Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[Biblereader]

Hey Francis, are you Catholic?

I found a great website, Christian, that offers, FREE,
very good, indepth bible studies.
The one lesson I completed today was:
http://www.bbnradio.org/wcm4/bbnbiengli ... fault.aspx

The doctrine of the new birth. I would recommend it for my Catholic, and Calvinist friends.

 

[Drew]

I have gone over this so many times with you before, Drew, and you are so set in your Wright mode that you are unable to hear sound doctrine when it's given.

Argumentative and speculative - you have no evidence, and will not be able to give any evidence, to support thid claim.

In the first place...your translation is off. It shouldn't say eternal life will be given. The verse says those who "seek" for glory, honor, and eternal life.

You keep repeating this same error. You misread the NASB version and ignore other versions, all of which are clear - eternal life is indeed something that is given.

eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality,

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life.

to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers.

To those who go on with good works in the hope of glory and honour and salvation from death, he will give eternal life:

to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

 

[seekandlisten]

The blood of Christ is not applied all at once to even future sins. Otherwise, there is no need to repent of future sins. The Bible does not support that idea, as Christians are IMPELLED to CONTINUE to ask for forgiveness of their current sins and to pray for the sake of others. . .

Hey francis,

I have a quick question for you if you don't mind, you can pm me if you don't think it applies to this thread. You speak here of a continuing need to repent right? How does this apply when taking Hebrews 6 into account? Especially verses 1 and 6. According to the Bible the 'price' for sin has been paid and when one 'accepts' this payment there is only one direction to go, and that is forward in 'becoming perfect as your Father is perfect'. Is this correct so far?

Now when you look at the 'don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing' kind of mind set presented and the fact that the Bible states that mankind is 'sinful' by nature and it's only 'God' working through 'his people' that makes them good, wouldn't repeatedly having to 'confess' your 'sins' be redundant? I realize the Bible also states that the 'spirit' will convict the 'heart' as well as Hebrews 4:12's statement. I'm by no means saying that 'sin' is ok or that it will happen anyways so why bother, but rather getting caught up in the fact that one is 'saved' and just has to say sorry when they screw up rather then trying to change their 'ways' and instead continually returning to the point that they started at with repentance and recognition of their 'sinful nature'.

The point being shouldn't we be progressing forward to becoming 'perfect' if one is 'running the race with endurance'? As soon as one gets comfortable in their 'ways' is that not a 'rest stop' in this 'progress' that could become dangerous if one decides to continue to 'dwell' there instead of a steady progression?

I'm simply looking for an opinion on this point and I respect your point of view when it comes to scripture interpretation so I am interested in your reply but not in debate.

YOU see "justified by faith", and forgeting all rules of language, insert "justified by faith ALONE". This simple addition turns upside down the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures...

So if I say, "the atmosphere has oxygen in it", YOU must think that there is no nitrogen in it??? That's what you are doing with sola fide.

That's probably one of the best analogy's I've seen when it comes to topics as this.

cheers

 

[Drew]

The whole world can't stand condemned unless there is a law.

Paul here shows that even in the absence of law, the penalty of sin - death - is indeed applied:

for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

This is a difficult text, and it is not clear what Paul means by "no accounting for sin". But one thing is clear - death reigned from Adam until Moses in the absence of a written moral code.

 

[Drew]

I'm truly surprised you can't see that. There is none righteous...no not one. Unless, of course, you're judging by man's standards and not God's. Therein is the flaw in your reasoning.

You are not giving God any credit for bringing a NEW CREATION into existence. To you, apparently, nothing happens to us at Baptism, we are NOT transformed, and remain totally depraved. There is no new creation, we remain the same and require some "imputed" righteousness, since God cannot change us...

You are, of course, bang on correct.

And I trust you will not take this as an insult when I assert the following: The really amazing thing here is not that fds has been particularly ingenious in reconciling Romans 3 with the new creation doctrine - you do not need to be Albert Einstein to realize that "all have sinned" does not logically preclude subsequent transformation from that awful state. No, fds is quite correct, even if his argument is retatively easy to put together.

