Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life

[pnattmbtc]

Revelation 7:14 says:

As John uses the phrase, this washing necessitates one's existing. 

Yes, our existence is in the Body of Christ to which we were attached on the cross (see Eph 2:11-19). You and I were not yet born then, but we were there (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Heb 2:9). The apostle Paul was not yet converted then but he was there; in fact he said, "I have been crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20).

 I don't think you're reading what I'm writing.  In Revelation 7:14, it says, "I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

So what you just wrote can't possibly be in relation to this.  It says, "these are they who came out of the great tribulation".  The washing of the robes  is in the context of that event.  That had to exist as people with lives, etc., not in some metaphysical sense, in order to come out of the great tribulation.

So to have one's robes washed in the blood of the lamb is not talking about what you wrote about above, but something which necessitates being alive and doing things.

[Samie]

You originally asked me about cleansing from sin, to which I responded, for me it means to be forgiven.  You countered that we have to have some participation, to be physically present to be cleansed, to which I responded that our participation is in being the beneficiary of that cleansing.  You asked how can we be cleansed without existing and I replied that God cleansed us without us yet physically existing in the same way He chose us before we even existed - before the foundation of the world. You countered with Rev 7:14, and I responded with Paul's statement that he was crucified with Christ even if he was not there physically present.

Now you tell me I am not reading what you are writing.  I take this to mean that for you a person cannot be forgiven UNLESS he is physically alive. I respect your position. But for me, when the Bible says that all sins were forgiven on the cross, I believe this includes all sins - past, present, future. Because if I were to take your position of being physically alive to be forgiven, then people who lived and died BEFORE the cross were not beneficiaries of Calvary's cross.

[pnattmbtc]

You originally asked me about cleansing from sin, to which I responded, for me it means to be forgiven. 

Actually, I asked you what it meant to be washed by the blood of the lamb.

You countered that we have to have some participation, to be physically present to be cleansed, to which I responded that our participation is in being the beneficiary of that cleansing.  You asked how can we be cleansed without existing and I replied that God cleansed us without us yet physically existing in the same way He chose us before we even existed - before the foundation of the world. You countered with Rev 7:14, and I responded with Paul's statement that he was crucified with Christ even if he was not there physically present.

You're missing the whole point.  The context of the discussion is Rev. 1:5, which you quoted under the heading "The death of Christ washed us clean from sin".  Everything I've been asking is in the context of this verse.

Now you tell me I am not reading what you are writing.  

Yes, this seems quite clear, from your responses.  For example, you haven't mentioned Rev. 1:5, which was the key verse about which the whole conversation has been taking place.

I take this to mean that for you a person cannot be forgiven UNLESS he is physically alive. 

No, this is not what I wrote.

I respect your position. But for me, when the Bible says that all sins were forgiven on the cross, I believe this includes all sins - past, present, future. Because if I were to take your position of being physically alive to be forgiven, then people who lived and died BEFORE the cross were not beneficiaries of Calvary's cross.

Nope, this isn't the issue.

You quoted Revelation 1:5, with the heading "The death of Christ washed us clean from sin."  This verse speaks of being washed in the blood of the lamb.  What I argued is that if we look at how John used this expression elsewhere in Revelation, we can see that the way John uses the term requires that the participant be alive.

I'm not arguing against the concept of our sins being forgiven on the cross, but with how you interpreted this one verse, Rev. 1:5.  I think you are taking this one verse our of context.  Again, I'm not making a broad argument here against some concept, but merely in regards to how you applied this one verse.  You are taking this verse to be corporate, when it looks to be clearly not corporate.

[Samie]

For me, it is corporate. Why? Here's the verse again:

KJV Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

The last two phrases: 1) Unto Him that loved us, and 2) washed us from our sins in his own blood.

#1 is, I think, corporate for God so loved the world. And if #1 is corporate, why would #2 be not?

