Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life

[pnattmbtc]

Not just blood per se, but shedding of blood (death). Iam offering you Jesus' explanation:

^ESV Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

^KJV John 10:10-11   ¹⁰ . . . I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.  ¹¹ I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep

He gave His Life that we might have life. By His stripes we were healed. Isa 53:5; 1 Pet 2:24

I certainly agree that He gave us life that we might have life, and also agree that Christ's shedding His blood means that He gave His life for us (which looks to me like what you are saying).  How does this tie into forgiveness?  We are in agreement that Jesus' blood is necessary for the forgivenss of sins, and I wrote out an explanation as to why I think this is, but I don't know why you think it was necessary for Jesus to shed His blood for us to be forgiven.

Here's a statement from the Spirit of Prophecy on the subject:

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762, 763)

I'm including this not as proof, but because of its eloquence.  I agree with the points made here, that man did not know the height and depth of the love of God, so God gave His Son that we might know these things, and be "drawn back to God" (<-- referring to 1 Peter 3:18).

[Samie]

I certainly agree that He gave us life that we might have life, and also agree that Christ's shedding His blood means that He gave His life for us (which looks to me like what you are saying).  How does this tie into forgiveness?

Jesus Himself "tied" His death to forgiveness.

^ESV Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

We are in agreement that Jesus' blood is necessary for the forgivenss of sins, and I wrote out an explanation as to why I think this is, but I don't know why you think it was necessary for Jesus to shed His blood for us to be forgiven.

I have told you why I think it was necessary for Jesus to shed His blood (to die) for us to be forgiven. Again, I think it was necessary because Scriptures say so: "without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness".

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus Himself "tied" His death to forgiveness.

^ESV Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

I have told you why I think it was necessary for Jesus to shed His blood (to die) for us to be forgiven. Again, I think it was necessary because Scriptures say so: "without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness".

Summarizing to this point:

1.I believe that Jesus gave His life for us in order to be forgiven, and the reasons for this have to do with us, not God, for reasons I specified.

2.You believe that Jesus gave His life in order for forgiveness to exist, although you have no idea why, except that you believe this because that's what you understand the Scriptures to say.

Given there are two parties involved in forgiveness, which you agree with, then the statement that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins" could be taken as having to do with either party.  Do you agree with this?  There are many people who read this text the same way I do, by the way, so read the text this way is at least grammatically feasible.  I don't understanding why you are choosing to read "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" to mean "without the shedding of blood, forgiveness cannot be created" (I'm not trying to put words into your mouth; this is how I'm understanding what you've been saying), as opposed to something like "without the shedding of blood, forgiveness cannot take place", and the reason that forgiveness could not take place could have to do with a lack on the part of the party to be forgiven to be able to respond to the proffered forgiveness.

This seems to be a reasonable reading of the text, and there is evidence to support it.  For example, there is 1 Peter 3:18, which expresses the thought that Jesus died to bring us to God.  Secondly, there is the fact that Jesus forgave the paralytic, and He had not yet died, so reading the text the way you do, I don't see how that could have happened. 

[Samie]

Summarizing to this point:

1.I believe that Jesus gave His life for us in order to be forgiven, and the reasons for this have to do with us, not God, for reasons I specified.

2.You believe that Jesus gave His life in order for forgiveness to exist, although you have no idea why, except that you believe this because that's what you understand the Scriptures to say.

Given there are two parties involved in forgiveness, which you agree with, then the statement that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins" could be taken as having to do with either party.  Do you agree with this?  There are many people who read this text the same way I do, by the way, so read the text this way is at least grammatically feasible.  I don't understanding why you are choosing to read "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" to mean "without the shedding of blood, forgiveness cannot be created" (I'm not trying to put words into your mouth; this is how I'm understanding what you've been saying), as opposed to something like "without the shedding of blood, forgiveness cannot take place", and the reason that forgiveness could not take place could have to do with a lack on the part of the party to be forgiven to be able to respond to the proffered forgiveness.

This seems to be a reasonable reading of the text, and there is evidence to support it.  For example, there is 1 Peter 3:18, which expresses the thought that Jesus died to bring us to God.  Secondly, there is the fact that Jesus forgave the paralytic, and He had not yet died, so reading the text the way you do, I don't see how that could have happened. 

