Apologetics Guy

Apologetics Guy

Sunday, 22 February 2015 20:51

Top 10 Rules for Studying the Old Testament

Below are some rules for studying the Old Testament that I got from Calvary Chapel's Bible College. These are great rules to follow.

May the Lord bless and increase your hunger for His Word!


Top Ten Rules for Studying the Old Testament

  1. One author, the Holy Spirit; many penmen - see 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Mark 12:36, Acts 1:16. Therefore this is a Spiritual Book, that must be approached and understood spiritually and only with the aid of the Holy Spirit. See 1Cor. 2:9-15. The natural man will see only the History, the blood, the polygamy, the killing, lots of rules - but we must pray as David did: Ps. 119:18 Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law.
  2. The OT is primarily about Jesus: Heb. 10:7, John 5:39, John 5:46, Including feasts, Col. 2:16-17
  3. The OT is God Speaking: Thru Prophets, visions and figures of speech often explained in the NT. See Hos. 12:10, John 6:32-33, 1 Cor. 10: 4, Heb 1:1. Speaking and revealing through Jesus: John 1:18, 1 Tim. 6:16 (Compare with Ex. 33:18-23). When God appears in the OT who in the Godhead appears according to Jesus?

    Guidelines for interpreting figures of speech:

    • Always approach scripture literally. If it makes no sense to apply it literally, then it’s probably a figure of speech.
    • Let the context and other scripture determine the meaning. Since God is the same in all dispensations (though He rules differently from dispensation to dispensation), His figures of speech generally are consistent throughout Scripture (i.e. follow ‘Rock’ throughout the OT & NT).
    • Look for what is behind the figure; why is it used instead of ‘plain speak’, what is represented?
    • Look for specific points of similarity and difference to aid in interpretation.
    • Figures of speech do not typically determine doctrine, but rather reinforce and enhance Doctrines found in ‘plain speak’ or narrative texts.
  4. The OT was and is yet to be fulfilled. It is Prophesy, ‘forth-telling’ and ‘foretelling.’ About Jesus’ first and second comings; about Israel, and Gentiles. See Luke 4:18-21. Note what was not fulfilled from Isa. 61:2. Also see, Mat. 5:17-18.
  5. The OT is the beginning of the war between two ‘seeds’ that continues today. The two seeds are found in Gen. 3:15, the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent. Follow the warfare of the two seeds throughout the OT that also continues throughout the NT.
  6. Israel is Israel, the Church is the Church and Israel is not the Church, nor the Church Israel. Replacement Theology is heresy.
    • The church is not revealed in the OT, that mystery was given to Paul to reveal, Eph. 3:1-7. Israel will be dealt with again by God: Rom. 11:25-27.
  7. The OT reveals (as a picture reveals) the NT, the NT explains, makes clear the OT pictures or models. The OT is predictive, the NT is fulfillment.
  8. Much of the OT was written for our example and admonition (what not to follow or not do, versus what to do, 1 Cor. 10:1-11); our learning and our hope (Rom. 15:4). Not everything written in Scripture is condoned by God. Because something happens or people act in a certain way and there is no condemnation recorded does not mean God condones or approves of the behavior or action. The Law written is the determining factor for judging behavior, not God’s forbearance.

