The seven churches

[J. Jump]

BobRyan is hardly a good ally in this subject area as he is SDA

Didn't say he was an ally, but why stick with what people actually "say" when you can just put words in their mouth? I said BobRyan could back me up that I do in fact believe in eternal security and champion that doctrine quite often.

Eternal means eternal or everlasting, without end.

Well that's certainly what it means today, but even the English word "eternal" has not always meant that, much less the Greek word.

Yes it is ainoios. So what!

I just go through explaining so what to you. The word is an adjective derived from a word that means age. You can't have the noun meaning a set amount of time (in that it has a beginning and an end) and then an adjective that means no beginning or end or no end. That's simply impossible within the structure of the language.

Does that give you the perogative of making up your "J.Jump" definition contrary to every other translation.

Boy you are just full of "emotional" arguments again. I haven't "made up" a definition. There are others that would agree with me both religious and secular alike. People simply don't like what the word means because it absolutely destroyes their "pet" church "tradition" doctrines that they have been holding onto and are unwilling to give up.

If you want to talk about "making" stuff up it is folks that say even though aion means age aionios can mean everlasting. Now that's making stuff up!

Well, what do you know!! J.Jump's definition of "eternal" or aioniios is not found in the most simple of Lexicons--Strong's. This is really basic.

You are right. It is really basic. You want to believe what a bunch of "humans" have to say about the word which has absolutely no Scriptural support. Not you or anyone else can find a single time in Scripture where the word aion is used for ANYTHING other than a set amount of time (time with a beginning and an end). It's simply not there. And as such the word aionios CAN NOT exceed that. It's linguistically impossible.

Now if you want to believe what man says about the matter that is on you, but you can cut the nonsense about "making up" a definition. Do you really think I'm the first person that came up with this?

Your emotionalism as a debate tactic is really old and tired. You should let it go. But I know that's all you folks got.

If one has to pay for their sins in a Baptist Purgatory then logically Christ's blood is not sufficient.

That may be true in "your" logic, but thankfully we don't all have "your" logic.

1John 1:9 speaks of fellowship with God, our relationship with him. We confess our sns to maintain our walk with him.

That's exactly right. And if you have "sin" in your life then you can not walk with God. Therefore the sin must be confessed and it must be forgiven. I never said this had anything to do with salvation. This verse is ONLY for the saved.

Saved people sin and that sin must be forgiven. If that sin is "already" forgiven then when it is committed it can not hinder my walk with God, because it is already dealt with. The mistake is made by you and others than think and teach like you that all our sin has been dealt with when it hasn't.

If it had my relationship could not miss a beat, because NOTHING would come up to put distance between me and God. And we know that simply isn't the case.

Talk about basic.

"IF" means that when

If means when - WOW - talk about making stuff up - I'm sure glad I wasn't drinking anything. If does not mean when it means if. If God wanted to say when a believer confesses that's exactly what He would have said. But guess what He choose the word IF. It's there for a reason. Simply ignoring it or saying that it means something else doesn't change the facts.

All my sins are forgiven--as far as my salvation is concerned.

Well finally we can agree on something.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus--none.

This is speaking of judgment. The word condemnation is talking about a negative judgment. And we know that there can be negative judgment for saved folks becuase some will suffer loss - that a negative judgment, so the NASB actually missed the mark on this verse as it is no condemnation for that that are in Christ Jesus, who walking according to the Spirit.

There are Christians that walk according to the spirit, who will not experience a negative judgment and there will be those Christians that walked according to the flesh and they WILL face a negative judgment.

The only reason for confession of sin is to maintain our relationship with Christ.

I really wish you could see how truly absurd this logic is. If ALL my sins are forgiven the moment I believe there is NOTHING that can EVER come between me and God that is not already dealt with. Therefore there can be no break in fellowship or relationship and there can be no chastening or disciplining because it's all been dealt with already.

To say that sin that is already forgiven can break my fellowship with God when it is actually committed means that my sin wasn't really separated as far as the East is from the West because God remembered it enough to have some distance from me.

Again that doesn't make one iota of sense. But you keep believing it if you want to.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

...Boy you are just full of "emotional" arguments again.

...If you want to talk about "making" stuff up it is folks that say even though aion means age aionios can mean everlasting. Now that's making stuff up!


...Your emotionalism as a debate tactic is really old and tired. You should let it go. But I know that's all you folks got.


