Do you have to repent to be forgiven

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

This quote clearly illustrates to me that a repentance of sin was a cleaning out of “the home of the heart”, before the Holy Spirit introduces Himself there.

Since the interpretation that I have posted on my website didn’t suffice to your preconceived notions, I see you have searched for a more palatable version…

The translation reads…

that whatever defilement inveterate error had imparted, whatever contamination in the heart of man ignorance had engendered, that repentance should sweep and scrape away, and cast out of doors, and thus prepare the home of the heart, by making it clean, for the Holy Spirit, who was about to supervene, that He might with pleasure introduce Himself there-into, together with His celestial blessings.

This is not talking about a removal of sin from the heart and mind… but the “inveterate error” and “ignorance” which engenders contamination. Turtullian is obviously referring to a “turning away” from preconceived notions which “by faith” allows the entrance of the Holy Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Milliardo,

Humility is not contingent on whether one is saved or not; many who do not know Christ recognize sin in a general way, and are as much humble as Paul is, if not more. So this view is illogical in that it doesn’t necessarily follow that someone who is not saved is not humble.

You’re right… humility is not contingent on whether on is saved or not… but it cannot be ignored that humility is not a natural function of sinful man. Arrogance and pride is the only natural outcome of sin, so it can be logically concluded that ANY humility one experiences can only be a result of a glimpse of a Godly perspective.

Surely sinful man does experience humility from time to time… but for a man to experience a level of humility such as Paul’s, would require a perspective that not many men are able to experience. Which cannot be gained by simple teaching from a man… but teaching from the Holy Spirit, having your eyes opened to the truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Go ahead Explain this verse away. I know you will try but I am interested in your atempt. Remember you cant add or take away from scripture. Good luck

Since you are so curious of my answer… I will quote the KJV.

"1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. "

The only possible explanation for these verses is very simply: A sin unto death is that sin which is not covered by the blood of Christ.

A sin “not unto death” is sin that is covered by the blood of Christ.

Of course “all unrighteousness is sin”, and we all understand that even the most negligible sins are “mortal” in that they “cause physical death”… so every sin is “unto death” in that practicle sense.

But the verse directly following those verses qualifies my statement referring to the “sin not unto death”…

"1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. "

That is not to say that saved people are sinless… but John was speaking from God’s persepective. If you are born again God does not see your sin.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philty,

How odd, then, that he would determine separate sacrifices for various sins in the levitical law which correspond to the severity of the sin.

Where in the OT do you see the promise of eternal life in heaven? You don’t the only semblance of that is Canaan.

There is a very clear distinction between the New Testament and the Old Testament. When that distinction becomes blurred you end up with replacement theology. The OT law was flawed… it was only intended to be a semblance of things to come… just like Canaan.

The real comparison between the NT Church, and OT Israel… in why those Israelites were sacrificing. They were sacrificing because they were God’s people. And they were God’s people becuase they were “the offspring of Abraham”.

When comparing that with salvation… and the promise that goes with that salvation… ALL Israelites were God’s people (comparable to being “born again”). They were sacrificing to illustrate repentance of sin… which, again, is ONLY for God’s people.

How odd, then, the punishment for some sins was death by stoning while others warranted far less.

No, not really when you consider that the Israelites being “born” of Abraham were already God’s people. In the our physical flesh, sin has consequences. Any sin you commit has real physical consequences that will have to be endured in the flesh. The final end of these consequences is the death of our physical body. Some sins bring that death on faster than others. Likewise, the “semblance” of this law was the Levitical law which imposed punishments for sin.

How odd then, that God would inspire the author of 1 John to say that there is sin which leads to death (which we are not to pray for) and sin which does not lead to death (which we can pray for) Im sorry but your claim that all sin is equal is ridiculous and unscriptural. It would seem that your theology and position on the need for repentance require such a reality, but that does not make it so.

See my previous post to Odell

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I think we’ve been forgotten.

(BA, I’m just joking. I hope everything is O.K. and that you have not answered here for a couple of days simply because you have a life. )

Thanks Eden. Everything is just peachy here. I have been busy working, Missions Conference at church, and working on my website (new forums).

