I guess my point is that asking for forgiveness and confessing our sins has the effect of softening our hearts toward God (if we are truly born again). I think God views our sins as taken care of, once and for all. I dont think he is "mad" at us if we dont confess a sin.
I think in Hebrews 10 Paul says Christ's sacrifice is for our sins for all time and Paul also quotes Jeremiah 31 where he repeats that God has forgotten our sins , so IMHO i think the main thing is what John said "to walk in the light" which means if we stumble to get up and repent (change your mind) and resume walking in the light.
I could be wrong but i don't think the confessing our sins is a command to the believer by John although it shows a contrite heart, but more important is that we resume actually walking in the light.
Confessing our sins could be a double edged sword because we do unconsciencly sin often such as worrying over various things and if you get so conscience of this it could change your view of God from a loving Father to a condemning God just waiting for you to stumble. The Holy Spirit does'nt convict the believer of sin, He convicts the world of sin for not believing in Jesus, i believe.
This is just my opinion and many folks here may disagree with me on this which is OK.
The Naked Gospel (new book)
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
Steve 7150 wrote:
Verse 7: "if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Verse 9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
"If we walk in darkness" (1:6) is the same as "if we say we have no sin" (v.8) and "if we say we have not sinned" (v.10)—that is, darkness is concealment and denial. Light is transparency and exposure (cf., John 3:20-21/ Eph.5:8-13).
Consider the ramifications of your ideas here. If John was writing to non-christians, as you suggest, then should he not have called these unbelievers to faith, instead of urging them to "walk in the light"? The doctrine that justification of the believer is by faith alone gains no particular support from (and does not require) the additional argument that 1 John 1 is written to non-Christians, rather than to Christians. No matter who the audience is, they are told that the cleansing of their sins is an ongoing process that accompanies the ongoing process of "walking in the light"(v.7). This kind of walking is a Christian activity. As soon as a non-christian begins to do it, he will cease to be a non-christian, but must continue walking. Confessing sins (i.e., being transparent about our wrongs) is "walking in the light"—it is what people do at the point of conversion, and afterward, not before.
We are saved by faith, but what is it that we are called upon to place our faith in? Are we asked (anywhere in scripture) to place faith in some proposition that we have been forgiven of all sins, past, present and future? Even if this is true, where is it said that we must believe this specific thing to be saved?
Our faith is in God, not in some doctrinal proposition about forgiveness. I believe that "faith" is a relationship with God and Christ. Like every other relationship known to man, a trusting relationship with God does not rule out the appropriateness of confession of wrongdoing.
If the notion of faith was indeed contrary to the notion of confessing sins (as a condition for forgiveness), as you suggest, then it would rule out the latter as much for the unbeliever as for the believer. John, in writing 1 John 1 to the unbeliever, as per your view, would then be doing the unbeliever a disservice in telling him to confess his sins (since the sinner ought, instead, to be called to faith, right?).
In Revelation 2 and 3, Jesus certainly called the churches to repent. They too were the temple of the Holy Spirit. One cannot easily separate the concept of confession with that of repentance. One is an expression of the other, just as works are an expression of faith. The prodigal son's repentance was accompanied by a confession of wrongdoing. I know of no reason to believe that the "repentance" of the Christian (called for in Revelation 2 & 3) looks different from the repentance of the non-christian.
Even if there is no direct statement about whether they were forgiven of their carnality—in so many words—yet there certainly is a rebuke and a demand that they abandon their carnal behavior because it was unacceptable. But unacceptable to whom? Only to Paul? No, certainly it was God who was displeased with it. Otherwise Paul would have nothing but his own tastes upon which to base his complaints.
If you read my post, you know that I am not saying that we lose our salvation, nor endanger our relationship with God, whenever we sin—just as your marriage is not lost every time you do something that offends your wife. But if having a secure marriage translates into your never having need to apologize to your wife when you offend or injure her, then your wife must not be like any I have known. Such negligence can hardly be imagined to be acceptable in any mutually-caring relationship.