What is really amazing is how so many use Romans 3 as if it described the Christian after entering into faith. To believe that it does, you must have taken your Bible and literally ripped Romans 8 clean out of it. For Romans 8, of course, is a full dress treatment of how the believer, through the Spirit, can escape the dreadful state described in Romans 3.

Frankly, it is difficult to see how people miss this. And yet they do.

 

[francisdesales]

Hey Francis, are you Catholic?

I found a great website, Christian, that offers, FREE,
very good, indepth bible studies.
The one lesson I completed today was:
http://www.bbnradio.org/wcm4/bbnbiengli ... fault.aspx

The doctrine of the new birth. I would recommend it for my Catholic, and Calvinist friends.

Yes, I am Catholic. I'll check out your link when I get home, my intranet blocks that one. I appreciate the opportunity to look at a "good, indepth bible study".

Regards

 

[chestertonrules]

Hey Francis, are you Catholic?

I found a great website, Christian, that offers, FREE,
very good, indepth bible studies.
The one lesson I completed today was:
http://www.bbnradio.org/wcm4/bbnbiengli ... fault.aspx

The doctrine of the new birth. I would recommend it for my Catholic, and Calvinist friends.

I'm Catholic. It sounds interesting.

I Recommend that you check this out as well:

http://www.catholic-convert.com/communi ... n-stories/

 

[francisdesales]

The blood of Christ is not applied all at once to even future sins. Otherwise, there is no need to repent of future sins. The Bible does not support that idea, as Christians are IMPELLED to CONTINUE to ask for forgiveness of their current sins and to pray for the sake of others. . .

Hey francis,

I have a quick question for you if you don't mind, you can pm me if you don't think it applies to this thread. You speak here of a continuing need to repent right? How does this apply when taking Hebrews 6 into account? Especially verses 1 and 6. According to the Bible the 'price' for sin has been paid and when one 'accepts' this payment there is only one direction to go, and that is forward in 'becoming perfect as your Father is perfect'. Is this correct so far?

I'll answer, and perhaps we will not derail the thread. If that is in danger, we can move it...

Yes, Jesus has eternally paid the price for the sins of mankind. EVERYONE'S sins. That includes Adolph Hitler's sins. Josef Stalin, et al., even enough for unrepentant sinners, correct? The problem, of course, is that Christ does not apply His forgiveness to these men (I am presuming they died unrepentant). Why? Because they didn't repent of sins.

Now, if God desires ALL men to be saved, and all men are NOT saved, then salvation is conditional. Men must do something, despite the FACT that Christ's act on the cross was sufficient, even for Adolph and Stalin. God has chosen NOT to save these men, even though there is plenty of merit in the work of Jesus to do just that. It seems that God allows men to "work out their salvation" and to decide whether to respond to God's Love or not.

We have taken the extreme, Stalin and Hitler. But is it really so different for you and I? Why would God give us a pass and not punish us if we have unrepentant major sin, just because one time, 20 years ago, we made a faith declaration and were baptized? Is God not impartial? Does God let the Jews slide because they were His People, but had chosen to disobey Him? A quick glance at the OT should set things straight.

To give you an analogy, think of Jesus' work as a truly powerful stain remover. This stain remover is the ONLY thing that can remove particular stains we acquire when we go 'outside' and 'get dirty'. So when we come home and want to become clean again, we again ask for forgiveness and the "stain remover" is once again applied from an infinitely large container, if you will.

Not the greatest analogy, mind you, but pouring forgiveness on you will not wash you of future sins - since forgiveness can only be asked for on matters of the past. You can't be sorry for something you haven't done yet and beg that God forgive you. That is not repentance.

And thus, 1 John 1 tells us that we CONTINUE to have an Advocate seated next to the Father, in case we DO sin again. WHY would you need an Advocate (John is speaking to saved Christians) if all sins, past and future, are once forgiven?

No, Jesus' work is conditionally applied in ALL cases - from genocide down to stealing or lying. The work is done and awaits our begging for forgiveness - thus, the Advocate awaits our prayers of supplication.

Another way of looking at it is that we are re-establishing our relationship when we turn our back on the Beloved Who has given us so much... Married people do the same thing. When we hurt our spouse, do we say "remember, in good times and bad, you forgave me of everything, so I don't have to apologize for cheating on you..." or do we again apologize for the current problem and attempt to make amends?

The point being shouldn't we be progressing forward to becoming 'perfect' if one is 'running the race with endurance'? As soon as one gets comfortable in their 'ways' is that not a 'rest stop' in this 'progress' that could become dangerous if one decides to continue to 'dwell' there instead of a steady progression?

I agree, we can become complacent in a comfort zone. I think most Christians sense from time to time they aren't moving forward or backwards in their walk, and perhaps feel the need to leave their comfort zone to break forward.

It is not easy moving out of our comfort zone, though, if we do not feel a "pull" to finish the race - but rather, have already "did it". Thus, the "Once Saved always" mentality CAN condone mediocrity. Thus, the Bible constantly urges us to zealously pursue a higher form of Love - which unites us further with Love Himself.

Regards

 

[seekandlisten]

Interesting points. Thanks Francis.

cheers

 

[francisdesales]

And I trust you will not take this as an insult when I assert the following: The really amazing thing here is not that fds has been particularly ingenious in reconciling Romans 3 with the new creation doctrine - you do not need to be Albert Einstein to realize that "all have sinned" does not logically preclude subsequent transformation from that awful state. No, fds is quite correct, even if his argument is retatively easy to put together.

I have no answer on how so many fail to see that the new creation that we have become is still subject to being a "filthy rag" in where no righteousness can possibly be found... I certainly have tried to make my arguments as simple as possible, but for some reason, we see that some doubt God has any ability to create a NEW PERSON when He brings about a birth from above...???

If I was an unbiased observer, I would conclude there is some sort of neurosis taking place here...

I am not sure what it is, adherence to the sacred cow of total depravity or an inadequate understanding of how grace and nature work together without the former overpowering the later, or just plain stubborness in not wanting to be found wrong.

But there is definitely some sort of "wall" that is keeping people from seeing that Paul does NOT think that Christians are among the people who are wicked and do not seek out God, for heaven's sake!!!

Frustratingly,

Regards

 

[Drew]

You are suggesting that the way Romans 2:7 is written within our translation is without error. Prove it ! Show us the orignals !

And since you can't, it then become pure speculation on your part. Thus your own private interpretation is based souly upon the way our translations were written. Totally disregarding the fact that the scriptures can not contradict themselves !

This is probably the strangest line of argument I have ever seen in many years on this forum. We all are in the same boat - none of us has "original texts". So we make do with what we have. Mysteriously, you claim some magical insight into the original rendering of Romans 2:7 that has eluded all the scholars over 2000 years of Christendom.

And then you demand that I prove that the greek texts we do have - none of which seem to have this mysterious extra "in" that you talk about - line up with the translations.

 

[Drew]

The question right now is based on who claims glory for salvation? Is it God alone or God + man?

The overwhelming credit goes to God. But man is a creature - he is not a rock. And God has given man the freedom to accept or reject the gift of salvation. So it is indeed "synergistic" in that sense.

If man's ability to earn his righteousness through good works is propagated as the sole criteria to enter heaven, then it seems to be glorifying man.

I do not believe I have ever asserted any such thing, I believe I have been quite clear - it is the Holy Spirit who "does the works" through us.

On the other hand, as Scripture says - we have righteousness in Christ alone. This is imputed to us through faith.

I do not believe that the scriptures teach that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. This is widely believed, but I am prepared to argue in detail that it is not really a Biblically defensible position.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The "works" here are clearly the works of the Law of Moses, not "good works". That this is so can be easily discerned by context - I can make the relevant arguments if you like. So Paul is not denying the very thing he affirms in Romans 2 - that we are ultimately justified by good works. I hope to address the rest of your post later.

 

[francisdesales]

You are suggesting that the way Romans 2:7 is written within our translation is without error. Prove it ! Show us the orignals !

HA! I have the original texts, right here! In my den! They were right under my Nave's Topical Bible! I'm not sure how they got there and remained "buried" for so long!

Now, if Mysteryman has a mailing address, I'll send you a copy of the original. Don't worry, I won't doctor the original words - but you understand, I can't send you the original! I couldn't bear it if the USPS lost the original Bible manuscript in the mail.

I know it is the original because it is signed by Paul of Tarsus!

Hey, what'd you know, it says "...a Mysteryman from centuries later will proclaim that he has divine knowledge on the writings of this letter that future translators will intentionally conspire to remove - IGNORE THAT MAN! (Romans 2:32).

Humph. Interesting, I guess the translators took that verse out of Romans in my other Bibles...

You want a copy of that original transcript?

:biglol

 

[Mysteryman]

You are suggesting that the way Romans 2:7 is written within our translation is without error. Prove it ! Show us the orignals !

HA! I have the original texts, right here! In my den! They were right under my Nave's Topical Bible! I'm not sure how they got there and remained "buried" for so long!

Now, if Mysteryman has a mailing address, I'll send you a copy of the original. Don't worry, I won't doctor the original words - but you understand, I can't send you the original! I couldn't bear it if the USPS lost the original Bible manuscript in the mail.

I know it is the original because it is signed by Paul of Tarsus!

Hey, what'd you know, it says "...a Mysteryman from centuries later will proclaim that he has divine knowledge on the writings of this letter that future translators will intentionally conspire to remove - IGNORE THAT MAN! (Romans 2:32).

Humph. Interesting, I guess the translators took that verse out of Romans in my other Bibles...

You want a copy of that original transcript?

:biglol

Yes, you are full of laughs :biglol

 

[francisdesales]

HA! I have the original texts, right here! In my den! They were right under my Nave's Topical Bible! I'm not sure how they got there and remained "buried" for so long!

Now, if Mysteryman has a mailing address, I'll send you a copy of the original. Don't worry, I won't doctor the original words - but you understand, I can't send you the original! I couldn't bear it if the USPS lost the original Bible manuscript in the mail.

I know it is the original because it is signed by Paul of Tarsus!

Hey, what'd you know, it says "...a Mysteryman from centuries later will proclaim that he has divine knowledge on the writings of this letter that future translators will intentionally conspire to remove - IGNORE THAT MAN! (Romans 2:32).

Humph. Interesting, I guess the translators took that verse out of Romans in my other Bibles...

You want a copy of that original transcript?

:biglol

Yes, you are full of laughs :biglol

Yea, we are two peas in a pod, you with your supreme knowledge of what God MEANT to say but didn't get into the actual Scriptures and my smart-aleck irreverant humor... The places we could go!

 

[jasoncran]

enough, please back out if both cant be civil.

 

[glorydaz]

Whoa whoa...now my error buzzer is ringing off the hook. Abraham was justified by faith. End of story. Please don't make me post Romans 4 ONCE AGAIN. It is so clear...without wiggle room for such statements as you've made here.

Jamess 2
21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.


Do you think Abraham would have been chosen to be the father of Israel if he had disobeyed God's instructions, even though he had faith?

James is talking about hypocrites who claim to believe, but show forth no fruit in their lives. Because Abraham believed God, AND IT WAS IMPUTED UNTO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, "faith wrought (produced) good works." It's automatic, because God ordained it that way. When we believe, we are justified...then good works will follow.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

We are justified by faith....now look carefully at this verse.

You notice how we are not justified by our works....but, it has been ORDAINED by God that we should walk in good works as a RESULT of being saved. It has been ordained by God that His children, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, will produce the fruit of the Spirit...good works are manifestations of that fruit. Our obedience to God is only what we owe to our Father...and the fruit is His as we simply obey His voice.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[glorydaz]

Only those written in the Lamb's book of life will be saved. We're written in the Lamb's Book when we're born of God...new creatures.

Do you have any Scripture verses for that? It appears the Lamb's Book was written before time. But we DO know that people can be REMOVED from it, as Jesus warns Christians of this very threat. Again, I submit that you are overlapping the meaning of "salvation" into one definition.

Salvation can refer to that point in time when we are forgiven of our sins. That is a past event and is not based upon our works. HOWEVER, THIS salvation does not NECESSARILY GUARANTEE the "other" salvation - that is BEING done and WILL be done, provided we obey God and have faith working in love. We CAN lose that inheritance.

We see here there are "books" from which all will be judged on their works...there are none righteous...no not one.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Those written in the Lamb's book....those born of the Spirit who have eternal life, will never be "blotted out."

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

The only reference to "blotted out" of the book of life is here...a prayer that the enemy NOT BE WRITTEN WITH THE RIGHTEOUS. That's a far cry from God saying anyone will ever be blotted out of the Lamb's book of life.

Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

The blood of Christ is not applied all at once to even future sins. Otherwise, there is no need to repent of future sins. The Bible does not support that idea, as Christians are IMPELLED to CONTINUE to ask for forgiveness of their current sins and to pray for the sake of others, to include Paul. We CONTINUE to have an Advocate in heaven, if we falter. First John 1. I do not forget such verses, but take them into account. IF the Blood of Christ is applied without condition, than ALL men WOULD be saved. Faith is GIVEN to men, is it not? A gift. God desires all men to be saved, correct? So to be saved by faith, God must provide some amount of faith to enable "the desire that all men to be saved".

No, it does not mean all men would be saved. Only those who accept the free gift are saved. You have some faulty reasoning on this issue. The blood covers all our sins...past, present and future. We only repent (turn to the Lord) one time. We confess our sins...not because they aren't covered by the blood, but that we may be restored to fellowship with our Lord.

You are going too far. Yes, man sins and cannot attain eternal life without God. Granted and I have said this. But "you" (reformers) go TOO far by stating the terrible doctrine of total depravity, which must demand that Christ "cover" us with imputed righteousness, since man can have NO righteousness!!!

Ignore Jesus AGAIN if you like, you'll answer for that. But clearly, He says UNLESS YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS exceeds that of the Pharisees, you CANNOT enter the Kingdom. YOUR righteousness, not "Jesus covering you".

Yes, and David was a man after God's own heart even though he committed adultery and murdered Uriah. And Lot was called righteous..... I'm surprised that you think even the most righteous of men could come close to the glory of God...God is RIGHTEOUS. Man is not even close...on his best day. Yes, in man's eyes...you may be righteous, but we're not talking about the judgment of man but of a Holy and Righteous God. That's why man's righteousness is as filthy rags to God...it's a matter of comparison, and man falls short of God's glory. Even as "new creatures" we are bound by this body of sin. Is your every thought pure and holy?

For you, it is an "either"/"or". You don't GET that God and man act together to do works of love in faith. For it is GOD who gives us the ability to DO works of love, works in faith, for He provides BOTH gifts. Thus, there is no need to have some false diametrically opposed thought between faith and works of love. But because WE are judged for what we do (not God's success of the works of love in us), it is apparent to anyone who is not worrying about defending false doctrines that God INFUSES righteousness WITHIN US. It becomes OUR righteousness, since we are NOW A NEW CREATION. The words of Isaiah do not apply to us - we are NOT wicked, are works are not filthy wrags. We DO seek out God and we DO perform works of Love. WE. This is the basis of our judgment - and NO ONE will brag, because without God's aid, we could not even DESIRE to do these works that WE do...

Don't you believe that God will do what He says He'll do? A new creation is formed. Forget about filthy rags now. Those days are DONE - unless you volunteer to return to the vomit...

Please don't tell me what I think and what I "don't get" since you obviously have no understanding of what I say half the time. It is God who works through us....you can claim it becomes YOUR righteousness if you like. We are new creatures, but we are still far from the righteousness of God. We have a new heart...a desire to please God, but we can of ourselves do nothing. Jesus made that clear. How can man glory in something he cannot do in his own strength?

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Then tell me how you know you have "enough" faith... At what point are you "really" saved? What numeric reading on your faith meter indicates "saved forever"????

We are saved by the faith of Christ....when we believe in Him, He saves us. He sees our heart, circumcises it and fills us with His Spirit. Then we enter into eternal life. The Holy Spirit within confirms and assures me of my salvation. And, yes...it is an eternal salvation because Jesus will lose none the Father has given Him. I rest in His power to save and keep me.
[quote="francisdesales"You are not giving God any credit for bringing a NEW CREATION into existence. To you, apparently, nothing happens to us at Baptism, we are NOT transformed, and remain totally depraved. There is no new creation, we remain the same and require some "imputed" righteousness, since God cannot change us...

YOU have some major flaws, GD, in your thinking, not me.[/quote]
We do require Christ's righteousness...for all men fall short of the glory of God.
New creature does not mean we are sinless perfection walking the earth...we fall short. I realize that's hard for some to admit, but it's better if we do because that's the way God sees it. That's why we are "covered" by the blood of the Lamb. To cover those sins and to be able to enter into the holy of holies to commune with a perfectly Holy and Righteous God.

Paul merely states ONE PART of justification - faith. Can faith alone save for eternal life? NO. BUT YOU REFUSE to listen to God's Word and must cull up some baloney reasoning about "justified in man's eyes", when clearly, the event in question has NO MAN PRESENT - it is done in God's EYES alone!!!

Paul gives us many examples that he does NOT consider "faith alone" as the formula for justification. One example, I have given numerous times, but it falls upon the deaf ears of the one defending the sacred cow of sola fide. One Cor 13:2.

IF faith alone justified, HOW IS IT that a tremendous amount of faith is called NOTHING, if it does NOT have SOMETHING ELSE????

Rather than sticking to cliches and false gospels of half truths, I suggest you attempt to READ the Bible as it is, without attempting to insert your own doctrines into their place. When the words say "x", don't explain them away to maintain some other prized theory. When the Bible says we are saved by faith, and elsewhere, not by faith alone, THEN SEEK OUT what ELSE saves!!! Try to live by the rules of logic and language, because God is not illogical.Regards

I have read the Bible, and I understand man is justified by faith alone. Our work is to believe. Simply because God ordains that His children will manifest good works after they have been freely justified, does not give man the right to take credit for his salvation. If you choose to go that route, then so be it. I won't go there, even if you insult me a hundred times over. All the glory belongs to God...

 

[glorydaz]

The whole world can't stand condemned unless there is a law.

Paul here shows that even in the absence of law, the penalty of sin - death - is indeed applied:

for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

This is a difficult text, and it is not clear what Paul means by "no accounting for sin". But one thing is clear - death reigned from Adam until Moses in the absence of a written moral code.

And since there was sin in the world...from the first one Adam committed...then it stands to reason that there was an "unwritten" law of God, just as Paul explains in Romans 1 and 2 when he speaks of man's conscience. Sin is what needs to be dealt with by grace....and faith is what justifies man so he no longer stands condemned.

 

[glorydaz]

To give you an analogy, think of Jesus' work as a truly powerful stain remover. This stain remover is the ONLY thing that can remove particular stains we acquire when we go 'outside' and 'get dirty'. So when we come home and want to become clean again, we again ask for forgiveness and the "stain remover" is once again applied from an infinitely large container, if you will.

The problem with your analogy here is this ...

Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

This is the perfect picture of the cleansing of the blood. We are "clean every whit" by the blood of the lamb. Washing is no longer needed..."save to wash his feet". That is why we confess our sins...so we can be restored to fellowship and continue our walk unhindered by disobedience...not having to do with our salvation at all. The blood covers all our sins..we have put on the "helmet of salvation".