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I forgot about our discussion

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Since the interpretation that I have posted on my website didn’t suffice to your preconceived notions, I see you have searched for a more palatable version…

My translation comes from New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1885 Edition) online:

newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm

Here is a Calvinist site with the same interpretation as New Advent:

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-47.htm#P11272_3193010

Same translation, another non-Catholic site:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian20.html

Much to my surprise (based on your response), I found that your website has the same translation by Rev. S. Thelwell as I had quoted from New Advent:
Turtullian's Repentance on Bibleapologist's Website:

that whatever defilement inveterate error had imparted, whatever contamination in the heart of man ignorance had engendered, that repentance should sweep and scrape away, and cast out of doors, and thus prepare the home of the heart, by making it clean, for the Holy Spirit, who was about to supervene, that He might with pleasure introduce Himself there-into, together with His celestial blessings. Of these blessings the title is briefly one the salvation of man-the abolition of former sins being the preliminary step

Tertullian's On Repentance on New Advent's Website:

that whatever defilement inveterate error had imparted, **whatever contamination in the heart of man ignorance had engendered, **that repentance should sweep and scrape away, and cast out of doors, and thus prepare the home of the heart, by making it clean, for the Holy Spirit, who was about to supervene, that He might with pleasure introduce Himself there-into, together with His celestial blessings. Of these blessings the title is briefly one the salvation of man–the abolition of former sins being the preliminary step

How has the version on your website not fit with my preconceived notions and how is the New Advent version more palatable? They are exactly the same!

 

[Eden]

That is not to say that saved people are sinless… but John was speaking from God’s persepective. If you are born again God does not see your sin.

You have completely made this up. That is not what 1 John 5: 16-17 says. 1 John 5:17 explicitly differentiates a mortal (deadly) sin from a less serious one.

*All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (*KJV"not unto death")

There are several lists of sins that are said to bar one from “the kingdom of heaven”:
RSV:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Unrighteous,” immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

RSV:

Galatians 5:19-21: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like . . . “those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Ephesians 5:5: “. . . no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”

To say that God does not see the sins of fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness, carousing, adultery, sexual perversion, thieving or greed when they are committed by someone because they said the born-again Jesus Prayer and had a symbolic baptism is laughable.

 

[Eden]

Thanks Eden. Everything is just peachy here.

Good to hear.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

You have completely made this up. That is not what 1 John 5: 16-17 says. 1 John 5:17 explicitly differentiates a mortal (deadly) sin from a less serious one.

No, 1 John 5:17 differentiates a sin that is utterly destructive (deadly) from a sin that is not destructive at all (not just less serious).

The sin “not unto death” is one which has no consequence whatsoever! Now, we know that in the physical all sin has consequences in our flesh, but John is speaking of a sin that carries no consequences. He is speaking of the eternal ramifications of sin.

Again, very simply a sin unto death is one that carries eternal damnation (rejection of Christ). A sin that is done that doesn’t carry eternal damnation is one that is done in the flesh when one is “in Christ” (saved). A sin “not unto death” carries no eternal ramifications at all because it is covered by the blood of Christ.

This was explicated by Tim Staples on Catholic Answers Live in the second hour of the show on 11/15/06. (Which you will be happy to hear that he contradicted himself later in the show).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

To say that God does not see the sins of fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness, carousing, adultery, sexual perversion, thieving or greed when they are committed by someone because they said the born-again Jesus Prayer and had a symbolic baptism is laughable.

Well, first of all, it’s not the prayer that saves us… it’s belief in Christ.

Secondly, God doesn’t see those sins… What do you think the purpose of the white robes are that John saw in Revelation? It was symbolic of the saints putting on the righteousness of Christ. When you are saved, you will one day stand before the White Throne as a spotless lamb because you have “put on Christ”.

"Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. "

To be baptized is to be “baptized into Christ” not by water, but by the Holy Spirit (who is the only one that can put us there).

And to be “in Christ” is the same as putting on Christ.

Gal 3:21 [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That’s not the promise of Canaan, but the heavenly promise of which Canaan was a semblance (a schoolmaster).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

A sin “not unto death” carries no eternal ramifications at all because it is covered by the blood of Christ.

Your explanation doesn’t make sense to me. If a sin has no ramifications, then how can it be called a sin? Sin by definition is an estrangement from God. Venial sins (less serious sins) do not completely sever our relationship with God. They do make us more vulnerable to deadly sins which completely sever us from God the more they add up, however.

This was explicated by Tim Staples on Catholic Answers Live in the second hour of the show on 11/15/06. (Which you will be happy to hear that he contradicted himself later in the show).

I don’t really know anything about Tim Staples appearance on CAL or his contradiction. Maybe you should stick to reading the Catechism, if you want to be certain about Catholic teaching.

 

[Eden]

Well, first of all, it’s not the prayer that saves us… it’s belief in Christ.

There are many people who have believed in Christ and have lost their faith.

Secondly, God doesn’t see those sins…

This idea of once saved, always saved began with John Calvin. This is not what the Apostles taught. If you look at the testimonies of the early Christians, you will see that they knew that we are all capable of losing our personal salvation until the very last. Since this is a modern invention (and a very clever one on satan’s part to lead Christ’s flock astray, I might add, "Oh, yeah, sin away, God doesn’t see it. ) , I don’t know how anyone who reads into the history of Christianity can believe in once saved, always saved.

