i see .............l
Praying by the sake of God through Christ that you do.
i see .............l
What was Bookends claiming then?
He alluded to the teaching of Jesus where we to not cease forgiving others no matter how many times they may offend us in some manner within the context of this...
A response that was made objecting to the point I was making that "rebellion has ceased" in a genuine Christian.
It is not slanderous to point that out. He does not believe Pro 28:13 or Isa 55:7.
Look at his followup post to my response...
He clearly believes that the repentance can COME LATER due to the sins being forgiven in advance. Clearly the complete opposite of what the Bible teaches.
I am being slanderous and making false accusation by pointing such a thing out? Only in your mind is it so. I speak to truth plainly.
The rebellion must cease BEFORE God will forgive someone. The blood of Christ is not a cloak for ongoing iniquity. We are not forgiven by God in the midst of our rebellion whereby the blood of Christ cloaks an ongoing state of iniquity which will cease later on. Such teaching is devilish for it assures people that they can be saved in their rebellion.
I would suspect that Bookends is speaking from a Reformed Theological perspective. Reformed Theology clearly teaches that iniquity remains in a regenerated believer due to the inborn notion of Total Depravity. It is a form of dualism where sinfulness is connected to the flesh body apart from the free exercise of the will. In other words the flesh itself necessitates sinning.
And some prefer drinking from the latter.I believe God's cup of mercy is bigger then His cup of wrath, but sooner on later, if true repentance doesn't come, then yah, you can fill His cup of wrath.
What was Bookends claiming then?
He alluded to the teaching of Jesus where we to not cease forgiving others no matter how many times they may offend us in some manner within the context of this...
A response that was made objecting to the point I was making that "rebellion has ceased" in a genuine Christian.
It is not slanderous to point that out. He does not believe Pro 28:13 or Isa 55:7.
Look at his followup post to my response...
He clearly believes that the repentance can COME LATER due to the sins being forgiven in advance. Clearly the complete opposite of what the Bible teaches.
I am being slanderous and making false accusation by pointing such a thing out? Only in your mind is it so. I speak to truth plainly.
The rebellion must cease BEFORE God will forgive someone. The blood of Christ is not a cloak for ongoing iniquity. We are not forgiven by God in the midst of our rebellion whereby the blood of Christ cloaks an ongoing state of iniquity which will cease later on. Such teaching is devilish for it assures people that they can be saved in their rebellion.
I would suspect that Bookends is speaking from a Reformed Theological perspective. Reformed Theology clearly teaches that iniquity remains in a regenerated believer due to the inborn notion of Total Depravity. It is a form of dualism where sinfulness is connected to the flesh body apart from the free exercise of the will. In other words the flesh itself necessitates sinning.
please post here when you last sinned.
i assume you haven't sinned since conversion.
testify!![]()
So by Christ at the cross of are we all, the whole world forgiven from God the Father's vantage point?
Did Christ do this for all the world or not? I know not all have received this as a fact yet. But it is a fact per the word that he did do this for all. And I know by this not all are saved for not all believe this as truth.
You implied that he teaches that we are not to confess our sins. But yet, he would readily say we are to confess. I most certainly did not imply that. What I implicitly stated (not implied) is that Bookends was defending the notion that one can be in a state of being justified whilst still engaged in willful known sin. If he was not defending that notion then he would not have objected to my post by using Jesus teaching on forgiveness. My assertion is not that God is not merciful but that God's forgiveness is only granted on condition that the rebellion ceases. That is the issue people appear to object to. Do you object to it?
You implied by slander that he purposely mislead by using Scripture so that he could deny other parts of Scripture. Yet, this is but your assumption. Did you ask him his thoughts on those verses you said he malicely denied? It is very obvious what he was implying by his words. My post was in agreement with Pro 28:13 and Isa 55:7 and Bookends reply was in opposition to it. He was clearly implying that sin does not have to be forsaken only confessed. He then stated that repentance could happen later. My assertion is that the actual cleansing of sin does not actually occur until AFTER the rebellion has ceased. God does not forgive people in the midst of their rebellion, they have to repent and that means change their mind about their conduct and God and forsake their rebellion.