[pnattmbtc]

 

For me, it is corporate. Why? Here's the verse again:

KJV Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

The last two phrases: 1) Unto Him that loved us, and 2) washed us from our sins in his own blood.

#1 is, I think, corporate for God so loved the world. And if #1 is corporate, why would #2 be not?

Because of how John used the phrase elsewhere in Revelation.  This is an accepted practice, to see how an author is using a phrase, look to see how he used it elsewhere.

[Samie]

Because of how John used the phrase elsewhere in Revelation.  This is an accepted practice, to see how an author is using a phrase, look to see how he used it elsewhere.

For us to be washed clean from sin is to remove the sin from us, to loose us free from sin.  Your use of Rev 7:14 vis-à-vis Rev 1:5 is, I think, not appropriate because while in Rev 1:5 the Greek translated "washed" is lu,santi verb participle aorist active dative masculine singular from lu,w, the one in Rev 7:14 is plu,nw verb indicative aorist active 3rd person plural from plu,nw.

[pnattmbtc]

For us to be washed clean from sin is to remove the sin from us, to loose us free from sin.  Your use of Rev 7:14 vis-à-vis Rev 1:5 is, I think, not appropriate because while in Rev 1:5 the Greek translated "washed" is lu,santi verb participle aorist active dative masculine singular from lu,w, the one in Rev 7:14 is plu,nw verb indicative aorist active 3rd person plural from plu,nw.

I don't understand your point here.  This is the same verb.  What is it you are thinking does not apply?

[Samie]

I don't understand your point here.  This is the same verb.  What is it you are thinking does not apply?

Yes they are both verbs, but are you trying to say the meaning of lu,w is the same as that of plu,nw?

[pnattmbtc]

I don't understand your point here.  This is the same verb.  What is it you are thinking does not apply?

Yes they are both verbs, but are you trying to say the meaning of lu,w is the same as that of plu,nw?

I didn't say they are both verbs.  I said "this is the same verb".  Yes, the meaning is the same, because it's the same verb.  It's like "walk" and "walks" are the same verb "walk", just different forms because one is 3rd person singular, and the other isn't. 

[Samie]

Yes they are both verbs, but are you trying to say the meaning of lu,w is the same as that of plu,nw?

Yes, the meaning is the same, because it's the same verb.  It's like "walk" and "walks" are the same verb "walk"

I don't think so.  For me, lu,w is NOT the same as plu,nw

Washing one's self is different from washing one's clothes.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't think so.  For me, lu,w is NOT the same as plu,nw

Washing one's self is different from washing one's clothes.

It's the same verb according to textus receptus, which is what the KJV used.  "Washing one's self is different from washing one's clothes." has nothing to do with grammar.It would be like saying "walks" is different than "walk" if I say "He walks on the street" vs. "They walk on the grass" because "street" is not the same thing as "grass".

 

[Samie]

It's the same verb according to textus receptus, which is what the KJV used.  "Washing one's self is different from washing one's clothes." has nothing to do with grammar.It would be like saying "walks" is different than "walk" if I say "He walks on the street" vs. "They walk on the grass" because "street" is not the same thing as "grass".

In Textus Receptus the verb in Rev 1:5 is lou,w, while in Rev 7:14 it is plu,nw.  

lou,w is used in the NT 6 times (John 13:10; Acts 9:37; 16:33; Heb 10:22; 2 Pet 2:22; Rev 1:5).

plu,nw is used only once (Rev 7:14).

I think the two Greek verbs both translated "washed" do not necessarily mean the same in Greek.  Washing one's self is taking a bath, washing one's clothes is doing laundry.  Applying your logic for "walk" would be saying taking a bath is the same as doing laundry.  It is not grammar but the Greek verbs themselves whether or not they have the same meaning.

[pnattmbtc]

Even if you want to make these two different verbs, you still have the same problem in Rev. 7:14, that washing their robes in the blood of the lamb is something they participated in.