    Cautions Regarding Applying the OT to yourselves and others

    • Maintain your mental disciplines on the different emphases of the Dispensation of the Law versus the Dispensation we live in and under Grace. Rom. 6:14
    1. The major distinction between the teachings of law and the teachings of grace is seen in the varying order between the divine blessing and the human obligation.
    2. When the human obligation is presented first, and the divine blessing is made to depend on the faithful discharge of that obligation, it is of, and in conformity with pure law.
      1. When the divine blessing is presented first, and the human obligation follows, it is of and in conformity with pure grace.
    3. In the case of the law, it is do something with a view to being something or to achieve some benefit; in the case of grace, it is be made something with a view to then doing something.
    4. The law said "If you will do good, I will bless you"; grace says, "I have blessed you, & our response in love & faith is: now do good."
    5. In the teachings of grace, the gracious, divine blessing always precedes, and is followed by the human obligation, and additional blessings are often bestowed in excess of the human obligation performed.
    6. This is the order maintained throughout the great doctrinal Letters of the New Testament. These Letters are therefore subject to a two-fold division. In the first division, the mighty undertakings of GOD for man are disclosed: while in the second division the saved one is besought and exhorted to live on the plane and position to which he or she has been brought in the exceeding grace of GOD.
    • The citizenships are different under Law versus under Grace. Earth is in view under the law; Heaven is in view under Grace.
    • Be careful about judging eternal life or eternal damnation based on the earthly performance of those under the Law. In the OT, under law it is predominantly concerned with the performance of Israel under the law in relationship to their God.
  9. The OT is fact. What it says happened, happened. What is says about the sciences is fact. What it says about the future that is behind us, happened. Its History is 100% accurate. What it says about the future ‘yet to come’ will happen.
  10. There are by some counts 4,105 NT passages that allude1 to and 352 passages that are a direct2 quote from the OT, many from the Greek OT or the LXX. This Bible is one book. To fully understand the New we must know the Old. 1Allude to example: See John 1:18, 2Direct Quote: See Matt. 3:3

Credits:

Calvary Chapel Bible College
1100 Caprice Drive
Castle Rock, Colorado 80109
Tel: 303.663.2514
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sunday, 22 February 2015 19:05

Atheism does not make sense

The atheistic worldview (atheism) assumes that there is no God and everything in the physical universe came about only by natural means.  This is a known as a naturalistic worldview (naturalism).  In these worldviews, there is no basis for abstract concepts like logic or morality.

An atheist's beliefs and actions are inconsistent at best, because his worldview does not have a matching, consistent foundation.  Instead, many foundational concepts rely upon a Christian biblical worldview, and as such does not make sense on several levels.  

Logic & Mathematics

Logic and mathematics are abstract - they have no physical properties.  They are purely conceptual and immaterial, but can be expressed and demonstrated in physical ways.  Atheism cannot explain where logic or mathematics came from.  Many atheists claim that math was an invention of man, yet 1+1 equaled 2 before man existed.  Also, the rules governing these concepts never change.  In the atheist's evolving universe, how can that be so?  One has always been one...why haven't numbers evolved too?  The Bible teaches that God created logic and mathematics and established their absolute rules.

Morality

Like logic and math, morality is also abstract.  Again, it is the God of the Christian Bible that has defined the standard for good and evil, consequences of disobedience, and the requirements for forgiveness.  Because atheism requires the absence of God, there can be no moral absolute or standard.  Atheism insists that all life came about as a result of random chemical reactions over vast spans of time.  In this worldview, humans are no more than just more highly developed animals with no purpose other than to procreate.  Consequently, there is no higher authority to answer to beyond that which society has established.  There are some societies, groups, and individuals that accept and practice behaviors deemed as immoral by other peoples.  Sometimes, these disagreements lead to conflict, even war - but why would an atheist care?  To remain consistent with his worldview, the atheist has no place to judge a behavior as either good or bad, nor has any reason or motivation to do so beyond self-preservation, because ultimately there are no eternal consequences.  Why should an atheist hold murder against people when other animals do the same every day with impunity?

Science

Atheists today have staked a claim on science.  Several prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, et al.) insist that one cannot be a good scientist unless they have an atheistic worldview.  They claim that science has done away with the need for a God.  Besides this being a preposterous assertion - there are many scientists that have made significant contributions that believe in God and are creationists1 - this is also illogical.  For science to be performed properly, logic and mathematics are required.  As discussed earlier, both of these were created by God.  How can atheists depend upon God for the basis of their argument against God?  Beyond that, science requires that the universe and its behavior remain consistent.  If it were not, then a scientist's observations and measurements today may not be reliable tomorrow, much less next year...thereby defeating a requirement enabling science to be conducted.  The universe created by God is consistent by design, while one arrived at by chance has no reason to be, nor guarantee of being consistent.

Conclusion

Atheism does not make sense.  Science makes sense and is true only from a biblical perspective and obviously, morality has taken its source from the God of the Bible - the ultimate and absolute authority.  God holds all people responsible for their actions, according to His law and commands, atheist or not.

The good news is that God loves "atheists" too!  Today is a great time to consider God's gift of salvation through His Son, Jesus.  If you want to learn more about Jesus, the Bible, and the Truth - then check out our other articles and useful links to external resources.

