The truest form of repentance is to turn from unbelief to belief in Jesus. Why is this? Because at the moment we believe we have turned from our evil ways to the way of God. In fact, I submit that there is no greater way to turn from our evil ways than to believe on Jesus.
Therefore it seems to me that in Adino's view that true repentance is definetely taking place.
that isnt what he said. his point is remission is at the cross.
not a thing in the world about any repsonse.
I am supposed to see this is implied?
Sorry jfrog. adino's comments are what they are. Jesus did it all and I have no responsiblity.
the cross by itself is just a bit of wood with a dead guy on it. One has to respond in some meaningful way for that cross to be the place where the Lamb was slain.
We can debate what that meaningful response is but dont tell me that the cross remitted my sin sans any application to my life.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Correct. True repentance takes place when the repenting heart turns back to God through faith in Jesus Christ. The heart's conversion to Christ takes place in repentance.
John the Baptist called for repentance. He called for a turning back to God. The Christian message is to do so through the acceptance of the testimony God gives of His Son. We turn to God in repentance through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the only door through which man can return to God in repentance.
Though forgiven on the Cross, man is justified before God only when he accepts the testimony God gives us of Christ (1John 5:10-13). Only then does man pass from death into life.
With all do respect Adino, this post here in no way reflects the fist post in this thread.
your opening salvo is a false attack that undoes your own theology as much as anyone who believes that Baptism appropreates remission.
there MUST be personal application of the blood sacrifice. there is plenty of room to debate what form that application takes. But without personal application, there is NO personal remission of sins.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
That helps me understand why Jesus would heal someone physically, even while telling them that their sins were forgiven.
The ministry of healing that Jesus conducted during that brief three and a half year period of time is remarkably different than the ministry of any other human being in history. I think we've seen the primary component identified here: Jesus could forgive sins.
Many have argued, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever..." (Hebrews 13:8). Yes, that's true. But we are not the same person as Jesus Christ. I am well aware of the many passages that can be taken to mean things like John 14:12; but I have yet to see any of the enthusiastic advocates of this line of thinking actually do any work that is even comparable to the least of the works of Jesus Christ, let alone "greater." I think that we may be missing something important in our understanding of John 14:12 as a result.
It occurs to me that some may want to add that Jesus said to his disciples, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:23). However, I don't think this passage involved the idea of the disciples actually forgiving sins in lieu of the Lord's own forgiveness as some practice the confessional.
I believe that there is healing provided for in the atonement. However, I think that we must expend a bit more patience while we await that great and final work of healing (Revelation 22:2).
The ministry of healing that Jesus conducted during that brief three and a half year period of time is remarkably different than the ministry of any other human being in history. I think we've seen the primary component identified here: Jesus could forgive sins.
Many have argued, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever..." (Hebrews 13:8). Yes, that's true. But we are not the same person as Jesus Christ. I am well aware of the many passages that can be taken to mean things like John 14:12; but I have yet to see any of the enthusiastic advocates of this line of thinking actually do any work that is even comparable to the least of the works of Jesus Christ, let alone "greater." I think that we may be missing something important in our understanding of John 14:12 as a result.
It occurs to me that some may want to add that Jesus said to his disciples, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:23). However, I don't think this passage involved the idea of the disciples actually forgiving sins in lieu of the Lord's own forgiveness as some practice the confessional.
I believe that there is healing provided for in the atonement. However, I think that we must expend a bit more patience while we await that great and final work of healing (Revelation 22:2).
What was the purpose/need? Why was bloodshed needed, God's Son needed for us to experience physical healing in this life?
With all do respect Adino, this post here in no way reflects the fist post in this thread.
Sure it does. I consistently accept that we were forgiven on the Cross. Whether we 'appropriate' that forgiveness or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that we were forgiven on the Cross 2000 years ago. The Cross forever changed the way God looks at mankind. The Gospel message of this historic change is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).
Does this mean all mankind is saved? It does not. Why? Because salvation is not being forgiven. Salvation is being brought from spiritual death into spiritual life. God forgave us so that He might save us by giving us His life. Having been reconciled by His death, we are saved by His life (Romans 5:10). The forgiveness of the Cross made salvation possible. Only those who accept the testimony God gave of his son are given life. He that believes has life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26).
Quote:
your opening salvo is a false attack that undoes your own theology as much as anyone who believes that Baptism appropreates remission.
I disagree.
Quote:
there MUST be personal application of the blood sacrifice. there is plenty of room to debate what form that application takes. But without personal application, there is NO personal remission of sins.
