daNile is a big river and alot of people live near it.
He doesn't think he needs to repent if he sins either; doesn't make it true.
Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
daNile is a big river and alot of people live near it.
He doesn't think he needs to repent if he sins either; doesn't make it true.
That just shows that you're a class act and Ghost is not.
I thought from the start that it was very bad form for Ghost to even be on this thread. He had all the opportunity to make his points in the one on one. Why did he feel the need to try to elaborate further here? The answer is plain. Ego.
Now that it's over; I'm glad you joined in the discussion.
graceandpeace
New member
I once thought repentance was an ongoing thing, too..brother.
What changed my mind was the understanding that in the area of sin; 'it is finished'.
Learning about what it says in hebrews about the conscience being cleansed helped me...too.
I am not trying to argue with you, just explaining why I was led to a different opinion on it.
I know the verses that speak of repenting, but as I view it; it is speaking of the 'one time event'.
Yes; love is the key..it covers all our errors, that we hold to, outside of the basic gospel, and God knows our hearts whether they be sincere or not...in mho..that is why Paul said for example, 'that one man esteems one day above another, and another man every day alike'..things outside of the basic gospel, are not to be judged by men...for we all are judged on our own conscience....my conscience tells me that sin is no longer imputed; so why would you need to repent over and over?
These things come with time, and growth....
Grace really does have the tendancy to teach us over time.
Thanks for your warm example.....of what love is.
andyc
New member
The one-on-one thread is now officially closed, so my self-imposed moratorium of participating in this thread during the active debate can be lifted. I thought it best to not post here during the debate given the high tension between Ghost and myself.
I am obviously disappointed in how things ended. I have forgiven (dismissed the debt owed) Ghost's concluding vulgar epithets, and justice was handed out appropriately for them.
I hope Ghost will also forgive my own very direct assaults in the one-on-one. I could have adopted a more irenic approach, but I was often given over to my own anger and frustrations and did not hold back in showing the same. Unfortunately, the pre-debate chatbox discussion where some very ugly comments made therein determined my course in the debate. I should have let that whole discussion go by as but mere pre-show theatrics.
I won't seek out Ghost (Dave) for another one another one-on-one debate format. Our approaches to theological discourse are simply too far apart and I don't think God would be fully glorified by either of us in such a venue.
My key objective in the one-on-one was to showcase what I believe are some grave misunderstandings by some, Ghost in particular, related to Christology. I think I met my objective, albeit in part, and hopefully set some on a path of deeper study, prayer, and reflection on the topic. If this happens, then the discussion was successful.
As TH and others have said eloquently, Ghost needs our prayers. I lift them up on his behalf often. He obviously struggles with how he is perceived and this sensitivity often seems to rule his tongue, contra James 3. My prayers are that it be the will of God that Ghost's passion for what he holds dear be moderated by a kinder spirit in his witness. I pray that same prayer for myself daily.
AMR
I've been so busy lately that I forgot the one on one exchange. I see it went as expected. Another ghost meltdown.
andyc
New member
How can it be a fault in a man to care too much about the gospel?
If he had a clearer understanding of the gospel he'd realize that most of the people he condemns to hell are saved. His fault is that he is immature and narrow minded thinking that only he can be right about everything.
Let's not argue; but let's discuss. You're right that love is the key point. It's like starting with the number 1. You can perform any number of complex mathematical equations, functions, whatever to it; but if you multiply by the reciprocal of what you did, you're right back to 1.
We know that a man cannot be justified by keeping the law (OT) because it cannot be kept. But, Jesus' work on the cross (it is finished) completed that work.
Galations 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus "
Yet, that doesn't mean the law is done away with. Jesus gave a new commandment; the commandment of love. John 15:10-12
Now, this commandment is reiterated and established for all believers in Romans 12 - 13. This is the law that true believers keep because it fulfills all other laws. For the whole law is summed up in Romans 13:10.
"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
So, the question then is......"What do you do if you harm your neighbor? What do you do if you violate the commandment of love? Speaking to a generic you; meaning anyone - Do you just pretend that you haven't done anything wrong and just continue on?
The answer is an obvious no. You can't violate the law without some consequences.
Luke 17 speaks to this. In verse 1 and 2 Jesus gives a stern warning about offenses; doesn't he?
Then he says, "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day return to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."
Jesus is talking about forgiving your brother here.
TBC
So, the point of the above post is that there are several points.
1. Jesus doesn't take too kindly to people offending his children.
2. A brother who sins is instructed to repent and ask forgiveness.
3. If one repents, and asks forgiveness, a Christian is to forgive.
4. If one is not walking in love toward his brother; he is harming his brother and violating both the spirit and letter of the entire Bible (OT + NT).
So, if we take Ghosts actions as an example. He has offended people. He has told me to kill myself, go to hell, or wishes that I fry in the lake of fire; and that my family is also without Christ.
This is an offense. According to the Bible, he is to repent. He is to ask forgiveness from not only me and my family for his lies and blasphemies; but from everyone on this site that he has offended with this type of reprehensible action.
Now, how can you view these teachings from scripture and this one particular example, as anything other than a clear teaching that one who claims to be in Christ; does indeed need to repent when they have done wrong?
1. Jesus doesn't take too kindly to people offending his children.
2. A brother who sins is instructed to repent and ask forgiveness.
3. If one repents, and asks forgiveness, a Christian is to forgive.
4. If one is not walking in love toward his brother; he is harming his brother and violating both the spirit and letter of the entire Bible (OT + NT).
So, if we take Ghosts actions as an example. He has offended people. He has told me to kill myself, go to hell, or wishes that I fry in the lake of fire; and that my family is also without Christ.