Yet, again, we are told in Scripture that one only fools himself into thinking that God cannot find fault in them. It even states that the Truth is not (abs. neg.) in the one who thinks in such a manner. So you see, you claim people are teaching that we can live in open rebellion, yet none claims such. When all the while, Scripture says that we do (present indicative) posses sin. Where does the Scripture teach that we "possess sin"? Sin is not a thing you possess. Sin is something a person does. 1Joh 1:8 is not teaching an ongoing state of sinfulness in a Christian for if it was it would be contradicting what John writes in 1Joh 3:9-10 and 1Joh 5:16-18. John is teaching about HOW one approaches God. We cannot approach God saying we are without sin because we have all sinned. When he speaks of Jesus being an advocate he is not making an allowance for ongoing willful sin he is speaking of the occasion of doing wrong not within the context of a rebellious heart. John clearly teaches that those born of God cannot sin (meaning sin is out of the question, not that it is impossible) for sinning is a rejection of the implanted Word within (John uses the term seed like the parable of Jesus).
Who then are we to believe, the one who came slandering to cause fear in those who would be listening to him, although his words were full of slander? Or, do we listen to the One who says that if we were to sin, then we do have an Advocate with the Father? Do we listen to the One who became our High Priest and said He understands our infirmities. Or, do we listen to the one who implies in his writings that we are to cleanse ourselves before God's acceptance of us, although it says, "the One who is sanctifying and those who are BEING sanctified..."? Is it not so that we are being made holy by Him and not by the works of the flesh? The ongoing sanctification of a Christian is within the context of GROWTH not within the context of LESS INIQUITY. The Bible says we obey unto righteousness, unto holiness, the end of which is everlasting life. Thus a new Christian is a babe in Christ and does not know much but their heart is clean. Over time they mature as they more and more put on the mind of Christ. Peter clearly teaches in chapter 1 and 2 of his first epistle that the babes in Christ are pure. How can a pure heart produce willful sin? All my posts are clearly presented within the context of "willful sin" ie. rebellion.
How then is it said that we are delivered from the darkness if we have already cleansed our own selves? Would we not have been our own savior? What need is there then to have answered the door, seeing that the One who wants to cleanse us is no longer needed? Do we not confess to the One knocking? How can we confess unless we open the door to Him first? How could one be their own saviour when Jesus is the light that lights all men? How could one be their own saviour when it is the grace of God that brings salvation that appears to all men? Without Jesus Christ we would all be lost in darkness.
Jas 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
Jas 4:9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.
Jas 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
It is pure fallacy to bring up this notion of "not needing to be cleansed." One cannot cleanse themselves of their past rebellion. It is a done deal and cannot be undone. We can cleanse ourselves of present rebellion via repentance and faith whereby we yield to the leading of God. This is what approaching God with a true heart is all about, this is what confessing and forsaking sin is all about. We forsake our wickedness and TURN to God. If we do that then God will raise us up.
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Yet, I ask once again, have you asked him if he denies those verses? No!! Yet, you boldly convicted him of open deception. His response was a denial of those verses. Your response appears to be rooted in semantics. Think about it.
The one who falsely accuses gain only the audience made to fear by those false accusations.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
So do you deny the above verse, the Mercy of God to all mankind, while we were yet sinners he died for us?
Actually a Christian has a NEW NATURE not a corrupt and sinful nature. ALL THINGS are become new for old things have passed away.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
I can do it once in a while, but it's becoming a habit, so I won't.Still - could you please close this thread?
t.y.
I can do it once in a while, but it's becoming a habit, so I won't.
Folks can simply quit replying if they don't want to talk about the topic.
Me in blue.
everybody sins. everybody is a sinner.
The use of ALL in that verse is not a reliable witness. Some Greek manuscripts do not have it, and most bible translations do not include it.