Learn more about salvation


1 Creationist scientists that have made significant contributions.

Sunday, 22 February 2015 15:50

Are dinosaurs in the Bible?

Apatosaurus

Are Dinosaurs referenced in the Bible?

The word 'dinosaur' doesn't actually appear in the Bible.  That is because the word 'dinosaur' wasn't invented until the mid-1800s.  Prior to that, dinosaurs were known as dragons.

So while the word "dinosaur" isn't in Scripture, dinosaurs may have actually been described in the Bible as Behemoth and Leviathan, both of which can be found in Job 40:15-24 and Job 41.  Many scholars have explained or identified the creatures described in Job as a Nile crocodile or a hippopotamus.  However, a close examination of this text reveals descriptions that match a sauropod (like the Apatosaurus) and a plesiosaur far better than a crocodile and hippo.

Some interesting thoughts...

As dinosaurs were animals, they too were created on Day 6 along with all the other land animals (and humans).  This also means that the dinosaur kinds were present on the Ark with Noah, surviving the Great Flood and afterward spreading out to reinhabit the Earth.  This makes sense of the presence of dinosaur fossils on every continent - these are the fossilized remains of the animals buried by the Great Flood.  

All around the world, nearly every culture has stories and legends of dragons.  If you think about it, dragon legends may be nothing more than somewhat exaggerated or embellished traditions of dinosaurs, passed down orally from those that saw and experienced these magnificent creatures first hand.

Dino carving, Ta Prohm Temple

Supporting Evidence

There are several authenticated artifacts having images or representations of what appear to be dinosaurs as well.  The stone carvings at ancient Khmer temples in Cambodia that any child would recognize as a stegosaur, ancient Native American petroglyphs that look like a sauropod, and an ancient Greek urn possibly depicting a mesosaur with other modern sea creatures, just to name a few.  These ancient cultures likely had little to no knowledge of the fossil record, so how would they have concluded what animals from "millions" of years ago would have looked like?  It is more likely that they witnessed first hand the existence of these creatures and recorded them just as they did other animals that they observed.  Secularists too, have explanations for these images based upon their presuppositions, but these same artifacts fit perfectly well within the teachings of Scripture. 

Conclusion

If you begin to look at the world through the lens of Scripture, you will unmistakenly find that the evidence (natural and man-made) that is available to everyone (believer and unbeliever) affirms what the Bible teaches.  The Bible can always betrusted to be true and authoritative.

Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:18

Isn't evolution a fact of science?

Certainly, this is a topic with many levels of complexity, but in short, the idea of Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Scripture.
 
To be clear, the term evolution is loosely used today, but it should really be limited to the idea that creatures can transform into more complex creatures over time through small, gradual, genetic changes exclusively via natural processes.  The word evolution should not be used solely to describe or refer to speciation or natural selection.
 
So why is evolution not compatible with Scripture? 
 
Jesus, refering to Gen 1:27, stated: "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'  (Mar 10:6 ESV).  Notice that Jesus said, "at the beginning of creation" and not after millions of years.  That alone dismisses any possibility of evolution being used by God to bring about the creatures we see today (aka Theistic Evolution).
 
The Bible allows for natural selection/speciation, or variation within a kind.  Think of all the many different breeds of canines.  The range of variation is great, yet they are all still fundamentally dogs.  Natural selection/speciation is solid, scientific fact - it has been observed, tested and repeated.
 
The same cannot be said of Darwinian evolution, which insists that one kind of organsim will develop into another kind given enough time.  Such a feat has never been observed in nature nor in the laboratory.  As such, it cannot be tested nor confirmed.  In fact, it should not be considered science at all; more accurately, evolution is more akin to a faith-based belief system.  One that requires a tremendous amount of faith.
 
The book of Genesis tells us that humans and all earthly creatures were made by God, fully formed and functional, across two days (Gen 1:20-31).  It also states that God made them according to their kinds.  
 
Why is this important?
 
We don't typically use the term kind in our language today to describe types of animals.  In modern terminology, the taxonomic hierarchy of Family, is in many cases, closest to the Biblical kind.  For example, the Family Canidae includes all dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.  In simplest terms, dogs will always give birth to other dogs and dog types, never to something that is not a dog, much less a cat.  Neither can one breed a cat with a dog because they are of different kinds.  But you can breed a tiger and a lion, resulting in a liger - because they belong to the same cat kind.
 
