I happen to agree with you, Paidion. We know that, looking backwards from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, we are able to spot utterances attributed to God in the O.T.that simply do not fit the later and fuller revelation.
People have always been trying to hear from God–we just have the disability that we hear Him through our own clouds of prejudices and pre-existing “knowledge” through which we interpret His still small voice. The OT authors presumably were human and had the same challenges we have. We actually have an advantage because we can learn from them, and we don’t have to relearn from our own experiences all the things that THEY learned and have shared with us. They were sometimes (often?) wrong, but Jesus sets all the mistakes straight. If the Bible seems to teach anything contrary to the revealed character of God in Christ, then it is either wrong or we are misunderstanding it. JESUS and JESUS only is the definitive revelation of the Father.
another thread here, because I believe it’s relevant to this conversation as well.]
My current thinking is that a lot of the answers to this topic have to do with people learning about, and accepting, their true identity. We were made by a loving God to be objects of His love. But in the Garden, lies came in.
(Speaking of true and false identities, Richard Murray has a most interesting essay titled, “Jim Carrey and the Lake of Fire.”)
I appreciate the point that qaz made in the opening of this thread, about the contradiction between Noah being called “righteous,” vs. Paul in Romans quoting Isaiah that, “There is NO ONE righteous, not even one.”
But we should note that a few verses down in that same passage, Paul also quotes Isaiah to say, *“And the way of PEACE they have not known” *(Romans 3:17).
So, perhaps Isaiah and Paul were not referring to every single person everywhere being unrighteous, but to those who did not know “the way of peace.” And we remember that JESUS is prophetically referred to by Isaiah as, “The Prince of PEACE [shalom]” (Isaiah 9:6).
Being “born again” seems to be THE major breakthrough in someone becoming free to recognize, accept, and enjoy his true identity / his righteousness / his being right with God.
Everyone’s true identity is, and always has been, in Jesus our Maker—even though “Jesus” wasn’t clearly recognized by pre-Christian believers.
The god of this age continues to blind people with his lies and accusations. However, the devil was disarmed at the cross, when his works dogma was nailed to it. Col. 2:14-15. Now we are to tell people that the dogma (the legalistic embellishments and threats mistakenly added to God’s communications by Moses, and others) was not from God; from God is only a free invitation to abundant life.
As “evangelical universalists,” we enjoy a better understanding of God’s true nature: that ALL will eventually be saved and make it to heaven—
-Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1 Tim. 2:4.
-The living God, who is the Savior of ALL people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Tim. 4:10.
-For as in Adam all die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22.
But, again, just what are people saved from? Lies. Captivity to a false identity.
**So, the problem is in people’s minds, not with God, never with God. ** People need to hear and understand the gracious invitation back to full life in Christ, their true identity.
Blessings.
This is my 2 cents worth (US currency, not CAD or Kangaroo).
If sinning automatically opens the door to Satan in one’s life, i wonder why it was necessary for Paul to authoritatively hand certain sinners, by the power of Christ, and Paul’s spirit, over to Satan for training & destruction (e.g. 1 Cor.5:4-5). And for Paul to command the local church in Corinth to shun this so called “brother”. Shouldn’t the solution have been to preach the gospel of grace to such folks until they “got it” in a real way, which would have resulted in them being set free. Why, instead, act as Paul did, making everyone “sin conscious”? Why not instead preach that “all our sins - past, present and future” have already been forgiven? There seems to be an awful lot of references to sin, leading to sin consciousness, in the NT, including the epistles of Paul. A number of times he even cites long & specific “sin lists”. Not that any of that takes away from the emphasis of many other passages re the saints position in Christ. Though i am not aware of a single passage stating that “all our sins - past, present & FUTURE - are already forgiven” for believers, let alone the whole world. And if that were so, & was accomplished at the cross, then shouldn’t the same apply to unbelievers as well as believers? Also, wouldn’t that be, to use a popular movie title, a “Licence to Kill” & sin?
Regarding 1 John 1:7-10, i’d suggest that confession of sin for the forgiveness of sins (v.9) is simply one way a believer walks in the light (v.7). The implication of v.7 is that if we do not walk in the light, then His blood does not cleanse us from sin:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.
The cleansing of sin is conditioned on a “walk in the light”. Notice the word “if”, which implies those who do not meet this condition are not cleansed.
Likewise verse 9 has a condition (IF we confess our sins) which, if met, results in something positive, namely the forgiveness of our sins and cleansing from all unrighteousness:
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness
Both verses 7 & 9 refer to conditions which, if met, result in cleansing, namely of sin/unrighteouness.
Careful! Some people won’t be happy with that ‘if’! Not happy with repenting, or having faith. In fact any action we take at all - seemingly - is ‘works’.
