Remitted on the Cross or not?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

If you mean, "is the condition of our heart prior to believing forgiven?" I would say the spiritually dead heart must first hear the Gospel in order to ultimately accept or reject it. Upon hearing the Gospel, faith will ensue if the ground is right. If not, then unbelief will ultimately be imputed and condemnation will be the result. If one is ultimately in a state of unbelief before the throne, the unbelief does not get forgiven. He is forever condemned.

I do not see 1John 1:9 as a verse dealing with a saved person confessing sins. One who is saved has the imputation of righteousness perpetually as long as he continues to believe. We "walk in the light" of the truth of the Gospel and we are perpetually justified before God as long as we keep this heart of faith.

I understand 1John was written to saved persons and to gnostics who had crept into the crowd. The light of the Gospel of Christ is the light John is trying to get gnostic heretics to walk in. The gnostics did not believe anything of the physical world could affect their spiritual status, because they believed all matter was evil. They had a skewed view of the depravity of man and because of this skewed view had rejected the idea that Jesus had risen physically. They simply did not believe. John is admonishing them to recognize their depravity, confess, and walk in the light of the Gospel truth of Christ (1John 3:23; 4:15; 5:1-21). Those who confessed, God is faithful and just to purge their heart of sin.

The commandment of God was to believe (1John 3:23).

Who it was too is beside the point. John gives a conditional...IF we do X He is faithful and just to forgive us...I thought we are all already forgiven?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Who it was too is beside the point. John gives a conditional...IF we do X He is faithful and just to forgive us...I thought we are all already forgiven?

1John 1:9 tells us if the gnostics confessed their depravity, God is faithful and just to 1) forgive (the tense is 'second aorist' which like 'aorist' is commonly reckoned as past tense - this usage can also be understood as involving past, present, and future - it is a state of having been forgiven historically and perpetually experiencing that forgiveness in Christ - we are the forgiven 'experientially' only when we believe) and 2) cleanse them from all unrighteousness (i.e., to sprinkle, wash, cleanse, purge, and/or purify their hearts from an evil conscience of sin - Acts 15:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:22).

Only those who confess their depravity in faith experience the historic forgiveness of the Cross and have their hearts purged from a conscience of sin.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Adino

I would consider calling God a liar by ultimately rejecting the testimony He gave us of His Son a blasphemy against the Spirit. Wouldn't you?

Matthew 12:31

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Of course, the Cross "had the power to remit" this as well IF God had chosen to impute this particular transgression to Christ. Yet, only those sins imputed to Christ were forgiven on the Cross. God sovereignly chose not to impute the blasphemous rejection of His word.

Then I ask 2 questions...

Is unbelief forgiven by the cross or apart from it?

Where is a list given of which sins were applied to Christ and which were not? Where is it stated that not every sin was imputed Christ? Where is it stated that only some sins are imputed to Christ?

[Adino]

Jfrog, my post #146 answers your first question. As to the second, I'd say the world is to be reproved of sin because they do not believe (John 16:8-9). Scripture mentions several times that the sin which condemns is unbelief (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

I'm also curious what you think Matthew 12:31 means. I'd consider a rejection of the testimony God gave of his Son as blasphemy against the Spirit.... wouldn't you?

I'll get back to you later in the week if I can get a chance. God bless, Bro.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Adino

Jfrog, my post #146 answers your first question. As to the second, I'd say the world is to be reproved of sin because they do not believe (John 16:8-9). Scripture mentions several times that the sin which condemns is unbelief (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

I'm also curious what you think Matthew 12:31 means. I'd consider a rejection of the testimony God gave of his Son as blasphemy against the Spirit.... wouldn't you?

I'll get back to you later in the week if I can get a chance. God bless, Bro.

Ah, I see what you were saying now. That is probably the best interpretation I've ever heard about what blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is. I like it!

I'm not trying to pick here. I think you've answered the two questions I asked well enough. The first one I asked though I was more interested in relation it had to why Christ even needed to come and die in the first place. In other words, "If God can forgive the sin of unbelief without the cross, then why can't he forgive all others?" Now I understand you can say this is just not how we wanted to do it and that is a legitimate answer. But I'm really interested in something more than that.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Ah, I see what you were saying now. That is probably the best interpretation I've ever heard about what blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is. I like it!