 

[Odell]

Eden,
Secondly, God doesn’t see those sins…

(Heb12:5) “My son do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him for whom the Lord loves he disciplines he scourges every son he acknowledges.”

He doesnt see those sins but yet we are disciplined for those sins he dont see?

go ahead explain away.

When you are saved, you will one day stand before the White Throne as a spotless lamb because you have “put on Christ”.

You are right when we are saved. Not there yet buddy.
and when you sin you no longer are puting on Christ. you are no longer in Christ.

1 Jn 3:24) “those who keep the commandments remain in Him.” this verse would suggest that, if you don’t keep the commandants you are no longer in Christ.

(Rom 11:22-23) “Gods kindness toward you provided that you remain in his kindness(works) otherwise you will be **cut off.” **

(Jn 15:6) anyone who does not remain **in me **will be thrown out.
Jesus talks about those who are IN HIM. It does not get any clearer than this they are Christians (saved) and are then tossed out you cant be tossed out without first being apart of.

John start anoter thread on osas and faith alone we would love to show you how you are wrong.

 

[Odell]

Eden,
Again, very simply a sin unto death is one that carries eternal damnation (rejection of Christ). A sin that is done that doesn’t carry eternal damnation is one that is done in the flesh when one is “in Christ” (saved). A sin “not unto death” carries no eternal ramifications at all because it is covered by the blood of Christ.
]

Again very simply a sin is a rejection of Christ. A sin that that carries eternal damnation is a mortal sin, fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness, carousing, adultery, sexual perversion, thieving or greed has nothing to do if you are a Christian or not. Jesus died for everyone not just Christians.

would you please not avoid my question

I do believe you have said before, that if someone Kills or whatever lets say trys to exterminate a entire race like the Jews during the Holocoust. Someone who would do such things could not be saved. If I represent you wrong please let me know. But it is my understanding that you believe they could not be saved and do such crimes (sins) Yes or no.

But then you say the Holocoust is the same as abortion and abortion is the same as stealing gum.

if you believe what I think you do than someone who steals gum can not posibly be saved either.

Catholics believe one is worth damnation the other is not.
Please verify your opinion I would really like to know.

would a saved person do these things fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness, carousing, adultery, sexual perversion, thieving or greed?

If they would not than would a saved person steal Gum?

 

[Philthy]

Again very simply a sin is a rejection of Christ. A sin that that carries eternal damnation is a mortal sin, fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness, carousing, adultery, sexual perversion, thieving or greed has nothing to do if you are a Christian or not. Jesus died for everyone not just Christians.

would you please not avoid my question

I do believe you have said before, that if someone Kills or whatever lets say trys to exterminate a entire race like the Jews during the Holocoust. Someone who would do such things could not be saved. If I represent you wrong please let me know. But it is my understanding that you believe they could not be saved and do such crimes (sins) Yes or no.

But then you say the Holocoust is the same as abortion and abortion is the same as stealing gum.

if you believe what I think you do than someone who steals gum can not posibly be saved either.

Catholics believe one is worth damnation the other is not.
Please verify your opinion I would really like to know.

would a saved person do these things fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness, carousing, adultery, sexual perversion, thieving or greed?

If they would not than would a saved person steal Gum?

Here is how a syllogism (or 2) would summarize your thoughts:

Premise 1a: All sins are equal before God (John’s premise)
Premise 2a: Stealing gum and mass murder are both sins
Conclusion1: Stealing gum and mass murder are equal sins before God

Premise 1b: People who are saved will not commit sin
Premise 2b: Stealing gum is a sin
Conclusion2: People who are saved will not steal gum (people who steal gum are not saved)

In order to refute either conclusion it must be demonstrated that:

A) It is not derived necessarily from the premises; or
B) One or both of the premises are false.

I can assure you that the conclusions are valid from the premises stated. So the question Odell would like answered by John is which premise(s) is/are not true? 1a, 2a, 1b or 2b?

 

[Philthy]

Philty,

The real comparison between the NT Church, and OT Israel… in why those Israelites were sacrificing. They were sacrificing because they were God’s people. And they were God’s people becuase they were “the offspring of Abraham”.

