My interpretation of confessing every sin like you talked about with the Freewill Baptists is that this is for major sins, especially ones that you know about. It’s clear in Leviticus — yes, Leviticus — that sacrifices by individuals were never required for sins you didn’t realize you did. It repeats over and over “if you commit a sin unintentionally, and later feel guilty, you offer this sacrifice” — but what if you never feel guilty? What if you never realize it was a sin? Well then you can’t offer an individual sacrifice. Either God just forgives that via mercy, or the corporate sacrifice by the high priest deals with that. When you pray and confess sin as John instructs, you are invoking Christ’s sacrifice in similar manner to how the Jews back there would have offered a personal sacrifice. But for the sins you are unaware of, and minor sins you don’t feel any guilt for, Christ’s sacrifice should operate automatically on those in the way that the corporate sacrifice did there in Leviticus. This, to me, makes perfect sense of the passage about Christ’s blood continually cleansing our sins as we walk in the light in 1st John as well as the other one about confession. It also fits in line well with Psalm 32. Some people that believe we must repent and confess our sins to be forgiven do take it too far and don’t recognize that God can forgive sins we aren’t aware of without confession, and they freak out thinking “Oh no, what if there’s a sin I forgot about!” But just because some people are ignorant of Leviticus doesn’t invalidate the whole concept. But where the sin is huge, like murder or adultery or both combined, you aren’t going to get away with just saying “Ah! Jesus’ blood will handle that automatically. no need to confess.” That didn’t work for David! Read Psalm 32. When he held his peace, he says, it ate away at him; then he finally confessed, and God forgave him. So there is a need for confession for forgiveness for big sins, but not necessarily for little ones.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM
James,
Good food for thought. This has merit, but by no means can it be a process for the believer to maintain their just standing. That’s the rub. 1JN has to be reconciled with that fact. Justification is a finished work that is irrevocable.
The thing is, I don’t think in the category of ‘justification’ just like no Old Testament writer did, just like Jesus didn’t, just like it doesn’t seem the authors of the General Epistles did, nor of Revelation. The whole concept of justified/unjustified is legalism, in the sense of viewing everything in forensic categories, and its the real problem facing us with Calvinism. Why doesn’t Jesus speak in this forensic category of justification? “Wisdom is justified by her children” is the closest he gets, and that’s just a proverb that his wisdom will be vindicated by its results. Righteousness was never a forensic category, and it still isn’t.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 4, 2013 at 1:04 PM
James,
Abraham was credited with God’s righteousness for merely believing. His life was then characterized by a living faith inclined to obey known wisdom from God. Obedience is the visible life of faith. As the covenants build toward the final destination of the new heaven and new earth when the Bride comes down from heaven (Jerusalem, where God will tabernacle with man), law is increased for many practical matters, but none of it can give life for justification. The law informs our Christian life in regard to wisdom, but never contributed anything to our justification.
Have you read Genesis 15 or just Paul’s paraphrase of it?
Romans 4:3 “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”
Genesis 15:6 “And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
If you read the whole chapter, you’ll see “he” switches a lot from Abraham to God and vice versa, from verse to verse, but usually not mid-verse.
Contextually, the proper interpretation seems to me to be “And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord; and he (Abraham) counted it to him (God) for righteousness.”
Its about how Abraham came to the conclusion, by faith, that God is righteous, not the other way around.
But once you’ve paraphrased it Paul’s way, what can you do with Genesis 26:5 other than throw it in the garbage?
“Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
No he didn’t; he just had faith. Paul said so.
“The law informs our Christian life in regard to wisdom, but never contributed anything to our justification.” There’s that forensic category again. You’ll note in the story of Abraham there isn’t word one about “justification” only about how Abraham considered God to be righteous.
just one more detail: “counted it to him” — counted what? Contextually it seems this refers to God’s constant repetition of the promise to Abraham. God promised Abraham so many descendants they cannot be numbered. But as yet, Abraham still doesn’t have one son. But God keeps repeating the promise! And so, “he (Abraham) believed in the Lord; and he (Abraham) counted it (the repetition of the promise) to him (God) for righteousness.” This interpretation is contextually perfect. Paul’s requires that we fortune cookie one verse out of context.