It befuddles me, is what it does. But since I’m easily befuddled, I won’t do anything other than express it. 
What is the Scriptural basis for the statement “the moment you sin again you have lost your fellowship with God”? What if the sin is one we are not even aware of? Did not Jesus pray on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”? OTOH if we are aware that we have sinned, does that mean we have “lost fellowship with God”, or does it imply we are in fellowship with God, because He is making us aware that we have sinned? I’d suggest that confession or admission of that sin (to ourselves in our heart rather than with our mouth out loud to God) is generally automatic.
Similarly I’d also question the statement that committing a sin involves losing “the filling of the Holy Spirit”. It may cause the Spirit (and your spirit/conscience) to be grieved, but when you are joined to the Lord, you are “one spirit” with Him (1 Cor.6:17).
Rom.8:31What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?
37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,k neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
It seems according to Jesus belief in Him is not any action we take, but a work of God (Jn.6:29). Whether or not the reception of that “work of God” requires our libertarian free will (LFW) choice (IOW simply saying “yes” or, alternatively, “F.O./go to hell”) to God’s grace & light in our life is another issue. The other option is we are like puppets or robots who are unable to take “any action…at all” of the LFW kind & our every movement, thought & feeling is forced upon us & fated or determined ultimately by God & secondarily through various other forces & beings that He uses & controls.
Symbiosis makes sense of the NT teaching, imho. I’ll stick with it.
The topic question is still troubling me. Yes, all our sins are forgiven, past/present/future. God is not counting them against us. NEVERTHELESS, we must and will grow out of our sins. Clinging to, continuing to commit those sins, we can’t be in “heaven” any more than darkness can exist in the presence of the sun. If darkness does come into the presence of the sun, it is not darkness any longer, but light. If you go into the true and unadulterated presence of our God, who is light, who is life, who is a consuming fire–darkness will no longer BE in you. Does it hurt for the darkness to be eradicated? I don’t know. I’m going to say a qualified… “Probably it does,” depending on whether we cling to it, on how strong a hold it has on us, how deeply its talons are clutching our essence. That’s just my speculation. It hurts to get rid of cancer, but that’s no reason not to do it. It hurts MORE to cling to either cancer OR (especially) to cling to sin.
So, now that I’ve got that off my chest–to the current conversation:
I know this is a difficult concept for us humans to “get.” I’ve struggled with it for years and decades and I still do. Do we humans have something to do towards our becoming righteous, or does God do it all? I guess the answer to that is, “Yes.”
I’m thinking that when God breathed the breath of life (rationality?) into Adam’s body, we maybe became “infected” with that symbiote that would eventually bring us into the likeness of Christ. We can fight it; we can keep on sinning; we can jeer at “religion;” we can insist we are quite capable of being “good” on our own without God’s life; we can live lives of complete or partial depravity; we can cooperate with God and possibly even speed up our maturation; we can fight Him and surely slow it down, but the seed has been planted. Our fate is sealed. We are His children and unlike human parents, God does not lack wisdom, understanding, power, love to bring us ultimately to a state of maturity and likeness to His prototypical human being; His Son, Jesus the Anointed. The death of Christ puts the final nail in the coffin of the beast nature–in dying to the flesh for one and all of us. We can no longer follow the flesh. It was meant always to be our servant and not our master (which is the state of the beasts). We are not separated beings–body, soul, spirit as some say–but one. Nevertheless, there is a right order, and that right order is the opposite: spirit, soul, body. The flesh makes a most excellent servant (especially one day when it is no longer dying) but it makes a terrible master.
I’m just musing here, inspired by Dave’s comment about symbiosis. If it makes no sense, ignore it.
Cindy, what does “forgive” mean? Many people think it simply means to “pardon” someone, that is to hold no ill feelings toward him, and to require no restitution. You can pardon a person who is unrepentant.
Others consider “forgiveness” as a response to repentance as Jesus taught:
When the offender repents (has a change of heart and mind) concerning his offence, the person against whom he has sinned can grant true forgiveness, which includes pardon, but also involves a restoration of relationship with the offender. For the person sinned against, it’s just as if the offender had never sinned against him.
Either way, I cannot see God granting forgiveness or even pardon to us for present and future sins until we repent. For if He does, He would be saying that we are acceptable in His sight just as we are, and that it is unnecessary for us to repent. God accepts us as ongoing sinners.
However, I think this is false. Christ died to DELIVER us from sin, and until we are delivered, He will administer whatever correction that is necessary. And when we have been corrected then He will forgive us and our relationship with Him will be restored.
