The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Are all our sins—past, present, and future—already forgiven?

#81

Exactly right :laughing:

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!

0 Likes

#82

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.” "

biblehub.com/greek/3900.htm

“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.”

0 Likes

#83

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.

0 Likes

#84

By Gosh you all, I am a sinner amongst sinners, But I am here to tell you that I am a priest of God. I understand what His son/Christ did and I want everyone else to understand that. Your blunders are all bull hockey…

Let’s look at the historical view of the OT and NT and maybe quit looking at the modern interpretation of Christ being a personal savior, we may well figure this thing out. :laughing: God is a loving father and provider. :wink:

0 Likes

#85

I concur… intentional OR unintentional “blunders” don’t really factor into the definition of “trespass” < παράπτωμα > paraptōma, it is simply —
1) to fall beside or near something 2) a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness 2a) a sin, misdeed.

0 Likes

#86

Gabe, first let me make clear that I have never indicated, nor do I believe, that all of my sins have been unintentional. The meaning of “wrongdoing” or “sin” as I understand it, are those actions a person takes that harms others and/or himself.

The belief I “espouse” is that there are two basic forms of wrong doing.

  1. The INTENTIONAL
    God does not overlook or pardon intentional wrongdoing. IF the intentional sinner repents (has a change of heart and mind about what he did), God will grant him true forgiveness, and the sinner’s relationship with God will restored.

Jesus said that we also are to forgive those who intentionally sin against us IF they repent.

  1. The UNINTENTIONAL
    Blunders can be made which harm other people or oneself without meaning such harm. God or other people may pardon these blunders even if the offender does not repent. Yet,it would be wise to point out to the offender how his actions have hurt others or himself, so that he will not repeat such acts. However, if we refuse to pardon the blunders of others, God will not pardon OUR blunders. (Matthew 6:15)
0 Likes