Jesus could and did forgive sins before the cross. What changed after the cross?

[Clare73]

I take it that after all your noise (arguing), you are actually in agreement with the word of God in the "proof" verses of my post #37. . .

No I don't agree. Have you sinned since your conversion? If you have and you believe your own argument you are not saved.

Perhaps you can get someone to explain those Scriptures to you.

 

[Lost4words]

Jesus sent out His Apostles to forgive sin in His name. This is carried on today via the priesthood...

 

[Mark Quayle]

All you did was quote the passages you referenced - which is a minor improvement. You still do not explain how the passages fit together to support your assertion. You do not do what you demand from your opponents, which is to prove from scripture. How about responding to Bling's arguments in Post 29?

If believers are dead to sin, they will never sin. Do you know anyone who has not sinned after conversion? Or claim to not sin for an extended period like a year?

Romans 6:11 says believers must consider themselves dead to sin. That and the scriptures you reference are key to avoiding sin. God will not make anyone do that 24/7. And since we have lapses, sin is not totally extinguished.

Paul had to expend effort to keep his flesh from dominating him (1 Corinthians 9:27). Sinlessness is not automatic.

Clare73 said:
I take it you are agreeing with my post #37. . .

No I don't agree. Have you sinned since your conversion? If you have and you believe your own argument you are not saved. Why is 1 John 1:9-10 in the Bible? Are you going to spiritualize your sin by telling me your flesh sinned, but the real you (i.e. your spirit) did not? I heard that long ago from a good friend trying to convert me to Calvinism in my teens.

Those scriptures you quote are largely strategies for avoiding sin. If you don't practice them 24/7 (i.e, consider yourself dead to sin), you will sin. I don't know anyone who has not sinned since conversion. Prove me wrong - testify! Open it up to your Amen choir!

Clare's "Amen choir", here. And thanks for the opportunity to be included in what wasn't my, nor yours, argument.

Clare's post #37 was Scripture references and quotes. If you don't agree, there's a problem.

What makes you think she thinks anyone is going to be sinless in this temporal life? You know that isn't what she is saying. Her argument is rather obviously not that believers are automatically sinless. There is no need for her to make that point and to begin to hem and haw over the verses that support her point. She doesn't equivocate. Nor does she —what's the word?— 'narrate' a point of view, like even I do, and Bling and you do, with occasional (or many) references that need explained as to how they support that narrative.

You and others claim she and I and some others on here have to re-interpret scripture wrongly in order to support our theses, and now, when the plain reading makes her point for her, you're upset she doesn't show the interpretation!

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus sent out His Apostles to forgive sin in His name. This is carried on today via the priesthood...

Indeed, this is a very good answer as it treats upon an aspect of soteriology hitherto glossed over, that being the importance of the holy Sacraments.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus didn't suffer and die in order that God could forgive sin. God is God and He could always forgive sin.

The Cross is not a pathway that lets God forgive. The Cross is God's forgiveness of sin. All sin. Here is God's declaration of forgiveness, Christ died for you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

Jesus didn't suffer and die in order that God could forgive sin. God is God and He could always forgive sin.

The Cross is not a pathway that lets God forgive. The Cross is God's forgiveness of sin. All sin. Here is God's declaration of forgiveness, Christ died for you.

-CryptoLutheran

"Forgiveness" is an accounting term, meaning "cancellation of debt."

The cross is God's cancellation of debt by payment of it, which Jesus and the NT present as cancellation only of
those who believe in and trust on the person (Jn 3:18, 36) and atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ.

 

[The Liturgist]

"Forgiveness" is an accounting term, meaning "cancellation of debt."

The cross is God's cancellation of debt, which Jesus and the NT present as cancellation only of
those who believe in and trust on the person (Jn 3:18, 36) and atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ.

How does that differ from what @ViaCrucis said?

 

[Clare73]

How does that differ from what @ViaCrucis said?

