- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
Originally posted by @sonshipI think that's seeing things a little too simplistically sonship.
Be clear that for God to forgive your sins means that He FORGETS your sins.
I mean that if you were to remind Him after you have been forgiven, god might say - "I have NO idea of what you are talking about."
It is true (generally speaking) that 'forgiveness' stops us from dwelling on past troubles/transgressions. But this is not a case of 'forgetting' in the literal sense, but more a case of 'overlooking.'
As an omnipotent deity (allegedly) God cannot by his very essence 'forget,' but what he can do is 'overlook' past sins and not dwell on them. I think that's the best you can expect from Him.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 May 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterWhat is the opposite of "waffle?"
Is your preferred Recovery version not the best translation in this case at least?
Maybe "nitpickery?"
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I think that's seeing things a little too simplistically sonship.
It is true (generally speaking) that 'forgiveness' stops us from dwelling on past troubles/transgressions. But this is not a case of 'forgetting' in the literal sense, but more a case of 'overlooking.'
Redemption through Christ's death means that my sins were not sentimentally overlooked but PAID FOR in full. .
Do you understand this?
Judgement against me has taken place in Jesus on His cross.
As an omnipotent deity (allegedly) God cannot by his very essence 'forget,' but what he can do is 'overlook' past sins and not dwell on them. I think that's the best you can expect from Him.
Redemption through Christ's death is much more powerful then this. This is a kind of liberal looking the other way, that you are talking about. What you speak of is more like tolerating, or tolerance, or permissiveness.
The dept of my sins is not overlooked but paid in full.
God's requirement has been satisfied.
The sinner is justified according to God's standard of righteousness.
If God today decides that maybe He doesn't like me afterall, He would be unrighteous to undo the legal dept that has been satisfied by the death of Christ. This is really an aspect of the power of the Gospel.
Christ's resurrection is the receipt meaning that God is fully satisfied with His death justifying me in His blood.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
08 May 18
Originally posted by @sonship"Redemption through Christ's death means that my sins were not sentimentally overlooked but PAID FOR in full. . Do you understand this?I think that's seeing things a little too simplistically sonship.
It is true (generally speaking) that 'forgiveness' stops us from dwelling on past troubles/transgressions. But this is not a case of 'forgetting' in the literal sense, but more a case of 'overlooking.'
Redemption through Christ's death means that my sins were not sent ...[text shortened]... on is the receipt meaning that God is fully satisfied with His death justifying me in His blood.
Your sins being 'PAID FOR' does not mean your omnipotent deity has a case of selective amnesia. Do you understand this?
Your sins are forgiven, not held against you, never spoken of again. But to understand this as God having 'literally' no memory of your transgressions is, to be blunt, childlike logic.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Your sins being 'PAID FOR' does not mean your omnipotent deity has a case of selective amnesia. Do you understand this?
I believe God is a Person of perfect self control. If God says that He forgets something, we can call it "selective amnesia" of we wish. Or we can just say that God with eternal, infinite and perfect mind has really forgotten.
He says that as far as the east is from the west He has removed our the sins from the offender. How far is the east from the west? That is an infinite distance.
"For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness upon those who fear Him.
As far as the east is from the east so far has He removed our transgressions from us." (Psalm 103:11,12)
You can consider it however you wish.
I believe that "their sins and their lawlessnesses I will by no means remember anymore." (Heb 8:12) means divine forgetting is really perfect forgetting.
I'll take the promise in faith.
Your sins are forgiven, not held against you, never spoken of again. But to understand this as God having 'literally' no memory of your transgressions is, to be blunt, childlike logic.
Either that or you underestimate Who Christ is and what it meant for Him to take the sinner's place. You should take at least equal time to consider that the effectiveness of Divine Eternal Redemption is stronger than your human imagination can grasp. The sins are really blotted out, gone, removed, forgotten by a Perfect Mind.
"I, even I, am He who wipes away [or blots out] your trangressions for My own sake,
And I will not remember your sins." (Isaiah 45:25)
Call me childish if you wish. I'm willing to wear that label.
But I believe the word of God here.
08 May 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterAre you going to ignore this question sonship?
Anyway, do you agree that you preferred version of the bible is not the best translation for you in this instance?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
08 May 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterDon’t be rude, tiger.
Are you going to ignore this question sonship?
09 May 18
What we have here is sonship once again being too vain to admit when he’s wrong, or at least when I am correct.
His favoured version of the bible does not support his OP containing the phrase “washed in the blood” which I happen to know is a “churchy” phrase which is not scripturally accurate.
The principle of the application of the blood sacrifice is in “sprinkling”, as is demonstrated in the OT and NT texts and practice. Nowhere is anything actually “washed” in blood, despite the adjective of “cleansed” being used and the symbolism of robes being “dipped” in blood. The Christian hymn which asks “are you washed in the blood of the lamb?” is also scripturally unsound.
It is interesting that over the years of being here , I find that it is always the self-anointed forum teachers who lack the grace and humility to acknowledge when they made a mistake.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @divegeester<<His favoured version of the bible does not support his OP containing the phrase “washed in the blood” which I happen to know is a “churchy” phrase which is not scripturally accurate.>>
What we have here is sonship once again being too vain to admit when he’s wrong, or at least when I am correct.
His favoured version of the bible does not support his OP containing the phrase “washed in the blood” which I happen to know is a “churchy” phrase which is not scripturally accurate.
The principle of the application of the blood sacrif ...[text shortened]... anointed forum teachers who lack the grace and humility to acknowledge when they made a mistake.
The phrase “washed in the blood” is Scripturally accurate, tiger. The KJV has that phrase in Revelation 1:5.
You can’t claim something is “Scripturally inaccurate” because it doesn’t appear in sonship’s favored translation but appears in more widely-accepted translations.
It is actually you who is refusing to admit he’s wrong. “Washed in the blood” is not Scripturally inaccurate.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
09 May 18
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,”
(Revelation 1:5 KJV)
The phrase appears in other translations as well:
http://biblehub.com/revelation/1-5.htm
09 May 18
3 edits
For those interested in my perspective on this, here is an article which I don’t fully subscribe to (nor the website which I don’t know) but opens the topic nicely and links the apparent Christian obsession with being drenched in blood, to its pagan roots.
The article also mentions other “churchy” activities such as “pleading the blood”, another non-scriptural incantation which treats the blood as though it holds some sort of magical properties.
https://redeeminggod.com/blood-of-jesus/
The biblical application of the blood sacrifice was “sprinkling”.
Avoid paganistic ritualisms creeping into one’s thinking.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
09 May 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterWhen you say 'non scriptural' you actually mean that you interpret it differently. Are you opposed to taking communion as well?
For those interested in my perspective on this, here is an article which I don’t fully subscribe to (nor the website which I don’t know) but opens the topic nicely and links the apparent Christian obsession with being drenched in blood, to its pagan roots.
The article also mentions other “churchy” activities such as “pleading the blood”, another non ...[text shortened]... the blood sacrifice was “sprinkling”. Avoid paganistic ritualisms creeping into ones thinking.