...That may be true in "your" logic, but thankfully we don't all have "your" logic.

...If means when - WOW - talk about making stuff up - I'm sure glad I wasn't drinking anything.

...Well finally we can agree on something.


...I really wish you could see how truly absurd this logic is.


...Again that doesn't make one iota of sense. But you keep believing it if you want to.

JJump

Earlier in this thread, you told me that you agreed that a Christian should not desire to spend time in the mud. You had opportunity to answer my simple question, but you instead chose to say the things you said above. Why did you do that?

Please also remember to answer my question on adoption.

What you are telling me is that you think there might be plans for your adoption, but that you have not yet been adopted as a child of God. Is this true?


BGTF

 

[J. Jump]

You had opportunity to answer my simple question, but you instead chose to say the things you said above. Why did you do that?

That was not directed to you. I was replying to DHK's thread.

I thought I addressed the adoption, but maybe not. My apologies.

Of course they are "plans" for my adoption, but plans are not concrete. I have never been promised to be adopted as a firstborn son. That's what adoption is all about.

We are children of God by birth. Adoption has to do with son-placing. It is a familial thing that has to do with placement into a position within the family.

Finally it has to do with ruling and reigning with Christ. Only firstborn sons can rule and reign. God has two firstborn s(S)ons right now in Israel (although curretly disobedient) and His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ.

He will one day have a third firstborn son in believers that are found to be faithful, obedient and overcoming.

Not all "saved" individuals will be adopted as firstborn sons. Those that are unfaithful, disobedient and non-overcoming will still be children, but will not be firstborn sons.

 

[DHK]

Yes it is ainoios. So what! Does that give you the perogative of making up your "J.Jump" definition contrary to every other translation. Do you know better than all 54 of the KJV translators and all of the other MV's that have come out since? That is some arrogance, JJ! Now what does the word really mean?

Well, what do you know!! J.Jump's definition of "eternal" or aioniios is not found in the most simple of Lexicons--Strong's. This is really basic. J.J. just makes up his own definitions to suit his own theology. Quite deceitful isn't it! Eternal means forever and vice-versa. It means without end. This is the word used in the most famous verse in the Bible--John 3:16, from whence I took the word.

Now let's see how this word is used in another context:
1 Timothy 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

With your definition J.Jump you have just committed the heresy that God is not eternal. You deny his eternality by limiting the word to an age. God will only exist for an age and then cease to exist because that is your limited definition of everlasting. The same word "aionios" is used.
So take your choice: Which position do you choose: Either God is eternal and man also is eternal. Or man is not eternal, and therefore God is not eternal either.

Why did you ignore this part of my post, J. Jump?
Which is it?
Is God eternal or finite?
You can't have it both ways.

 

[J. Jump]

DHK you deny the simple things. There is no need in going into more complex things with you.

You don't even make the correct distinction. It's not a matter of whether God is eternal or not, but you should ask yourself what does it mean when God is spoken of in the terms of aionios.

:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK you deny the simple things. There is no need in going into more complex things with you.

You don't even make the correct distinction. It's not a matter of whether God is eternal or not, but you should ask yourself what does it mean when God is spoken of in the terms of aionios.

:thumbs:

Man and God are spoken of in the same terms--aionios.
You claim that the word is finite in meaning. It has the meaning of age--a finite term. That limits your adjective to stating that God is going to end; that God is finite--a heresy. Obviously your definition of the word is wrong. It is wrong according to Strong's concordance which I gave you the definition of, and every concordance that I know of. It's meaning is eternal--the same word that describes the immortal and eternal Godhead.
If God is eternal then so is man. If God is eternal; and God has given man eternal life, then man possesses that eternal life right now. It is everlasting, world without end, and shall never end. It is forever and ever, that is, eternal. It is evident that your definition is so terribly wrong. The very word that describes man also describes the life that is given to man, and even the spirit that is given to man.

 

[webdog]

Man and God are spoken of in the same terms--aionios.
You claim that the word is finite in meaning. It has the meaning of age--a finite term. That limits your adjective to stating that God is going to end; that God is finite--a heresy. Obviously your definition of the word is wrong. It is wrong according to Strong's concordance which I gave you the definition of, and every concordance that I know of. It's meaning is eternal--the same word that describes the immortal and eternal Godhead.
If God is eternal then so is man. If God is eternal; and God has given man eternal life, then man possesses that eternal life right now. It is everlasting, world without end, and shall never end. It is forever and ever, that is, eternal. It is evident that your definition is so terribly wrong. The very word that describes man also describes the life that is given to man, and even the spirit that is given to man.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

Man and God are spoken of in the same terms--aionios.