Taking another look at these verses shows that at the end of creation, God called His work "very good."  If evolution is true, then how could God call the supposed millions of years of death, disease, and predation "very good?"  In addition to that, Paul wrote that death entered the world through sin (Rom 5:12), the sin from Adam.  The Bible teaches that death came after man arrived, again in contradiction to evolution.
 
There are many other arguments that could be made on this topic.  Ultimately, one must decide to believe the infallible, unchanging Word of God or man's fallible, frequently changing ideas.
 
Even though millions of samples have been found, the fossil record has failed to provide evidence of any transitional forms to support Darwinian evolution.  Yet, according to Darwin himself in his book Origin of the Species, the geologic strata should be filled with intermediate, or transitional, links of one animal transforming into another.
 
Because of the lack of transitional fossils, evolutionary biologists point out anatomically similar features in different animals, claiming that these similarities indicate common ancestry.  These similarities do not prove a common ancestor, but rather a Common Designer that used similar structures across different animal kinds.
 
Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:01

Comets - Where do they come from?

Comets cannot be older than thousands of years due to their composition of mostly ice, as they typically lose about 1% of their mass every time they orbit the sun.  Astronomers know this, yet they also believe that the Solar System is billions of years old. Since comets cannot be millions of years old,   many secular astronomers have hypothesized that the comets we see today must have entered the inner solar system relatively recently from a more stable orbit, beyond the eroding effects of the sun.  This hypothesized locale is known as the Oort Cloud (named after Jan Oort). The Oort Cloud has never been observed.  Science requires that all legitimate phenomena be observable, testable, repeatable, and confirmed by peer review.  The Oort Cloud meets none of these criteria.  How then can it be called scientific?

However, "young" comets fit perfectly well into the Biblical account of creation, as the universe is only thousands of years old, not millions and billions.

The Oort Cloud hypothesis should not be taught as fact in our schools.

 

Saturday, 21 February 2015 21:37

The Cross in Numbers

The Old Testament book of Numbers is an historical chronicle of the nation of Israel in its travels through the desert of the Sinai, after the Exodus from Egypt.  It is one of the five books of the Law, or the Torah.  Its authorship is attributed to Moses.

The Census

In Chapter 1 of the book of Numbers, the LORD instructed Moses to take a head count of the eligible males (20 years of age and up) that were able for military service.  These were numbered according to their families (or tribes) except for the tribe of Levi.  The Levites were designated by God to serve as priests and to protect, maintain and tend to the Tabernacle, also known as the Tent of Meeting.

The Encampment

After completing the census, Chapter 2 of the book of Numbers tells us that the LORD gave additional instructions to Moses and Aaron on how the tribal camps should be arranged.  The individual tribes were assigned to one of four camps led by the prominent tribes of Israel: Judah, Rueben, Ephraim or Dan.  The camps were to arrange themselves around the Tabernacle and the Levite camp at a distance along the cardinal points of the compass (North, South, East and West).  The table below shows the results of the “census”:

Tribes of Israel and their counts, arranged by their respective camps:

East

South

West

North

Judah

74,600

Rueben

46,500

Ephraim

40,500

Dan

62,700

Issachar

54,400

Simeon

59,300

Manasseh

32,200

Asher

41,500

Zebulun

57,400

Gad

45,650

Benjamin

35,400

Naphtali

53,400

 

186,400

 

151,450

 

108,100

 

157,600

 

Now, there is good reason to believe that the instructions given to Moses and Aaron by the LORD to setup these encampments were kept to the letter.  That being the case, the camps would then have to maintain equal widths; otherwise one camp could technically be offset from the opposing camp, for example, to the south and southeast of the Levites and the Tabernacle.  In other words, the four camps would have to match the breadth of the Levite camp on each side to remain within each cardinal direction of North, South, East or West.

The Map

So, “plotting” this out in a numerically proportional manner would result in something like the figure below (each dot represents 1000), as if it were viewed from above:

Graphical depiction of Israelite camp from Numbers 2.

