A problem...

[Darrell C]

Darrell,

Thank you for your detailed, thorough post. You have not insulted or offended me at all. I appreciate the things you wrote and the good points you made.

My view of original sin is much like the Eastern orthodox and Anabaptist/Mennonite views. Here is an excerpt from an article that is pretty close to what I believe:


"The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.

I'm having a hard time distinguishing a great difference between original sin, hereditary guilt, and ancestral sin. I can understand how the distinction is sought, but they all still point to the actions of the forebear (Adam) being responsible for the end result, which is separation from God.

I view original sin as a reference to what was lost in the Fall and how that has been passed down to all descendants. Not as something we are born with, but rather...something we are born without.

Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western, in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith." Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn, while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress. and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."

This is a subject that many get, I think, too worked up about. I do embrace total depravity, and a historical Arminian view really does too, I believe, even as Cassian (if the quote is correct) seems to, ascribing everything which pertains to salvation to the grace of God. That, I believe, is indisputable.

The issue that confuses is caricaturizing Man into a creature that is completely helpless to achieve good...at all. That is not the case. We have been created in the likeness and image of God, and though Man is fallen, that does not mean he has become as like one of the animals, a brute entirely in his nature. However, in regards to redemption, man is not capable of recognizing his condition apart from God. We know that God has revealed Himself to man in three primary ways, through Creation, through the internal witness He has given every man, and through direct revelation (Prophets, Scripture). In the Old Testament we see the grace of God extended to man in his fallen condition, but it is not until the revelation of the Gospel of Christ and the coming of the Comforter that we see redemption brought to that place in redemptive history where that which was lost in the Fall is restored.

In other words, it was not until God sent the Comforter and began indwelling believers eternally that the relationship we are born without was restored through Christ.

Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin." "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."

I don't think we have to distinguish original sin as "hereditary" in the medical sense. Again, it is not something we are born with, but something we are born without, that is, a relationship with God such as we see in the salvation provided by Christ. Abraham was a friend of God, but we, my friend...are sons.

Adam had a personal relationship with God, and when he sinned, that relationship was broken. It might be thought of in this way: were the Hatfields born with a hatred for the McCoys? lol

We might consider it this way also: many view original sin as a substance, even as they view eternal life as a substance. Neither are. When we are saved, the Lord does not pour eternal life into us, He indwells us. He is Eternal, thus our union with Him is the reason we, when He is in us, and we in Him, have eternal life. So too with original sin, it is not something, like a gene, that is passed from parent to child, but is the absence of God in our lives. But the obvious issue we have to face is that because our forebears were not born into a relationship with God, neither are we born into that relationship. And it is that relationship that ensures the absence of sin. Before Adam sinned he had no penalty which he lay under. And because he lost relationship with God, he could not pass down that relationship. Think of the Flood, and how some might see that it was unjust for God to destroy all men, women, and children. "The children were innocent," some might say, but apart from relationship with and to God, those children would follow their own natures, not to mention the example of their parents, and would have grown up just like their parents, with no real hope of righteousness.

As far as mortality, loss of relationship with God resulted in death. We have to speculate a little as to Adam's physical stamina, but what we can say is that man's lifespan dramatically decreased after he was thrust out of the Garden, where he had close relationship and fellowship with God. Prophecy tells us that in the Millennial Kingdom man's lifespan will be restored to a longer duration, so we will see, in that Age when God reigns here on Earth, a restoration of that which was in the beginning. Again we have to speculate a little, but I don't doubt that it may be possible, in that day, for men to live throughout the entire thousand years.

It all hinges on relationship with God. He is Life.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves. In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[/I]

I have to disagree with the first statement: the catalyst to redemption has and always will be God. Redemption in the Old Testament is primarily temporal, whereas redemption under New Covenant conditions is eternal. In the Wilderness they received manna to sustain physical life; in the New Testament we receive the True Bread for Eternal Life.

I agree with the second, in that Man, though fallen, is still to be distinguished from all other life. We are unique in this world because we were created unique, and though Secular Humanism is doing their best to classify man as just another animal, there is simply no comparison beyond the basic building blocks and the fact that we are living creatures.

Disagree with the third, as even of the newborn child we cannot say "They are innocent." Innocent from a temporal perspective, yes, but separated from God nonetheless.

The article states:

"While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."