James Jordan seems to want people working for justification. That’s a false gospel that leads to hell (Galatians 1:6-9). He can correct me if I’m reading him wrong, and he’s not saying that works are required for justification.
Abe, you don’t get what I’m saying at all, and this is understandable because the concept of justification wraps around people’s brains and suffocates them. WHAT IS JUSTIFICATION? To justify means to put up an argument in your defense, in a court of law. In the context of Pauline theology it is like this: You are held to be guilty, born condemned, condemned to hell, DAMNED BY DEFAULT — now, justify yourself.
It makes sense to bark about works if you believe we are all born damned. But Jesus didn’t believe that. Jesus believed we would be damned if we kept committing lots of sins and didn’t repent. You CANNOT read Matthew and get original sin default damnation and ‘justification’ out of them. You simply CANNOT do it — because neither one of them is there. Justification is a concept that makes no sense without default damnation.
And when Jesus is able to say things like “He that breaks the least of these commandments will be called the least in the kingdom” and yet clearly they still make it into the kingdom and he can say this to JEWS who are STILL Jews, WITHOUT explaining Pauline theology to them, without talking about ‘justification’ and false dichotomies between faith and works — what is this other that that Jesus doesn’t accept original sin default damnation and THEREFORE has no need of the concept of justification at all. I’m not saying that works are required for justification — I’m saying justification is an invalid category altogether.
Justification doesn’t mean the same as righteousness because it means a change of category from unjustified to justified. Now say there is a child. And this child is raised in a good Christian home, or even, you know what, I dare make it a good Jewish home to drive the point home further. He never commits anything really bad. He is righteous by an Old Testament definition. But you tell him he needs to be ‘justified’ (as opposed to continuing in righteousness) and what you are telling him is that he is in a forensic state of damnation by default (because he inherited Adam’s sin or whatever) and he needs his state to be changed from ‘damned’ to ‘justified’. Justification implies a big change, where here, one is not needed, not by Jesus’ original-sinless gospel.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM
James,
You make my point for me: Paul’s “under the law” requires a perfect keeping of the law. “Under grace” requires a new birth that is enslaved to righteousness. Those who are under law, enslaved to sin, but free to do good are sometimes very good at their freedom to do so, but they still fall short of the glory of God. “Good Jews” seek a righteousness through their traditional view of the Scriptures minus Christ, the stumbling block of Zion. Those who love Christ do so apart from the law for justification, but obey Christ in sanctification “from the heart.”
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM
Abe,
I think we would agree that James and Paul agree perfectly. Christ went to the cross so that we can be justified apart from the law, but fulfill the law in sanctification as a way to love him (Romans 8:3,4).
Is James Jordan saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction? Why would the owner of this website allow the posting of such heresy? This might not be the place for me.
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Abe,
I just went through this conversation with an associate of PPT this week as a result of me cutting off Randy Seiver and others. It was not a short conversation. Curiously, some of the complaints about who I allow to post comments here come from those I have cut off. While claiming to hold to the whole canon and making it void with their Reformed traditions, they don’t like James Jordon because he rejects the Pauline epistles. Their argument is the following: “You show agreement by posting their comments.” No, my position on these issues have been clearly stated in no uncertain terms. And I warn anyone who rejects portions of Scripture to heed the warning of Christ found in Revelation. I would also add that distorting what is there is no different from adding to or taking away from it.
The person who discussed this with me despises the very people he doesn’t want me to screen. He also understands me very well, so any conversation about me fearing ideas that threaten the truth were not addressed. I am not afraid of ideas and my inability to refute bad ones with the facts. We have a morale duty to be informed. Lack of knowledge =’s death. Hence, bring the ideas, if I don’t know the answers, I have a duty to find them.