Where is man spoken of in terms of aionios? I'm curious as I can't think of any.

That limits your adjective to stating that God is going to end; that God is finite--a heresy.

No it doesn't. That once again is DHK trying to put words in my mouth. God Himself will never end. Like I said before you reject and deny the simple matters so there is no way that you are going to see the Truth of more complicated matters.

But it doesn't matter you still take liberty to say false things about others. It's no wonder that other people get away with doing this nonsense when a moderator can't even have a conversation without doing it. That's just sad.

It's meaning is eternal

Yes it's meaning is eternal. Once again "eternal" didn't mean the same thing it does now back when the Scriptures were translated into what is now the KJV.

What aionios doesn't mean is without beginning or without end, or without end. There is simply no Biblical evidence for that. IF there was some you and the several others that I have asked would be able to find at least one use of the word aion to mean outside of time. And that simply doesn't exist. Therefore the adjective can not mean more than the noun.

It is wrong according to Strong's concordance which I gave you the definition of, and every concordance that I know of.

All written by man. So are you willing to elevate the writings of uninspired men to the level of inspired Scriptures? I'm not. You can ridicule me and make fun of me and whatever you want to do, but man does not have the final say on matters. I don't care if it's a billion to one. You constantly fall back on the old line that the majority has to be right. And that's fine if you want to believe that, but there are very few times if any that the majority has been right in Scripture, so I'm not quite sure why you think after almost 6,000 years of human history the majority is right now.

It is forever and ever, that is, eternal.

No there is a phrase is Scripture that means forever and ever and is translated as such, which is even MORE evidence that aionios isn't everlasting. There is a perfectly good phrase that Scripture uses to relay the idea of forever and ever and aionios isn't it. You all relegate the Holy Spirit to a really bad author that had moments of linguistic lapses and couldn't quite figure out what He wanted to say.

It is evident that your definition is so terribly wrong.

To you, but I'm not going to take your word for anything. You want to prove me wrong then get your head out of the Strong's book and show me in Scripture where aion is used with a meaning of outside of time. Until you can do that any argument that you have is meaningless and a waste of time.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

That was not directed to you. I was replying to DHK's thread.

I know it wasn't directed at me, but it would be best not to be directed at ANYBODY. You agreed with me earlier that things like that should not be said, so I get to hold you accountable

What aionios doesn't mean is without beginning or without end, or without end. There is simply no Biblical evidence for that. IF there was some you and the several others that I have asked would be able to find at least one use of the word aion to mean outside of time. And that simply doesn't exist.

Not to be dogmatic there JJ, but I think it does exist in Romans 16:26.

I will continue our previous discussion later.


BGTF

 

[J. Jump]

I know it wasn't directed at me, but it would be best not to be directed at ANYBODY.

Well I will apologize as I could have said somethings without being quite as sarcastic. However, when someone accuses you of making up definitions and then replies with a comment that says "if" means "when" well I find that humorous.

Not to be dogmatic there JJ, but I think it does exist in Romans 16:26.

The word "aion" is not in that verse. Aionios is, but you can't prove what these folks are trying to prove without showing at least one use of the noun which means outside of time. If there is not (and there isn't) a usage like that the adjective can not go beyond what the noun means.

Meaning that if the noun means an amount of time, the adjective can not mean outside of time.

People will even go as far as to say that they understand that and agree with that EXCEPT in this "one" case. There is a phrase in both Koine Greek and Hebrew that expresses forever and ever and it's not aionios. If God wanted to speak of forever and ever He would have used that phrase as He chose to do in several places in Scripture. He chose aionios, because that's what He meant. The word means age-lasting, or lasting for the age.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Well I will apologize as I could have said somethings without being quite as sarcastic. However, when someone accuses you of making up definitions and then replies with a comment that says "if" means "when" well I find that humorous.

JJ,

Someone who is confirmed in Christ does not care what anyone says about them, in fact they tend to expect to have untruths etc. spread about them. I have been called a 'satanic maggot-eating moron' by a person whose soul I was ministering to. That's only one of the runner-up names, I will not divulge the first place name for decency sake. The point is my job is never to defend MY name or my reputation, my job is to defend Christ and His gospel alone. Let the world say what they will.