In accounting "forgiveness" is cancellation of a debt, by payment or otherwise.

But it is not cancellation until it is cancelled on the books.
Don't enter the payment on (apply the payment to) the books, and the debt is not cancelled, the books still show you owing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus didn't suffer and die in order that God could forgive sin. God is God and He could always forgive sin.

It's not a question of whether he could or not. It's a question of whether he would. God is just, and justice demands punishment for the transgression, payment for the debt.

 

[concretecamper]

It was done in anticipation of the cross, just as the sins of the OT saints were also forgiven in anticipation of the cross (Ro 3:25-26).

Just as the merits of His sacrifice on the cross were applied to Mary. I'm glad you see how it works.

 

[Clare73]

Just as the merits of His sacrifice on the cross were applied to Mary. I'm glad you see how it works.

They were applied to all the OT saints (Ro 3:25), in anticipation of the cross.

 

[John Mullally]

Perhaps you can get someone to explain those Scriptures to you.

I have no problem understanding scriptures. Perhaps you can be civil, avoid the ad-hominem, and treat others the way you want to be treated. You commonly make assertions and attach a laundry list of scriptures without explaining how the referenced scripture fits into your argument. You seem to think that adding a laundry list of scriptures gives your argument credence. Then when someone asks for an explanation, you demand they explain their position while referencing your "proof-text" scriptures. How about explaining how your referenced scripture supports your position as you are the one making the assertion. That makes debate easier as others can assess how you came up with your assertions, and either agree or identify flaws in your argument. In any case it is a better way of convincing than arrogantly making a personal attack.

 

[John Mullally]

Clare73 said:
I take it you are agreeing with my post #37. . .

Clare's "Amen choir", here. And thanks for the opportunity to be included in what wasn't my, nor yours, argument.

Clare's post #37 was Scripture references and quotes. If you don't agree, there's a problem.

What makes you think she thinks anyone is going to be sinless in this temporal life? You know that isn't what she is saying. Her argument is rather obviously not that believers are automatically sinless. There is no need for her to make that point and to begin to hem and haw over the verses that support her point. She doesn't equivocate. Nor does she —what's the word?— 'narrate' a point of view, like even I do, and Bling and you do, with occasional (or many) references that need explained as to how they support that narrative.

You and others claim she and I and some others on here have to re-interpret scripture wrongly in order to support our theses, and now, when the plain reading makes her point for her, you're upset she doesn't show the interpretation!

A curt assertion and a laundry list of scripture quotes is not an argument. How do those many referenced scriptures fit into the assertion? Doing what I say allows progress as it allows others to better understand how scripture supports the assertion and to allow others to intelligently object. If objections come, then Clare can counter the objection without demanding something from the other. It gets things moving. Personally, I make a reasonable effort to explain my positions, but sometimes I do just merely reference scriptures on small points of my argument. Unlike Clare when questioned, I provide additional explanation when challenged - instead of immediately throwing out an ad-hominem or demanding the other do what I am unwilling to do (i.e. thoughtfully explain a position beyond making an insulting one-liner). Clare has the habit of demanding others do what she is unwilling to do (i.e, parse through her "proof texts" she does not explain and make a more formal argument) before she will respond. SHAME! Its like she is saying I am willing to spend 5 minutes to make an assertion, but demands others must spend hours to object. No the onus is on CLAIRE who makes the assertion - which she frequently will not do. Is that above her pay grade?

I don't think anyone is going sinless in this temporal life and did not argue that Mark - try listening, Clare said that believers have "died to sin" and then attached 8 scriptures without explaining her position in any depth or explaining how scripture supports her position. Technically, if "one has died to sin", one cannot sin - thus that is the position Clare took and you on the record agreed to (as part of her amen choir that marks "agree"). Again, try listening! But Paul said we are to consider ourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11) as the strategy for the believer. John explains what we should do if we sin in 1 John 1:9. Always try understanding before resorting to arrogant flaming. I agree that Christians can sin and that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11) in order to reduce sin. Chill out!