[pnattmbtc]

In Textus Receptus the verb in Rev 1:5 is lou,w, while in Rev 7:14 it is plu,nw.  

lou,w is used in the NT 6 times (John 13:10; Acts 9:37; 16:33; Heb 10:22; 2 Pet 2:22; Rev 1:5).

plu,nw is used only once (Rev 7:14).

I think the two Greek verbs both translated "washed" do not necessarily mean the same in Greek.  Washing one's self is taking a bath, washing one's clothes is doing laundry.  Applying your logic for "walk" would be saying taking a bath is the same as doing laundry.  It is not grammar but the Greek verbs themselves whether or not they have the same meaning.

I was thinking about this some more.  The idea that in one place it's talking about washing clothes versus the person being washed should be treated differently doesn't really make sense, because the clothes being washed is not literally talking about clothes, but about the person.  That is, the clothes represent the person.  When we speak of our robes being washed in the blood of the lamb, it's not talking about laundry.  It's talking about the people involved.

It talks about people overcoming by virtue of having their robes washed in the blood of the lamb, or, in other words, overcoming evil with good.  The process of their overcoming involved their participation, and also involved their having their robes washed in the blood of the lamb.

[Samie]

I was thinking about this some more.  The idea that in one place it's talking about washing clothes versus the person being washed should be treated differently doesn't really make sense, because the clothes being washed is not literally talking about clothes, but about the person.  That is, the clothes represent the person.  When we speak of our robes being washed in the blood of the lamb, it's not talking about laundry.  It's talking about the people involved.

It talks about people overcoming by virtue of having their robes washed in the blood of the lamb, or, in other words, overcoming evil with good.  The process of their overcoming involved their participation, and also involved their having their robes washed in the blood of the lamb.

I agree.  Our being washed free from sin through the blood of Christ is God's work FOR us.  Washing our robes in the blood of Christ is overcoming evil with good.

[pnattmbtc]

I agree.  Our being washed free from sin through the blood of Christ is God's work FOR us.  Washing our robes in the blood of Christ is overcoming evil with good.

But these are the same idiom.  I originally asked you what you thought it meant to be washed by the blood of the lamb.I believe you said to be cleansed from sin, and I agreed.  So the logical conclusion is there is both a corporate and individual aspect to being cleansed from sin.  

God, in Christ, has done work for man, which impacts the entire human race.  To the death of Christ we owe even our earthly life.  That's the corporate aspect.  Then there's the individual aspect, where one accepts Christ as one's personal Savior, and is individually cleansed from sin; to use the langauge of Romans 7, the robes have been washed by the blood of the lamb.  The *effect* of that is the overcoming of evil with good.  The means by which evil is overcome with good is by faith.  Faith is the engine.  Overcoming evil with good is the result.  Faith works by love. 

[Samie]

If the world had been cleansed from sin on the cross, what sin remains in an individual that needed to be cleansed?  Why clean again that which had been cleansed?

I believe a perfect atonement had been done by our Lord on the cross.  That atonement forgave and cleansed us from all sin, not one single sin forgotten.  If we sin now, the sin committed is not counted against us.  In fact, God remembers that sin no more.  This non-imputation of sin each time we commit it is Christ's act of justifying the sinner, not the sin. He Who was raised for our justification (Rom 4:25) continually justifies us each time we commit sin. This is why sin cannot have dominion over us anymore. But the act of sinning reminds the person that he has not overcome that evil yet; to use the language of Rev 7, he has not yet washed his robes white in the blood of the Lamb.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: If the world had been cleansed from sin on the cross, what sin remains in an individual that needed to be cleansed?  Why clean again that which had been cleansed?