Again, I am having a hard time distinguishing a significant distinction. Bearing the consequence of death is, in my view...rather concise in association with the actions that resulted in loss of relationship, whereby death was not a consequence. Had Adam not sinned, then the penalty of death would not have been imposed. From that time the penalty has not been removed.

And here is the key, I think, in understanding death: in John 6 we see the Lord teach that apart from Him man has no life. He is not speaking about physical life, but eternal life, spiritual life. He says of the fathers in the Wilderness, "Your fathers are dead." That would include Moses, by the way. He contrasts the Manna (which gave/sustained physical life) with Himself, the True Bread, which is, He states, the source of life by which a man, though he perish (die physically), will never die. That could not be said of Adam, nor anyone after him. All men die. Only those saved through Christ, by virtue of eating His flesh and drinking His blood (believing on His death), have eternal life, by which it cannot be said "They are dead." Some will confuse this with the Lord's rebuke of the Sadducees, who believed that men ceased to exist at physical death. His point is that they had not passed out of existence, not that they had obtained eternal life. The only way we are able to obtain eternal life is by immersion into the One Who is Eternal, that is...God. Until Christ came that option was not available to man. It is my view that when men died they did not, and could not come into God's presence in Heaven, but were consigned to Sheol (Greek equivalent Hades) until that time when they were redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

I believe I have read of some others here who have similar views.

I have considered and am still considering what you suggested: Trying to find another church that I could attend in good conscience. One problem is that I'm not Pentecostal, and I don't believe in infant baptism.

I think if we really saw into the hearts of those professing to believe certain unsound doctrines such as infant baptism we might find they don't embrace them as strongly as we might think. Even Baptists Christen infants, and among Baptists we are going to find many who do not truly understand salvation in Christ. While it is easy to profess "I am trusting in Christ and understand that only His death in my stead saves me," practically speaking...not many really practice what they preach. In other words, even among Baptists, who I generally view as being about as close to sound doctrine in a collective organization (I am independent Baptist, Fundamental in the truest sense of the word), even among them I see issues that conflict with Scripture.

The point is best summed up in a statement a preacher made: "You will never find the perfect Church, and if you do, don't join it...you'll just wreck it." lol

No denomination is, in my view, entirely correct on every Doctrinal position. The question is...which doctrine does this particular group goof up? Some groups seem to specialize in erroneous doctrine, while others do a little better. What I would suggest is that most fellowships fall under, for the most part, the doctrine of their leadership. Find a fellowship with a good leadership and you will find a good fellowship. Among them, like all other fellowships, you are going to find those astute in doctrine, and those that amaze you as to what comes out of their mouths, lol. I dated a girl before I was married that was a member of the Assemblies of God. Their particular fellowship was pretty much indistinguishable from most of the Baptist fellowships I was used to, very conservative, and the people were great, and I believe, godly people. Went on a mission trip with them, also, to Austria. They never really spoke about the Gift of Tongues, and they didn't carry on like a few Pentecostal fellowships I visited (research, lol).

The one thing I would stress is that when we attend the House of God, the primary issue is our own hearts. We do not need to be concerned with others before first examining the reason why...we are there. If I were in an area where the only place I could worship was a Catholic Church...I would go. Erroneous doctrine notwithstanding, I still think we have a responsibility to have a home church where, at the least, we have somewhere we can go to worship God.

I'll be honest, sometimes I can't sit through a message without analyzing it from a doctrinal standpoint. I attend an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, and think my Pastor is pretty sound in his theology, however, there are issues I disagree with. For example, I do not accept free will as a valid doctrine, and he has said "God votes for you, Satan votes against you, and you cast the deciding vote," lol. Do I pick up and leave?

Nope. At least, not yet, lol.

We aren't going to find a place where everyone agrees with our views, lol, and I think that is just part of learning to love others, rather than trying to find the perfect environment. Just not going to be found, unless one is the type who simply agrees with everything they are taught without testing it against Scripture.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

That cuts down on my potential options considerably. Maybe I should just try to decide based on what church I believe practices the love of God the most.

I would just suggest, if it becomes necessary, just visiting a number of fellowships. One of the things I feel is lacking is leadership itself, and the service of Pastoring. Meaning, the leadership has a genuine concern for you and your family. I think that gets lost sometimes because often a fellowship can become very businesslike. That is natural because there are bills to be paid, and let's face it...life is busy for all of us.

