At what point are sins removed?

[gordon777]

The Son of God came forth from the Father, into the world, chose the disciples out of the world, made known unto them the name of the Father.

He left this world and went to the Father, after the Father glorified the Son, the Son glorified the Father, returned to God, in the same glory the Son had with the Father, before the world began.

The Son manifested forth the name of the Father, but the world could not receive that name, to believe that the Son came forth from the Father and went to the Father.



For further clarification, you could see the new thread I just made now.



( Sins are removed when we are removed/chosen, out of this world, and ordained of God, to bring forth fruit unto life eternal, that we should go and bring forth fruit, and that our fruit should remain.)

John 4:36. John 15:16. John 15;19. 1 Corinthians 2:7. Ephesians 2:10.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hello there,

I write YHWH, but I say "Father" or sometimes "Yahweh". Yes, unfortunately some people use a claimed knowledge of how to truly pronounce the Name as a pedestal to lift themselves above others. BTW, Jeff A Benner has interesting videos on how to pronounce the Name.

Benner has probably never been to other nations where his name is totally different. His name is different in other people groups. In short, He doesn’t have a personal name. He has numerous names. I’ve been to many other countries meeting with christians there. YHWH was the hebräisch sounding name. Other languages were given other names to use. I don’t use the Hebrew one nor the Korean one. I’m neither.

 

[The Gallant Saint]

Benner has probably never been to other nations where his name is totally different. His name is different in other people groups. In short, He doesn’t have a personal name. He has numerous names. I’ve been to many other countries meeting with christians there. YHWH was the hebräisch sounding name. Other languages were given other names to use. I don’t use the Hebrew one nor the Korean one. I’m neither.

What about Isaiah 42:8? Emphasised the name:

"אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא־אתן ותהלתי לפסילים׃"
"I am יהוה that is My name and My glory to another I will not give nor My praise to carved images."

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What about Isaiah 42:8? Emphasised the name:

"אני יהוה הוא שמי וכבודי לאחר לא־אתן ותהלתי לפסילים׃"
"I am יהוה that is My name and My glory to another I will not give nor My praise to carved images."

I do not read Hebrew and God's "mother tongue" is not Hebrew. To the Hebrews, that is what He said. He said other words to other people groups to who those sounds would have meant nothing. You know that YHWH meant "I am" to the Hebrews. It was not sounds with no meaning. Other languages required other sounds to achieve that understanding.

 

[The Gallant Saint]

I do not read Hebrew and God's "mother tongue" is not Hebrew. To the Hebrews, that is what He said. He said other words to other people groups to who those sounds would have meant nothing. You know that YHWH meant "I am" to the Hebrews. It was not sounds with no meaning. Other languages required other sounds to achieve that understanding.

Yes, YHWH is an abbreviation for "I am that I am" or something to that effect. In the Bible, God (YHWH) chose to reveal Himself to the Israelites and to be their God, and that revelation extended back to Abraham.

I am intrigued in your view of God's name in other languages.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes, YHWH is an abbreviation for "I am that I am" or something to that effect. In the Bible, God (YHWH) chose to reveal Himself to the Israelites and to be their God, and that revelation extended back to Abraham.

I am intrigued in your view of God's name in other languages.

Consider if God wanted to tell other peoples his name is “I am that I am.” He could not use YHWH because that would have zero meaning for them as it has for us. It’s a meaningless word. So He would have naturally chosen words that improved their understanding of Him as His desire IS that we understand Him.

 

[Cnkw3]

Hello neighbor. Ezekiel Ch 18. We first must correct ourselves and repent of sin, and live righteously. This condition does not change. If we do this, our iniquities will not be remembered to us, meaning YHWH will not hold our past sins against us. This is YHWH's mercy.

What are you saying? That at the point a person “repents” that his sins are forgiven? If so what NT passage would you use to support that? Acts 2:38 does not say that? Acts 2:38 would actually contradict that teaching.
Ez 18 was written to the nation of Israel who were already in a covenant relationship with God.

 

[The Gallant Saint]

What are you saying? That at the point a person “repents” that his sins are forgiven? If so what NT passage would you use to support that? Acts 2:38 does not say that? Acts 2:38 would actually contradict that teaching.
Ez 18 was written to the nation of Israel who were already in a covenant relationship with God.