If you are in such strong disagreement with a particular person, that obviously means you think they are lost, or at the very least, in a miserable condition. If you were an already adopted child of God, instead of being sarcastic or finding something humorous about a lost or miserable condition of another, it would break your heart.


Now the next part of our discussion:

The atonement

Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement .

What happened on the cross?

What is the importance of the resurrection of Christ?


BGTF

 

[J. Jump]

Someone who is confirmed in Christ does not care what anyone says about them, in fact they tend to expect to have untruths etc. spread about them. I have been called a 'satanic maggot-eating moron' by a person whose soul I was ministering to. That's only one of the runner-up names, I will not divulge the first place name for decency sake. The point is my job is never to defend MY name or my reputation, my job is to defend Christ and His gospel alone. Let the world say what they will.

Thanks for the reminder! I need it often! That is definitely an area where I need to experience growth and I'll be the first to admit that!!!

If you are in such strong disagreement with a particular person, that obviously means you think they are lost, or at the very least, in a miserable condition.

I'm not sure what you "mean" by this statement or how you would derive such a conclusion. By "lost" to you mean not a possessor of everlasting life? If so I would strongly disagree with you. I think we can disagree and both still possess everlasting life as our disagreement was not on the topic of everlasting life.

Scripture uses the term "lost" in a much different way than modern-day Christendom. Lost to folks today means headed for the lake of fire for the endless ages. Lost in Scripture meant possessors of everlasting life that were not on the straight and narrow, but had lost their way (disobedient).

And I think there are many people that I have disagreed with that are not miserable at all and are perfectly content with the doctrines that are tickling their ears. That's unfortunate but that's the way it is these days.

If you were an already adopted child of God, instead of being sarcastic or finding something humorous about a lost or miserable condition of another, it would break your heart.

Trust me it does break my heart. I could tell you story after story, but that doesn't mean that we won't find humor in something.

I truly wish they would open their eyes, but they show no evidence of that desire.

Now the next part of our discussion:

I'm not seeing a direction here. Instead of traveling along this journey let's just get to the nitty gritty of what information you are seeking.

There is TONS that could be said of what happened at the cross and the significance of Christ's resurrection.

Thanks again for the reminder!!!

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

Thanks for the reminder! I need it often! That is definitely an area where I need to experience growth and I'll be the first to admit that!!!


I'm not sure what you "mean" by this statement or how you would derive such a conclusion. By "lost" to you mean not a possessor of everlasting life? If so I would strongly disagree with you. I think we can disagree and both still possess everlasting life as our disagreement was not on the topic of everlasting life.

Scripture uses the term "lost" in a much different way than modern-day Christendom. Lost to folks today means headed for the lake of fire for the endless ages. Lost in Scripture meant possessors of everlasting life that were not on the straight and narrow, but had lost their way (disobedient).

And I think there are many people that I have disagreed with that are not miserable at all and are perfectly content with the doctrines that are tickling their ears. That's unfortunate but that's the way it is these days.


Trust me it does break my heart. I could tell you story after story, but that doesn't mean that we won't find humor in something.

I truly wish they would open their eyes, but they show no evidence of that desire.


I'm not seeing a direction here. Instead of traveling along this journey let's just get to the nitty gritty of what information you are seeking.

There is TONS that could be said of what happened at the cross and the significance of Christ's resurrection.

Thanks again for the reminder!!!

You're welcome.


We're getting there.

What happened on the cross?
The wrath of God against the believer's sin was entirely satisfied.

What is the importance of the resurrection of Christ?
Since Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father we are justified (Rom 4:25) in our belief that the wrath of God on the sin placed on Christ has been entirely satisfied. Otherwise Christ who was made sin for us (2 Cor 5:21), would not be allowed in the presence of the Father.

What then can be left for the saved person to pay for? Absolutely nothing.

Are you in agreement thus far?


BGTF

 

[DHK]

To you, but I'm not going to take your word for anything. You want to prove me wrong then get your head out of the Strong's book and show me in Scripture where aion is used with a meaning of outside of time. Until you can do that any argument that you have is meaningless and a waste of time.

Can you give me one good reason that I should take your word, when you haven't demonstrated anything concerning the word "eternal" to be true yet.

