Remitted on the Cross or not?

[TheLegalist]

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?

Prax... Thanks for your points... This is where I have a disagreement with how Adino handles things as many others. Christ death burial and resurrection game him POWER to judge and declare JUSTICE. This idea that Christ looked into the future and forgave everyone is not quite right. Christ gained judicial authority to set aside death and give life by what he did as a perfect sacrifice. Which goes to your scripture above and it proves very well. Notice HE is faithful to forgive. Which is a ever present thing when we come before him. Which shows a ON GOING power or authority. This well it goes back to the cross 2000 years ago and all was forgiven.... NO! He obtained authority OVER death and power to judge and declare justice from then forward AT THE DBR. Saying well he already forgave.... is nonsense. For true forgiveness to mean anything one must request it and seek it. We know by Christ's words clearly that forgiveness is based on response andthus a mutal legal response back would be granted. Adino's faith alone is totaly incorrect. A price must be paid by us to obtain/purchase salvation. Which is true turning to Christ and what he desires. Thus the heart is judged "right/righteous". Thanks for you points!

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Adino

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

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:

[COLOR="red"]Prax, do you believe justification is repetitive?[/COLOR]

I am not Prax but Yes we are consistenty judged at the heart and whether we stand before him right or not.

[*AQuietPlace*]

If baptism is what remits our sin, wouldn't we need to be re-baptized every time we sinned?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

If baptism is what remits our sin, wouldn't we need to be re-baptized every time we sinned?

No... Baptism is a covenental application. When one is baptized they come into covenant with the body of Christ thus he is given legal authority by your submission. You are confusing points of what baptism is about. When we ask for forgiveness God looks back and remembers your place and his covenant with you and the authority he has in your life. Baptism is about legal transaction and authority going forward.

Note: Baptism is about remission of sins but that is not all it is.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

No... Baptism is a covenental application. When one is baptized they come into covenant with the body of Christ thus he is given legal authority by your submission. You are confusing points of what baptism is about. When we ask for forgiveness God looks back and remembers your place and his covenant with you and the authority he has in your life. Baptism is about legal transaction and authority going forward.

Note: Baptism is about remission of sins but that is not all it is.

Are you drawing a parallel with Jewish circumcision?

Where do we find this what you have just written in the Bible?

I totally agree that baptism is part of the covenant we make with the Lord when we become his disciples. Is the "legal authority" in the new covenant secondary to God becoming our God and our becoming his people?

The part I don't understand in what you wrote above is " When we ask for forgiveness God looks back and remembers your place and his covenant with you and the authority he has in your life. Baptism is about legal transaction and authority going forward." Would you explain that a little more?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by 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.

Some of what he writes is about what those that teach outside. However the letter is TO believers. He says "if WE confess our sins"..."we" means the church

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.

So repentance is an after thought to receiving forgiveness?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

Prax, do you believe justification is repetitive?

Justification is by faith alone. Im not sure what you mean by repetative

On 1John.

The aorist may be translated past tense but that doesn't always mean at first blush what you are thinking it means,

For example if I say "if you confess your sins then God has forgiven you"...forgiven is past tense.

It doesn't mean though "If you confess your sins just know that God already forgave you before you confessed"

that they ARE translated past tense doesn't mean the actions are past tense

Further the tense here is not indicative
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. “First Aorist” refers to the inflected form. First Aorist verbs are marked by an augment (usually a prefixed ε, η or ω) and either -σα, -ξα, or -ψα as part of the suffix endings.
Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software.

Here it's subjunctive.

I don't know of a single translation that translates this past tense.

And then it would be
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sins and to have already cleansed us from all unrighteousness.

I don't see anything in the grammar warranting experience.

The act of forgiveness is attributed to God doing it upon the action of the confessing, HE is faithful and Just to forgiven us, when we confess.

[Praxeas]

BTW what I wanted to know was not so much how we receive forgiveness, but what exactly is receiving forgiveness? Is it merely a realization that we are forgiven?

If you say "experience" what does that mean? how can one be forgiven and not experience it?

[Praxeas]

Can you respond to this verse too?

Act 3:19 Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

[TheLegalist]

No... Baptism is a covenental application. When one is baptized they come into covenant with the body of Christ thus he is given legal authority by your submission. You are confusing points of what baptism is about. When we ask for forgiveness God looks back and remembers your place and his covenant with you and the authority he has in your life. Baptism is about legal transaction and authority going forward.

Note: Baptism is about remission of sins but that is not all it is.

[QUOTE=mizpeh;878143]Are you drawing a parallel with Jewish circumcision?

Only in the sense it is our spiritual circumcision... the appointed time. I really don't make a parallel except that it is the time of the cutting away. He place our trust in his work to do what he said he would do.

Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ROMANS 6 "alive together" or "UNITED"
Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Where do we find this what you have just written in the Bible?

I totally agree that baptism is part of the covenant we make with the Lord when we become his disciples. Is the "legal authority" in the new covenant secondary to God becoming our God and our becoming his people?

no it's one in the same if I understand you properly. By him becoming our God and thus us his people authority is created.

The part I don't understand in what you wrote above is " When we ask for forgiveness God looks back and remembers your place and his covenant with you and the authority he has in your life. Baptism is about legal transaction and authority going forward." Would you explain that a little more?

Well we find baptism as a covenantal application simply because you are accepting the work of Christ and him as Lord of you life in total AT baptism. If you are united with him in baptism that would be a covenant aspect. You are becoming "one" in death. You cannot partake of his blood/death of the new covenant "baptism" and not be in covenant or agreement. It's a legal transaction. If you choose to follow him you negate all else. Thus unification of Christ's work is seen in baptism per Romans 6 etc... Thus you are united with HIM. To be united is agreement. Also Baptism saves thus the work of the cross has brought judicial authority because you have given him the right to respond/act on your behalf by faith and humblness. Grace is given to the humble. Thus you have humbled yourself before him and made him Master/Lord by contract. I will serve you and you alone and by doing so you obtain salvation.

You asked about my statment. She asked about don't we NEED to be baptized again everytime we sin. Well the answer is no. When you come INTO covenant and Christ's authority by his DBR is on your life. You have certain rights. If we confess our sin he is faithful and just to forgive us! Why? Because you are in covenant with him. Which was due to a point in time by which you obtained certain rights. You must be humble though and truly turned from your sin and repentant. God resists the poud. All covenants have conditions. These are basic covenant principles.... Also just as the old covenant there are blessings and cursings....