Whether we 'experience' personal remission of sins or not has absolutely no bearing on the fact that God forgave them on Calvary. For which sins paid for by Christ are we yet condemned?
I believe those who convert to God through faith in Christ have their own conscience of sin purged at the moment they place their trust in the historic remission of the Cross. Though OUR conscience of sin is purged presently when we believe, GOD'S 'conscience of our sin' was 'purged' on the Cross 2000 years ago. We are condemned for rejecting Christ, not for sins forgiven long ago at Calvary.
My point has been consistent.
If you believe sins reckoned to Christ on the Cross are still reckoned to us, then there is still need for another sacrifice. If, on the other hand, our sins were, indeed, imputed to Christ on the Cross, then they HAD TO BE forgiven by God in order for Christ to be raised from the dead. Christ would not have been raised from the dead IF he had not first been freed from all sin imputed to him. The resurrection is PROOF of an effected forgiveness/remission which took place historically on the Cross.
Having been reconciled in the eyes of God by the Cross, we can now hear the good news of this historic reconciliation, accept it by faith and pass into life with the personal assurance that all our sin was sufficiently dealt with at Calvary (Romans 5:10).
Then again, if you do not believe our sin was sufficiently dealt with on the Cross you might want to try to get rid of them yourself by getting baptized
Lots of words Adino, but you lost me at "sure it does"
You did NOT state in the first post anything about repentance. Here is your quote (before taking a false jab at those who believe in remission at baptism)
Given that all our sin was reckoned to Christ.
Given that all sin reckoned to Christ was remitted prior to the resurrection, else he would not have been raised from the dead.
Not one word about repentance. You either believe that everyone is saved no matter what they do or believe (all sin remitted at the cross), or you believe that the individual must appropriate that remission by some act.
If the former you aren’t even a good Methodist. If the later, you just posted something you don’t even believe for the purpose of attacking people you don’t like.
Either way you are about as off base as you can get.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Lots of words Adino, but you lost me at "sure it does"
You did NOT state in the first post anything about repentance. Here is your quote (before taking a false jab at those who believe in remission at baptism)
Given that all our sin was reckoned to Christ.
Given that all sin reckoned to Christ was remitted prior to the resurrection, else he would not have been raised from the dead.
Not one word about repentance. You either believe that everyone is saved no matter what they do or believe (all sin remitted at the cross), or you believe that the individual must appropriate that remission by some act.
If the former you aren’t even a good Methodist. If the later, you just posted something you don’t even believe for the purpose of attacking people you don’t like.
Either way you are about as off base as you can get.
False jab? Did I miss something?
How does a statement about sin being remitted on the cross mean all are saved? We should all believe God's work for us is done! Finished! The way to be "In Christ" and a part of that is by Grace through faith. But even believing is a gift from God (Eph 2), so talk about Good News!
The Father accepted the offering of Christ's death, evidenced by the Resurrection. The Good News is that Christ did it for us. He didn't start a new covenant, negotiating sides again. If we are ever in a position where God is obligated to "pay us back" or owes us because we "fulfilled our side" -- that's not the Gospel. Christ came and negotiated both sides of the covenant! That's the Good News! He did it! His good work pleased God for us.
We accept that by grace through faith.
He saves us, he continues to save us, and one day we will be saved.
Your point is that unless you believe like Adino you arent very bright. THAT is your point.
the problem is your brightness has blinded you. Who in their right mind disagrees that the price was paid by Jesus at the cross?
No Preacher in pentecost who believes the Acts 2:38 message disagres with that.
your OP is a strawman designed to make you feel smart. epic fail.
the issue is and has always been was does the individual appropreate remission?
I haven't heard Adino's tone sound anything close to that. All I hear is a normal Ferd rant
We can believe something without believing it. Try that one on for size. I say all the time that God is in control. But sometimes I don't act like I believe that. God keeps saving me from my sin of unbelief. So by saying "Jesus paid it all" -- whatever do we mean? And do we believe that?
What was settled at the Cross? The word "appropriate" is a peculiar one, but necessary when discussing theology that is intangible. We are justified by grace through faith. That's the consistent NT message.
So typical... Christ event was about one thing... releasing us from a covenant of righteousness by giving himself on the cross. It is marriage law. Husband must die to release the bride or vice versa. He gave himself so he could offer her something better. A new creation and covenant. The law has no authority to accuse as it is dead. That doesn't mean sin cannot accuse as knowledge of righteousness to do and not do is sin. If we abide in him(turned to him/faith) we respond and he cleanses us from sin in the new covenant. If we cast him off by not doing his commandments we are transgressors and convicted by law and we must repent.
Did I miss something? 
Linear Mode