1 Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
--aqanasia athanasia ath-an-as-ee'-ah
from a compound of 1 (as a negative particle) and 2288; deathlessness:--immortality. (Strong's)


2 Corinthians 5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
--“having their mortal body absorbed into the immortal without death.” (Jameison, Faucett and Brown).
--“The body here is mortal--the body there will be immortal; and Paul desired to pass away from the mortal state to one that shall be immortal --a world where there shall be no more death. Comp. 1Co 15:53.” (Barnes)

There are literally hundreds of verses that tell the believer that he already has eternal life, a life which continues on forever and ever.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

1. “everlasting life:
aionios
from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began). (Strong’s)

2. “shall not come into condemnation”
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
krisis
decision (subjectively or objectively, for or against); by extension, a tribunal; by implication, justice (especially, divine law):--accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.(Strong’s)
He was by nature under condemnation. See Joh 3:18. Here it is declared that he shall not return to that state, or he will not be again condemned. This promise is sure; it is made by the Son of God, and there is no one that can pluck them out of his hand, Joh 10:28. Comp. Cmt. on Re 8:1. (Barne’s)

3. “but is passed from death unto life.”
“But is passed from death unto life. Has passed over from a state of spiritual death to the life of the Christian. The word translated is passed would be better expressed by has passed. It implies that he has done it voluntarily; that none compelled him; and that the passage is made unto everlasting life. Because Christ is the author of this life in the soul, he is called the life (Joh 1:4); and as he has always existed, and is the source of all life, he is called the eternal life, 1Jo 5:20.” (Barne’s)

As you can see in just this one verse man is guaranteed eternal life in at least the exposition of three simple phrases. There is so much more in the Bible if you will do some simple word studies. J.Jump your position is absolutely ridiculously. I will give you a simple illustration why:

I studied the subject of endocrinology at one time. I learned (among other things), that:

“Sheehan’s syndrome is postpartum hypopituitarism resulting from ischemic necrosis of the pituitary.”
--You may or may not be familiar with the terms in the above definition or with the condition being described. I am going to guess that you are not.
If I am right my challenge to you is to demand (after I give you the name of the textbook so you can obtain it), not to consult any dictionary or glossary, or any other such reference work, but only to read the textbook. And by so reading the text and various passages in the textbook determine the meanings or definitions of all the words in the above definition of “Sheehan’s Syndrome.” Will you take that challenge? Do you see what is wrong with it? And hey, this is the English language, not even a foreign one.

The Bible was written in a foreign language. You want me to define a foreign word, aionios, without using Strong’s or any other lexicon/dictionary, but only the text of the Bible itself. That is a ridiculous position to take. Words have meanings. To determine meanings we consult dictionaries, and sometimes even encyclopedias, or even other commentaries. Are you afraid of scholarship?
As I mentioned before: There were 54 scholars involved in the translation of the KJV. They all disagree with J.Jump. Who do you think we should agree with? Almost every modern version that I have read agrees with my understanding of eternal. Shall I agree with those scholars or with you? What do you think? Why should I take your word over all the other translational scholars throughout history? Are we making any sense here?

Man is eternal.
Man was given eternal life. It is eternal.
God is eternal. The three words describe the same thing.
God is immortal. Man is immortal. Both words describe the same being. How do you describe this discrepancy in your theology?

 

[J. Jump]

DHK I'm not going to comment on much of your post because I don't want BGTF to have to give me another reminder. However I would like to touch on a couple of things.

The Bible was written in a foreign language. You want me to define a foreign word, aionios, without using Strong’s or any other lexicon/dictionary, but only the text of the Bible itself.

That's not exactly what I was trying to say. What I wanted you to do was go to the Scriptures and find the word aion used in the sense of outside of time. I know of no single use of that Greek word when it is not associated with a set amount of time (granted the length of time varies, but it always has a beginning and it always has an end).

Now unless you can find at least one use of the word aion where it doesn't mean a set amount of time it doesn't matter what all the dictionaries, lexicons, Strong's, Weak's, Joe Boo's books say about the matter.

An adjective can not exceed the meaning of the noun it was derived from.

Of course we have to rely on outside sources. But you can't hold the outside sources above the Scripture and with all due respect that is what you are doing in this case. Despite not a single usage of aion as without beginning and without end you are relying on Strong's to tell you what a word means despite what Scripture says. That is NOT good scholarship.

As I mentioned before: There were 54 scholars involved in the translation of the KJV. They all disagree with J.Jump.

