V
valient_Lucy
Guest
If we do not have to repent to be forgiven, then why did Jesus say “Repent, and believe the good news?”
- Status
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Lucy,
this is all to do with perception.
A person who is unrepentant cannot perceive the Grace that is granted unconditionally.
Without being aware of the Grace, that person cannot feel the forgiveness that is granted unconditionally.
So the unrepentant FEELS unforgiven.
So feels bound by sin.
What Jesus was saying was for the benefit of the unrepentant.
That is what He meant by ‘The truth will make you free’.
But to see the truth you need to repent.
The price has been paid.
The gift is in your hands, and you cannot cast it aside.
You only need to open your eyes to see it.
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
What are you trying to say? If it’s just a matter of *feeling *unforgiven, doesn’t that imply that the person is already forgiven, and just doesn’t know it? What’s the use of repentance then, other than a way to make us feel better about ourselves? This seems to me to lead to universalism. If I have a gift in my hands, and I keep closing my eyes, I won’t ever be able to open the gift. And isn’t that extremely tragic?
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
I second that.
P
Philthy
Guest
Sorry, but this makes almost no sense at all.
All sins are not forgiven currently even though Christ died on the Cross. That opened the possibility of forgiveness for all mankind, but it did not make it actual. If it had then no one would be going to Hell.
In addition, after Christ resurrected he breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. That means that some sins still needed to actually be forgiven. That directly contradicts the notions you are putting forward.
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Philthy,
John
NO. If we have faith, we are already saved (by grace through faith). Our life thereafter should be lived by faith, which presenting our bodies a living sacrifice is only a result of “showing our faith by our works”.
John
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Eden,
“But where there is no fear, in like manner there is no amendment; where there is no amendment, repentance is of necessity vain, for it lacks the fruit for which God sowed it; that is, man’s salvation.”
Salvation must come first for repentance to be fruitful. If repentance of necessity is in vain… and salvation must come before repentance… then the only conclusion we can come to is that the repentance spoken of by Peter was “a changing of mind”.
There is no authoritative basis for concluding that the repentance that Peter spoke of was a repentance of sin.
John
www.gideonsword.net
Yes, in that particular chapter Turtullian was describing a repentance that is different than “a changing of mind”. But in chapter II of that document Turtullian said…
“But where there is no fear, in like manner there is no amendment; where there is no amendment, repentance is of necessity vain, for it lacks the fruit for which God sowed it; that is, man’s salvation.”
Salvation must come first for repentance to be fruitful. If repentance of necessity is in vain… and salvation must come before repentance… then the only conclusion we can come to is that the repentance spoken of by Peter was “a changing of mind”.
There is no authoritative basis for concluding that the repentance that Peter spoke of was a repentance of sin.
John
www.gideonsword.net
B
bibleapologist
Guest
Philty,
But his statement does give us some insight to what place sinfulness has from God’s point of view (since we can assume Paul was closer to Him than most of us are). There is no quantification of sin. God does not see the sin of abortion any worse than the sin of stealing a pack of gum from the convenience store.
What you seem to be alluding to is that Paul was continually being saved as he repents of his sins, but contrarily, that statement by Paul actually states the complete opposite. Had Paul not received grace, been saved, and in fellowship with Christ… he would never have been in a position to view his “petty” sins as worse than everyone else’s…
Paul was saved, which is why he was able to repent of his sin (see my last post to Eden).
John
www.gideonsword.net
Yes, Paul repented of his sins… but can you actually say that he repented of ALL of his sins, and therefore reached a point of sinless perfection? Of course not. So Paul was a sinner. Although I doubt Paul was more wicked than the homosexuals of his day, his statement that he was the “chief of sinners” was only a statement of his perception of himself as compared with Christ.
But his statement does give us some insight to what place sinfulness has from God’s point of view (since we can assume Paul was closer to Him than most of us are). There is no quantification of sin. God does not see the sin of abortion any worse than the sin of stealing a pack of gum from the convenience store.
What you seem to be alluding to is that Paul was continually being saved as he repents of his sins, but contrarily, that statement by Paul actually states the complete opposite. Had Paul not received grace, been saved, and in fellowship with Christ… he would never have been in a position to view his “petty” sins as worse than everyone else’s…
Paul was saved, which is why he was able to repent of his sin (see my last post to Eden).
John
www.gideonsword.net
E
Eden
Guest
I really don’t understand how you see Tertullian’s “On Repentance” to be compatible with your theology. Take for instance that same Chapter 2:
Tertullian:
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.
This is also from Chapter 2:
Tertullian:
What does “preliminary step” mean to you here?
And since you earlier stated that
How are you able to reconcile Tertullian’s description of works associated with repentance in Chapter 9?
Tertullian:
M
Milliardo
Guest
We cannot deduce it either way from the Bible, but wouldn’t it be reasonable that he would have followed what Jesus said–to be perfect just as His Father is perfect? So in there we could see that, at least in essence, as Christ’s follower he would’ve done all he could to avoid sin.
