A Contradiction in Substitution

[_Paidion]

If we simply think that it is because our sins are forgiven that allows us entrance into a correct relationship with God then we are making a big mistake.

I fully agree. But then what are the ramifications of having our sins forgiven? Many claim that it is the way to get to heaven and avoid hell. Is that your position also? Are you suggesting that if we merely have our sins forgiven, we may get to heaven, but not particularily enjoy it since we will lack a correct relationship with God?

Instead it is simply all about Christ and His relationship to God. It is because of His obiedience in the perfect way that we can now have back what our spirit yearns for and that being alive and in communion with God.

That can't be what it's all about. For if there are no decisions or actions on our part, Christ's work is to no avail as far as we are concerned. With deference to Christ's proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom, I must concur that as far as we personally are concerned, repentance, baptism and discipleship, are what is necessary on our part. Christ's death, was for the purpose of delivering us from sin, not those we've already committed, but from our "present live sins" (as George MacDonald put it). We must be so converted so as not continue with the same sinful inclinations.

[Guest]

We must be so converted so as not continue with the same sinful inclinations.

And just how do we do that?

[Guest]

Christ's death, was for the purpose of delivering us from sin, not those we've already committed, but from our "present live sins" (as George MacDonald put it). We must be so converted so as not continue with the same sinful inclinations.


Would'nt it be logical that Christ's sacrifice was at least greater then the OT sacrifices? In Lev 1-5 we see 5 major sacrifices
1. burnt offering
2. grain offering
3. peace offering
4. sin offering
5. trespass offering

The first three are fellowship offerings, the last two are for forgiveness from unintentional and intentional sins. Christ's sacrifice replaced these
and was greater because it also covered the Passover sacrifice which was a deliverance sacrifice.

[Guest]

Paidion (or whoever)-

John tells us to confess our sins and God will forgive us. what does he mean by this? i have always taken it to mean that even though our sins our taken care of from a forensic standpoint, that God still doesnt like it when we sin; in fact it is extremely offensive to Him.

so, just because our sin debt has been dealt with, it does not mean that God is now happy go lucky about our sins. quite the contrary.

TK

[Guest]

When I say its all about Christ, I mean it in the same way that the Bible is all about Christ and to the glory of God. Yes, God is love - and by that love came about all creation, but only to His glory. I think it is important to keep the perspective that we are the reciepients of His love but conditional upon Christ - thus it is all about Christ. Now, as we look deeper into these things we may have revealed to us all or many of the branches of God's purpose in the realm of creation, but ultimately and definitively it is all about His Son.

[_Paidion]

Allyn, there is no doubt in my mind that Christ is central.

I just meant that whatever the purpose of Christ's sacrifice, in order to appropriate it, we have to acquiesce, if not to discipleship (as I believe) at least to relate to the Lord Jesus in some way. If we do nothing, we are not benefitted. That's all I meant when I indicated that the salvation of ourselves is not all about Christ.

...even though our sins our taken care of from a forensic standpoint...

TK, I guess by now you know that I do not believe there is any "forensic standpoint" when it comes to Christ's death, which was for the purpose of delivering us from sin, not for the purpose of a legal transaction with God so that He wouldn't punish us eternally in Hell because of our sins.

Would'nt it be logical that Christ's sacrifice was at least greater then the OT sacrifices?

Not "logical" as I understand the word, but certainly true.
With the OT sacrifices which God never required but commanded by way of concession to the Israelites who wanted to copy heathen ways, God did forgive (and thus overlooked sin). But in the New Covenant, God brings about what He really wants --- not merely to overlook sin, but to deliver man from it.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. Acts 17:30

We must be so converted so as not continue with the same sinful inclinations.

And just how do we do that?

We do it as Jesus taught people to do it. We repent and become baptized. We forsake all that we are and have and follow Him. That is the only way to become a disciple. Then through faith, we trust Christ to deliver us from sin. Christ came to earth to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Heb 9:26. That purpose is being fulfilled in Christ's disciples who trust Him day by day to continue delivering them.