I think it's quite simple. Forgiveness is God's act, not man's. God can carry out His will without consulting us. He did not consult us when He gave us His Son - the Supreme Sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

I don't think "the reason that forgiveness could not take place could have to do with a lack on the part of the party to be forgiven to be able to respond to the proffered forgiveness" is Biblically tenable.

Christ's bringing us to God does not in any way depend on our acceptance to be brought to God. When He attached us to His Body on the cross, He did not ask us first whether we consent to be attached or not.  And Scriptures tell us that that attaching to His Body is for us to be reconciled to God (see Eph 2:11-19). There is no record in Scriptures the paralytic consented to be forgiven first, and only then forgiveness was granted. 

Forgiveness can be granted PRIOR to Jesus' death.  That's why I had been pointing out forgiveness was contingent upon the death of the Lamb of God for without His shed blood there is no forgiveness, both before and after the cross.

[pnattmbtc]

I think it's quite simple. Forgiveness is God's act, not man's. God can carry out His will without consulting us. He did not consult us when He gave us His Son - the Supreme Sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

I don't think "the reason that forgiveness could not take place could have to do with a lack on the part of the party to be forgiven to be able to respond to the proffered forgiveness" is Biblically tenable.

Christ's bringing us to God does not in any way depend on our acceptance to be brought to God. When He attached us to His Body on the cross, He did not ask us first whether we consent to be attached or not.  And Scriptures tell us that that attaching to His Body is for us to be reconciled to God (see Eph 2:11-19). There is no record in Scriptures the paralytic consented to be forgiven first, and only then forgiveness was granted. 

Forgiveness can be granted PRIOR to Jesus' death.  That's why I had been pointing out forgiveness was contingent upon the death of the Lamb of God for without His shed blood there is no forgiveness, both before and after the cross.

I think you are misunderstanding forgiveness.  

Let's say one party in a marriage commits adultery, but has no attitude of repentance.  The innocent party decides to forgive the guilty party.Has the offended party been forgiven?

One could argue both ways.  One could say yes, because the innocent party decided to extend forgiveness to the guilty party.  But does this fix the problem?  No, for how can there be reconciliation before the guilty part recognizes the need for repentance?  Only if the guilty party repents can the extended forgiveness be accepted, and the guilty party is forgiven.  You cannot have forgiveness without repentance.  Every example in Scripture is like this.  Anytime you see someone being forgiven of their sins, there is repentance involved.  (And this is why the shedding of blood, in order to bring about repentance).

Here's another example.  Say you did something to wrong me (last time it was me, so not it's your time).  And let's say it's because you thought I did something wrong, but I didn't; you were mistaken.  So you have been holding a grudge against me, but for no reason, and treating me badly.  I find out about this, and decide to forgive you, and hold no grudge against you, but you continue being angry at me.  So I do what I can to convince you that I did not do the bad thing you thought I did, and eventually you come around and see that you were wrong, and ask to be forgiven.  Only at that point can our relationship be restored.

The innocent party can have an attitude of forgiveness, and be willing to forgive, but there must be repentance on the part of the guilty party, or the guilty party will not even ask to be forgiven.

In every case in Scripture when we see forgiveness we see the guilty sinner repenting, asking to be forgiven, and God forgives.

1 John 1 tells us if we confess our sins that God will forgive us and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.  Why the condition to confess?  Because there must be repentance in order for forgiveness to take place.

From the Desire of Ages:

In the healing of the paralytic at Capernaum, Christ again taught the same truth. It was to manifest His power to forgive sins that the miracle was performed. And the healing of the paralytic also illustrates other precious truths. It is full of hope and encouragement, and from its connection with the caviling Pharisees it has a lesson of warning as well.

Like the leper, this paralytic had lost all hope of recovery. His disease was the result of a life of sin, and his sufferings were embittered by remorse. He had long before appealed to the Pharisees and doctors, hoping for relief from mental suffering and physical pain. But they coldly pronounced him incurable, and abandoned him to the wrath of God. The Pharisees regarded affliction as an evidence of divine displeasure, and they held themselves aloof from the sick and the needy. Yet often these very ones who exalted themselves as holy were more guilty than the sufferers they condemned.

The palsied man was entirely helpless, and, seeing no prospect of aid from any quarter, he had sunk into despair. Then he heard of the wonderful works of Jesus. He was told that others as sinful and helpless as he had been healed; even lepers had been cleansed. And the friends who reported these things encouraged him to believe that he too might be cured if he could be carried to Jesus. But his hope fell when he remembered how the disease had been brought upon him. He feared that the pure Physician would not tolerate him in His presence.