I have visited many churches within 50 miles over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, I believe many of them function more as clubs than as churches.

Try not to let that discourage you, again, it is natural in any setting where there is a congregation. I myself stay pretty busy and do not socialize that much in my fellowship. I have made a number of friends but there are few that I could sit down with and have a doctrinal discussion, and that is just where my interests lie. Seldom is there time in such a setting to have discussions like that. Again, the primary purpose for corporate worship is in fact worship. Many see the fellowship as the place to learn, but as we grow we need more than that, and the Lord will move us to expand our study beyond that setting. And it always surprises me how certain "friendships" can end or cool over doctrinal differences.

Church should be more than meeting on a Sunday.

Not sure I agree completely, though there are usually three services a week in my own fellowship. What I mean is that those that rely on their fellowship solely for spiritual nourishment hinder their growth. Our faith is a 24/7 endeavor and as an example of extended fervency I would point out those on the Christian Doctrinal Forums: they are those that, I think, put more in searching for God and knowing Him better. It is my belief the best way to grow is through study.

One of my favorite verses:

Malachi 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.


I have always had a desire to know as much as I can about the Word of God, to know it better that I might be prepared to speak to people about God. I think there are many like me, and many of them can be found on the forums.

All that to say don't think too harshly about the formal tenor of corporate worship. It is natural that certain aspects occur, and if we want to change that it is up to us to do it. I personally think home study groups are a good idea.

People should care for and help each other, and be involved in each other's lives. I haven't found that yet in a church, except in our tiny church. I'll continue to look.

That is the case in my fellowship. Of course you are going to have members gravitate towards others, and there will be certain groups, but if we want to have friends we have to show ourselves friendly, right? It is likely you haven't found this because you have not been around long enough.

About leadership, no one wants to come here. I sometimes preach at our church, when we can't get someone to come.

Just as a suggestion, why not take the helm as temporary leadership? Offer yourself up to provide leadership if they will accept you. The best way to learn is...to teach. If you stick with what you know is absolutely true, and avoid that which you are uncertain about, I am sure the Lord will enable you. Just a thought. If you have already stepped up to preach, who knows but that the solution for this issue might be closer to home than you think, lol. Perhaps you do not have the formal education preachers are usually expected to have, but can I remind you of some fisherman that once preached...and turned the world upside down?

Okay, sorry for the length, haven't just talked (as opposed to debated) in a while, and got carried away.


God bless.

 

[Rebel]

I would just suggest, if it becomes necessary, just visiting a number of fellowships. One of the things I feel is lacking is leadership itself, and the service of Pastoring. Meaning, the leadership has a genuine concern for you and your family. I think that gets lost sometimes because often a fellowship can become very businesslike. That is natural because there are bills to be paid, and let's face it...life is busy for all of us.




Try not to let that discourage you, again, it is natural in any setting where there is a congregation. I myself stay pretty busy and do not socialize that much in my fellowship. I have made a number of friends but there are few that I could sit down with and have a doctrinal discussion, and that is just where my interests lie. Seldom is there time in such a setting to have discussions like that. Again, the primary purpose for corporate worship is in fact worship. Many see the fellowship as the place to learn, but as we grow we need more than that, and the Lord will move us to expand our study beyond that setting. And it always surprises me how certain "friendships" can end or cool over doctrinal differences.



Not sure I agree completely, though there are usually three services a week in my own fellowship. What I mean is that those that rely on their fellowship solely for spiritual nourishment hinder their growth. Our faith is a 24/7 endeavor and as an example of extended fervency I would point out those on the Christian Doctrinal Forums: they are those that, I think, put more in searching for God and knowing Him better. It is my belief the best way to grow is through study.

One of my favorite verses:

Malachi 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.


I have always had a desire to know as much as I can about the Word of God, to know it better that I might be prepared to speak to people about God. I think there are many like me, and many of them can be found on the forums.

All that to say don't think too harshly about the formal tenor of corporate worship. It is natural that certain aspects occur, and if we want to change that it is up to us to do it. I personally think home study groups are a good idea.



That is the case in my fellowship. Of course you are going to have members gravitate towards others, and there will be certain groups, but if we want to have friends we have to show ourselves friendly, right? It is likely you haven't found this because you have not been around long enough.