I am not claiming we will come to a state in this life that we will never sin again. It may happen with some people, but I do not claim that. I do claim, however, that if we are on the narrow road which leads to life, and stay on it, we are being conformed to the image of Christ. That process will be completed at the coming of Christ, when He will put on the fininishing touches.

[Guest]

Never thought any different, Paidion. You raised some great thought provoking comments. Somehow I think we are alike in our approach. I believe you present a thought (not necessarily your belief) for discussion, and then present arguements in support of the view (however not necessarily your view). I make this my approach often in my one on one relationships with others in order to stimulate thoughts with the end result being conviction.

[Guest]

paidion--

you didnt answer my question about us confessing/God forgiving.

i just need to hear how you explain what that means, from your viewpoint.

TK

[Guest]

Allyn,
Do you mind if I ask you to clarify this? I mean, I know it's off topic and the surrounding discussion is both interesting and important, but I can't get this approach off my mind:

Never thought any different, Paidion. You raised some great thought provoking comments. Somehow I think we are alike in our approach. I believe you present a thought (not necessarily your belief) for discussion, and then present arguements in support of the view (however not necessarily your view). I make this my approach often in my one on one relationships with others in order to stimulate thoughts with the end result being conviction.

By the way, these questions are not meant to be combative or confrontational or anything else besides just for my clarification, okay?

First:

...my one on one relationships with others...

Does that mean friends and family and such?

Next:

...you present a thought (not necessarily your belief) for discussion...

Does the other party know that it's not your belief or do you keep that to yourself?

Then:

...and then present arguements in support of the view (however not necessarily your view)...

You make arguments in support of the view and yet you don't believe it to be correct? Are they good arguments? Is it like you say, "Yeah, good arguments, but I just don't believe it. You might find this compelling, however."...? Or, is it like you are sure to make faulty, shaky, or fallacious arguments so your one-on-one can see right through them?

Finally:

...in order to stimulate thoughts with the end result being conviction.

What kind of conviction are you hoping will be the end result? How are you sure this will be the end result?

I'm pretty sure I didn't take this the way you actually practice it. It sounds to me like you spring ideas on people you love, without telling them whether or not they are your actual beliefs. Then you back up these ideas with arguments, which for some reason are not compelling arguments for you. Your goal is to spark a discussion and bring about some sort of conviction on the part of the other person; a conviction that you, for some reason, discern is timely and necessary for them to experience. And this seldom backfires on you?

[_Paidion]

John tells us to confess our sins and God will forgive us. what does he mean by this? i have always taken it to mean that even though our sins our taken care of from a forensic standpoint, that God still doesnt like it when we sin; in fact it is extremely offensive to Him.

I think the reason God "doesn't like it when we sin" is that He cares so much about us that He doesn't want us harming ourselves and others in by doing wrong. Evil doing harms only people; it doesn't harm God at all.

Let's look at the passage to which you referred:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, to send away our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. I John 1:9

Now I know most translations translate aphiāmi as "to forgive", but any Greek lexicon will give its primary meanings "to leave" and "to send away" as well. I agree that it sometimes does mean "to forgive", but this meaning is rarer than the others.

I believe that God is primarily interested in our being righteous persons and being delivered from sin for our own sake and for the sake of those with whom we have contact. For sin destroys and kills. So when we confess or admit our sins to Him and to others, God will send them from us and cleanse us from them.

However, if you think the word should be "forgive", my interpretation still works. If we are on the strait and narrow road which leads to life, being conformed to the image of Christ, confessing our sins, of course God will forgive us. He won't hold our past sins against us --- and He will cleanse us from our present unrighteousness so that we will not go on sinning.

In another place in the same book, John says that no one who is begotten of God practises sin, and that he who practises sin is of the devil.