TK wrote:
Except that, in the so-called "Lord's Prayer," Jesus was teaching HIs disciples what they should do. He did not teach the Pharisees (nor His disciples) that they should tithe. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus only affirmed that the Pharisees should have tithed (that is, that they had been under that obligation under the law)—and in fact they had met that obligation, but had neglected weightier obligations. He gave no instruction to the Pharisees about their future behavior, as He did His disciples. In any case, we are never told that we should teach the nations to do all things that Jesus commanded the Pharisees to do, but we are to teach the nations to observe all things that He commanded the disciples to do.I think this seems like a good sentiment but i'm not sure it's necessarily scriptural. The Lord's prayer which Suzzana mentioned was before Christ's death and may be in the same category as when Jesus told the Pharisees that they should tithe.
Please identify the passage in Paul on the subject of forgiveness which you think is contradicted by my suggestions.1st John chap 1 seems to be addressed to gnostics encouraging them to confess that they are sinners to obtain forgiveness from Christ, not to believers to obtain forgiveness because that would contradict the entierty of Paul's writings re forgiveness.
Walking in the light is a habit, not an event. It is clear that "if we confess our sins" (1:9) is synonymous with "if we walk in the light" (1:7), since both are given as the means of receiving cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ:I think John starts speaking to believers in chap 2 when he addresses them as "My little children" and then went on to say "these things i write to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ." Notice John did not say to believers "If anyone sins make sure that he confesses his sins."
John already made it clear what cleanses us from all sin "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin." 1 John 1.7
Verse 7: "if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Verse 9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
"If we walk in darkness" (1:6) is the same as "if we say we have no sin" (v.8) and "if we say we have not sinned" (v.10)—that is, darkness is concealment and denial. Light is transparency and exposure (cf., John 3:20-21/ Eph.5:8-13).
Consider the ramifications of your ideas here. If John was writing to non-christians, as you suggest, then should he not have called these unbelievers to faith, instead of urging them to "walk in the light"? The doctrine that justification of the believer is by faith alone gains no particular support from (and does not require) the additional argument that 1 John 1 is written to non-Christians, rather than to Christians. No matter who the audience is, they are told that the cleansing of their sins is an ongoing process that accompanies the ongoing process of "walking in the light"(v.7). This kind of walking is a Christian activity. As soon as a non-christian begins to do it, he will cease to be a non-christian, but must continue walking. Confessing sins (i.e., being transparent about our wrongs) is "walking in the light"—it is what people do at the point of conversion, and afterward, not before.
Confessing our sins is not an exhibition of lack of faith. It is, in fact, an expression of one's faith that God will grant abundant access "to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16—written to believers).This is consistent with the rest of the NT because if we have to confess every sin to obtain forgiveness then we are living from confession to confession not from faith to faith in Christ and if so you would need to confess everything like when you are fearful,worried or in doubt because "whatever is not of faith is sin."
We are saved by faith, but what is it that we are called upon to place our faith in? Are we asked (anywhere in scripture) to place faith in some proposition that we have been forgiven of all sins, past, present and future? Even if this is true, where is it said that we must believe this specific thing to be saved?
Our faith is in God, not in some doctrinal proposition about forgiveness. I believe that "faith" is a relationship with God and Christ. Like every other relationship known to man, a trusting relationship with God does not rule out the appropriateness of confession of wrongdoing.
If the notion of faith was indeed contrary to the notion of confessing sins (as a condition for forgiveness), as you suggest, then it would rule out the latter as much for the unbeliever as for the believer. John, in writing 1 John 1 to the unbeliever, as per your view, would then be doing the unbeliever a disservice in telling him to confess his sins (since the sinner ought, instead, to be called to faith, right?).
It is hard to establish firm doctrine (especially doctrine that is not taught plainly anywhere else, and which seems to contradict clear teaching elsewhere) by an appeal to what Paul did not say on a certain occasion. The whole Corinthian correspondence was an appeal to those Corinthians who were guilty of carnal behavior to repent and amend their ways. The specific words "repent" and "confess" need not be used every time the practice is described or called for.When Paul wrote to the Corinthians he never said "go and confess your sins", he did say "do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you?"