Ok, let me be detailed. So hear me out.

The condition that one must repent and correct oneself as a prerequisite for forgiveness spans both OT and NT. The parable of the prodigal son illustrates this. In that parable, the father chose to forget all of the son's wrongdoings, because the son came back with a contrite heart. Jesus is basically teaching Ezekiel Ch 18. Would this apply to Gentiles also? Of course it does.

Also, the covenant is inclusive. Gentiles can also join themselves to the covenant. The covenant for both Israelite and Gentile is to keep the Commandments (Isaiah 56). This requirement also does not change from OT to NT.

So, what's the difference between the old and new covenants? The difference is the blood. God said that it is blood that atones for our souls (Lev 17:11). That's the law. As Jesus said, the Law will even outlast heaven and earth.

Exodus 24:7-8 (with emphasis): "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that Yahweh hath spoken will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh hath made with you concerning all these words."

Jesus fulfilled the law of Lev 17:11 by having His own blood to atone (pay the penalty/compensate/propitiation) for the sin of the world. It His blood of the Covenant. (Matt 26:28). So the difference between the old and new covenants is not the requirements to keep the covenants (i.e. keep the Commandments), but the means of atonement (animal blood vs Jesus' Blood).

Coming back to baptism. To be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ means to repent and accept His blood as the atonement for our sins, for the forgiveness/remission of sins, and in doing this, we receive the Holy Spirit. The condition for the forgiveness I mentioned the start of this reply, still applies. Would it make sense for you to be forgiven just because you're immersed in water but still have an unrepentant heart? Of course not. So getting dunked in water is not of itself, that which results in you being forgiven. It is symbolic, like that of circumcision (both a sign and a command) - but it is the circumcision of the heart (Jer 4:4).

I hope this helped and blessing in Jesus.

 

[The Gallant Saint]

Consider if God wanted to tell other peoples his name is “I am that I am.” He could not use YHWH because that would have zero meaning for them as it has for us. It’s a meaningless word. So He would have naturally chosen words that improved their understanding of Him as His desire IS that we understand Him.

Ok that's understandable - because YHWH is based on Hebrew, and there would have been other languages in the world post the Tower of Babel incident. What would be the names of God in other languages?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Ok that's understandable - because YHWH is based on Hebrew, and there would have been other languages in the world post the Tower of Babel incident. What would be the names of God in other languages?

That would take some research as I only know a few. But it does make sense, doesn’t it?

 

[The Gallant Saint]

That would take some research as I only know a few. But it does make sense, doesn’t it?

I understand the logic. But before we can conclusively say a name of "God" in another language is the same being as YHWH, the one true God, we need further examine the nature of that being that is being referred to. For example, the characteristics and the commandments will need to be same.

One example I know is Shang-Di. The (G)od of Ancient China. The laws and commandments were virtually identical, and one striking characteristic of Shang-Di is that this is a God who loves.

On the opposite side, there are names of (g)ods in pagan cultures mentioned in the Bible, who were not YHWH. E.g. Moloch, Baal etc, who are demons.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I understand the logic. But before we can conclusively say a name of "God" in another language is the same being as YHWH, the one true God, we need further examine the nature of that being that is being referred to. For example, the characteristics and the commandments will need to be same.

One example I know is Shang-Di. The (G)od of Ancient China. The laws and commandments were virtually identical, and one striking characteristic of Shang-Di is that this is a God who loves.

On the opposite side, there are names of (g)ods in pagan cultures mentioned in the Bible, who were not YHWH. E.g. Moloch, Baal etc, who are demons.

Absolutely agree!! Excellent post!!

 

[Cnkw3]

Ok, let me be detailed. So hear me out.

The condition that one must repent and correct oneself as a prerequisite for forgiveness spans both OT and NT. The parable of the prodigal son illustrates this. In that parable, the father chose to forget all of the son's wrongdoings, because the son came back with a contrite heart. Jesus is basically teaching Ezekiel Ch 18. Would this apply to Gentiles also? Of course it does.

The prodigal son was just that....A SON! He was not some alien sinner that needed to become a child of God. So....no! It does not pertain to a gentile who HAS NOT obeyed the gospel.

