On the right hand of God

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

Doesn't Christ's request "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" contradict your conclusion here, Mfblume? If they are to be forgiven by God 'not knowing what they did' they certainly can be forgiven by God without first acknowledging the infraction.

It is certainly possible to forgive someone prior to them asking for forgiveness. The forgiving party is the party violated. A person violated must come to terms with how he chooses to view someone who has transgressed against him. He not only determines, like you said, that he 'would' forgive the transgressor if asked to do so, but he also determines whether or not he will continue to hold it against the transgressor even if not asked for forgiveness.

As I've said several times, there is an issue of two consciences being dealt with in regard to forgiveness. The conscience of the one violated and the conscience of the one who committed the violation. There are times the one who is violated has a conscience of a transgression long before the one who committed the transgression comes to acknowledge the sin. My previous analogy clearly points out this very scenario.

I hold that the 'victim' can have a purged conscience whether the conscience of the one who transgressed against him is 'healed' or not. The healings of the two consciences are separate and distinct and not contingent upon each other.

I believe GOD'S 'conscience of our sin' was purged/satisfied/mended on the Cross. It is only much later when we come to acknowledge our transgressions and believe the Gospel that OUR 'conscience of sin' is made whole. Again, I point to my previous analogy.

We are 'made whole' when we place our trust in the historic forgiveness of God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Adino

Doesn't Christ's request "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" contradict your conclusion here, Mfblume? If they are to be forgiven by God 'not knowing what they did' they certainly can be forgiven by God without first acknowledging the infraction.

Good point.

It is certainly possible to forgive someone prior to them asking for forgiveness. The forgiving party is the party violated. A person violated must come to terms with how he chooses to view someone who has transgressed against him. He not only determines, like you said, that he 'would' forgive the transgressor if asked to do so, but he also determines whether or not he will continue to hold it against the transgressor even if not asked for forgiveness.

As I've said several times, there is an issue of two consciences being dealt with in regard to forgiveness. The conscience of the one violated and the conscience of the one who committed the violation. There are times the one who is violated has a conscience of a transgression long before the one who committed the transgression comes to acknowledge the sin. My previous analogy clearly points out this very scenario.

I hold that the 'victim' can have a purged conscience whether the conscience of the one who transgressed against him is 'healed' or not. The healings of the two consciences are separate and distinct and not contingent upon each other.

I believe GOD'S 'conscience of our sin' was purged/satisfied/mended on the Cross. It is only much later when we come to acknowledge our transgressions and believe the Gospel that OUR 'conscience of sin' is made whole. Again, I point to my previous analogy.

We are 'made whole' when we place our trust in the historic forgiveness of God.

Explaining it with the conscience of both parties being involved, and how healing the conscience of one is not contingent upon the other is an excellent point. In THAT sense, I can certainly agree with you.

[mfblume]

In the sense of settling the issue in the mind of God, alone, I would also say sins were remitted on the cross.

[Adino]

Then we seem to agree that our personal conscience of sin is 'made whole' long after the Cross when we believe, but God's conscience of our sin was appeased/satisfied on the Cross prior to the resurrection. Correct?

This has been my point all along.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Adino

Then we seem to agree that our personal conscience of sin is 'made whole' long after the Cross when we believe, but God's conscience of our sin was appeased/satisfied on the Cross prior to the resurrection. Correct?

This has been my point all along.

Right, I guess I missed your point since I was focused on the ACTUAL remission from our personal perspective of the experience. But this does not necessarily allow for your thought you initially mentioned.

Since sin remission was a historic reality at the time of his sermon, the idea that EIS is non-causal/non-purposive in Acts 2:38 is strengthened. It would mean we are to repent and be baptized* with a view toward (eis) the historic remission of sins which took place on the Cross.

If our personal experience of remission did not occur on the cross, and our consciences were not dealt with, then for that reason Acts 2:38 would still put remission of sins in a causal light.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Adino

Doesn't Christ's request "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" contradict your conclusion here, Mfblume? If they are to be forgiven by God 'not knowing what they did' they certainly can be forgiven by God without first acknowledging the infraction.

It is certainly possible to forgive someone prior to them asking for forgiveness. The forgiving party is the party violated. A person violated must come to terms with how he chooses to view someone who has transgressed against him. He not only determines, like you said, that he 'would' forgive the transgressor if asked to do so, but he also determines whether or not he will continue to hold it against the transgressor even if not asked for forgiveness.