This is an offense. According to the Bible, he is to repent. He is to ask forgiveness from not only me and my family for his lies and blasphemies; but from everyone on this site that he has offended with this type of reprehensible action.
Now, how can you view these teachings from scripture and this one particular example, as anything other than a clear teaching that one who claims to be in Christ; does indeed need to repent when they have done wrong?
Ya right.
Why then has he told me over and over again that he HOPED me and my family would go to hell?
graceandpeace
New member
Yes, (first yellow):
Rom 4:8 Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
So, we see that as sin is not attributed to the redeemed man, (the inner man, that we are, once born again).....and, that the bible says that it is the spirit that God came to redeem...not the flesh, for the flesh never profited anything anyway, and that is why it still dies....etc...We know that sin has no real purpose for what we are NOW in Christ. That is why there is no more condemnation for those whom are IN Christ.
The outer man is dying daily....sin is going to show up there, but, as already mentioned..the flesh is not what God came to redeem.
Bold: The flesh will still have to deal with sin..we reap what we sow in the physical...for example, to use "ghost" as our example..he was banned. To use another example...if a man/woman commits adultery; their physical family is hurt...etc.
We are to confess our sins ONE to ANOTHER; as written..this is for the purpose of keeping us in remembrance of what Christ has done for us...and, for us to help not only ourselves, but others to learn how sin 'harms' the natural, or fleshly man.We are not commanded to confess our sins to God; however, but only the once.
That is how I view it; and we...the 'inner' man is no longer under the law; no longer is sin imputed...but, our flesh will see it's results.
graceandpeace
New member
Ghost's sin's are not imputed to his inner man....for he is no more under the law than you or I...but, he should do as what is written concerning the natural man; and confess his sin to those whom he has offended...it does not effect his salvation; however...just as our sins do not effect ours.
Ditto
I wasn't really asking about his salvation or lack thereof. I was asking you what you thought about this scripture; and using his actions on this forum as an example.
I pointed out several aspects of this that your posts didn't address.
Obviously someone's salvation is something that only God can judge. However, if a person is unwilling to follow clearly established Biblical principles; then to me it is a clear example that either they don't believe the Bible; are not saved, or are in serious need of repentance.
One other thing.... you said this.
Can you show me one scripture verse that demonstrates that we are only to confess our sins one time?
And if you can, would you mind explaining why you think that Jesus commanded us to pray for the forgiveness of our sins on a daily basis, as outlined in the Lord's prayer, sometimes called the Our Father?
Is repentance found in a mantra or is it illustrated in a posture/ attitude/intention? It seems to me that the first act of repentance is somewhat blind, but announces that differing state, invites grace and with it an ongoing desire to serve God and follow the good in a way that was impossible before. Now if I do that, then my posture/attitude/intention is always one of repentance in regard to any short fall by word or deed. God, who knows a man's heart, knows this...and words absent that are only empty things, like the declaration of "Lord, Lord" from someone who makes no actual room in his heart or life for the subject.
Good Post! You worded this perfectly.
He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
Repentance is the common denominator of these three.
I'm talking about what repentance actually is, what it signifies. So you aren't really raising an objection with this, only the form of one.
I'm talking about what repentance actually is, what it signifies. So you aren't really raising an objection with this, only the form of one.
Haha! Right. I'm amen-ing you with a tid bit thrown in. It came to me while I was thinking about your post.
graceandpeace
New member
graceandpeace
New member
Hi Guyver:
..and, I gave my answer, to the best of my ability.
to which I had disagreement over.
Are you saying that to believe in only a 'one time repentance', which is very biblical, is heretical?
the text of 1 john says we are to confess our sins...in context, it is speaking of what a unbeliever must do...that is how I see it. There is nothing in the text that denotes it is more than once...for, he is clearly explaining the way of salvation therein.
I believe Jesus was referring to the 'sinner's prayer...we do not say that prayer everyday as He also says that praying 'ritually' is wrong...is it not? Our sins have been removed.
You may disagree...and, that is ok. I was not trying to argue with your viewpoint on this...there are other viewpoints..and, this is not a salvational issue, in mho...whether we repent once or many times...add's nothing to our salvation.
We are told to confess our sins ONE to ANOTHER; no where are we told to confess them to God....over and over. I believe there is a good reason for both.
Just sayin.....:think:
..and, I gave my answer, to the best of my ability.
to which I had disagreement over.
Are you saying that to believe in only a 'one time repentance', which is very biblical, is heretical?
the text of 1 john says we are to confess our sins...in context, it is speaking of what a unbeliever must do...that is how I see it. There is nothing in the text that denotes it is more than once...for, he is clearly explaining the way of salvation therein.
I believe Jesus was referring to the 'sinner's prayer...we do not say that prayer everyday as He also says that praying 'ritually' is wrong...is it not? Our sins have been removed.
You may disagree...and, that is ok. I was not trying to argue with your viewpoint on this...there are other viewpoints..and, this is not a salvational issue, in mho...whether we repent once or many times...add's nothing to our salvation.
We are told to confess our sins ONE to ANOTHER; no where are we told to confess them to God....over and over. I believe there is a good reason for both.
Just sayin.....:think:
First of all, God bless you and thanks for responding. My computer is messed up again and I can't post right.
Yes, I think the idea of repenting once for sins is unbiblical and heretical.
No, I do not believe that the Lords prayer is a prayer of salvation for unbelievers.
No, I do not believe that 1 John is written to unbelievers and is a prayer of salvation. I believe it is written to believers. I think the Apostle John knows the difference between children of God and unbelievers. John wrote to his little children. Specifically, he wrote to his dear children. If the people to whom he wrote were not Christians, I don't see why he would call them his dear children.
God bless you and regards.
- Status