Yet it was not physical restoration he desired so much as relief from the burden of sin. If he could see Jesus, and receive the assurance of forgiveness and peace with Heaven, he would be content to live or die, according to God's will. The cry of the dying man was, Oh that I might come into His presence! There was no time to lose; already his wasted flesh was showing signs of decay. He besought his friends to carry him on his bed to Jesus, and this they gladly undertook to do. But so dense was the crowd that had assembled in and about the house where the Saviour was, that it was impossible for the sick man and his friends to reach Him, or even to come within hearing of His voice. (DA 267)

I'm not offering this as proof, but this seems like a reasonable reading of the text to me.

And there are certainly many cases in Scripture of people asking to be forgiven and being forgiven.  You agree with this, don't you?  The publican, and David, are two which come to mind.  Why would they ask to be forgiven?  Why the necessity to confess?

All of this is easy to understand if we recognize that there is a relationship involved.  As Peter puts it, Jesus gave His life to bring us to God.  Reconciliation is always in this direction; from us to God.  God doesn't need to be reconciled to us, because He so loved us He gave His Son.  We need to be reconciled to Him, and it's the goodness of God which leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). 

[Samie]

It appears to me that the forgiveness you speak of is different from the forgiveness Scriptures talk about. Your brand of forgiveness requires the offending party to ask for it first, while that of Scriptures is a reality whether asked for or not. The reality of your brand of forgiveness is dependent on the attitude of the offending party, while that of Scriptures is dependent upon the offended Party - God, and under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins NO MORE.  So what sin is there to forgive when none is remembered?

And this is precisely one of the reasons why this thread is started in the first place. To have one's name in the Book of Life means one is heaven-bound, the person is on salvation side.  This means all sins forgiven, otherwise, if there is but one single unforgiven sin at any moment in time, then the person is automatically separated from God for sin separates people from God thereby rendering him spiritually dead and his name automatically deleted from the Book of Life, the registry of those who are spiritually alive because God is the God of the living - those who are spiritually alive.

 

[pnattmbtc]

It appears to me that the forgiveness you speak of is different from the forgiveness Scriptures talk about. Your brand of forgiveness requires the offending party to ask for it first, while that of Scriptures is a reality whether asked for or not. The reality of your brand of forgiveness is dependent on the attitude of the offending party, while that of Scriptures is dependent upon the offended Party - God, and under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins NO MORE.  So what sin is there to forgive when none is remembered?

And this is precisely one of the reasons why this thread is started in the first place. To have one's name in the Book of Life means one is heaven-bound, the person is on salvation side.  This means all sins forgiven, otherwise, if there is but one single unforgiven sin at any moment in time, then the person is automatically separated from God for sin separates people from God thereby rendering him spiritually dead and his name automatically deleted from the Book of Life, the registry of those who are spiritually alive because God is the God of the living - those who are spiritually alive.

 

One is from the point of view of the offended party.  Regading this aspect, what you are writing is correct.  However, there is also the other aspect of forgivness, which involved the offending party, and there are so many example of this in Scipture, I find it rather amazing that you think I'm speaking of a type of forgiveness which is not found in Scripture, of which I mentioned two, David and the publican, both of whom asked for forgiveness and were forgiven.

Also John tells us that if we will confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgives our sins and to cleans us from all unrighteousness.

To conclude, I agree with what you are affirming, in regards to forgiveness from God's side (it's unilateral and includes all), but I disagree with what you are denying, which is that there is no forgiveness which involves actions on our part.  Really, there is so much Scripture which speaks of this, I don't know how you can not consider all these texts which deal with forgiveness.  Indeed, there are far more texts which speak of individual forgiveness than corporate forgiveness, and individual forgieness is predicated upon repentance.

[Samie]

 

One is from the point of view of the offended party.  Regading this aspect, what you are writing is correct.  However, there is also the other aspect of forgivness, which involved the offending party, and there are so many example of this in Scipture, I find it rather amazing that you think I'm speaking of a type of forgiveness which is not found in Scripture, of which I mentioned two, David and the publican, both of whom asked for forgiveness and were forgiven.

Also John tells us that if we will confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgives our sins and to cleans us from all unrighteousness.

