If You Are Saved, Are Your Future Sins Forgiven?

10/28/07 | Pinochet

[Seven_0]

The OT especially has verses that ask God to forgive us of sins we may have commited but were unaware of them. I do not believe that sins commited ignorantly are as dangerous to the soul as the willful sins.

It seems apparent to me that God intended for us to “know” good and evil. It was the first lesson for Adam and Eve to encounter. Satan convinced Eve that it would be OK to eat the fruit, but Adam was not deceived and ate the fruit anyway. Two people committing the same sin, one in ignorance, one willfully. Both were without excuse.

I think Paul is refering to the Gentile who has a general tendency to sin, not a good person who ignorantly breaks ecclesiastical rules. I think we can determine the wicked from the decent person. The context of the verse (Romans 2:1) is written towards the Jew/Christian who is proud of their religiousity, while they do the very same things that the pagans do.

Romans 2:1 is written to “O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:” We need to learn to judge rightly, which means judging ourselves first. “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” If we refuse to judge others, they may take it as tacit approval. I do not envy your job.

Seven

[jo kus]

It seems apparent to me that God intended for us to “know” good and evil. It was the first lesson for Adam and Eve to encounter. Satan convinced Eve that it would be OK to eat the fruit, but Adam was not deceived and ate the fruit anyway. Two people committing the same sin, one in ignorance, one willfully. Both were without excuse.

We could argue that for awhile. It was Adam's sin that brought sin and death into the world, not Eve. Also, how was Eve "ignorant", when she knew God's command to not eat from the tree of knowledge? My point was the sin of ignornace is not as "damning" as one done willfully. For example, read Numbers 15:

And if any person sins through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year as [the] sin. And the priest shall reconcile the soul that errs ignorantly, when he sins by ignorance before the LORD, he shall be reconciled; and it shall be forgiven him. Ye shall have the same law for the one that sins through ignorance, [both for] the natural born among the sons of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them. But the person that does something consciously, [whether they are] natural born or a stranger, the same reproaches the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has made void his commandment, that person shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity [shall be] upon him. Numbers 15:27-31

The force of the difference is clear. The sins of ignorance are not as bad as those done in full knowledge, done wilfully and despite the commandments. Catholics call such sins "mortal", since they separate us from spiritual commune with the Body - just as in Moses' day. We believe that God only condemns those who REJECTS Him, as in John 3, not those who were ignorant about Him. Laws only bind those to whom it is given to.

We need to learn to judge rightly, which means judging ourselves first. “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” If we refuse to judge others, they may take it as tacit approval. I do not envy your job.

Yes, it is a fine line to walk, between justice and mercy, between strict following of the law and more pastoral interpretation. I agree that a person should be notified if they are "living in sin". It is to be done gently and so as not to close the door on someone "young in the faith". As I said before, I don't think such a person was necessarily "bound by the slavery of adultery", per sec, since in many cases, it was an unknown rule that they were unaware of.

While my "job" may have its difficulties, I am sure that anyone in my position, one who preaches the Gospel to people just beginning their walk in Christ (in the fullness of faith, for those who are Protestant converts) can testify that it is also a spiritually refreshing calling, because we SEE Christ working in people, changing and reforming them over a period of time. For some people, it is quite an amazing transformation, and this strengthens my own faith and trust in the working of the Spirit.

Regards

[Seven_0]

We could argue that for awhile. It was Adam's sin that brought sin and death into the world, not Eve. Also, how was Eve "ignorant", when she knew God's command to not eat from the tree of knowledge? My point was the sin of ignornace is not as "damning" as one done willfully. For example, read Numbers 15:

Indeed, it was Adam’s sin that condemned mankind, as he is the head of the “natural man.” But we are told that Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived. I believe that when the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die,” that she believed him. Thus she thought she could eat the fruit without consequences. Perhaps you have a different take.

If ignorance is a mitigating factor, then what difference can we discern between the discipline meted out to Adam verses Eve?

The force of the difference is clear. The sins of ignorance are not as bad as those done in full knowledge, done wilfully and despite the commandments.

I have found that interpretations that are obvious in one passage of scripture and not so clear in other passages. What about a person who is willfully ignorant of God’s word?

We all walk a fine line. I understand the difficulties in your job and also the blessings. I have no prescription for someone in an adulterous marriage except for Christ who is just and the justifier of all that believe.

Seven

[jo kus]

Indeed, it was Adam’s sin that condemned mankind, as he is the head of the “natural man.” But we are told that Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived. I believe that when the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die,” that she believed him. Thus she thought she could eat the fruit without consequences. Perhaps you have a different take.

Yes, Paul wrote that Eve was deceived and not Adam. That is an interesting passage, and I am not sure why Paul writes it, because Adam was clearly deceived, as well. He was apparently next to Eve when the serpent tempted her.

And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Gen 3:6

Paul's assertion is a bit confusing to me, I am not sure why he says that, except perhaps to exhonerate the male for some reason. He knew where Eve got the fruit from and that the serpent tempted her.

If ignorance is a mitigating factor, then what difference can we discern between the discipline meted out to Adam verses Eve?

That's a good question - if we think that Eve was ignorant. However, I do not believe either were ignorant, and they willfully broke God's commandment, since they BOTH ate of the fruit of the tree that they were forbidden to eat from. Thus, they received due punishment and were cast out of union with God in the Garden. Now, why was man and woman punished differently? God has His reasons on why women would be subject to man and that men would have to sweat for their food.

I have found that interpretations that are obvious in one passage of scripture and not so clear in other passages. What about a person who is willfully ignorant of God’s word?

LOL! Willfully ignorant? Can you give me an example of what that means? I think the two terms are mutually exclusive - do you mean someone chooses to remain ignornant?

I have no prescription for someone in an adulterous marriage except for Christ who is just and the justifier of all that believe.

True. Once a person is told of their relationship, and they believe that the source of the judgment is truly from God through a human instrument, then it is their responsibility to do something about it. They are no longer ignorant; continued "marital activity" without some sort of action or plan in view to remedy the situation would be a willful ignoring of God's command.

Only God can judge the heart of men, so it is difficult to know how "ignorant" someone really is.

Regards

[Seven_0]

Yes, Paul wrote that Eve was deceived and not Adam. That is an interesting passage, and I am not sure why Paul writes it, because Adam was clearly deceived, as well. He was apparently next to Eve when the serpent tempted her.

Lets look again at the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, but bring in the typical aspect also. Romans 5:14 tells us that Adam is a type of Christ. Ephesians 5:32-32 further tells us that Adam and Eve represent Christ and the church. Is it possible that the details about Adam and Eve, which God has chosen to preserve in scripture, are teaching us about Christ and the church?

I believe that there are two stories in the Genesis account, the one we all read and the one beneath the surface. If in fact God has done this, then we have good reasons to believe that the details in scripture will fit both stories perfectly. I cannot explain all of the details they are too myriad, but I will suggest some.

If you say Adam was deceived, does it follow that Christ was also deceived? Since I maintain that Adam was not deceived, I suspect that if he had been present when Satan deceived Eve, he would have set her right. It is also noteworthy that God was not present when Adam ate the fruit. (This one is also prophetic in more than one direction. Of course anything in the Old Testament that refers to Christ is prophetic)

LOL! Willfully ignorant? Can you give me an example of what that means? I think the two terms are mutually exclusive

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Only God can judge the heart of men, so it is difficult to know how "ignorant" someone really is.

Amen

Seven