On the right hand of God

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I qualified my statement with an explanation later that you failed to quote. When Christ called for forgiveness, it matters not who responded, since the point is that this forgiveness was of the sort that God saw the perfect sacrifice and decided then and there that anyone who would ever seek forgiveness would get it without Him having to pick and choose. The sacrifice was efficacious for any sinner who would ever seek forgiveness. The point is that you cannot forgive someone before they ask for it. You can only be ready to provide it as soon as they ask. THAT is what happened when Christ called for forgiveness.

But you can forgive people who never ask.

[mfblume]

What many fail to realize, especially some who espouse Acts 2:38 salvation (and I DO espouse Acts 2:38 salvation, too) is that REMISSION is translated from the same Greek word as FORGIVENESS.

APHESIS.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

He is on the right hand throne to GIVE remission of sins. Big difference.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

We receive remission of sins ONLY AFTER WE BELIEVE. This means our sins were not remitted for us personally until we believe. It was provided for, but not actually given yet. This falls in line with Acts 5:31.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

But you can forgive people who never ask.

Not really. I have long thought about that concept. I believe what people actually means when they say they forgive before someone asks is that one is ready and willing to forgive before they ask, but you do not actually forgive them before they ask. Otherwise, why would we have these words:

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

If he is forgiven before he asks then there is no need for us to go to him for him to repent. Binding and loosing refers to binding one to bidding and forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, etc. It is used in doctrine as allowing and forbidding. Binding in the law is forbidding it. Loosing is permitting. So a person is loosed from their sin only when they seek for it, that is, they are forgiven when they personally seek forgiveness.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I qualified my statement with an explanation later that you failed to quote. When Christ called for forgiveness, it matters not who responded, since the point is that this forgiveness was of the sort that God saw the perfect sacrifice and decided then and there that anyone who would ever seek forgiveness would get it without Him having to pick and choose. The sacrifice was efficacious for any sinner who would ever seek forgiveness. The point is that you cannot forgive someone before they ask for it. You can only be ready to provide it as soon as they ask. THAT is what happened when Christ called for forgiveness.

Amen!

And another powerful element to this NT covenant is when he taught the Apostles to pray - "Thy Kindgom come," in Luke 11:2. Then in verse 13, he says, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" He appears to be equating the coming of the Kingdom with the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

And then in John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

The Kingdom of God had come to the Gentiles, had come to Cornelius' household.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Adino

Having purged our sins he subsequently sat down on the right hand of God.

But that does not mean the remission of sins caused him to be seated. It says that occurred, and I think that is qualified by the context of Heb 10, but Phil 2 says His perfect obedience was the cause for his seating.

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:3

We agree that Cornelius was not given life before his sins were remitted. Those who hold to baptismal sin remission are mistaken.

There is a mistaken notion about baptism and remission of sins by many who demand baptism. I also demand baptism, though. But obviously not for the reasons others do. Some who believe remission occurs at baptism actually believe Cornelius received the Spirit baptism before his sins were remitted. Edwin Harper preached that. He said that those at the wedding feast with no wedding garments were people who had the Holy Ghost without having repented and obtained remission of sins. He claims anyone who had the Holy Ghost will go up in the rapture, but without having actually repented and been baptized for remission of sins will get no further and will be turned away. (...as if the wedding feast is where the rapture takes us, which is not conclusive).

I look at it like this. It takes two signatures/seals for any covenant. Spirit baptism is GOD'S SEAL, and water baptism is OUR SEAL. Remission of sins must have occurred before Cornelius was baptized, or He could not receive Spirit baptism. But that did not dismiss Cornelius from his absolute need for water baptism.

Yes, we receive/accept/experience sin remission when we believe.

Cornelius had not received/experienced the historic remission of the Cross until he trusted in the Gospel message preached to him by Peter.

I guess we arrive at the same conclusion if you make these statements as I arrive at, although we get there through a slightly different route of reasoning. I cannot see forgiveness occurring before people ask, since forgiveness means they've been loosed from their sins and from the law's demand for their deaths. And that means they have no sins to account for before they even ask forgiveness. It just does not make sense at all to me. That is why you were asked by another if you believed in universalism.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But that does not mean the remission of sins caused him to be seated. It says that occurred, and I think that is qualified by the context of Heb 10, but Phil 2 says His perfect obedience was the cause for his seating.