Just as a suggestion, why not take the helm as temporary leadership? Offer yourself up to provide leadership if they will accept you. The best way to learn is...to teach. If you stick with what you know is absolutely true, and avoid that which you are uncertain about, I am sure the Lord will enable you. Just a thought. If you have already stepped up to preach, who knows but that the solution for this issue might be closer to home than you think, lol. Perhaps you do not have the formal education preachers are usually expected to have, but can I remind you of some fisherman that once preached...and turned the world upside down?

Okay, sorry for the length, haven't just talked (as opposed to debated) in a while, and got carried away.


God bless.

Don't be sorry for the length; I greatly appreciate your input!

Everything you said make sense. One thing that has disturbed me is hearing a certain doctrine preached at so many of the churches I have attended. I got to the point that I just didn't think I could sit through it anymore. It seems, though, that my choice was either that or a liberal church. But I'll keep searching.

 

[Darrell C]

Don't be sorry for the length; I greatly appreciate your input!

Everything you said make sense. One thing that has disturbed me is hearing a certain doctrine preached at so many of the churches I have attended. I got to the point that I just didn't think I could sit through it anymore. It seems, though, that my choice was either that or a liberal church. But I'll keep searching.

Which doctrine?

 

[Rebel]

Which doctrine?

Oh, my. We were having such a good, civil, fruitful discussion that I didn't want to mention the doctrine. I didn't want to open a can of worms.

But I feel I should answer your question. That would be penal substitution. That is the predominant view of the atonement in Evangelical churches, or the governmental view in Wesleyan circles. In the RCC, which I am not considering, it's the satisfaction view, which I don't hold to, either. I have a serious problem with how all of these view God, man, and the work of Jesus.

 

[Rebel]

Darrell C,

Not that I thought this would cause a problem between you and me, but possibly with others.

 

[Darrell C]

Oh, my. We were having such a good, civil, fruitful discussion that I didn't want to mention the doctrine. I didn't want to open a can of worms.

But I feel I should answer your question. That would be penal substitution. That is the predominant view of the atonement in Evangelical churches, or the governmental view in Wesleyan circles. In the RCC, which I am not considering, it's the satisfaction view, which I don't hold to, either. I have a serious problem with how all of these view God, man, and the work of Jesus.

Feel free to open it up...that is why we are here, lol.

If you can, just give a brief statement as to what you feel is believed, probably concerning penal substitution since an evangelical view is probably most relevant to you. As well it would be good for you to state what you believe concerning Atonement.

My view is that Christ's sacrifice is applied to those that are sanctified by the blood (death) of Christ, and that by His death we are made complete in regards to remission of sins, and that this is the promise given by God under New Covenant conditions. It is not a blanket forgiveness given to all men, but only to those that respond to the Comforter's Ministry, receiving the truth, rather than rejecting it.

It will not cause any problems between us from my side, as discussing different views is what I am here for, so difference of view is expected. And it is through taking our different views to the Word of God that should settle matters, provided one side or the other can, from Scripture, present a Biblical standpoint that analyzes the issue and brings out of Scripture the will of God concerning that matter.


God bless.

 

[Rebel]

Feel free to open it up...that is why we are here, lol.

If you can, just give a brief statement as to what you feel is believed, probably concerning penal substitution since an evangelical view is probably most relevant to you. As well it would be good for you to state what you believe concerning Atonement.

My view is that Christ's sacrifice is applied to those that are sanctified by the blood (death) of Christ, and that by His death we are made complete in regards to remission of sins, and that this is the promise given by God under New Covenant conditions. It is not a blanket forgiveness given to all men, but only to those that respond to the Comforter's Ministry, receiving the truth, rather than rejecting it.

It will not cause any problems between us from my side, as discussing different views is what I am here for, so difference of view is expected. And it is through taking our different views to the Word of God that should settle matters, provided one side or the other can, from Scripture, present a Biblical standpoint that analyzes the issue and brings out of Scripture the will of God concerning that matter.


God bless.

For right now, let me just say that I have no problem discussing this with you because I see the spirit of Christ in you, and I have no doubt that you will not resort to calling me a heretic.

More later....

 

[Rebel]

Feel free to open it up...that is why we are here, lol.

If you can, just give a brief statement as to what you feel is believed, probably concerning penal substitution since an evangelical view is probably most relevant to you. As well it would be good for you to state what you believe concerning Atonement.