To conclude, I agree with what you are affirming, in regards to forgiveness from God's side (it's unilateral and includes all), but I disagree with what you are denying, which is that there is no forgiveness which involves actions on our part.  Really, there is so much Scripture which speaks of this, I don't know how you can not consider all these texts which deal with forgiveness.  Indeed, there are far more texts which speak of individual forgiveness than corporate forgiveness, and individual forgieness is predicated upon repentance.

The forgiveness you are referring to in Scriptures (of David and the publican) are pre-cross incidents. The New Covenant ratified by the death of the Lamb is for the benefit of all, both pre-cross and post-cross.  This to me means that forgiveness before the cross was contingent upon the death of the Lamb. 

I am not against confession.  But it is not, for me, a requisite for being forgiven, because under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins no more.  So again, what sin is there for God to forgive, when God remembers none?

[phkrause]

I am not against confession.

Confession to whom??

[phkrause]

 So again, what sin is there for God to forgive, when God remembers none?

Sins that are not confessed before God!!

[Samie]

So again, what sin is there for God to forgive, when God remembers none?

Sins that are not confessed before God!!

Do the New Covenant terms mention confession?

^KJV Hebrews 10:16-17   ¹⁶ This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;  ¹⁷ And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: The forgiveness you are referring to in Scriptures (of David and the publican) are pre-cross incidents.

Why would you think this makes a difference? Did the way to salvation change at some point once sin entered?  Paul used Abraham as an example, and quoted David as a part of his argument, so please explain to me what point you are wanting to make here.  The point I was making was that David repented of his sin, asked for forgiveness, and was forgiven.  Do you see this as no long happening?

[pnattmbtc]

The forgiveness you are referring to in Scriptures (of David and the publican) are pre-cross incidents. The New Covenant ratified by the death of the Lamb is for the benefit of all, both pre-cross and post-cross.  This to me means that forgiveness before the cross was contingent upon the death of the Lamb. 

I am not against confession.  But it is not, for me, a requisite for being forgiven, because under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins no more.  So again, what sin is there for God to forgive, when God remembers none?

Well, this is exactly my point, that you have a wrong conept of forgiveness, one which doesn't involve us.  But the Scriptures says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  I think this shows your concept is wrong, and mine is right :).  Seriously, if we view forgiveness as having to do with a restored relationship, which I've been saying, this entire verse makes perfect sense.  In order to be restored to a right relationship with God, we need to change our mind (repentance), confess our sins (a recognition of our changed mind, and of our desire that our relationship with God we restored - i.e. reconciliation), and God does His part, which is to restore our relationship.

It's really a very simple concept, just like in real life.  If you wrong me, have been mad at me wrongly, and our relationship has been affected, and you desire that it be restored, what do you do?  You tell me that you are sorry, ask that I forgive you, and assuming I do, then we become buddies again.

In the case of God, the willingness to forgive has always been there, from the foundation of the world, and God has done all He can to bring us to a state of repentance, so that we can be forgiven.  If we fall away, we can be reinstated, simply by asking for mercy, confessing our wrongdoing, and desiring that our reltionship be restored, which is reconciliation.

In general, I seen an issue of your interpreting things as having to do with time, rather than causation.  To be clear what I mean, I'll give the example of the New Covenant.  You appear to understand the New Covenant as something which happened at a certain point of time, such as when Christ died.  However, the New Covenant is the writing of the law in the heart, which happened before Christ died, as Isaiah 51:7 points out.  Also Abraham, and other believes before Christ, were actually righteous, not just provisionally, but in reality, and the law was written in their hearts too, so they were under the New Covenant as well, which is, after all, simply another name for the covenant God mad with Abraham, called the "Everlasting Covenant" in Scripture, and often referred to when discussing technology as "the Abrahamic Covenant".

So why does God speak of a "new covenant" which will happen "in those days", pointing to the future?  Because the people whom he was addressing, the "house of Israel", had not, as a whole, entered into this Covenant, although there were individuals who had, and these are precisely those who believed in Christ as their personal Savior.

The same principle applies to forgiveness, which is that God did not start forgiving at a certain time, like when Christ died, but God has always forgiven sin, and always in the same way.  Anytime any person at any time followed the principles laid out by 1 John 1:9, God has forgiven them.  And David, in Romans 4 (quoting from Psalm 51) is another example of this, as is the publican.  There is absolutely no difference in the process of forgiveness in regards either to what God did, or the one who needed forgiveness, either before or after the cross.  Nothing changed in the process.  What did change was the revelation of God through Jesus Christ, which is what the Good News is all about.  For example:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son. (Heb. 1:1,2)

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)

So the idea is not that grace, for example, didn't exist before Christ, or that God changed His way of dealing with people, after Christ through grace when before it wasn't, but that Jesus Christ *revealed* the character of God, including His graciousness, or grace.

