Is Repentance A Work?

[Paidion]

...sin ‘must’ be atoned for with blood – it demanded a payment – the payment itself made forgiveness an act..

.

Where do you read in the teachings of Christ or Paul or Peter or John or any other apostle, that "sin demanded a payment"? A payment won't do! Sin needs to be abolished! And that is exactly what Christ came to do!

... He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Where do you read in the teachings of Christ or Paul or Peter or John or any other apostle, that "sin demanded a payment"? A payment won't do! Sin needs to be abolished! And that is exactly what Christ came to do!

... He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

You quoted less than half a verse! How about the context:

Hebrews 9:22-28, New American Standard Bible

22. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25. nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28. so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Have you considered that "sin" in the part of the sentence you quoted could be a metomym for "consequence of sin"? Are not the underlined parts all speaking of the same accomplishment by Jesus?

[Paidion]

You quoted less than half a verse! How about the context:

Contexts are often helpful in interpretation. But the context in this case in no way indicates that "sin demanded a payment."

22. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

According to the Law is the restrictive phrase here. That being the case, it is incorrect to generalize "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Under the law, though God didn't want sacrifices but rather "an open ear" to hear his commands, He condoned the sacrifices which the Israelites learned from the heathen, and even told them how to do it, so that they would sacrifice to Him rather than to other gods.. In spite of that they still offered sacrifices to the gods of the nations, and on some occasions even offered up their children (which was abhorrent to God). So God forgave their sin when they offered sacrifices, in the sense of overlooking it. But under the New Covenant, God's dealing with sin is not simply to go on forgiving it, but to go on eliminating it.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent... (Ac 17:30)

I realized that Paul said this to the Athenians who were worshipping idols, but God didn't deal with deliverance from the practice of sinning with the Jews during "the times of ignorance" either. But as the apostle Peter proclaimed, God sent His Son to die on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

Have you considered that "sin" in the part of the sentence you quoted could be a metomym for "consequence of sin"?

I've considered it only too often. I learned that false concept throughout my teen years from many different fundamentalist preachers. Once a particular Baptist pastor in a church I was attending realized when he heard me instructing the young people, that I had a problem in understanding the work of Christ. So he took me aside and asked me, "Don, what are we saved from?" Of course, I knew the answer, "From sin." Then the pastor asked, "And what does THAT mean?" I responded, "That means that we are saved from the CONSEQUENCES of sin." Then he said, "Don, nowhere do the scriptures say that we are saved from the consequences of sin. Rather they say that we are saved from SIN!" I didn't accept what he said at the time, but a seed was planted in my heart which bore fruit many years later.

Are not the underlined parts all speaking of the same accomplishment by Jesus?

In verse 28 — yes. In verse 22 — no.