His argument was that PPT is pioneering uncharted waters; ie., I am the first one (in the blogosphere culture of contemporary history) to call out the very doctrinal foundation of Protestantism and the Reformation. I am not afraid to make hamburgers with every sacred cow of the Reformation. In fact, it’s my delicacy. The Reformation is the biggest socialist hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. It is an anti-Christ worship of Platonist metaphysics. Hence, many not only want to watch the fight, they want to learn how to engage in the debate as well. Knowing my indifference to numbers very well, he asked me in an assuming way why I thought my viewer numbers drop when I screen people. In other words, without seeing my stats, he knew the numbers drop and he also knew what my response would be: “Don’t give a damn.”
He then explained why the numbers drop, and I think his contention has merit: I have cut off the learning process. Also, I don’t have a moderator. If the stats drop because people can no longer learn and cannot see my arguments work in real life, I do give a damn about that. And this blog does need a moderator. The moderator and I are not always going to agree 100%, but I need one. That would be a huge step for this ministry.
For now, the comments come in, I shouldn’t have to fight this fight alone.
In all reality, when you think about it, weren’t Jesus’ ideas being interpreted by others (including Paul) from his death onward? Jesus wasn’t around to agree or dispute what people had to say about him or what Jesus actually said. Paul never interacted with Jesus. I’m not implying anything about Paul except the fact of when he came on the scene.
From my perspective, it often seems like Paul’s words are more revered than Jesus’ words.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
My interpretation of confessing every sin like you talked about with the Freewill Baptists is that this is for major sins, especially ones that you know about. It’s clear in Leviticus — yes, Leviticus — that sacrifices by individuals were never required for sins you didn’t realize you did. It repeats over and over “if you commit a sin unintentionally, and later feel guilty, you offer this sacrifice” — but what if you never feel guilty? What if you never realize it was a sin? Well then you can’t offer an individual sacrifice. Either God just forgives that via mercy, or the corporate sacrifice by the high priest deals with that. When you pray and confess sin as John instructs, you are invoking Christ’s sacrifice in similar manner to how the Jews back there would have offered a personal sacrifice. But for the sins you are unaware of, and minor sins you don’t feel any guilt for, Christ’s sacrifice should operate automatically on those in the way that the corporate sacrifice did there in Leviticus. This, to me, makes perfect sense of the passage about Christ’s blood continually cleansing our sins as we walk in the light in 1st John as well as the other one about confession. It also fits in line well with Psalm 32. Some people that believe we must repent and confess our sins to be forgiven do take it too far and don’t recognize that God can forgive sins we aren’t aware of without confession, and they freak out thinking “Oh no, what if there’s a sin I forgot about!” But just because some people are ignorant of Leviticus doesn’t invalidate the whole concept. But where the sin is huge, like murder or adultery or both combined, you aren’t going to get away with just saying “Ah! Jesus’ blood will handle that automatically. no need to confess.” That didn’t work for David! Read Psalm 32. When he held his peace, he says, it ate away at him; then he finally confessed, and God forgave him. So there is a need for confession for forgiveness for big sins, but not necessarily for little ones.
LikeLike
James,
Good food for thought. This has merit, but by no means can it be a process for the believer to maintain their just standing. That’s the rub. 1JN has to be reconciled with that fact. Justification is a finished work that is irrevocable.
LikeLike
The thing is, I don’t think in the category of ‘justification’ just like no Old Testament writer did, just like Jesus didn’t, just like it doesn’t seem the authors of the General Epistles did, nor of Revelation. The whole concept of justified/unjustified is legalism, in the sense of viewing everything in forensic categories, and its the real problem facing us with Calvinism. Why doesn’t Jesus speak in this forensic category of justification? “Wisdom is justified by her children” is the closest he gets, and that’s just a proverb that his wisdom will be vindicated by its results. Righteousness was never a forensic category, and it still isn’t.