Well, this is a sort of problem with the verbage you are using.  I don't think this is what the Bible authors had in mind.  That is, if you think of what it means to be cleansed, in real life, the way people actually speak, they are dirty, and something is done, wasthing, to cleanse them.  In terms of sins, the cleansing happens in the mind.  This is made very clear in Hebrews, for example.  We sense that there is something wrong, and, like the publican, are driven by the Holy Spirit to ask for forgiveness.  Like the publican, we cry out, "God, be merciful to me a sinner" and God responds, and we are justified (as Luke puts it), or cleansed (as John puts it) or forgiven (as David puts it).  Paul uses all three of these expressions to deal with the individual act which involves repentance and faith in Christ.

So while agree that there is a corporate work which was done, I do not believe that work is expressed in Scripture in the words "washed" or "cleansed".  I don't see what sense "cleansed" would mean for the world, since the mind is what is cleansed.  That is surely something that an individual must participate in.

Samie: I believe a perfect atonement had been done by our Lord on the cross.  That atonement forgave and cleansed us from all sin, not one single sin forgotten.  If we sin now, the sin committed is not counted against us.  In fact, God remembers that sin no more.  This non-imputation of sin each time we commit it is Christ's act of justifying the sinner, not the sin. He Who was raised for our justification (Rom 4:25) continually justifies us each time we commit sin. This is why sin cannot have dominion over us anymore. But the act of sinning reminds the person that he has not overcome that evil yet; to use the language of Rev 7, he has not yet washed his robes white in the blood of the Lamb.

This looks like legal stuff here.  I don't think any of this matters to God.  I think what is important to God is that we respond to the Holy Spirit, whose job is to convict us of sin and lead us to Christ.  As long as we don't resist the work of the Holy Spirit, but respond to the light shining from the cross drawing us to God, we will be fine.  The result will be faith and "overcoming evil with good."

Regarding God's not counting our sin against us, I agree with this, but this is simply because God is by nature gracious.  We see in Jesus Christ how God deals with sinners; just the way Jesus did.  Jesus did not count their sins against them, and neither does God.

[Samie]

I want to understand your position regarding Paul's statement in Colossians about forgiveness:

^NAS Colossians 2:13-14   ¹³ And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,  ¹⁴ having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Do you understand it the way I do that God through Christ has forgiven us all our sins?

 

[pnattmbtc]

When one talks about forgivenss, there are two parties involved.  One is the offended party, and the other is the offending party.  In order for there to be reconciliation, both parties have to get together.  God, the offended party, is not counting our sins against us; He is forgiveness personified.  The reconciliation problem will never be on His end, and we see evidence of this in Jesus Christ.  How did Jesus Christ treat sinners?  Whom did He forgive?  So, yes, God has extended forgiveness to all, forgiven, from His sin, all sins, and the cross is evidence of God's side.

Now on our side we need to repent in order to experience forgiveness.  Our sins have set us against God; not God against us, but us against God.  We need to be reconciled (on our end).  We need to stop fighting against God, but repent, which means to change our minds (that's what the word means in the greek, to change your mind) to that instead of fighting against God, instead of being His enemy, we become His friend.  And this is what the gospel is all about, how to make friends out of enemies.

[Samie]

I understand you as saying that God has already forgiven us from all sins and the cross is the evidence.  And to you forgiveness is part of reconciliation which to you is a two-way process, God having done His part. And unless man repents which is his part of the process, he cannot "experience forgiveness".  What exactly do you mean by experiencing forgiveness?

For me, when God forgave us on the cross, that forgiveness took away or cleansed us from all sin, and whether we know it or not, we stand forgiven before God. People who believe they were forgiven, those who feel they were not, and all others who know nothing about forgiveness, all stand forgiven before God.  I view repentance as overcoming evil with good.  Whereas a person wants to do evil, he changes his mind and does good instead.  And only overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

I believe that reconciliation is a two-party matter. Yet when through the death of the Son, the Father reconciled us to Himself, His part of the deal is complete and the two parties, in God's sight, are reconciled.  The sin that separates one party from the other had been done away with, the wall that separates removed.  This is easier understood in being written in the Book of Life.  For as long as one's name is written there, he is heaven-bound.