The aerial view of the Israelite encampment is proportional in shape to that of a traditional cross.  Even if the encampments of each tribe and clan were not rigidly aligned as a military formation typically is, the shape would be maintained proportionally.

Why?

Could this be a coincidence?  Not likely, as the symbol of a cross had no relevance to the Israelites at that time.  Keep in mind that this occurred and was written down over 1400 years before Christ was born.  In addition, crucifixion as a method of capital punishment is generally believed to not have existed until after 600 B.C.  So why encamp in the formation of a cross?  For what possible reason(s) would God have arranged the tribes of Israel in this manner?  Let’s look at a couple of possibilities.

The Military Reason?

At the time, the Israelites were preparing to move towards Canaan and were about to be among other peoples and nations, some hostile.  So, let’s begin by first analyzing this particular camp arrangement from a military perspective.  A military encampment is arranged in order to provide proper protection, communication, and control.  It should also be arranged to provide for the safety and well being of the units making up the camp.  This means having a defensive perimeter that allows surveillance of the surrounding land and main avenues of approach while offering some level protection to prevent unobstructed entrance to the heart of the camp (where the leaders are located).  Militaries of the time utilized defensive lines, linear and circular encampments, as these met the requirements of protection, command and control.  As military technology has developed, so has the arrangement of military encampments and defenses. 

As Moses did not have firearms or cannon available (long-range projectile weapons) and as such no overlapping zones of protection, having a cross formation such as this would leave indefensible gaps in their perimeter.  In more modern times, such a formation could be defended with projectile weapons, allowing for overlapping fields of fire that would provide adequate coverage of the spaces between the axis’ of the cross.  However, this sort of formation could have problems with friendly fire.

It is also worth noting that having your troops in this formation might also hamper communication.  Command and control, without some method to relay messages quickly and accurately to the units at the outer positions, would be difficult if not impractical at best.  With this in mind, it is doubtful then that the purpose of having the encampment in a cross formation was to facilitate defense. 

As it was, the Israelites had the divine protection of God – what better defense is there?  With the Lord of Hosts on your side, the manner of your encampment (from a military perspective) does not matter.

Authentication?

Could it be that God did this in order to leave His signature?  By that I mean - might God have purposely arranged the Israelite encampment in the form of a cross in order to prove that He is the ultimate author of the book of Numbers, and therefore, the ultimate author of the Bible? 

When a person wants to communicate a meaningful message to someone else, there are some basic rules that have to be met.  Any message must have a sender, a medium in which to be transmitted, and it must be able to be understood by the receiver.  The receiver must also have the assurance that the message received is actually from the perceived sender, otherwise anyone could pose as the sender and spread wrong information.  To validate that the receiver has gotten the message and has proof of the sender, people throughout time have used various forms of authentication from uniquely imprinted wax seals to signatures to modern passwords and encryption keys.

In a similar manner, God has placed the record of this event in this book to authenticate His involvement and orchestration of events across time.  Had God not instructed Moses, why would he have chosen to encamp Israel in a cross formation?  The symbol had no meaning to them.  How could Moses have possibly known that the Savior would die on a cross and that the symbol would carry on through the millennia as the universal symbol of our salvation? 

Conclusion

The logical conclusion is that one of God’s purposes for Chapter 2 was to validate or authenticate His divine authorship.  As with the other books of the Bible, this book too had a purpose and can be trusted to be true and trustworthy.

God has tied together symbolic meaning across a span of time to serve as evidence to us of the divine origin of the Scriptures…that the Bible is a collection of 66 works, written through the hands of over 40 men by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, across a span of over 3000 years – all inspired, orchestrated and preserved by the one and only living God.

Saturday, 21 February 2015 14:36

Seriousness of Sin

Sin is not a popular topic in modern Western culture these days. Sadly, most people do not have a proper understanding of the seriousness of sin. In fact, in many churches today it is rare to hear about the subject of sin, its consequences, and ramifications. It comes as no surprise then from inspecting the state of those claiming to be Christians in America these days (divorce rate, social conformity, dishonesty, etc.) that it appears that most believers do not have a correct understanding of sin and its impact on their lives.

With moral relativism gaining popularity in our culture, most people believe the consequences of sin matter only if:

  1. it is illegal according to the codified law of the land and,
  2. You get caught.