As I've said several times, there is an issue of two consciences being dealt with in regard to forgiveness. The conscience of the one violated and the conscience of the one who committed the violation. There are times the one who is violated has a conscience of a transgression long before the one who committed the transgression comes to acknowledge the sin. My previous analogy clearly points out this very scenario.

I hold that the 'victim' can have a purged conscience whether the conscience of the one who transgressed against him is 'healed' or not. The healings of the two consciences are separate and distinct and not contingent upon each other.

I believe GOD'S 'conscience of our sin' was purged/satisfied/mended on the Cross. It is only much later when we come to acknowledge our transgressions and believe the Gospel that OUR 'conscience of sin' is made whole. Again, I point to my previous analogy.

We are 'made whole' when we place our trust in the historic forgiveness of God.

I understand that in your view that people who do not believe go to hell. I do not fully understand what it is about unbelief that causes God to send people to hell. I see a few options but none of them really add up to me. Care to elaborate?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I understand that in your view that people who do not believe go to hell. I do not fully understand what it is about unbelief that causes God to send people to hell. I see a few options but none of them really add up to me. Care to elaborate?

Someone who has not believed has not come to Christ for life. The forgiveness of the Cross made possible the giving of spiritual life. Christ came that we might have life (John 10:10). He that believes is passed from death into life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26).

It's not that people are sent to hell. It is that people remain spiritually dead and separated from God until they are quickened to new life. We are quickened/born again from the dead by the word of God (1Peter 1:23; John 1:12-13). He that believes the record God gave of His Son passes into life.

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1John 5:11-13

Death is separation. Those who die in unbelief, will be eternally separated from God because they have not come to Christ for life. The condemnation is separation from God. The one thing that keeps man separated from God is unbelief.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Adino

Someone who has not believed has not come to Christ for life. The forgiveness of the Cross made possible the giving of spiritual life. Christ came that we might have life (John 10:10). He that believes is passed from death into life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26).

It's not that people are sent to hell. It is that people remain spiritually dead and separated from God until they are quickened to new life. We are quickened/born again from the dead by the word of God (1Peter 1:23; John 1:12-13). He that believes the record God gave of His Son passes into life.

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1John 5:11-13

Death is separation. Those who die in unbelief, will be eternally separated from God because they have not come to Christ for life. The condemnation is separation from God. The one thing that keeps man separated from God is unbelief.

Okay. So in your view Hell is the place not for sinners but for the spiritually dead and the spiritually dead are those who do not believe in Christ?

One other question. Do you define unbelief as a sin or not? Because I recall you at one point saying unbelief was the unfrogivable sin spoken of by Christ?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If our personal experience of remission did not occur on the cross, and our consciences were not dealt with, then for that reason Acts 2:38 would still put remission of sins in a causal light.

I wrote in another thread dealing with something Daniel Segraves said concerning this issue:

"If 'eis' is causal in Acts 2:38 then it can only be referencing the purging of conscience we receive when we trust in the historic forgiveness of the Cross and not the actual forgiveness God historically enacted on the Cross 2000 years ago."

However, if we take into consideration 1) the plural/singular construction of Acts 2:38, 2)the possibility that the phrase "for the remission of sins" is to be connected BOTH to repentance AND to baptism, and 3) the different possible interpretations of 'eis' in the phrase "for (eis) the remission of sins" I think the non-causal position makes more sense.

With 'eis' being causal the passage would read:

Let the group repent
['For the purpose of' remitting the sins of all in the group]
And let each of the individuals of the group be baptized
'For the purpose of' remitting the sins of all in the group

With 'eis' being non-causal the passage would read:

Let the group repent
['With a view toward' the remission of the sins of all in the group - which took place on the Cross]
And let each of the individuals of the group be baptized
'With a view toward' the remission of the sins of all in the group [which took place on the Cross].

Since I cannot bring myself to believe that we repent and are baptized in order to get the sins of the world remitted, I lean toward the idea that we repent and are baptized with a view toward the remission of mankind's sins which took place on the Cross.

[Sabby]

Jfrog,

The one unforgivable sin (and one unpardonable sin as well) is not to believe that Jesus is who He said He is, imo.

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Heb 4:11
The unbelief that God's word is fulfilled in the Rock called Jesus.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36
Explains not being pardoned because of unbelief.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. I John 5:10
To not believe Jesus is who He said He is means to make God a liar and the gospel (the record that God gave of His Son) of none effect.
imo