No they didn't. You say that because they used the word eternal as if they agreed with "your" definition of the word eternal. As I have said before the word "eternal" has not always meant without beginning and without end.

The word "eternal" used to mean a really long period of time. Not oustide of time.

So just because the word "eternal" was used by the KJV translators does not settle the issue at all.

Almost every modern version that I have read agrees with my understanding of eternal.

No. They just use that "word". That doesn't mean they have the same understanding. Now granted I think the "modern" versions probably do, but it is based on a flawed understanding of the word eternal.

Shall I agree with those scholars or with you? What do you think? Why should I take your word over all the other translational scholars throughout history?

I think you should agree with those scholars, which agree with what I have said. Eternal means a really long period of time. That's what it meant in 1611.

Do you have any evidence that eternal meant without beginning and without end in 1611? If so please put it forward.

 

[J. Jump]

Are you in agreement thus far?

Not entirely.

The reason is we sin after we are "saved". That sin is not automatically covered under the blood of Christ. If it were then there would be no need for I John 1:9.

I don't have to confess that which is already forgiven for all I would be doing is reminding God of something that He said was removed as far as the East is from the West.

Jesus taught the disciples about His Priestly ministry that was about to begin in that they got dirty despite having been cleaned in the past and they must be washed as they get dirty. That is talking about our life after salvation.

We have been cleaned once and for all time. However we get dirty from time to time and we must allow Christ to wash us if we are to have any part "with" Him.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

DHK I'm not going to comment on much of your post because I don't want BGTF to have to give me another reminder.

Don't ever do something of what someone else may see; that makes one's religion all paint. Do it because you have no desire to sin even in thought. See the "Sin in Thought" thread....

Not entirely.

The reason is we sin after we are "saved". That sin is not automatically covered under the blood of Christ. If it were then there would be no need for I John 1:9.

JJ

I am not talking about the sin being automatically covered, the blood of bulls and goats was merely a covering for sin. I am talking about the wrath of God on the believer’s sin being entirely satisfied. Because of the cross, the legal requirement for God to inflict His wrath on those who trusted Christ’s work there as an ENTIRE substitution for them, was removed.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Heb 9:11-14 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us . 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Gal 3:13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Rom 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us . 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


BGTF

 

[J. Jump]

I am not talking about the sin being automatically covered, the blood of bulls and goats was merely a covering for sin. I am talking about the wrath of God on the believer’s sin being entirely satisfied. Because of the cross, the legal requirement for God to inflict His wrath on those who trusted Christ’s work there as an ENTIRE substitution for them, was removed.

He was removed from having to inflict His wrath on what had already been committed. If that which is done contrary to God "after" salvation is not dealt with by man then it must be dealt with by God (judgment).

We can judge ourselves now and deal with sin or we can have it dealt with at the JSOC.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

He was removed from having to inflict His wrath on what had already been committed. If that which is done contrary to God "after" salvation is not dealt with by man then it must be dealt with by God (judgment).

JJ.

This is not true.

Man can not EVER put away or 'deal with' sin. We can't even begin to name the sin of omission we are guilty for, how on earth can we becapable of dealing with it?

We can judge ourselves now and deal with sin or we can have it dealt with at the JSOC.

The judgment of ourselves now does not 'deal with sin' it puts us in the position of humility. If at any point we think it is US that is dealing with sin, pride has taken over.

EG
Here is just some of my sin:
Sometimes my heart is not dwelling perfectly singlemindedly on the magnificence of Christ. Sometimes I meet people and don't actually get the gospel to them, and when I do, sometimes I deliver it in a manner they can't receive, and if they receive it, how do I know whether God was working through me or in spite of me. To top it off, not having omniscience, I can't even properly determine if these things are actually happening.

If I can't even properly determine these things, how can I 'deal with them'?


BGTF

 

[J. Jump]

This is not true.

Saying it isn't true does not make it untrue.

The judgment of ourselves now does not 'deal with sin' it puts us in the position of humility. If at any point we think it is US that is dealing with sin, pride has taken over.

It has nothing to do with pride. It is simply acknowledging and confessing what has been shown to you. If you don't confess it you are not judging yourself and are not dealing with the sin.

We don't have the power or capability of wiping our sin away. If that is the impression you got then I apologize as that is not what I meant. However when we are told something is sin we must deal with that sin as in confession and letting Jesus wash us. If we don't then that sin WILL be dealt with. It is impossible for God to just let sin go or sweep it up under the carpet.