Also, the covenant is inclusive. Gentiles can also join themselves to the covenant. The covenant for both Israelite and Gentile is to keep the Commandments (Isaiah 56). This requirement also does not change from OT to NT.

Yes. Obedience is and has always been required. Acts 10:35.
But obedience to what?

So, what's the difference between the old and new covenants? The difference is the blood. God said that it is blood that atones for our souls (Lev 17:11). That's the law. As Jesus said, the Law will even outlast heaven and earth.

Exodus 24:7-8 (with emphasis): "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that Yahweh hath spoken will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh hath made with you concerning all these words."

Jesus fulfilled the law of Lev 17:11 by having His own blood to atone (pay the penalty/compensate/propitiation) for the sin of the world. It His blood of the Covenant. (Matt 26:28). So the difference between the old and new covenants is not the requirements to keep the covenants (i.e. keep the Commandments), but the means of atonement (animal blood vs Jesus' Blood).

I don’t disagree that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.

Coming back to baptism. To be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ means to repent and accept His blood as the atonement for our sins, for the forgiveness/remission of sins, and in doing this, we receive the Holy Spirit.

Does it include water?

The condition for the forgiveness I mentioned the start of this reply, still applies. Would it make sense for you to be forgiven just because you're immersed in water
but still have an unrepentant heart? Of course not. So getting dunked in water is not of itself, that which results in you being forgiven.

That is true. One must first hear, believe and repent before they are a candidate for baptism. It matters why a person goes into the water.

It is symbolic, like that of circumcision (both a sign and a command) - but it is the circumcision of the heart (Jer 4:4).

I hope this helped and blessing in Jesus.

Are you saying that water baptism is “just” symbolic and that it has no effect on salvation ?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The prodigal son was just that....A SON!

Cain was a son too. Esau was a son too. Absalom was a son too. Adam was even a son of God.

 

[Cnkw3]

Cain was a son too. Esau was a son too. Absalom was a son too. Adam was even a son of God.

So? What’s your point? None of them lived under the new covenant. None of them have heard the great commission in Mk 16:15,16.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So? What’s your point? None of them lived under the new covenant. None of them have heard the great commission in Mk 16:15,16.

Being a son doesn't save you from the fruit of your choices. The prodigal HAD TO RETURN. The father of the prodigal did not say he was no longer his son. He said his son was dead. This happens. People die. Sons die too. They remain sons, but are dead. It is foolish to think that a son cannot die as a result of his choices and the being in the family is then over. The dead are not a part of the family of the living by definition.

 

[Cnkw3]

Being a son doesn't save you from the fruit of your choices.

No it doesn’t. But you can’t be saved at all without first becoming a child/son of God. Gal 3:26-29.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No it doesn’t. But you can’t be saved at all without first becoming a child/son of God. Gal 3:26-29.

And you can lose that sonship by your choices and the end result of that is something dies. It is called a dead faith or a dead son, just like the prodigal.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

My post is off topic so I’ll end it here.

 

[The Gallant Saint]

The prodigal son was just that....A SON! He was not some alien sinner that needed to become a child of God. So....no! It does not pertain to a gentile who HAS NOT obeyed the gospel.

An alien sinner who joins him/herself to the Covenant, confesses their sins, begs for mercy, and repents and wants to follow and keep the Commandments. Is there a difference?

Yes. Obedience is and has always been required. Acts 10:35.
But obedience to what?

Obedience is obedience to God's Commandments. This is what Jesus taught too.

That is true. One must first hear, believe and repent before they are a candidate for baptism. It matters why a person goes into the water.

Are you saying that water baptism is “just” symbolic and that it has no effect on salvation ?

I will give an analogy of a graduation ceremony. You pass all your subjects, you are now a candidate to take part in the graduation ceremony where you will be given your certificate/testamur.

Passing your subjects = believe and repent
graduation ceremony = Baptism
receiving the certificate/testamur = receiving the Holy Spirit

What if you broke your leg and can't make it to the graduation ceremony? What if you live in a desert and there just isn't enough water to immerse yourself?

Have you believed and repented [Passing your subjects]? Yes.
Will you still receive the Holy Spirit [certificate/testamur]? Yes

Peter is using the Baptism [graduation ceremony] as a synonym for believing and repenting [Passing your subjects]. Baptism, like a graduation ceremony, is symbolic.