OSAS doesn’t make any sense at all though (I would post more on this later).
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.
O
Odell
Guest
Showing our faith by works=sacrifice
sacrifice=pleasing to God
Do you still believe that faith working threw love is not pleasing to God?
Or are agreeing with us now?
Please answer
(Gal 5:6) “only faith working threw love counts for anything.” That is how we put faith in action WORKING threw love. Faith has to work to count for anything it cant be by itself.
Tell us something we dont know
(1Jn 5:16) “ If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”
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:thumbsup:
P
Philthy
Guest
Another unknown which in no way should contradict the clear words of Scripture that adulterers, thieves, murderers etc will not inherit eternal life.
Additionally, simply because one repents of sin does not mean that they will not sin again, but by repenting, confessing and asking for forgiveness one does, in fact, become cleansed of their sin completely and in that sense are in a state of “sinless perfection” until they sin again.
ba:
Yes, but more practically it referred to the fact that he was the most zealous persecuter of the Church before his conversion on the road to Damascus.
ba:
No quantification of sin? Where exactly did that come from? It would appear that you pulled it out of your bag of tricks.
ba:
How odd, then, that he would determine separate sacrifices for various sins in the levitical law which correspond to the severity of the sin.
How odd, then, the punishment for some sins was death by stoning while others warranted far less.
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.
ba:
What you seem to be alluding to is that Paul was continually being saved as he repents of his sins, but contrarily, that statement by Paul actually states the complete opposite.
You mean it implies the opposite, correct? If not, please quote the verse.
ba:
And here you make same mistake as most regarding salvation: and that mistake is that it is immediate, complete and permanent at the moment one comes to faith in Christ. You have assumed that Paul is either “completely” saved or He is entirely unsaved. Why? James tells us specifically that our justification is an ongoing process made more complete by our cooperation with walking in the good works that God has prepared for us. That is an ongoing process. In the same way, Pauls lifelong denying of himself, taking up his Cross daily and following in the footsteps of Christ is an ongoing “working out” of that salvation. That is why Catholic theology distinguishes between initial justification and final justification.
Just because Paul has received grace and has been saved does not mean that salvation has been completed in this life.
Sin in this life is like an infectious disease: just because you are completely cured of it does not mean it will not strike again!
O
Odell
Guest
That is the problem with BA it is obvious that this is not what the author was intending when he wrote what he wrote. But people like BA can make scripture say what ever they want to even if it is not at all what the author was talking about.
Question BA 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.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Hi Phil,
Say you design a machine with the specific purpose that it responds unpredictably to stimulus. Do you curse the machine when its response is sometimes damaging?
It could be said that God designed Man for the specific purpose of investigating failure, where {failure = sin}.
Thus sin is not actually offensive to God, but is actually a desired (name removed by moderator)ut of the investigation. We though, are aware that this failure is damaging to God’s universe, thus damaging to God, and feel bad about it. This is very proper repentance. But that we feel badly about our failure is irrellevant to God, for how can God blame us for behaving as we are designed?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Like the gift in your hands that you cannot perceive, you seem to have understood what I wrote, yet perceived that you have not understood.
Yes it is tragic.
Like the prodigal son, there is no price to pay.
The difference is, we do not have to go home, for we are already home.
O
Odell
Guest
then whey does the bible even talk about sin. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heared. What does your preacher even preach about? When you sin you reject God which is offensive to God.
God does not desire that we sin. God created us in his image without sin and that is how he wants us to be. That is why Jesus came to show us how we are to be the way it was in the beginning. Did not Jesus say to the Jews that Moses alowed you to devorce but in the BEGINNING that was not so. He points to how and why we where created not that we are designed to sin.
So many people say when they sin Im only human. But that is so false. Jesus was perfectly human and he showed us what it is like to be fully human, the way we were created in his image. You need to do some research on this whole area because you are seriously flawed in you belief. Jesus came to show us what it means to be human. And he does not like it when people sin you and get no more biblical that that.
And besides using stupid analogies like this try using scriptue.
O
Odell
Guest
You are not there yet buddy.
(1Cor10:12) “Therefore whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.”
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Dave-
This is a perfectly logical conclusion. Unfortunately your premise that “God designed Man for the specific purpose of investigating failure(where failure = sin)” is false. The conclusion (therefore how can God blame us for behaving as we are designed?) which you dervive from it -although valid, is therefore false as well.
You sound like the early heretics who Paul rhetorically referenced when he said, “Shall we sin so that Grace may abound all the more?” His answer was, “Of course not!” Murderers, thieves, fornicaters, etc will not inherit eternal life.
I have never heard such nonsense from a Christian. Sorry to be so blunt.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Good questions!!! I’d like to hear an answer from BA.
E
Eden
Guest
I think we’ve been forgotten. :crying:
(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.
)- Status