LikeLike
James,
Abraham was credited with God’s righteousness for merely believing. His life was then characterized by a living faith inclined to obey known wisdom from God. Obedience is the visible life of faith. As the covenants build toward the final destination of the new heaven and new earth when the Bride comes down from heaven (Jerusalem, where God will tabernacle with man), law is increased for many practical matters, but none of it can give life for justification. The law informs our Christian life in regard to wisdom, but never contributed anything to our justification.
LikeLike
Have you read Genesis 15 or just Paul’s paraphrase of it?
Romans 4:3 “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”
Genesis 15:6 “And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
If you read the whole chapter, you’ll see “he” switches a lot from Abraham to God and vice versa, from verse to verse, but usually not mid-verse.
Contextually, the proper interpretation seems to me to be “And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord; and he (Abraham) counted it to him (God) for righteousness.”
Its about how Abraham came to the conclusion, by faith, that God is righteous, not the other way around.
But once you’ve paraphrased it Paul’s way, what can you do with Genesis 26:5 other than throw it in the garbage?
“Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
No he didn’t; he just had faith. Paul said so.
“The law informs our Christian life in regard to wisdom, but never contributed anything to our justification.” There’s that forensic category again. You’ll note in the story of Abraham there isn’t word one about “justification” only about how Abraham considered God to be righteous.
LikeLike
just one more detail: “counted it to him” — counted what? Contextually it seems this refers to God’s constant repetition of the promise to Abraham. God promised Abraham so many descendants they cannot be numbered. But as yet, Abraham still doesn’t have one son. But God keeps repeating the promise! And so, “he (Abraham) believed in the Lord; and he (Abraham) counted it (the repetition of the promise) to him (God) for righteousness.” This interpretation is contextually perfect. Paul’s requires that we fortune cookie one verse out of context.
LikeLike
James Jordan seems to want people working for justification. That’s a false gospel that leads to hell (Galatians 1:6-9). He can correct me if I’m reading him wrong, and he’s not saying that works are required for justification.
LikeLike
Abe, you don’t get what I’m saying at all, and this is understandable because the concept of justification wraps around people’s brains and suffocates them. WHAT IS JUSTIFICATION? To justify means to put up an argument in your defense, in a court of law. In the context of Pauline theology it is like this: You are held to be guilty, born condemned, condemned to hell, DAMNED BY DEFAULT — now, justify yourself.
It makes sense to bark about works if you believe we are all born damned. But Jesus didn’t believe that. Jesus believed we would be damned if we kept committing lots of sins and didn’t repent. You CANNOT read Matthew and get original sin default damnation and ‘justification’ out of them. You simply CANNOT do it — because neither one of them is there. Justification is a concept that makes no sense without default damnation.
And when Jesus is able to say things like “He that breaks the least of these commandments will be called the least in the kingdom” and yet clearly they still make it into the kingdom and he can say this to JEWS who are STILL Jews, WITHOUT explaining Pauline theology to them, without talking about ‘justification’ and false dichotomies between faith and works — what is this other that that Jesus doesn’t accept original sin default damnation and THEREFORE has no need of the concept of justification at all. I’m not saying that works are required for justification — I’m saying justification is an invalid category altogether.
LikeLike
James,
No, because it means the same as “righteousness.” Justified apart from the law and a righteousness apart from the law. Same thing.
LikeLike
Justification doesn’t mean the same as righteousness because it means a change of category from unjustified to justified. Now say there is a child. And this child is raised in a good Christian home, or even, you know what, I dare make it a good Jewish home to drive the point home further. He never commits anything really bad. He is righteous by an Old Testament definition. But you tell him he needs to be ‘justified’ (as opposed to continuing in righteousness) and what you are telling him is that he is in a forensic state of damnation by default (because he inherited Adam’s sin or whatever) and he needs his state to be changed from ‘damned’ to ‘justified’. Justification implies a big change, where here, one is not needed, not by Jesus’ original-sinless gospel.