In Revelation 2 and 3, Jesus certainly called the churches to repent. They too were the temple of the Holy Spirit. One cannot easily separate the concept of confession with that of repentance. One is an expression of the other, just as works are an expression of faith. The prodigal son's repentance was accompanied by a confession of wrongdoing. I know of no reason to believe that the "repentance" of the Christian (called for in Revelation 2 & 3) looks different from the repentance of the non-christian.
I disagree. The discipline of the fornicator was to initiate a process, as the result of which "his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor.5:5). If his forgiveness was a done deal, why go to the trouble of initiating church discipline against him?In spite of their sins Paul never implied they were unforgiven.
Even if there is no direct statement about whether they were forgiven of their carnality—in so many words—yet there certainly is a rebuke and a demand that they abandon their carnal behavior because it was unacceptable. But unacceptable to whom? Only to Paul? No, certainly it was God who was displeased with it. Otherwise Paul would have nothing but his own tastes upon which to base his complaints.
If you read my post, you know that I am not saying that we lose our salvation, nor endanger our relationship with God, whenever we sin—just as your marriage is not lost every time you do something that offends your wife. But if having a secure marriage translates into your never having need to apologize to your wife when you offend or injure her, then your wife must not be like any I have known. Such negligence can hardly be imagined to be acceptable in any mutually-caring relationship.
TK wrote:
I am not sure how this agrees with what Steve 7150 wrote any more than what I wrote (which is what Steve7150 was disagreeing with). In my post I think all of these concerns were covered—i.e., the loss of salvation upon sinning, living in constant fear of being rejected, God being "mad" at us, etc. I don't know how these concerns could remain if someone had a view such as I expressed.Steve7150-
you took the reply right out of my mouth. Thanks!
I guess my question "what happens if a Christian doesnt ask for forgiveness" was rhetorical one-- i certainly don't think that they lose their salvation, because I think what Christ accomplished covers sins that are not confessed. what if I sin and then a second later a tree limb falls on me and kills me, before I have a chance to confess or ask forgiveness? Am I not still "saved?" Must we live constantly in fear that I may forget to confess a sin? And what about sins of omission? What if I am having a bad day and fail to love my wife as Christ loves the church-- or any other areas where failure to act might be a sin.
I guess my point is that asking for forgiveness and confessing our sins has the effect of softening our hearts toward God (if we are truly born again). I think God views our sins as taken care of, once and for all. I dont think he is "mad" at us if we dont confess a sin.
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
Steve-
I don't disagree with what you wrote. Unfortunately i did not read either your or Steve7150s posts closely enough.
I think you marriage example is a good one- being rotten to your spouse does not end the marriage, and asking forgiveness is the right thing to do, which of course parallels our relationship with the Lord.
The only possible distinction I can see is that when we are rotten to our spouse, they may indeed hold it against us (or be angry at us). I am not sure this is true with God.
TK
I don't disagree with what you wrote. Unfortunately i did not read either your or Steve7150s posts closely enough.
I think you marriage example is a good one- being rotten to your spouse does not end the marriage, and asking forgiveness is the right thing to do, which of course parallels our relationship with the Lord.
The only possible distinction I can see is that when we are rotten to our spouse, they may indeed hold it against us (or be angry at us). I am not sure this is true with God.
TK
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
Leaving aside the question of the need to specifically ask for forgiveness, wouldn't repentance involve being convicted by the Holy Spirit first, even for a believer?steve7150 wrote:The Holy Spirit doesn't convict the believer of sin, He convicts the world of sin for not believing in Jesus, i believe.
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
TK wrote:
This grief exists whether the injured party is injured and angry, or merely injured and hurt. It is probably a commonplace for us to misidentify "being hurt" with "being angry." Love is not provoked, but love does get hurt. I suppose the more we experience mature love, as the fruit of the Spirit, the less likely we will be to assume that an injured party is necessarily angry, since we ourselves will commonly experience injury without anger.
I agree with you TK. But we apologize to our wives, not because they are angry (though they may well be!), but because we injured them. We should never think of our apology as merely a self-serving means of placating their anger, and regaining the good favor of the offended party, but we do it as an unselfish expression of our grief that we have injured someone that we love.The only possible distinction I can see is that when we are rotten to our spouse, they may indeed hold it against us (or be angry at us). I am not sure this is true with God.