[Samie]

I believe that reconciliation is a two-party matter. Yet when through the death of the Son, the Father reconciled us to Himself, His part of the deal is complete and the two parties, in God's sight, are reconciled.  The sin that separates one party from the other had been done away with, the wall that separates removed. 

This is easier understood in being written in the Book of Life.  For as long as one's name is written there, he is heaven-bound.

To be heaven-bound implies, among others, one is reconciled with God. For how can one enter God's abode unless he is reconciled with Him?

To be heaven-bound implies one is forgiven from all sins. For how can one be allowed in heaven with even one sin not forgiven?

To be heaven-bound implies one is sanctified or holy. For how can one be in heaven unless he is holy?

To be heaven-bound implies one is justified.  For how can one be in heaven if he is unjust?

To be heaven-bound implies one had been born again. For how can one enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is?

The list can go on and on and on . . .

And God said that only those whose names are found written in the Book of Life can enter the heavenly portals. What a privilege to be born with our names already written in the Book of Life!!!  This means that God Himself qualified us to be born heaven-bound.  What a wonderful grace God gave us in Christ before time began!!! Isn't this an amazingly good news?  Isn't this the brand of Gospel our Lord wanted preached unto all the world before He comes again? Is this the brand of Gospel you now preach?

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: I understand you as saying that God has already forgiven us from all sins and the cross is the evidence.  And to you forgiveness is part of reconciliation which to you is a two-way process, God having done His part. And unless man repents which is his part of the process, he cannot "experience forgiveness".  What exactly do you mean by experiencing forgiveness?

This is a good question.  First off I would say that I don't think, from God's point of view, that forgiveness was ever a problem.  That is, God did not need the cross in order to forgive us.  Rather, the cross is an expression of the fact that God forgives us.  A. Graham Maxwell used to say that "God is forgiveness personified," which expression I like.

To use to "experience forgiveness" means that we know/understand/believe that we are forgiven.  We are at peace with God.

Samie: For me, when God forgave us on the cross, that forgiveness took away or cleansed us from all sin, and whether we know it or not, we stand forgiven before God. People who believe they were forgiven, those who feel they were not, and all others who know nothing about forgiveness, all stand forgiven before God.  

I agree that all have been forgiven, but do not believe the cross was necesary for that to happen, from God's perspective.

Samie: I view repentance as overcoming evil with good.  Whereas a person wants to do evil, he changes his mind and does good instead.  And only overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

"Repentance" means literally "after mind", from the Greek.  The idea is that before, you used to think one way, but now you think another.  I've been emphasizing that appreciation/gratitude/thanfulness are key aspects of faith.  If we are grateful for what God has done for us, we will want to do whatever we can for God out of appreciation.

Samie: I believe that reconciliation is a two-party matter. Yet when through the death of the Son, the Father reconciled us to Himself, His part of the deal is complete and the two parties, in God's sight, are reconciled. 

You can't have two parties reconciled unless both parties are involved.  For example, say I do something which you don't like, and we have an argument, and we need to be reconciled.  To make it more like the God/man situation, let's say that you did abosultely nothing wrong, and the fault was completely on my part.  Let's further say that you never held anything against me, so that the reconciliation that needs to take place is completely on my end.  Let further say that you, in order to show there are no hard feelings on your end, give me a precious gift.  Let's say that your give moves me, to where I am motivated to make things right with you, so I repent, and I see the folly of my ways.  This is a sort of model of how I see things working.

We cannot be reconciled to God without our participation any more than I can be reconciled to you without my participation.  *You* can decide not to hold anything against me, and can be "reconciled" to me, from your perspective, in that you are not holding anything against me, but *I* cannot be reconciled to you without repenting; not because you are insisting upon this as a condition, but because it simply isn't possible for me to be reconciled to you as long as I am angry at you and holding things against you.