I'm not trying to pick here. I think you've answered the two questions I asked well enough. The first one I asked though I was more interested in relation it had to why Christ even needed to come and die in the first place. In other words, "If God can forgive the sin of unbelief without the cross, then why can't he forgive all others?" Now I understand you can say this is just not how we wanted to do it and that is a legitimate answer. But I'm really interested in something more than that.

Jfrog, the cause of spiritual death had to be removed in order for us to be able to receive the gift of spiritual life. Christ came that we might have life. In order for this to happen he had to do away with our sin.

IMO, man can only be condemned for unbelief after having heard the Gospel and ultimately having rejected it. That we have rejected the Gospel will only be ultimately known when we face God at judgment. Once the seed of the Gospel is planted, there is no set time for it to come into fruition. Again, as long as we have accepted it by the time we are standing before his throne we will have avoided condemnation.

Bottom line is that the sin of unbelief is not forgiven at all, because I do not see it as being judged and/or imputed against us in regard to condemnation until we're before the throne without any further chance of accepting it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

1John 1:9 tells us if the gnostics confessed their depravity, God is faithful and just to 1) forgive (the tense is 'second aorist' which like 'aorist' is commonly reckoned as past tense - this usage can also be understood as involving past, present, and future - it is a state of having been forgiven historically and perpetually experiencing that forgiveness in Christ - we are the forgiven 'experientially' only when we believe) and 2) cleanse them from all unrighteousness (i.e., to sprinkle, wash, cleanse, purge, and/or purify their hearts from an evil conscience of sin - Acts 15:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:22).

Only those who confess their depravity in faith experience the historic forgiveness of the Cross and have their hearts purged from a conscience of sin.

Aorist tense is NOT past tense. Context often determines whether or not the aorist should be translate that way

This is the Second Aorist

second aorist — The aorist verb tense is used by the writer to present the action of a verb as a “snapshot” event. The verb’s action is portrayed simply and in summary fashion without respect to any process. In the indicative mood, the aorist usually denotes past time, while an aorist participle usually refers to antecedent time with respect to the main verb. Outside the indicative and the participle, the aorist does not indicate time. “Second Aorist” refers to the inflected form. Second Aorist verbs are marked by an augment (usually a prefixed ε, η, or ω) and a change in the spelling of the lemma (“root”) form.
Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software.

The NET bible commentary, referring to the BDAG says:
The ἵνα (hina) followed by the subjunctive is here equivalent to the infinitive of result, an 'ecbatic' or consecutive use of ἵνα according to BDAG 477 s.v. 3 where 1Jo_1:9 is listed as a specific example. The translation with participles ("forgiving, ...cleansing") conveys this idea of result.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10
The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

If this was meant to be past tense the translation would have been different, like "He is faithful and just to have forgiven our sins"

Lastly, that he was addressing gnostics is a theory but no where in the text does he claim to address gnostics.

Paul uses the plural personal "us" and not the second personal "you" or even the third "them".

So Paul is including in this statement himself which makes this univeral

[Praxeas]

Adino I know you touched on this somewhere before but please be patient with my asking again.

Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

1)How does one receive the forgiveness of sins?

2) what does it mean to "receive" forgiveness of sins in light of the fact that God has already forgiven all sins?

By way of an extreme example, Has God already forgiven Hitler for his acts? If "Yes" what does or did that mean for Hitler?

Thanks

[Adino]

Prax, I apologize for not getting back with you sooner. Life is busy.

I'll address a couple of quick points before getting to some of your other concerns:

Firstly, you said concerning 1John that nowhere does the author say he is addressing gnostics. While I agree he does not explicitly use the term 'gnostic' he very clearly states in 1John 2:26 that he is writing "concerning them that seduce you." John's subject matter certainly seems to follow the heretical gnostic position concerning sin being taught at this time, so it only makes sense that we consider the gnostics as a likely source of the seducing doctrine being addressed by the author.

Secondly, you asked how one 'receives' the forgiveness of sins. I answer, by faith alone. The forgiveness of the Cross is 'received' when it is 'experienced.' Man 'experiences' the forgiveness of the Cross when his heart is purifed by faith and his conscience of sin is purged (Acts 15:9; Hebrews 9:9-14; Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:22).

Let it be understood that man's experience of the forgiveness of the Cross has absolutely NO BEARING on the historicity of the finished sin remission of the Cross. Our acceptance or rejection of the historic remission of the Cross does not affect what Christ did in any way. Remission took place on the Cross.... period. The resurrection of Christ declared the finished work.

Thirdly, you asked whether God has "already forgiven Hitler for his acts?" I answer, YES. God forgave ALL sin imputed to Christ on the Cross.