This grief exists whether the injured party is injured and angry, or merely injured and hurt. It is probably a commonplace for us to misidentify "being hurt" with "being angry." Love is not provoked, but love does get hurt. I suppose the more we experience mature love, as the fruit of the Spirit, the less likely we will be to assume that an injured party is necessarily angry, since we ourselves will commonly experience injury without anger.
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
steve7150 wrote:
The Holy Spirit doesn't convict the believer of sin, He convicts the world of sin for not believing in Jesus, i believe.
Leaving aside the question of the need to specifically ask for forgiveness, wouldn't repentance involve being convicted by the Holy Spirit first, even for a believer?
Leaving aside the question of the need to specifically ask for forgiveness, wouldn't repentance involve being convicted by the Holy Spirit first, even for a believer?
Suzana,
Perhaps but don't we also have a conscience because we know the difference between good and evil and as believers we would want to please God therefore that desire would motivate us to repent? Did'nt John the Baptist ask people to repent before the Holy Spirit came down?
The Holy Spirit doesn't convict the believer of sin, He convicts the world of sin for not believing in Jesus, i believe.
Leaving aside the question of the need to specifically ask for forgiveness, wouldn't repentance involve being convicted by the Holy Spirit first, even for a believer?
steve7150 wrote:The Holy Spirit doesn't convict the believer of sin, He convicts the world of sin for not believing in Jesus, i believe.
Leaving aside the question of the need to specifically ask for forgiveness, wouldn't repentance involve being convicted by the Holy Spirit first, even for a believer?
Suzana,
Perhaps but don't we also have a conscience because we know the difference between good and evil and as believers we would want to please God therefore that desire would motivate us to repent? Did'nt John the Baptist ask people to repent before the Holy Spirit came down?
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
Steve,
I understand confessing sins as an apology and as part of a continuing relationship and that the same greek word for faith can also mean faithfulness, if i'm not mistaken.
However i was trying to point out that if we are forgiven for all time (Heb 10.12) then why in the Lord's prayer do we ask for forgiveness regularly and in 1st John 1.9 if it's written to believers why do confess sins to obtain forgiveness if we already have it. You gave a good answer which was that it is synonymous with walking in the light. I think for this to make sense we have to read into it a little because on the face of it , it seems like we ask forgiveness after already having it. Thanks for your response.
I understand confessing sins as an apology and as part of a continuing relationship and that the same greek word for faith can also mean faithfulness, if i'm not mistaken.
However i was trying to point out that if we are forgiven for all time (Heb 10.12) then why in the Lord's prayer do we ask for forgiveness regularly and in 1st John 1.9 if it's written to believers why do confess sins to obtain forgiveness if we already have it. You gave a good answer which was that it is synonymous with walking in the light. I think for this to make sense we have to read into it a little because on the face of it , it seems like we ask forgiveness after already having it. Thanks for your response.
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
There are about half a dozen places in Hebrews that tell us that Jesus offered Himself for since only one time. The verse you referenced (10:12) is one of them. No Christian (other than Roman Catholics) has ever suggested that Jesus must be offered more than once to cover sins. The crucifixion is a singular and unique event in history. It is sufficient to cover all the sins ever committed, as well as all that ever will be committed. On this we are apparently agreed.
Now, what has this to do with repentance, confession and individual forgiveness? Every one of us came to Christ at one point and repented of our sins for salvation. We consider that we were saved as a result of this action. Why should we have done this, if Christ's sacrifice 2000 years ago took care, in advance, of all sins, past, present and future? Why would anyone need to repent?
Whatever reasoning one might use in resolving this question would apply equally to the question of why a Christian would need to repent. I am not saying that, in terms of one's standing with God, the case of the Christian is the same as that of the non-christian. What I am saying is that the logic is the same. If Jesus' dying for all sin 2000 years ago removes the need for the believer to confess and repent of sin after conversion, why did not the same act, 2000 years ago, preclude the need for anyone thereafter to respond with repentance at all? Is there not automatic benefit coming from what Jesus accomplished?
