East from the West and no fishing

Sounds to me like you are depending on your works to get you to heaven instead of grace.

I'll take the grace.

AJ

 

We went through this on a couple of other threads recently.

I still want to know why some christians use the "consequences of sin" argument to justify unforgiveness?

After God has forgiven us, why do others who claim to be christians still hold our past sins against us?

AJ

 

HP: Maybe the time I spend conversing on spiritual things helps to keep the need for confession time to a minimum. This happens to be a large part of the work God has called me to for the present. I do want to be found about my Fathers business. :thumbs:

 

FTR, I have never said one should not "repent of sin" once one is a believer. In fact, I have said one should do this very thing. What I have continually said is that that phrase is not to be found in Scripture, and that the repentance that is 'required' for salvation is specifically said to be directed "toward God" and "from dead works", as these two things are expressly and specifically declared in Scripture in Acts 20: 21 and Heb. 6:1. The word of God simply does not require that one 'take care of their sin problem' first, then they will be to the point where they then can be saved.

I fully understand that words have different meanings and are used in different senses. I simply deny that it is proper to redefine what Scripture says, by adding something to it. And I likewise deny that we will regain any "moral compass" by the twisting of Scripture in attempting to make Scripture say words it simply doesn't say.

I can easily count on two hands the number of times I have heard every preacher I have heard in >45 years say the Biblical phrases "repentance from dead works" and "repentance toward God" in all the sermons I have ever heard. I would need a calculator to count the number of times I have heard (and seen) the variations of the non-Biblical phrase "repent/repentance of/from (one's) sin(s)" in the same sermons and on the Baptist Board, even to the point of hearing it said that that was what God really meant, although He did not say it.

Does it not strike you as just a little odd [not to mention prideful and egotistical to a degree that would even put Lucifer, in his personae of the Kings of Tyre and Babylon, to shame (Isa. 14: 4b-21: Ezek. 28:11-19)] that anyone would portend (and pretend) to know what God meant, and God was not able to express this somehow, in His holy Word? Or is this just me??

Unlike some, apparently, I do not have any interest any "bait shop" around any "No-Fishing" zones.

Ed

 

I would answer that, that in this world of religious dissent, so many people want to be the prophet calling all the sinning masses back to "repentance". So they not only hold people's sins against them,but they trump up or even concoct various issues in which they declare others are falling short (iven if they hold them as stiil 'saved'). Hence, the endless debates on baptism. the "true <€ church", sabbaths, music styles, "turning grace into license" eternal security, etc.

But even this desire to be some modern prophet is taking from the OT (the Law), and ultimately denies grace. The person presumes that they have gotten it all together in their own lives, so now God has "called" Him to lead others to "repentance". But in the process, he has forgotten his need for grace. (notice, grace becomes a "past received" thing, moreso than a continuing reality). So as was observed, it is very prideful.
And look at the FRUITS of it. We read Paul list the works of the flesh" and think that it's the commission of those acts that puts or keeps (or puts back) us "in the flesh". But they are clearly stated to be the results of something else. And notice that some of these 'works' include "variance", "strife", "heresies". This is what happens every time someone or some group rises up and tries to resurrect the Law with themselves as the prophets preaching at everyone else.

 

Forgot to mention; great explanation, Ed, on the word "repentance". We take words like this and reuse them in our own familar ways so much, we don't even realize they're not actually used as such.
So repentance ends up used to bring us back to works, rather than trusting in works being what we actually repent of.

 

HP: AJ, there are many reasons why that is possible. Possibly they see lip service of love towards God and man but feet that are slow to put into action those words. Possibly they see no real change of heart, no desire to right wrongs committed against our fellow man after one claims one believes, no sincere repentance. There again, they might be simply unforgiving and as such in error. We should always make certain that others do not have a legitimate reason to believe we have not had a sincere change of heart since we believed. We need to do everything in our power with the proffered help of the Holy Spirit to right wrongs against others committed before coming to the Lord. Restitution is a Scriptural principle.

 

What about restitution? Is it fishing in a no fishing zone or is it a biblical mandate? Can there be clear forgiveness apart from an intent formed of willingness to right wrongs committed if that is possible? It has been a long time since I have even heard a minister of the gospel even mention it, let alone preach a message on restitution. Is it simply out of vogue today or is it simply not required?