Must Christians Ask For Forgiveness Every Time They Sin?
- Thread starter Budman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
people spent almost 2 years trying to prove that in here (most of them are no longer here) and they failed to prove their point.
I do not listen to critiques, I listen to the person being accused.
You want to follow men, feel free. You want to see what Prince really teaches about how one is saved, Go to him.
I do not listen to critiques, I listen to the person being accused.
You want to follow men, feel free. You want to see what Prince really teaches about how one is saved, Go to him.
Just because you were asked to look at the critiques of Joseph Prince means that I want to "follow men"? If I wanted to "follow men" I would take your unhelpful advice and "see what Prince really teaches".
Since I know he teaches spiritual nonsense your claim that there is "nothing wrong" with his Gospel indicates that you are the one who should be checking him out.
Since I know he teaches spiritual nonsense your claim that there is "nothing wrong" with his Gospel indicates that you are the one who should be checking him out.
U
No that you have rephrased, I would say yes that nothing can ever separate from Jesus, however this cannot be turned around and then say we have a license to sin.
That is faulty reasoning, accusing us of teaching doing evil so that good may come. Anyone that understand the presence of grace in the person's life knows that grace is the exact opposite of a license to sin.
Titus 2:12
In Christ alone...nothing can separate us from Him.
And now for a musical interlude...
[video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5hyczqnk[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5hyczqnk
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
Till He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand
That is faulty reasoning, accusing us of teaching doing evil so that good may come. Anyone that understand the presence of grace in the person's life knows that grace is the exact opposite of a license to sin.
Titus 2:12
In Christ alone...nothing can separate us from Him.
And now for a musical interlude...
[video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5hyczqnk[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5hyczqnk
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
Till He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand
Last edited by a moderator:
This is completely FALSE.
The New Testament makes it crystal clear that (1) Christians can and do sin, (2) Christians must deal with their present sins, and (3) failure to deal with present sins leads to serious consequences. This has nothing to do with "being under the Law" but it has everything to do with "being under Grace".
We should never represent the grace of God as either (a) a license to sin or as (b) an excuse to ignore our present sins. That is what false teachers like Joseph Prince teach, but as I have already quoted from the first epistle of John (1&2), I will quote it once again to show that JP is a liar and should not be trusted.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
The New Testament makes it crystal clear that (1) Christians can and do sin, (2) Christians must deal with their present sins, and (3) failure to deal with present sins leads to serious consequences. This has nothing to do with "being under the Law" but it has everything to do with "being under Grace".
We should never represent the grace of God as either (a) a license to sin or as (b) an excuse to ignore our present sins. That is what false teachers like Joseph Prince teach, but as I have already quoted from the first epistle of John (1&2), I will quote it once again to show that JP is a liar and should not be trusted.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1. Examine ourselves daily, and particularly before partaking of the Lord's Supper.
2. Confess our sins daily and repent of those sins.
3. Ask forgiveness for those sins and move on, knowing that if we do this God does forgive those present sins.
As the Holy Spirit says through John -- if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
2. Confess our sins daily and repent of those sins.
3. Ask forgiveness for those sins and move on, knowing that if we do this God does forgive those present sins.
As the Holy Spirit says through John -- if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Well that's a little trick that modern grace doctrines use IMO. Essentially, saying behavior doesn't matter to salvation is in effect the same thing as saying do whatever you want. It's definitely not libertine antinomianism, but it is Sandemanian antinomianism.
The kind of Antinomianism we see more of in our day (beginning with the “Free Grace” movement of Zane Hodges et al. and morphing just a bit in the newer form as seen in teachers such as Joseph Prince) is essentially Sandemanian Antinomianism (a heresy associated with an eighteenth century movement) rather than libertine Antinomianism.
Sandemanianism did not directly say that anything goes in the sense that anything was approved of but just said that everyone was OK who gave mental assent to the gospel. Thus, those who made a profession could live as they pleased even though the leaders did not necessarily endorse this behavior. It is still “anything goes” as regards salvation even if the teachers and leaders profess not to endorse sin.
Joseph Prince has embraced this by espousing unconditional security without the need for the perseverance of the saints. This semi-Calvinist view is an unorthodox one that gives comfort to those who have never evidenced a changed life (Prince even asserts that repentance does not involve a turning from sin). I have spoken to a homosexual follower of Prince who acknowledged what the Bible said about his lifestyle. He was not concerned, however, because he was sure God saw it as no big deal in spite of what the Bible said.
One of the chief characteristics of the new Antinomianism as it has developed in the 21st century is that it insists that we must never speak of do’s and don’ts and can never use words such as “should” or “ought.” All of life must be subjective spontaneity and those who offer any word of exhortation (such as those found in the NT) are presenting a “legalistic ministration of death.”
Relativism and Antinomianism: It's Mostly About Sex | Apologetics Index
The kind of Antinomianism we see more of in our day (beginning with the “Free Grace” movement of Zane Hodges et al. and morphing just a bit in the newer form as seen in teachers such as Joseph Prince) is essentially Sandemanian Antinomianism (a heresy associated with an eighteenth century movement) rather than libertine Antinomianism.
Sandemanianism did not directly say that anything goes in the sense that anything was approved of but just said that everyone was OK who gave mental assent to the gospel. Thus, those who made a profession could live as they pleased even though the leaders did not necessarily endorse this behavior. It is still “anything goes” as regards salvation even if the teachers and leaders profess not to endorse sin.
Joseph Prince has embraced this by espousing unconditional security without the need for the perseverance of the saints. This semi-Calvinist view is an unorthodox one that gives comfort to those who have never evidenced a changed life (Prince even asserts that repentance does not involve a turning from sin). I have spoken to a homosexual follower of Prince who acknowledged what the Bible said about his lifestyle. He was not concerned, however, because he was sure God saw it as no big deal in spite of what the Bible said.
One of the chief characteristics of the new Antinomianism as it has developed in the 21st century is that it insists that we must never speak of do’s and don’ts and can never use words such as “should” or “ought.” All of life must be subjective spontaneity and those who offer any word of exhortation (such as those found in the NT) are presenting a “legalistic ministration of death.”
Relativism and Antinomianism: It's Mostly About Sex | Apologetics Index
Last edited: