D. C. Bear said:

---

The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.

---

I agree. The church of the first millenium agrees. The idea that confession is like an itemized tax return comes from the Roman Catholic idea that the church has the keys to the kingdom from which its priests dispense forgiveness in Christ's stead.

Here is how the a real prayer confessing sins to God begins and ends in the one Holy, Apostolic, Orthodox Church "I, a great sinner, confess to my Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ all the evil I have committed, uttered or thought since Baptism to the present day...I cannot enumerate all my sins because of their great number. I truly repent of all these my sins and of the sins I have not mentioned by reason of forgetfulness. I ask to be forgiven because of God's great mercy."

Compare that to how it begins in the Roman Catholic religion: ""Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. My last confession was ___ days/months/years ago) and these are my sins."


Here's the thing though. Most of these tools of Christian discipline (and I mean this in the sense of self-discipline, not getting sent to the principal's office) rightly understood and given to the church are so that the disciple can do his best to follow the second half of Christ's commandment..."Go and sin no more."

Realitybites said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The New Testament refutes the concept that every one of our sins must be confessed up to date or we are no longer children of God.

---

I agree. The church of the first millenium agrees. The idea that confession is like an itemized tax return comes from the Roman Catholic idea that the church has the keys to the kingdom from which its priests dispense forgiveness in Christ's stead.

Here is how the a real prayer confessing sins to God begins and ends in the one Holy, Apostolic, Orthodox Church "I, a great sinner, confess to my Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ all the evil I have committed, uttered or thought since Baptism to the present day...I cannot enumerate all my sins because of their great number. I truly repent of all these my sins and of the sins I have not mentioned by reason of forgetfulness. I ask to be forgiven because of God's great mercy."

Compare that to how it begins in the Roman Catholic religion: ""Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. My last confession was ___ days/months/years ago) and these are my sins."


Here's the thing though. Most of these tools of Christian discipline (and I mean this in the sense of self-discipline, not getting sent to the principal's office) rightly understood and given to the church are so that the disciple can do his best to follow the second half of Christ's commandment..."Go and sin no more."

---

"Forgive me, Father" is relatively uncommon. Most often it would be "bless me, Father." We also end with "for these and all my sins I am truly sorry" so as to include those we may have forgotten.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do these mean that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law and by our ability to avoid sinning? Should we be gouging out our eyes? No, Jesus said these things before the cross. It was to get people under the old covenant to repent and see their desperate need for a savior, which he had yet to fulfill on the cross and by his future resurrection. The verse you referenced is one of those times. Now that Jesus' work is finished, these verses do not apply today to those under the new covenant of grace through faith.

---

This is an unbelievably dangerous heresy. To say that half of Matthew 18 doesn't apply to Christians because Jesus taught it during his earthly ministry before the resurrection is heretical. Particularly given the scriptural context: which clearly indicates that this addresses those who believe in Him.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

How does this apply to the modern Christian? It is not a question of actually gouging out your eye, but rather expelling occasions to sin from your life, and doing so aggressively.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the evangelical gospel (event salvation, workless faith, dispensationalism, OSAS) is a packaged satanic deception to get the church to extinguish its lamps and go to sleep.

But the positions you take make a lot more sense when you're willing to dismiss entire chunks of the New Testament because dispensationalism or something.

---

It's a "dangerous heresy" to say that salvation is by grace through faith now that Jesus has paid for sin, not by obeying the Law perfectly, which was the only way before Jesus' sacrifice?

No one is saying "half of Matthew" doesn't apply to Christians today. What was said was that those verses which say the Old Covenant way to eternal life (perfection), which was applicable to people before Jesus' sacrifice, are not applicable today now that Jesus fulfilled the Law and paid for all sin through his sacrifice.

When Jesus said to gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin, he wasn't just saying that we should deal with our sin aggresively, he was clearly saying that the sin from your eye can send you to Hell. Does that apply to Christians today? Are you saying that it doesn't matter if someone puts their faith in Jesus for their salvation, they still can go to Hell because of sin?

Some things Jesus said was meant to get people to realize the impossibility of salvation by their own merit. You can't take these verses to support a works/merit based salvation. If you do, you're missing the entire point. In fact, you're doing the very opposite of what was intended. Let's be honest - the vast majority of Christians if that have ever lived, if not all of them, very likely have not obeyed the Law perfectly, have sinned with their eyes, and have called other people "fools" in their hearts, and even worse things than that. If those verses apply to us today, then the vast majority of us Christians are doomed to Hell.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do these mean that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law and by our ability to avoid sinning? Should we be gouging out our eyes? No, Jesus said these things before the cross. It was to get people under the old covenant to repent and see their desperate need for a savior, which he had yet to fulfill on the cross and by his future resurrection. The verse you referenced is one of those times. Now that Jesus' work is finished, these verses do not apply today to those under the new covenant of grace through faith.

---

.... I'm coming to the conclusion that the evangelical gospel (event salvation, workless faith, dispensationalism, OSAS) is a packaged satanic deception to get the church to extinguish its lamps and go to sleep.

But the positions you take make a lot more sense when you're willing to dismiss entire chunks of the New Testament because dispensationalism or something.

---

You came to this conclusion because you really don't understand the Gospel, let alone what evangelicals believe about it.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sacraments aid us in running the race and living a disciplined Christian life.

I agree to an extent. It depends on the sacrament, and whether it is found in scripture. But it sounds like we agree that they don't save. In short, baptism and the Eucharist are not required for salvation. Agreed?

---

It depends on what you mean by "required". If you come to faith and perish unable to partake in baptism and the eucharist then they are not required. If you come to faith and then of your own free will refuse to partake in baptism and the eucharist, you are lost. In the church of the first millenium, the catachumen spent many months or years being instructed in the faith before being baptized and entering into communion. Yet it was the universally held that a catachumen who died before this was still saved.

---

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that says that if you refuse to be water baptized and take communion that you go to Hell, even if you put your faith in Jesus. They are sins like any other sins of disobedience. You are mixing faith with works as requirements for salvation. It is much like how those in Acts were teaching that one had to be circumcised to become a Christian and thus saved. The apostle Paul said this is a false gospel, and that anyone who teaches a false Gospel should be cursed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.

---

Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.

---

He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.

---

Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?

---

I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?

---

The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?

---

No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.

---

So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?

---

Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.

---

In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.

---

I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake had that been the case.

---

I highly, highly doubt that the woman tricked Jesus into believing she had true faith so she could secure her spot in heaven before going on a killing spree.

---

Well, I think it's quite a remarkable statement when you suggest that the only way to have peace is to know you can never commit any sin such that God won't still be on your side. I can't imagine what it's like to live with that kind of entitlement. This thread is giving me a whole new insight on things like American exceptionalism, orientalism, and WASP culture in general. Honestly not trying to be snarky here, just thinking out loud.

---

Before you latch on to your new "insight", realize that true faith isn't where one believes just so they can have the "entitlement" to sin.

---

It's a dangerous attitude to have, regardless.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Be ye perfect" is an exhortation. He knows very well that none of us are. Jesus is calling us to the spirit of the law, the law written on our hearts, not just the letter and the outward form.

---

... and is saying that obedience to the law is what saves us to eternal life, right?

---

No, that's not enough. He's asking asking more, but he's promising that we can accomplish it...through his grace alone.

---

Right, more, as in perfect obedience to the law. It's how Jesus answered what one must do to inherit eternal life. Nothing about grace or faith.

---

He talked about faith and works all the time. This is my point--you can't take one verse out of context from all the rest.

---

Right, but isn't that what you did with the verse that says calling someone a "fool" puts them in Hell fire?

---

I don't think so. What context do you think I ignored?

---

The same context that you aren't ignoring with the rich young ruler, seemingly. Are you saying that salvation is by perfect obedience to the Law, with God's help to obey them, rather than by grace through faith?

---

No. We all fall short, and as Mothra says, God is there with his grace to forgive us. But we have to keep repenting and seeking him if we want to finish the race. Otherwise we will fail, as stated many times in Scripture.

---

So then why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could have eternal life by perfect obedience to the Law without saying anything about grace through faith? You know, the same way he saved the sinful woman in Luke 7 and the thief on the cross? The same way he tells us today?

---

Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, not go and do whatever she wanted because she was "saved." It's safe to assume most people got the message.

---

In Luke 7 the woman was told that her faith saved her, and to "go in peace." I don't think she could really go in peace, if she could still commit sins that send her to purgatory to suffer, or to Hell if she happens to commit a sin and die right after.

---

I don't see how her friends and neighbors could live in peace if she thought she was immune to all guilt. Jesus would have left a lot of lonely saints in his wake had that been the case.

---

I highly, highly doubt that the woman tricked Jesus into believing she had true faith so she could secure her spot in heaven before going on a killing spree.

---

Well, I think it's quite a remarkable statement when you suggest that the only way to have peace is to know you can never commit any sin such that God won't still be on your side. I can't imagine what it's like to live with that kind of entitlement. This thread is giving me a whole new insight on things like American exceptionalism, orientalism, and WASP culture in general. Honestly not trying to be snarky here, just thinking out loud.

---

Before you latch on to your new "insight", realize that true faith isn't where one believes just so they can have the "entitlement" to sin.

---

It's a dangerous attitude to have, regardless.

---

It's an attitude of someone who isn't a true believer. And what's eternally more dangerous is for people to believe that one's salvation depends on their performance, thus making void Jesus' finished work on the cross.