LikeLike
James,
You make my point for me: Paul’s “under the law” requires a perfect keeping of the law. “Under grace” requires a new birth that is enslaved to righteousness. Those who are under law, enslaved to sin, but free to do good are sometimes very good at their freedom to do so, but they still fall short of the glory of God. “Good Jews” seek a righteousness through their traditional view of the Scriptures minus Christ, the stumbling block of Zion. Those who love Christ do so apart from the law for justification, but obey Christ in sanctification “from the heart.”
LikeLike
“Paul’s ‘under the law’ requires a perfect keeping of the law.”
Yes, Paul’s under the law does — but Jesus’ under the law does not. That’s precisely the problem.
LikeLike
James is some kind of anti-Paul heretic? What’s up here anyway?
LikeLike
Abe,
I think we would agree that James and Paul agree perfectly. Christ went to the cross so that we can be justified apart from the law, but fulfill the law in sanctification as a way to love him (Romans 8:3,4).
LikeLike
James who wrote the Book of James, I agree with 100%.
“James Jordan” is the one I don’t agree with, and the Word of God doesn’t agree with him either.
LikeLike
Is James Jordan saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction? Why would the owner of this website allow the posting of such heresy? This might not be the place for me.
LikeLike
Abe,
I just went through this conversation with an associate of PPT this week as a result of me cutting off Randy Seiver and others. It was not a short conversation. Curiously, some of the complaints about who I allow to post comments here come from those I have cut off. While claiming to hold to the whole canon and making it void with their Reformed traditions, they don’t like James Jordon because he rejects the Pauline epistles. Their argument is the following: “You show agreement by posting their comments.” No, my position on these issues have been clearly stated in no uncertain terms. And I warn anyone who rejects portions of Scripture to heed the warning of Christ found in Revelation. I would also add that distorting what is there is no different from adding to or taking away from it.
The person who discussed this with me despises the very people he doesn’t want me to screen. He also understands me very well, so any conversation about me fearing ideas that threaten the truth were not addressed. I am not afraid of ideas and my inability to refute bad ones with the facts. We have a morale duty to be informed. Lack of knowledge =’s death. Hence, bring the ideas, if I don’t know the answers, I have a duty to find them.
His argument was that PPT is pioneering uncharted waters; ie., I am the first one (in the blogosphere culture of contemporary history) to call out the very doctrinal foundation of Protestantism and the Reformation. I am not afraid to make hamburgers with every sacred cow of the Reformation. In fact, it’s my delicacy. The Reformation is the biggest socialist hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. It is an anti-Christ worship of Platonist metaphysics. Hence, many not only want to watch the fight, they want to learn how to engage in the debate as well. Knowing my indifference to numbers very well, he asked me in an assuming way why I thought my viewer numbers drop when I screen people. In other words, without seeing my stats, he knew the numbers drop and he also knew what my response would be: “Don’t give a damn.”
He then explained why the numbers drop, and I think his contention has merit: I have cut off the learning process. Also, I don’t have a moderator. If the stats drop because people can no longer learn and cannot see my arguments work in real life, I do give a damn about that. And this blog does need a moderator. The moderator and I are not always going to agree 100%, but I need one. That would be a huge step for this ministry.
For now, the comments come in, I shouldn’t have to fight this fight alone.
paul
LikeLike
In all reality, when you think about it, weren’t Jesus’ ideas being interpreted by others (including Paul) from his death onward? Jesus wasn’t around to agree or dispute what people had to say about him or what Jesus actually said. Paul never interacted with Jesus. I’m not implying anything about Paul except the fact of when he came on the scene.
From my perspective, it often seems like Paul’s words are more revered than Jesus’ words.
LikeLike