To see this in action, just drive down the interstate and take note of how many people are actually driving within the legal speed limit. Most likely, the majority of drivers are speeding unless there is a police car in sight. Another popular thought runs this course: “as long as no one gets hurt, it isn’t really sin, is it?” or “If I don’t harm anyone, what does it matter?” So goes the view of sin from the morally relativistic perspective.

What about sin as God sees it?  Does a loving God really care about all sins?  Without a doubt, He cares about the big ones like genocide, murder, and rape.  What about “little” sins like “white lies” or not taking responsibility for causing a door ding in another person’s car in the parking lot (and not owning up)?  Surely, those “little” sins don’t really register on God’s radar - or do they?

Consider these scenarios:

  • If you were to sin against a dog, for example, by squirting it with a water gun – it’s not such a big deal; probably no negative legal repercussions from that act.
  • If you were to assault a person in the same way, you might get into some trouble.
  • What if you were to assault a police officer?  That act would definitely cause you some unpleasant consequences.
  • However, if you were to assault the President of the United States (POTUS) – even with just a squirt gun - you would most certainly end up in legal trouble and most likely would have to pay a heavy price. 

Even though the sin in all these cases is the same act of assault with a water gun, the penalties incurred are different.  How can that be?  The principle here is this: the greater the authority of the person/entity you have sinned against, the greater the consequence/price you will have to pay - even if it’s just a “little” sin or if no real physical harm was done.

I think that most would agree that God is the highest authority in the universe.  In light of the principle discussed earlier, consider a sin against God.  What would the penalty be for a sin committed against the Most High? 

Of interest to us in this topic is that the Bible indicates that all sinis against God.  King David wrote concerning his sin with Bathsheba:

Psalm 51:2-4 ESV - [2] Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! [3] For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. [4] Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. (Emphasis added)

Those familiar with the story know that David had an affair with Uriah’s wife Bathsheba that resulted in a pregnancy.  To cover this misdeed, David plotted and had his servant Uriah murdered so he could then marry Bathsheba, in hope of hiding his sin.  While this act was heinous by any standard, how was this sin against God? 

Imagine that you got a speeding ticket and now have to pay the associated fine.  The fine for the ticket isn’t for the police officer that issued it to you.  The offense wasn’t committed against the officer, you didn’t break his law.  No, the officer is just an agent representing the authority that made the law.  The fine goes to the entity that owns the law that was broken; in this example, some level of government.  In the same way, since God defined moral absolutes, anytime we break one of His commandments we therefore commit a sin against Him.

God is the ultimate authority, the ultimate Holy being.  Referring back to the earlier example, if the price of a “little” sin against the POTUS is high (who is but a mere man), how much higher is it when you sin against the all-powerful, infinite, creator God?  Just as you would not be let off the hook for assaulting the POTUS, so it is with sinning against God…even more so, because God is perfectly just.

How much is the price for sinning against an eternal God?  The price is infinitely, or eternally, high. 

Jesus stated:  

Matthew 25:41 ESV - [41] "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Emphasis added)

This is why sin is such a serious, BIG deal.  Our limited, finite, fallible minds cannot understand the seriousness of sin as seen through the eyes of God.  As such, there is no possible way for any of us as imperfect, finite beings, to pay the penalty satisfactorily.  Trying to “make good” on our sin by doing good deeds is like someone killing your child and then offering to compensate you for your loss by giving you $5 and then walking away nonchalantly.  God requires an infinite price for any sin against Him.  Only an infinite being could pay the price of sin against an infinite being. 

Thankfully, for this reason God sent His only Son, Jesus of Nazareth, to pay the price – the ultimate price – for all of humanity’s sin.  Only a truly loving God would make a sacrifice like that and offer it for free to anyone willing to receive it.

While many people admire and respect the person of Jesus Christ, many do not accept His teaching.  Jesus declared:

John 14:6 ESV - [6] Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (Emphasis added)

So while forgiveness is free, it is conditional.  One cannot just say some words of contrition and then continue living in habitual sin.  To receive this forgiveness - to be able to have the infinite price of sin paid in full - we are required to confess and repent (turn away) from our sin and receive the gift of salvation by accepting His Son as our Lord; thereby genuinely submitting our lives and our obedience to His commandments and will.