Post by LDM on Aug 10, 2010 6:10:23 GMT -5
There have been some questions raised as a result of this article about the nature of sin in the life of a believer, whether future sins are forgiven, and whether it is possible to cease from sin.
A poster on the blog Anonymous has the following to say:
"I really appreciate your response and I pray you don't mind this open-dialogue.
If you don't mind, could I respond in pieces? Only because there is so much being said and I want to make sure I get your heart.
My first statement/question is...
The word "atonement" and the phrase "take away" possess two different meanings. To "atone" means "to cover," but to "take away" means "to remove." John said that the Lamb takes away the sins of the world, not atones them.
The Old Covenant only atoned (covered) sins, but under the New Covenant sins are not only atoned and we are reconciled to God, but our sins are taken away. Meaning, though we may slip, God deals with us on the terms of the blood of Christ and through this blood, sin and its payment has been satisfied. A good picture of that is the torn veil that seperated a Holy God from a sinful man.
Please understand, I'm not confessing that there is no more sin to God and it no longer offends Him, but what I am saying is that to those who have received the work of redemption (mainly the blood of Christ) by faith...our sins past, present, and future have been factored into the past-tense work of the Cross, so when God deals with us (the saints)..the blood is there.
John explains that "...the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses (not merely atones)us from ALL unrighteousness.
Cleanses is in perpetual form, meaning continuously.
John also explained, "To him who loves us (continuously) and freed (past tense) us from our sins (actions) by His blood.
My point is that the blood of Christ went beyond the Old Covenant covering/atoning and actually took away the effects of our sins, which is seperation. Now do we sin, yes, but because of the blood sin no longer breaks our fellowship with the Father. Now the work of the Holy is to mark this truth, so that though we stumble in our walk, we are not to remain in the practice of sin. The love and goodness of God pulls me away from the practices of the old nature.
Under the Old Covenant, God wanted blood concerning the sins of His people and in His righteousness forgiveness was given. Repentance never satisfied His righteous requirement for the offense.
Repentance was personal to God, but blood was business.
The evidence that proves this is God's broken heart, when Israel did all that was "lawfully required" to be atoned of their sins, but yet their heart was far from God. Obedience is better than sacrifice.
So this proves that God is a God of true fellowship and not sacrifice...this the value of repentance, but repentance doesn't deal with my sins...the blood does.
John the Baptist ministry was based upon repentance, but yet it was invalid without the shedding of blood.
So, "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more (Heb 10:17, 18." Why doesn't this cover everything? Paul says that I'm not condemned anymore (Rom 8:1)if I'm in Christ...how is that not all my sins? I'm not talking about practicing sin, but sins that occur due to my under developed walk with Christ.
Paul uses the phrase "He forgave us all our sins..." Forgave is past-tense.
Jehovah's Witnesses preach a gospel that says, the blood of Christ simply gives us a "restart button," but future sins are not included.
This is why I asked for you to clarify.
Once again, I pray you have tolerance for this whole thing and that this is not an issue of my view vs. your view, but let God be true alone. If the blood didn't cover everything...then what's the good news?"
A poster on the blog Anonymous has the following to say:
"I really appreciate your response and I pray you don't mind this open-dialogue.
If you don't mind, could I respond in pieces? Only because there is so much being said and I want to make sure I get your heart.
My first statement/question is...
The word "atonement" and the phrase "take away" possess two different meanings. To "atone" means "to cover," but to "take away" means "to remove." John said that the Lamb takes away the sins of the world, not atones them.
The Old Covenant only atoned (covered) sins, but under the New Covenant sins are not only atoned and we are reconciled to God, but our sins are taken away. Meaning, though we may slip, God deals with us on the terms of the blood of Christ and through this blood, sin and its payment has been satisfied. A good picture of that is the torn veil that seperated a Holy God from a sinful man.
Please understand, I'm not confessing that there is no more sin to God and it no longer offends Him, but what I am saying is that to those who have received the work of redemption (mainly the blood of Christ) by faith...our sins past, present, and future have been factored into the past-tense work of the Cross, so when God deals with us (the saints)..the blood is there.
John explains that "...the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses (not merely atones)us from ALL unrighteousness.
Cleanses is in perpetual form, meaning continuously.
John also explained, "To him who loves us (continuously) and freed (past tense) us from our sins (actions) by His blood.
My point is that the blood of Christ went beyond the Old Covenant covering/atoning and actually took away the effects of our sins, which is seperation. Now do we sin, yes, but because of the blood sin no longer breaks our fellowship with the Father. Now the work of the Holy is to mark this truth, so that though we stumble in our walk, we are not to remain in the practice of sin. The love and goodness of God pulls me away from the practices of the old nature.
Under the Old Covenant, God wanted blood concerning the sins of His people and in His righteousness forgiveness was given. Repentance never satisfied His righteous requirement for the offense.
Repentance was personal to God, but blood was business.
The evidence that proves this is God's broken heart, when Israel did all that was "lawfully required" to be atoned of their sins, but yet their heart was far from God. Obedience is better than sacrifice.
So this proves that God is a God of true fellowship and not sacrifice...this the value of repentance, but repentance doesn't deal with my sins...the blood does.
John the Baptist ministry was based upon repentance, but yet it was invalid without the shedding of blood.
So, "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more (Heb 10:17, 18." Why doesn't this cover everything? Paul says that I'm not condemned anymore (Rom 8:1)if I'm in Christ...how is that not all my sins? I'm not talking about practicing sin, but sins that occur due to my under developed walk with Christ.
Paul uses the phrase "He forgave us all our sins..." Forgave is past-tense.
Jehovah's Witnesses preach a gospel that says, the blood of Christ simply gives us a "restart button," but future sins are not included.
This is why I asked for you to clarify.
Once again, I pray you have tolerance for this whole thing and that this is not an issue of my view vs. your view, but let God be true alone. If the blood didn't cover everything...then what's the good news?"