My view is that Christ's sacrifice is applied to those that are sanctified by the blood (death) of Christ, and that by His death we are made complete in regards to remission of sins, and that this is the promise given by God under New Covenant conditions. It is not a blanket forgiveness given to all men, but only to those that respond to the Comforter's Ministry, receiving the truth, rather than rejecting it.

It will not cause any problems between us from my side, as discussing different views is what I am here for, so difference of view is expected. And it is through taking our different views to the Word of God that should settle matters, provided one side or the other can, from Scripture, present a Biblical standpoint that analyzes the issue and brings out of Scripture the will of God concerning that matter.


God bless.

To continue.....

I hold to the early church views of the atonement. These are: Ransom, Christus Victor, Recapitulation.

I have a problem with penal substitution as formulated by the Protestant Reformers.

 

[Darrell C]

To continue.....

I hold to the early church views of the atonement. These are: Ransom, Christus Victor, Recapitulation.

I have a problem with penal substitution as formulated by the Protestant Reformers.

I would have to research all of these in order to make sure I properly addressed them, lol, which is not something I tend to do because there is a difference between what is taught by certain groups and what is held by individuals separately, which is why I prefer to hear how one expresses particular titled doctrines themselves.

When it comes to the "Early Church" there is really only one for me, and that is the Biblical Church as found in Scripture. Many of the Church Fathers are held in high esteem, and this rightly so, I believe, but, it takes us out of an arena that has restraints on error in that those in Scripture are locked into an inspired statement where we can glean a dogmatic position on most of the doctrines that may be divisive in those groups that follow Biblical History. Keeping in mind that all of us are prone to error at some point in our walk, reliance on statements of men outside of Scripture, no matter the prestige ascribed to them, differs from our reliance on the concrete statements of the Word of God. Even great men of God can make mistakes, but Scripture remains the rule of measure for all of us.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

On the matter of penal substitution, I think a case for it can easily be made, but I also think that it is when we try to embrace a particular system of theology that sometimes we are boxed into a corner because that system doesn't allow for equally relevant truths to be acknowledged. While I have no doubts that Christ's death was substitutionary, as that is the example of all sacrifice for remission of sins that pre-figured Christ's death, there is also an element which sometimes, I think, is forgotten in the discussion, which the matter of man entering into God's presence.

In other words, when men died before Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, did they go into God's presence in Heaven? I do not take the view they did, but that they were consigned to Sheol/Hades, as taught in Luke 16 by Christ.

The two issues are combined in Hebrews 9. After describing the earthly Tabernacle (and keep in mind that the writer never mentions the Temple), the writer goes on to say:


Hebrews 9

King James Version (KJV)


6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;


What he is saying is that the Service prescribed by God Himself was given for that time, and what is significant is that "the way into the Holiest" was not yet made manifest, or, was not given unto men at this time. The "Holiest" will be seen to be the true presence of God in Heaven, rather than the "figure" (which in the Greek is parabolē, the same word translated "parable" elsewhere). The last thing (for now) to take note of is that Levitical Service did not make the him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience, meaning, as the writer will reiterate later, though they offered up gifts and sacrifices they were compelled to offer up those same gifts and sacrifices because they did not bring completion to the issue of sin and remission of sins.

Now see the next statement:


10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Now we know that Christ did not enter the Temple to offer Himself up, but the "Holy Place" spoken of here is the true Holy Place...God's presence. This sacrifice was offered up to God, not Satan, as the Ransom Theory would suggest.

In v.12 we see that His death obtained, not just remission of sins (which the writer, in Ch.10, will say for the sanctified believer is eternally complete for ever (v.14)), but redemption which is eternal.

For us.

We see this Offering, in contrast with those of Levitical Service, was a one-time offering never needing repeating as those of Levitical Service.

That the sins of the Old Testament Saint were still in need of redemption even though they offered up sacrifice for the remission of sins (which the writer makes clear did not make complete nor take away sins) is evident here:


15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


In Hebrews reference to "The First Covenant" always refers to the Covenant of Law. This verse is loaded in information for us:

Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant (the implication that He established the New Covenant through His Work);

The transgression of the First Covenant/Covenant of Law were in need of redemption, they were not satisfied through Levitical Service, though this was the prescribed method for that time;

His death/offering of Himself...made receiving the promise of Eternal Inheritance possible. The implication being...it was not available prior to His death.