Samie: The sin that separates one party from the other had been done away with, the wall that separates removed.  This is easier understood in being written in the Book of Life.  For as long as one's name is written there, he is heaven-bound.

The sin that exists in the party that needs forgiveness, the unbeliever, exists in his mind.  Sin is not an entity, like a table or something, that exists in space, but is a concept which exists in the mind.  A sin is an action or a thought, and when we sin, it causes reactions in the mind, such as feelings of guilt, or anger against God, or other people, things like that.  Also sin causes us to believe things about God which aren't true.  So sin has effects in our minds which must be dealth with, in order for us to experience peace with God.

So, just like the example I gave about the need of my being reconciled to you, something needs to happen in the mind of the unbeliever.  This is the process of repentance/being born again/being justified by faith.  As Romans puts it, the goodness of God leads us to repentance.

[pnattmbtc]

To be heaven-bound implies, among others, one is reconciled with God. For how can one enter God's abode unless he is reconciled with Him?

To be heaven-bound implies one is forgiven from all sins. For how can one be allowed in heaven with even one sin not forgiven?

To be heaven-bound implies one is sanctified or holy. For how can one be in heaven unless he is holy?

To be heaven-bound implies one is justified.  For how can one be in heaven if he is unjust?

To be heaven-bound implies one had been born again. For how can one enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is?

The list can go on and on and on . . .

And God said that only those whose names are found written in the Book of Life can enter the heavenly portals. What a privilege to be born with our names already written in the Book of Life!!!  This means that God Himself qualified us to be born heaven-bound.  What a wonderful grace God gave us in Christ before time began!!! Isn't this an amazingly good news?  Isn't this the brand of Gospel our Lord wanted preached unto all the world before He comes again? Is this the brand of Gospel you now preach?

I think there are good aspects here.  First of all, there is the aspect that God has taken the initiative to save everyone, and unless one resists the work of the Holy Spirit, one will be drawn to the cross in repentance for ones sins.  So it's showing God will, that all be saved, and God initiative in the process, and this is all good.

However, it's not recognizing that character is an important aspect, until after the age of accountability.  That is, your idea is that *after* the age of accountability, one must overcome evil with good.  The problem is, it's *just as important* for one to overcome evil with good *before* the age of acocuntability as after.  And this "requirement" isn't an arbitrary requirement, as if things could somehow be different, but simply a statement of reality.  Reality is that only those who respond to the Holy Spirit (whether or not they have reached the age of accountability) would be happy in heaven.

It's certainly a wonderful thing that God is on our side, and wants us to be in heaven, and will get us there if we don't resist Him.

[Samie]

I think there are good aspects here.  First of all, there is the aspect that God has taken the initiative to save everyone, and unless one resists the work of the Holy Spirit, one will be drawn to the cross in repentance for ones sins.  So it's showing God will, that all be saved, and God initiative in the process, and this is all good.

However, it's not recognizing that character is an important aspect, until after the age of accountability.  That is, your idea is that *after* the age of accountability, one must overcome evil with good.  The problem is, it's *just as important* for one to overcome evil with good *before* the age of acocuntability as after.  And this "requirement" isn't an arbitrary requirement, as if things could somehow be different, but simply a statement of reality.  Reality is that only those who respond to the Holy Spirit (whether or not they have reached the age of accountability) would be happy in heaven.

It's certainly a wonderful thing that God is on our side, and wants us to be in heaven, and will get us there if we don't resist Him.

I think overcoming evil with good entails that one has the capacity to differentiate evil from good.  If those whom I consider as having not yet reached the age of accountability can differentiate evil from good, then I have nothing against their need to overcome evil with good.

What I am somewhat puzzled with is the idea that if one will be happy in heaven then God will take him there. There are those who steal food to survive.  I think these people would be happy if given a place where food is abundant and free.  And heaven is such a place, but I guess no thief will be there.