All of us who are not Calvinists (and the Calvinists have a similar, but slightly different, problem) believe that one act of sacrifice by Christ provided all the payment that will ever be necessary for the full redemption of every human being. However, none of us would argue that the benefit accrues to the beneficiaries automatically, without some response on the part of the individual.
The difference between your doctrine and mine is that you make conversion the last necessary response to grace. I make it the first. I do not think that Hebrews 10:12, nor any other passage of scripture, will support your special belief against mine on this point.
Now, what has this to do with repentance, confession and individual forgiveness? Every one of us came to Christ at one point and repented of our sins for salvation. We consider that we were saved as a result of this action. Why should we have done this, if Christ's sacrifice 2000 years ago took care, in advance, of all sins, past, present and future? Why would anyone need to repent?
Whatever reasoning one might use in resolving this question would apply equally to the question of why a Christian would need to repent. I am not saying that, in terms of one's standing with God, the case of the Christian is the same as that of the non-christian. What I am saying is that the logic is the same. If Jesus' dying for all sin 2000 years ago removes the need for the believer to confess and repent of sin after conversion, why did not the same act, 2000 years ago, preclude the need for anyone thereafter to respond with repentance at all? Is there not automatic benefit coming from what Jesus accomplished?
All of us who are not Calvinists (and the Calvinists have a similar, but slightly different, problem) believe that one act of sacrifice by Christ provided all the payment that will ever be necessary for the full redemption of every human being. However, none of us would argue that the benefit accrues to the beneficiaries automatically, without some response on the part of the individual.
The difference between your doctrine and mine is that you make conversion the last necessary response to grace. I make it the first. I do not think that Hebrews 10:12, nor any other passage of scripture, will support your special belief against mine on this point.
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
The difference between your doctrine and mine is that you make conversion the last necessary response to grace. I make it the first. I do not think that Hebrews 10:12, nor any other passage of scripture, will support your special belief against mine on this point.
I appreciate your vast knowledge of scripture but i have no idea what "special belief" of mine you are referring to or where you got the idea that i make conversion the last necessary response to grace. My issue was not about repentence it was about one single verse which was about confessing your sins for the purpose of forgiveness, that's it. I brought up points that i thought had validity even if you disagree, such as if you literally follow this verse then you would need to be constantly confessing sin about anything that is not of faith. Paul said anything not of faith is sin therefore worrying about anything at all would necessitate confession or else we are not forgiven, if you take the verse literally. You answered this issue by saying confessing is part of walking in the light which i acknowledged was a good answer but you do have to read the meaning into it because this connection is not explicitly stated by John.
I appreciate your vast knowledge of scripture but i have no idea what "special belief" of mine you are referring to or where you got the idea that i make conversion the last necessary response to grace. My issue was not about repentence it was about one single verse which was about confessing your sins for the purpose of forgiveness, that's it. I brought up points that i thought had validity even if you disagree, such as if you literally follow this verse then you would need to be constantly confessing sin about anything that is not of faith. Paul said anything not of faith is sin therefore worrying about anything at all would necessitate confession or else we are not forgiven, if you take the verse literally. You answered this issue by saying confessing is part of walking in the light which i acknowledged was a good answer but you do have to read the meaning into it because this connection is not explicitly stated by John.
Re: The Naked Gospel (new book)
You are not getting Paul's meaning of "whatever is not of faith," in Romans 14:23. The reference is to activities which cannot be done with a thoroughly clear conscience—that is, with full confidence, or faith. The teaching is that one should not indulge in questionable behaviors (like eating meat sacrificed to idols) when one is not fully convinced that it is all right to do so. If one does something, thinking it may be wrong, then it is in fact wrong for that person to do.Paul said anything not of faith is sin therefore worrying about anything at all would necessitate confession or else we are not forgiven, if you take the verse literally.
There is no thought of such things as worry, weak faith or failures of faith in the passage (though I have no problem allowing that they are sins, that is not what Paul is saying in the verse).
Your "special belief," to which I referred, is that the teaching of 1 John 1 is not relevant to Christians.