So we see that Christ had to die in order to redeem the Old Testament Saint, that their sins be atoned for, and that they might receive the promise. In Ch.11 the writer makes it clear they were men and women of faith, but they did not receive the promise/s (vv.13; 39-40).

But back to the focal point:


24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Christ entered into the presence of God, the true Holy Place, not the holy places that were earthly and parable. What is important to keep in mind is that while Christ was God manifest in the flesh, He was also a man. The point that stands out here is important...a man entering, in reality, into the true presence of God. No man did that before, they entered into shadow and figure (though we see them come into His presence here on earth, but never into His presence in His realm).


Here are some of the most neglected (in my view) verses in all of Scripture:


Hebrews 10:15-20

King James Version (KJV)

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.


This was God's promise to Israel (as well as the world) and it was given in promise of a New Covenant. When God states He will forgive sin and remember it no more...He means it. The same statement is found in Ezekiel 36:27 in which God states "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and to keep my judgments." So one issue that is important in understanding Hebrews is understanding the importance of the writer's contrast between the First Covenant (Covenant of Law) and the New Covenant. The writer is making it clear that the New Covenant has been established through Christ.



18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Some will see this in a negative light as they do in v.26, but the statement should comfort the believer because what He is saying is that "When I forgive sin at that time it will be forgiven completely." That is what this verse states.

It is relative to the Sacrifice of Christ because the point is that Christ's offering of Himself is a complete offering for sin never having to be repeated.


19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Again we see reference to the "Holiest," already defined by the writer as Heaven, the true presence of God.

Entrance to God is accomplished only one way, that is...through the death of Christ. Euphemisms such as the "blood," the "flesh", and the "body" all refer to Christ's death. When in John 6 the Lord requires that men "eat of His flesh" and "drink of His blood" what He is saying is that men must believe on what is central here for men entering into the presence God, having had their sins forgiven...Christ's Sacrifice.

In verse 20 we are told of a new and living way (contrasted with the "old" and "permanently dead sacrifice") which correlates His flesh (death) to the veil of the Tabernacle which separated man from God. While the High Priest entered through the earthly veil once a year, the fact remains that he nor any High Priest ever once entered in the Holiest, that is, Heaven, nor did they ever offer up a sacrifice that could provide a way for men to enter into the presence of God nor have their sins forgiven in completion.

Nor obtain eternal redemption for us.

When we believe on Christ, as noted in John 6, we place our faith in His death which is specific to trusting that He died to pay the penalty of sin for us. We don't just believe Christ was a special man highly esteemed by God and that we should also hold Him in high esteem, but there is a practical faith that His death accomplished something that the Law (First Covenant) did not and could not accomplish.

I view man's entrance to God as having been lost in the Fall and it was not until the Sacrifice of Christ that men obtained the Way back into God's presence in reality. Again, we see men come into God's presence in our realm, the physical Creation (i.e. Genesis 18), but into the Holiest, Heaven itself, it was not possible. It was necessary that we be redeemed that we might be reconciled to God.


God bless.

 

[Rebel]

I would have to research all of these in order to make sure I properly addressed them, lol, which is not something I tend to do because there is a difference between what is taught by certain groups and what is held by individuals separately, which is why I prefer to hear how one expresses particular titled doctrines themselves.

When it comes to the "Early Church" there is really only one for me, and that is the Biblical Church as found in Scripture. Many of the Church Fathers are held in high esteem, and this rightly so, I believe, but, it takes us out of an arena that has restraints on error in that those in Scripture are locked into an inspired statement where we can glean a dogmatic position on most of the doctrines that may be divisive in those groups that follow Biblical History. Keeping in mind that all of us are prone to error at some point in our walk, reliance on statements of men outside of Scripture, no matter the prestige ascribed to them, differs from our reliance on the concrete statements of the Word of God. Even great men of God can make mistakes, but Scripture remains the rule of measure for all of us.


Continued...

I can agree with what you said.

 

[Yeshua1]

Think of the SDA church as "seventh-day Baptist"

NO!

the SDA is SAME as JW/Mormons, as being "bibical cults", who denythe true Gospel, and have false teachings abd revelations from a false prophetess, just as Mormons have false Apostles/prophets!