You went on to ask "what does or did that mean for Hitler?" I answer, it meant that his sin was imputed to Christ on the Cross and taken away forever giving him the opportunity to rest in the historic remission of the Cross and have Christ's righteousness imputed to his account resulting in justification unto life. The forgiven Hitler had opportunity 1) to have his conscience of sin purged 2) to be justified by faith and 3) to be born again from spiritual death into spiritual life.

Now to 1John 1:9....

[Adino]

You wrote concering the word 'forgive' in 1John 1:9....

Aorist tense is NOT past tense. Context often determines whether or not the aorist should be translate that way

Prax, first you say the aorist tense "is NOT past tense," then you go on to say the context determines whether it is to be translated as past tense. I understand from this that you do agree the aorist tense is, at times, acceptably rendered in the past tense. Note that I did not say the aorist tense is ALWAYS to be regarded as past tense. I simply pointed out that it is commonly reckoned as such as is attested by the following excerpt from Strong's in the Logos Bible Software (btw- I've always liked the Logos system).

5777 Tense - Aorist

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.

And concerning the 'second aorist':

5780 Tense - Second Aorist

The "second aorist" tense is identical in meaning and translation to the normal or "first" aorist tense. The only difference is in the form of spelling the words in Greek, and there is no effect upon English translation.

I do like the 'snapshot' wording from the excerpt you offered. It gives the impression of an ongoing state of being forgiven and an individual coming to 'experience' that forgiveness in a 'snapshot' and/or 'moment' of time. IF an individual confesses in faith HE WILL personally receive (i.e., experience for himself) the historic forgiveness of the Cross. The condition of confession brings the result of experiencing the historic forgiveness of the Cross in present time.

If you insist to reject that the forgiveness in 1John 1:9 is to be connected to the actual 'already accomplished' historic remission of the Cross, then we might also consider that this passage can be a reference NOT to the historic remission but to God's subsequent act of 'healing' (forgiving - Mark 4:11-12) and 'cleansing' the confessing individual's personal conscience of sin. Forgiveness and cleansing would thus be wholly of experience, meaning, though an historic forgiveness actually took place on the Cross, man only comes to experience this forgiveness when his heart comes to rest in the truth of the historic forgiveness.

1John 1:9 would thus be understood in the following way:

IF we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (i.e., to forgive/heal us experientially) and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (i.e., to purify our hearts [Acts 15:9]; to purge/sprinkle our conscience of sin [Hebrews 9:9-14; Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:22]).

Again...

IF we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to 'experientially' forgive us and cleanse our conscience of sin.

Thus the personal experience of forgiveness; of having one's heart purified by faith; and of having one's mind purged and/or sprinkled from an evil conscience of sin takes place when the repenting heart recognizes its depravity and turns from dead works to faith in Christ.

This repentant conversion of the heart resulting in a personal reception of the historic remission of the Cross is mentioned by all the Gospel authors. Matthew, Mark, Luke (in Acts) and John ALL use Isaiah 6:10 as prooftext:

Isaiah 6:10

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert [i.e., lest they repent], and be healed [i.e., and be personally purged from their conscience of sin].

To understand with the heart and “convert” in Isaiah 6:10 meant to “return to God in faith” or to “repent”. To “be healed” here meant to be “made whole” from sin.

Those who repented would be made whole in regard to their conscience of sin. The repentant would experience forgiveness.

Matthew 13:15

For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal [i.e., forgive] them.

See also Mark 4:11-12 (which uses “forgiven”); John 12:37-40; and Acts 28:23-29.

To authors Matthew, Mark, Luke (in Acts), and John “the heart” turning back to God in repentance brought the experience of forgiveness. Repentance and remission of sin was to be preached through faith in Christ (Luke 24:47; Acts 10:43). Those who turned back to God through faith in Christ had their conscience of sin purged by virtue of trusting in the finished historic sin remitting work of the Cross. The conscience of sin is cleansed when the heart rests in Christ's historic sin remitting work of the Cross (Hebrews 9:9-14; Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:22).

Either of these two offered understandings is far more acceptable than believing that 1John 1:9 speaks of man going to God for multiple remissions of sins every time he stumbles.

You asked earlier, "what if we sin?" I answer, if we stumble into sin we are to simply look to the historic remission of the Cross in faith and gratitude. We then move forward knowing that we were created unto good works (Ephesians 2:10) and that we should strive to live accordingly.

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

Prax, do you believe justification is repetitive?