in a wanton manner??? I think not…!!!
But a true disciple and follower of Christ will find
themselves MORE aware of their sins as the
Holy Spirit convicts their hearts… Not to condemn
them, but to lead them in the path of righteousness!

“Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me and I
shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever!”
Psalm 100

May the Spirit of the Lord enlighten our hearts and
minds to actually grasp the inheritance with have
as children of the Great King! 👍

Cactus Jack
 
40.png
Philthy:
I dont mean to be a party pooper, but how is this question important?
Is it only important theologically? Is it only important to attack Catholic theology?
When you ask are our sins covered, what EXACTLY do you mean by that verb? Its completely senseless to me, the concept of “covering” an immaterial object. And what, exactly, would be the point of “covering” it? God is omniscient. It seems a silly concept and a minimally useful one at that.
Click to expand...
Well, this is my thought based on talking to my friends who are Fundamentalists and believe in OSAS. It gets back to what David said now that I think about it. If God only covers our sins, then no matter what we do, it doesn’t really matter. Because by ‘covering our sins’, it means God ‘looks’ at us as if we had the righteousness of Christ - we are “covered by his cloak”, as many Fundamentalists say. Our souls are always dirty - we are not in essence ever “good” in God’s eyes. “Total depravity” I think is the term Calvinists use.

But, if our righteousness is infused, as Catholics believe, and our sins are removed from our souls and we are really cleansed and made righteous in the sight of God, then any unrepentent sin - in particular mortal sin - dirties our souls to where we cannot enter heaven (because nothing unclean can enter heaven). Or, in the case of venial sin, we need the cleansing process of purgatory.

It seems to pose quite a dilemma for the Fundamentalist who believes in OSAS if we are simply declared righteous instead of being made righteous (infused with righteousness). This is my take on it anyway. Does anyone think it makes sense?
 
40.png
Elzee:
I never thought of it this way - but that’s an excellent point, David. This does actually get down to imputed versus infused righteousness. But, even with that - I don’t think any of these posts really answer my question. How do you reconcile the fact that sometimes Scripture says our sins are ‘covered’ (which would impy imputed righteousness - he declares us clean) and at other times it says God ‘takes them away’ (which would imply infused righteousness - he makes us clean)?
Click to expand...
Actual imparted righteousness implies BOTH. Jesus covered our sins AND THEN infused the righteousness of God within us.

It doesn’t have to be an “either/or”. It can be a “both/and”.

Blessings,
 
40.png
Philthy:
I dont mean to be a party pooper, but how is this question important?
Is it only important theologically? Is it only important to attack Catholic theology?
When you ask are our sins covered, what EXACTLY do you mean by that verb? Its completely senseless to me, the concept of “covering” an immaterial object. And what, exactly, would be the point of “covering” it? God is omniscient. It seems a silly concept and a minimally useful one at that.
Click to expand...
It is important in that this wording was a major issue in the Reformation. Indeed, if one looks at the “history” of the Anglican Articles of Religion, one sees this deliberate change in emphasis.

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
Actually, this is not an issue of semantics. The debate over “imputed” righteousness (Luther’s snow-covered dunghill example) and “imparted” righteousness (traditional Catholic teaching) was a significant part of the Protestant Reformation, including the German Reformation, the Swiss Reformation, and even the English Reformation.

Blessings,
Click to expand...
It was more important for Luther than for the Reformed. And the fact that people thought it was a big deal doesn’t mean that it really was.

None of the Reformers denied that the ultimate goal is our complete sanctification. None of them taught that living in sin is OK. I’ve quoted lengthy passages from Luther’s Galatians commentary showing this.

The idea of the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness was, I think, a bad one. But the idea that our sins are freely forgiven on the basis of faith in Christ is fully orthodox. And I can see why Luther and others used the language of imputation (which does, after all, occur in Romans 4, though the imputation is not of Christ’s righteousness). It wasn’t the best language to use, and it shouldn’t have been insisted on the way it was. But I can’t see that it was some huge deviation from the truth.

We are united to Christ by faith. Christ’s righteousness becomes ours. Our sins are forgiven, and they continue to be forgiven as often as we repent. All of this is true by common admission. The rest is detail–admittedly important detail in some cases.

Edwin
 
Good morning, saints in the making…

One of the most important things in a person’s
life is how he or she perceives him/herself.

As a man/woman thinks, so is she/he!

If we are convinced that we are lowly, powerless
sinners, incapable of rising to the heights of
righteous and holy living, most likely we will
continue to live sinful, defeated lives.

If, on the other hand, by having the doctrine of
justification clearly articulated and explained, we
might just start thinking and acting differently.

When our minds are converted and established in
truth, our actual lifestyle is affected. The word,
repent, in Greek, has the first idea of “think
differently,” as its meaning.

A believer, who might be struggling with some sin
pattern, becomes greatly encouraged when
hearing the results of Christ’s sacrifice and
resurrection…

Things like the following:

Assurance of God’s presence - “I will never leave
nor forsake you.” “He that has the Son has the
life.” “… nothing shall separate us from the love
of Christ.”

Our position as God’s children: “The old things
have passed away, we are a new creation.” “You
are all seated in the heavenly places with Christ.”
“You are all joint heirs with Christ.”

Provision for future sins: “If we confess our sins
He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse
us of all unrighteousness.” “Where sin abounds
grace does so much more abound.” “We have an
advocate with the Father, the man, Christ Jesus.”

Promise of the future: “There is now no
condemnatin for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

These are just a few, a very few, promises and
provisions of God for the believer in Christ.

I have struggled with sin, and continue to do so.
At 61 years of age I expected to be further ahead
in my spiritual walk with Christ and would be
completely discouraged if it were not for some of
the above promises, plus many others.

I have not given up because of God’s
encouragement and reassurances to work with
me as long as I keep trying and trusting in Him.

His mercy and grace are so vast and so
available to all who trust in Him. 👍

Finally… St. Paul, whose background was
founded in the Law, was so instrumental in
explaining the wonderful doctrines of grace
toward the repentent sinner and the new life
available to overcome in the future.

Grace and peace,

Cactus Jack
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top