 

[Clare73]

I have no problem understanding scriptures. Perhaps you can be civil, avoid the ad-hominem, and treat others the way you want to be treated. You commonly make assertions and attach a laundry list of scriptures without explaining how the referenced scripture fits into your argument. You seem to think that adding a laundry list of scriptures gives your argument credence. Then when someone asks for an explanation, you demand they explain their position while referencing your "proof-text" scriptures. How about starting with explaining how your referenced scripture supports your position as you are the one making the assertion. That makes debate easier as others can assess how you came up with your assertions, and either agree or identify flaws in your argument. In any case it is a better way of convincing than arrogantly making a personal attack.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[John Mullally]

Previously addressed.

That is a lie. You have not explained how the scriptures you referenced in Post 18 fit into your argument. You claimed I do not understand scripture when it is you who has proven to be unwilling to explain how your referenced scripture fits into your assertion.

You said "To be crucified with Christ is to die to sin as Christ died for sin." and yet I have yet to meet a believer who claims to be sinless after conversion. If Post 18 is true, you should be able to claim that you are sinless after conversion.

 

[Clare73]

That is a lie. You have not explained how the scriptures you referenced in Post 18 fit into your argument. You claimed I do not understand scripture when it is you who has proven to be unwilling to explain how referenced scripture fits into your argument.

You said "To be crucified with Christ is to die to sin as Christ died for sin." and yet I have yet to meet a believer who claims to be sinless after conversion. If Post 18 is true, you should be able to claim that you are sinless after conversion.

Previously addressed. . .in posts #25, #37.

 

[John Mullally]

Previously addressed. . .

It is only addressed to your satisfaction - which means nothing. Your arguments are not addressed in any of your posts (18, 25, 37) to any intelligent person's satisfaction. You made a one-liner assertion in Post 18 with many referenced scriptures, You refuse to explain how your position in Post 18 or later posts fits with your many referenced scriptures in Post 18. Strictly re-asserting a one-liner (Post 18) that includes a laundry list of scriptures without any reasoning is not an argument. When queried, you refuse to bolster any argumentation - which proves you have nothing.

Rather on this thread, you make demands of opponents (post 21) you are unwilling to comply with in kind and make ad-hominem attacks to your challengers (see Post 41). Your history is that when challenged, you make no attempt to explain (as seen in Post 18 and later responses), but rather claim "already addressed' and you make ad-hominem attacks (post 41). From my experience, you are unwilling to debate from scripture. Your typical refusal to explain your position in any depth m (reference this entire thread) and your aggressive attacks (post 41) prove you are no position to challenge other's intelligence, integrity, or knowledge of scripture. How about ditching the arrogance and instead of responding honesty without pretense? Treat people like you want to be treated! No one likes assertions that do not include argumentation. Including argumentation provides an opportunity for your critics to respond with reason instead of playing a vacuous guessing game as you do not actual present the argumentation. If you can't respond to critics, you have nothing.

In Post 18 you said that believers have "died to sin". If you committed any sin since conversion, you have not died to sin - Durrr. Think, think, do you see the problem? Did you sin after conversion? Paul's strategy for believers avoiding sin in Romans 6:11 is to consider yourselves dead to sin. That is not automatic, it is something believers do. Failure to do so is addressed in 1 John 1:9.

 

[Clare73]

It is only addressed to your satisfaction - which means nothing. Your arguments are not addressed in any of your posts (18, 25, 37) to any intelligent person's satisfaction.

Sorry you feel that way. . .

 

[John Mullally]

Sorry you feel that way. .

I too am sorry that you are unwilling to hold yourself to the standard that you hold others.

 

[Clare73]

I too am sorry that you are unwilling to hold yourself to the standard that you hold others.

Sorry you feel that way. . .