When comparing that with salvation… and the promise that goes with that salvation… ALL Israelites were God’s people (comparable to being “born again”). They were sacrificing to illustrate repentance of sin… which, again, is ONLY for God’s people.
John
www.gideonsword.net

You seem to have forgotten the point. The point was that the OT sacrifices varied as a function of the severity of the sin. This was brought up because you were trying to claim that all sin is equal before God. Now we see you demonstrating my point: All sin was not equal before God - some sin required more sacrifice than other sin - EVEN for the Israelites, whom you claim are comparable to those who are born again. Therefore, your contention that all sin is EQUAL before God remains unfounded.
In addition, the analysis you provided for Odell in no way supported your contention that all sin is equal before God - in fact you arrived at another conclusion: there is a sin that is deadly and there is wrongdoing that, while sin, is not deadly. Such a conclusion validates that all sin is NOT equal before God.

I also noticed you ignored my solid refutation of your interpretation of Tertullian - could you not find anything wrong with my analysis?

 

[Philthy]

Bible Apologist has made multiple claims which - IMO - have been solidly refuted. Here is a partial tally:

• Separation of salvation vs reward in heaven. BA offered Rev 11:18 as proof text, but it says nothing regarding quantification of reward. See post 104
• Repentance is only possible if you are in a state of grace, ie “is the fruit of salvation”. BA offered Tertullian as proof yet that quote said that salvation was the fruit of repentance. See post 117
• Good works are merely evidence of our faith. This seems to contradict Rom 12:1, James 2:24, et al. Rom12:1 specifically says that good works are “a sacrifice (which is )holy and pleasing to God”
• Sin cannot separate you from Heaven if you have at some point believed in Christ. Paul in 1Cor is abundantly clear that various sins - adultery, murder, etc - when persisted in unrepentantly - deprive one of the kindgom of God.
• The only thing we will ever be judged on is whether we accepted or rejected Christ. Such a contention ignores all the Scripture which speaks of the final judgement as a judgement of deeds - both OT and NT
• Sinning is not rejecting Christ(!) Sin is a stumbling block, Christ is the Way. Sin is a lie - Christ is the Truth. Sin leads to death - Christ is Life. See post 132

 

[Odell]

Well I think I know why we havent heard back from BA in a while. He has updated his web site quite a bit. And I must say it is looking good. He has got a forum page now. I think everyone should know this and check it out. Maybe some time in the future I can post on his site where he has contridicted himself here on this site.

I have found some verses that I thought would help bolster our claim. And in which I think he will have some problems with along with some other things he is going to have quite a time with that yall have posted

(Heb 13:16) “Do not neglect to **do good **and to share what you have; **God is pleased by sacrifices **of that kind.” Scripture is obviously talking about our works being **PLEASING **

(Heb 13:20-21) "May the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the eternal covenant, Jesus our Lord, furnish you with all that is good, that you may do his will. May he carry out in you what is pleasing to him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever Amen."

God is the one carring out what we do and is pleased when we respond to his grace with our actions through Jesus Christ AMEN AMEN.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Your explanation doesn’t make sense to me. If a sin has no ramifications, then how can it be called a sin? Sin by definition is an estrangement from God. Venial sins (less serious sins) do not completely sever our relationship with God. They do make us more vulnerable to deadly sins which completely sever us from God the more they add up, however.

First of all, your definition of sin is wrong… sin is not an estrangement from God. Sin is disobedience to God… which causes estrangement.

Secondly, all sin has ramifications, but when we are covered by the blood of Christ we don’t experience those “eternal” ramifications for our sins. We do though “always” have to live with the physical ramifications of our sins. Those physical ramifications of sin, God allows us to experience in order to deter us from committing sin (any sin) which will estrange us from God. God does this because He loves us.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy and Odell,

Here is how a syllogism (or 2) would summarize your thoughts:

Premise 1a: All sins are equal before God (John’s premise)
Premise 2a: Stealing gum and mass murder are both sins
Conclusion1: Stealing gum and mass murder are equal sins before God

Premise 1b: People who are saved will not commit sin
Premise 2b: Stealing gum is a sin
Conclusion2: People who are saved will not steal gum (people who steal gum are not saved)

In order to refute either conclusion it must be demonstrated that:

A) It is not derived necessarily from the premises; or
B) One or both of the premises are false.

I can assure you that the conclusions are valid from the premises stated. So the question Odell would like answered by John is which premise(s) is/are not true? 1a, 2a, 1b or 2b?

Premise 1a and 2a are absolutely valid and therefore conclusion 1 is a right conclusion.

Premise 1b or 2b are not valid biblical premises so your conclusion 2 is not justifiable.

The Apostle Paul committed sin…

"Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. "

"Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? "

The Apostle Paul was a saved man… but he was still a sinner (in the flesh) sold under sin (v. 14).

If your conclusion 2 was accurate, Paul, at the time he wrote the book of Romans was not a saved man… because he said he was sold under sin (in the present tense) as he was writing the letter to the Romans.

John
www.gideonsword.net