Paidion,
I was thinking of this:
So from that, I guess you’d say that while God isn’t counting sins against us (from His point of view, all is forgiven), that doesn’t do us any good until we receive and act on the message of reconciliation. OTOH, Jesus also said “All that the Father has given me WILL come to me, and I will in no wise cast them out.” (That’s only from memory, but I have the gist of it I think.) He also said, “No man can come to me except the Father has granted it to him.” It sounds like it’s not entirely at our own volition (unless I’m misunderstanding this) that we accept the message of reconciliation and become reconciled to the Father. Maybe it’s simply a matter of His calling us when He knows we’re ready to listen and obey, and of us not being able to come until He calls us (we need that enabling grace in order to begin/make the journey into Christ?)
I’m also thinking of the Prodigal Son, who isn’t (in the parable) even showing signs of embarrassment, let alone remorse, for what he did to his father and his family’s honor by demanding his inheritance (in essence, I’m told–in that culture–implying that he wished his father dead)–and also taking the money which ought to have been used to further the family’s good and to care for his parents in their old age–and using that money for his own selfish and degraded pleasures. He was guilty of far more than behaving against his own best interests. It always bothered me that the father didn’t even let him get his confession out (poor as it looked like being) before completely reinstating him (robe, sandals, ring). But that’s what the father did… and most people feel the father in the parable is a symbol of God. That young man came home because he was starving and homeless and friendless. Nothing in the parable suggests he felt remorse for what he had done to his family and especially to his father. Apparently just showing up was enough in that case, even with what appears to be purely selfish motivation.
I’m NOT arguing against what you said, by the way. I think you make really good points–salient points that add important depth and perspective to the topic. I just want to toss everything relevant that I can think of into the mix, and also explain where I’m at in the topic although that’s hard to do. I’d love to sit down over coffee and have a long discussion with you and the others here and hash all this out–whether or not we ended up agreeing. I think it would be a lot easier that way.
There’s so much in the scriptures (particularly the NT) that seems impossible–yet we are asked to believe–such as we (or at any rate, Paul) was/were crucified with Christ. If a person wants to take this in (for lack of better words) a spiritually literal way, something of US was there with Christ on that cross. Otherwise I guess it’s figurative. I just don’t think time is a thing with God. He can place us in Christ on the cross (2K years ago) even from here in our own “when” and our own “where.” The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Jesus died on the cross around 30 AD or so; if your neighbor tomorrow repents and believes the gospel, he WAS placed in/with Christ on the cross in 30±AD. You could run with all these things as metaphorical, but they don’t have to be. Time/Space, I would contest, is not a THING with God. According to Einstein and his fellow physicists, it’s not a thing at all. WE apparently live in it only because it’s the way we perceive reality. I can’t explain very well and I certainly don’t understand the maths, but I feel it is somehow true despite that I don’t understand it.
Based on all these things, I think that forgiveness IS (in the timeless sense) given from the foundations of the world and all through what we perceive as time–all at once, radiating out across all time, from the cross. We DO need to receive it, or if we don’t, so far as we’re concerned, we’re no better off. But from God’s POV, it is finished. When we accept the invitation (with God’s necessary enabling invitation/grace), we will find ourselves always to have been forgiven. So will everyone else, as THEY receive and accept the Father’s invitation.
I’ve done the best I can and no doubt I’ve stumbled in my words many times. That said, Paidion, I think that you and I are in agreement for the most part–at least on this topic (though I think if I remember right, that we DO disagree on the ‘time’ thing. 
Not that that part of it really matters.)
Blessings, Cindy
Hi Cindy. I truly appreciate your openness and humility in discussing these matters.
I see this as follows. Disciples of Christ are to share the message of reconciliation with others. That message is to be reconciled to God through submission to His Son. When a person has been reconciled to God, He doesn’t hold their blunders against them. As I understand the Greek word translated as “trespasses” the meaning is “unintentional blunders.”
Sometimes, out in the countryside, hunters unintentionally trespass on the property of others. Most property owners, if they realize that the trespassing was unintentional, will not hold the trespassing against those who blundered onto their property.
This is quite a different matter from the idea that God overlooks or pardons intentional sin without the sinner’s repentance.
A search on the forum had no info on that topic. This is Webster’s definition:
Definition of symbiosis
plural symbioses play -ˌsēz
1 : the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms (as in parasitism or commensalism); especially : mutualism
2 : a cooperative relationship (as between two persons or groups)
the symbiosis … between the resident population and the immigrants —John Geipel
Thanks. Obviously to me (now), I meant synergy, not symbiosis.
Glad you caught that! 
Your view is synergism, as in salvation being a result of man’s free will cooperating with God’s grace, or co-op salvation, rather than salvation being the work of God alone, as in monergism?
During a longish life (I’m 69) I have observed that those who do work** at **their salvation (NOT FOR THEIR SALVATION) with a wholesome dread of displeasing God and a heart full of love, make progress in godliness.