So, to summarize, through Christ, the truth about God has been revealed, but God Himself did not change in any way, neither in His character, nor how He acted towards those who repented and asked for mercy, either before or after the cross. 

[Samie]

Where did the Publican confess his sins?

Well, this is exactly my point, that you have a wrong conept of forgiveness, one which doesn't involve us.  But the Scriptures says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  I think this shows your concept is wrong, and mine is right :).  Seriously, if we view forgiveness as having to do with a restored relationship, which I've been saying, this entire verse makes perfect sense.  In order to be restored to a right relationship with God, we need to change our mind (repentance), confess our sins (a recognition of our changed mind, and of our desire that our relationship with God we restored - i.e. reconciliation), and God does His part, which is to restore our relationship.

Where, in David's and the publican's cases, is the confession of the specific sin(s) they want forgiven? And you never addressed the issue that under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins NO MORE. Again, what sin is there to forgive when God remembers none? Answer this please.

[pnattmbtc]

Where did the Publican confess his sins?

Where, in David's and the publican's cases, is the confession of the specific sin(s) they want forgiven? And you never addressed the issue that under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins NO MORE. Again, what sin is there to forgive when God remembers none? Answer this please.

We know what David's sins were.  We don't know what the publican's sins were.  They knew what they were.  Why does that matter to us?

Regarding the New Covenant question, I covered this in detail.  Please read my post again, starting from the paragraph "In general, I seen an issue of your interpreting things as having to do with time, rather than causation," and let me know if you have any questions.

[Samie]

We know what David's sins were.  We don't know what the publican's sins were.  They knew what they were.  Why does that matter to us?

It matters because you were placing confession as requisite for forgiveness. Again, where, in David's and the publican's cases, is the confession of the specific sin(s) they want forgiven?

 

Regarding the New Covenant question, I covered this in detail.  Please read my post again, starting from the paragraph "In general, I seen an issue of your interpreting things as having to do with time, rather than causation," and let me know if you have any questions.

You seem to have covered what I did not ask. Here's my question again:

. . . you never addressed the issue that under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins NO MORE. Again, what sin is there to forgive when God remembers none? Answer this please.

[pnattmbtc]

It matters because you were placing confession as requisite for forgiveness. Again, where, in David's and the publican's cases, is the confession of the specific sin(s) they want forgiven?

 

You seem to have covered what I did not ask. Here's my question again:

 

I didn't place confession as a requisite for forgiveness; John stated this.  1 John 1:9

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I don't understand why you think Psalm 51 or the publican's being forgiven has any impact on 1 John 1:9.

  you never addressed the issue that under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins NO MORE. Again, what sin is there to forgive when God remembers none? Answer this please.

As I stated, I covered this in detail.  I told you where to look.  I asked you to ask questions if you have any.  You're asking me to retype what I already typed.  Please read what I typed and ask any questions you have about it.  The general point is that you have the idea that the New Covenant is something which happened at a certain point in time, like at the cross, but this is a flawed idea, for the reasons I pointed out in the post I referred you to.  Again, please read the points and respond to them, or ask questions.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, I thought of another explanation regarding your New Covenant question.

The only way anyone can be saved is by faith in Christ, which is what the New Covenant is.  Therefore any saved person in Old Testament times was under the New Covenant.  So when it says that God would remember their sins no more, He was already not remembering their sins. Actually, God doesn't impute anyone's sin against them anyway, right?  That's what 2 Cor. 5 tells us.  Otherwise the person would be dead.

In regards to how one is saved, there is no difference in the Old or New Testament.  It works like this:

1.The Holy Spirit convicts the person of sin, and of their need for Christ.

2.The convicted person repents, confesses his sin (as led by the Holy Spirit), and believes in Christ.

That's it!  This is what Abraham did, who Paul uses as the poster child of righteousness by faith.  All who do this, regardless of when they live, are under the New Covenant, or born again, or saved, or justified by faith, or converted, or have everlasting life; these are all synonyms.

[Samie]

Samie, I thought of another explanation regarding your New Covenant question.