There is a mistaken notion about baptism and remission of sins by many who demand baptism. I also demand baptism, though. But obviously not for the reasons others do. Some who believe remission occurs at baptism actually believe Cornelius received the Spirit baptism before his sins were remitted. Edwin Harper preached that. He said that those at the wedding feast with no wedding garments were people who had the Holy Ghost without having repented and obtained remission of sins. He claims anyone who had the Holy Ghost will go up in the rapture, but without having actually repented and been baptized for remission of sins will get no further and will be turned away. (...as if the wedding feast is where the rapture takes us, which is not conclusive).

I look at it like this. It takes two signatures/seals for any covenant. Spirit baptism is GOD'S SEAL, and water baptism is OUR SEAL. Remission of sins must have occurred before Cornelius was baptized, or He could not receive Spirit baptism. But that did not dismiss Cornelius from his absolute need for water baptism.

Exactly, as Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." John 3:5.

[mfblume]

I found these notes:

WUEST:

Alford is careful to note the fact that the Greek text does not read "purification" apo (from) sins, but "purification" of (genitive case) sins. He says, "Sin was the great uncleanness, of which He has effected the purgation: the disease of which He has wrought the cure." He makes the point that katharismos "must be understood by the subsequent argument of the Epistle: for that which the Writer had it in his mind to expand in the course of his treatise, he must be supposed to have meant when he used without explanation a concise term like this.

He is homing in on the term PURGED. As I stated, Hebrews continues to expound on that statement, since it is not explained in Heb 1:3.

The writer has put this most succinctly in 9:26 where he says; "He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." One could translate, "He has appeared, resulting in the putting away of sin by His sacrifice."

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

BARNES:

To put away sin -
(1) To remove the punishment due to sin, or to provide a way of pardon; and,
(2) to remove the stain of sin from the soul; see the notes on Heb_9:14.

I am not sure if this may provide the answer, but note the difference between cleansing OF sin and cleansing FROM sin. The Greek in Heb 1:3 intimates it is the cleansing OF sin that Jesus accomplished. How can God cleanse sin? That can mean the punishment due to sin is removed, or making sin non-existent by washing it out of existence. But we know we committed sins after this occurred. That would mean our sins were stains that were not washed away from our souls although the cross washed the stain of sin. The only conclusion we can therefore make, as far as I see it, is that the PROVISION for this cleansing was made available. And not until we seek and believe for it is remission accomplished. There is no other way sin was washed away like a stain on the cross otherwise. If Christ washed sin away and remitted it and cleansed it out of existence from our soul before we were born, then we would have no sin to ever repent of, which actually means we could not have committed sins!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not really. I have long thought about that concept. I believe what people actually means when they say they forgive before someone asks is that one is ready and willing to forgive before they ask, but you do not actually forgive them before they ask. Otherwise, why would we have these words:

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

If he is forgiven before he asks then there is no need for us to go to him for him to repent. Binding and loosing refers to binding one to bidding and forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, etc. It is used in doctrine as allowing and forbidding. Binding in the law is forbidding it. Loosing is permitting. So a person is loosed from their sin only when they seek for it, that is, they are forgiven when they personally seek forgiveness.

Blume, I personally do not need to have someone ask me to forgive them in order to forgive them.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Blume, I personally do not need to have someone ask me to forgive them in order to forgive them.

Technically, I think you do. IOW, before they ask you can only be ready to forgive them whenever they ask, but you cannot actually forgive them before they ask. I think we are missing the true definition of the term "forgive" when we say we can forgive before someone asks. Otherwise they do not need to ask us for it.

I may be mistaken, but I think that when we say we forgive them before they ask, we should more correctly say we made up our minds that we are ready to forgive them whenever they ask.

[mfblume]

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Luke 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Why did not Jesus say forgive him before he repents, the greater thing to do, if it was possible?

Comments?