I believe we are made to strive upwards, to enlarge our minds and hearts, to GROW into mature people of God - and growth is not a gift nor is it automatic.
Exactly right 
The wholesome dread of displeasing God, is a figment of religiosity… God the creator, if he knows either our acts before we do them or realizes he gave us the room to do as we will do, is a God that understands. His vision of creation is (and I agree with you) to have his creation to strive and enlarge our minds an better ourselves…
He is the creator God and wants us to achieve!
That understanding of “trespass” appears to be in harmony with this:
"3900 paráptōma (from 3895 /parapíptō, see there) – properly, fall away after being close-beside, i.e. a lapse (deviation) from the truth; an error, “slip up”; wrong doing that can be (relatively) unconscious, “non-deliberate.” "
“that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor.5:19a)
When was it first that “God was in Christ”? At the cross, the incarnation, in the OT times, before the creation of the world when the Lamb is said to have been slain?
The compound of “was” and the participle “reconciling,” instead of the imperfect (Greek), may also imply the continuous purpose of God, from before the foundation of the world, to reconcile man to Himself, whose fall was foreseen. [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary]
What is “the world” referred to? The world of the first century A.D., of all history, past, present & future?
“The question whether and how Paul regarded the reconciliation of those who died before the ἱλαστήριον of Christ, and were not justified like Abraham, remains unanswered, since he nowhere explains himself on the point, and since the dead are not included in the notion of κόσμος. Still, Romans 10:7, Php 2:10 presuppose the descent of Christ into Hades, which is the necessary correlative of the resurrection ἐκ νεκρῶν, and it is expressly taught by Paul in Ephesians 4:9.” [Meyer’s NT Commentary]
What is the definition of “reconciling”? If the intended thought was God had already accomplished reconciliation, why not instead say “God was in Christ [and RECONCILED] the world to himself on the cross” rather than say “reconcilING”. If the world has already been fully reconciled to God, shouldn’t the message of the gospel be “you are reconciled to God” instead of Paul’s urgent appeal begging others to “be reconciled to God” (v.20)?
And why such an earnest appeal? Because the context warns that this is “a day of salvation” (2 Cor.6:1-2), wherein men are being given “time to repent” (Rev.2:21) which God commands all men to do (Acts 17:30) because there is coming a day of judgement and wrath (Acts 17:31, Romans 2)?
“not counting their trespasses against them,” (2 Cor.5:19b)
For how long? Till the day of judgement?:
Rev.18:5 For her sins[266] are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities[92]. 6 Give back to her as she has done to others; pay her back double for what she has done; mix her a double portion in her own cup.
According to Greek scholar Marvin Vincent the Greek word for “reconciled” (v.19) can refer to a one way reconciliation. If so, then how might God have been “reconciling the world to Himself”? By opening the door to salvation, but the world still needs to walk through it? Or by lifting the serpent on the pole (Jn.3:14-16), but the world still needs to look & believe? Otherwise it will die from the poisonous bite?
“not counting[3049] their trespasses against them,” (2 Cor.5:19b)
The Greek word for “counting”[3049] is the same used in other passages where it requires faith for one to have God not “count”[3049] their sins against them:
Rom.5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed[1677] when there is no law.
2 Cor.5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing[3049] their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Rom.4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute[3049] sin.
Rom.4:1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted[3049] unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned[3049] of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted[3049] for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth[3049] righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute[3049] sin.
9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned[3049] to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed[3049] to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed[3049], if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”
Being of keen interest on this topic, I believe this is easy for people to justify their intentional sins as explain them away as unintentional. They can convince themselves they are blunders, when they might not in fact be. Basically any conscious choice to ever succumb to temptation would viewed as intentional, in my view. But I have heard people get around it by calling those sins of “weakness” or something like that. I have found that people are very good as self deception and most people give themselves the benefit of the doubt over a real critical analyses of the situation. That is why I believe people who purport sinless perfection, are deceived of their intentions and true conduct, because when you press them and ask their family, wife, etc of their claims, you find out the truth.
Paidion, I noticed you espouse the believe above, but are rarely transparent. I’ll lay my cards out first; I don’t believe you never intentionally sin as I define it (succumbing to temptation). Yet, in reading your posts, I tend to get the impression that, perhaps wrongly, that all of your sins are somehow unintentional. There is no rule on this message board that one must be transparent, but I do think it is somewhat of a obligation when the implications are, well, that most of us here are just not truly repentant.
From my perspective, both former and now is the same: We are imperfect people and sometimes succumb to temptation, which by the very nature are intentional. They may not be “High Handed”, but they are intentional, because temptation always involves choice. Succumbing to it, is making the wrong choice. That isn’t a mistake, it is a choice. It is, temporary atheism, as MacDonald says.