The only way anyone can be saved is by faith in Christ, which is what the New Covenant is.  Therefore any saved person in Old Testament times was under the New Covenant.  So when it says that God would remember their sins no more, He was already not remembering their sins. Actually, God doesn't impute anyone's sin against them anyway, right?  That's what 2 Cor. 5 tells us.  Otherwise the person would be dead.

In regards to how one is saved, there is no difference in the Old or New Testament.  It works like this:

1.The Holy Spirit convicts the person of sin, and of their need for Christ.

2.The convicted person repents, confesses his sin (as led by the Holy Spirit), and believes in Christ.

That's it!  This is what Abraham did, who Paul uses as the poster child of righteousness by faith.  All who do this, regardless of when they live, are under the New Covenant, or born again, or saved, or justified by faith, or converted, or have everlasting life; these are all synonyms.

You're almost inside the fence where I am. But please directly address my question:

. . . under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins no more.  So again, what sin is there for God to forgive, when God remembers none?

[pnattmbtc]

under the New Covenant, God remembers our sins no more.  So again, what sin is there for God to forgive, when God remembers none?

From God's standpoint, there has never been a need for forgiveness, as God is forgiveness personified, of which the cross is a sign.  From man's perspective, the sin which needs to be forgiven is sin which the Holy Spirit brings to mind, when leading the one who needs forgiveness to repentance.  When the person repents, confesses his sin, and asks for forgiveness, believing in Christ as his personal savior, he is forgiven and cleansed of all unrigtheousness, which = God's remembering the sin no more.

[8thdaypriest]

The Spirit IS God.  "God is Spirit."  John Cpt 4

The Spirit convicts individuals of their specific sins. 

Therefore God "remembers" those sins.    If HE didn't "remember" any of those sins, how could HE convict of (tell individuals to confess and ask forgiveness for) those specific sins? 

[pnattmbtc]

When we use the phrase "God remembers the sin no more", what does this mean?  Obviously it doesn't refer to a loss of memory.

Consider if two people have a problem, where one wronge the others, and comes to realize it, and asks forgiveness of the other party.  The other party forgives, and says something like, "Forget about it.  It never happened."

The idea expressed is one of reconciliation, which is the same point that is being conveyed by "God remembers the sin no more."

[stinsonmarri]

The Book of Life is the Book taken out of THE HAND of THE FATHER. It is the Book that is the final sealing process. If we really understood Rev 6 you would understand that the horses was the condition of the earth and there were only four. The rider was man those sealed were people from all ages. First rider's were both Adam and Eve when the earth was pure the rest are sealed during each period of time. Fifth through the Seventh seal are first those who had given up their lives during the persecution of the Catholic church who are found under the altar. The sixth seal are all the souls save through the truth of this message and kept it to the best of their knowledge. Then those who are the 144,000 sealed the the great multitude during the Time of Trouble. Many of us will be removed out of the Book of Life. Children are not borne and placed in the Book of Life, the Bible does not state that at all. Another fable deception from the Catholic Church!

Blessings!

[Samie]

From God's standpoint, there has never been a need for forgiveness, as God is forgiveness personified, of which the cross is a sign.  From man's perspective, the sin which needs to be forgiven is sin which the Holy Spirit brings to mind, when leading the one who needs forgiveness to repentance.  When the person repents, confesses his sin, and asks for forgiveness, believing in Christ as his personal savior, he is forgiven and cleansed of all unrigtheousness, which = God's remembering the sin no more.

So, until forgiven, God remembers the sin? I doubt. All sins were forgiven on the cross, so Scriptures say. And it takes faith, the faith of the Son of God, to believe it.

[pnattmbtc]

So, until forgiven, God remembers the sin? I doubt. All sins were forgiven on the cross, so Scriptures say. And it takes faith, the faith of the Son of God, to believe it.

No.  First of all, the Scriptures do not teach that sins were forgiven on the cross.  If that were the case, then Abraham could not have been justified by faith, which would contradict all of Paul.

Also, regarding God's remembering sin, "remembering" should not be thought of in the sense of memory, but of regarding it.  The point is that once we are forgiven, God regards it no more.  And the point in the first place didn't have to go with God, but with the one who committed sin.  The point is, the person who sinned has estranged himself from God, the Holy Spirit reveals the person's condition, the person repents, harmony is restored with God, and God, on His point, will regard the sin no more, as in the example I gave in the previous post.  Vital to understand what's going on is the recognition that the problem is all on man's side.  God has not been imputing sin against anyone (or they would die).