He decides to let one murderer go free die to him having a change of heart, is sorry, confesses, agrees to do better, yet how would that balance the scales of justice though?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Enemies Of The Cross of Christ:
- Thread starter Zaatar71
- Start date
- Status
My belief is that at Judgment God will have succeeded in transforming us into the image of Christ, we will have been made a new creation in Christ, we will have been refined, we will have been cleansed of all unrighteous.
God will justly condemn the wicked and justify the righteous.
I believe that what we have is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.
This does nor contradict the law (the wicked will be punished and the righteous justified) but the law is fulfilled and we are saved aoart from the law.
At Judgment, if Jesus was not punished for the sins of the "old man", the new creation who is at that point actually in the image of Christ IS himself righteous because he is made. new creation in Christ. The "old man" who you say has to have his sins punished no longer exists.
The flaw here is that the dead will be 'judged according to their works by the things which were written in the books' (Rev. 20:13-14), not according to how they may have been transformed. The only way to avoid disaster is to be found in Christ. 'For He [God] made Him who knew no sin [Christ; cf. Heb 7:26-27] to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.' Therefore God sees no sin in us because we have been clothed with Isaiah's robe of righteousness and garments of salvation.
I don't think so. God would be unjust because He would have justified the ungodly by cleansing them without any atonement. But He declares in Isaiah 65:6-7, '"Behold, it is written before Me: I will not keep silence but repay - even repay into their bosom - your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together," says the LORD.'
I have read this sentence through several times, and it does not appear to make sense "If Jesus was not punished...." then what?
However, the whole gist of your argument here is that the Lord Jesus died for nothing. He did not need to be a propitiation by His blood because, you say, God can be just by other means. I don't believe He can. If there was any way to be just and yet justify sinners, there was no reason for Christ to suffer and die.
The Father cannot declare a lost sinner to be now justify unless/until His divine Wrath is fully satisfied, and the sin debt is paid in full , as JonC theology seems to say God will save sinners by just accepting their repenting and asking to get saved, so says OK, my stored up wrath now just disappears
That is not a "flaw".
What are the works of the Spirpt that those conformed into the image of Christ has done?
These are "treasures", they are works together rewarded.
What about the wicked? Their "deeds are evil".
What about the "old man"? Again, evil but already "put to death".
You lack comprehension of my belief.
It all centers on Christ and His work of redemption.
Christ had to die under the bondage of sin and death, as one of us, to free us from its bondage.
He had to bevome a life giving spirit.
He had to be that second Adam.
Think about it for a moment. @Martin Marprelate
You believe that God took our sins (our past actions, our evil deeds we committed) and put thrm on Jesus to punish them there.
I stole a ball. God took "stole a ball" from me and put "stole a ball" on Jesus.
God then punished "stole a ball" on Jesus.
That does not change the fact that I stole the ball. I am still guilty.
So you say God took my guilt (my "having done it") and put "having done on" on Jesus and pretended Jesus did it.
Your theory does not work. It sounds logical if you say it enough times and ignore reality.
1. Sin and guilt are not material things. One cannot take an action committed and put that on another person who did not do that action. We are guilty because we did something. That is not a material thing but a fact that we did an action.
2. This does nothing to address the "old man". You do not acceot the idea that we are made new creations in Christ (you continually go back to what the "old man" did, ignoring the "old man" no longer exists at Judgment).
BUT some Calvinists (probably moat) acceot that God has predestined us to be conformed into the image of Christ.
They still have a problem. This means Christ's suffering the punishment of the "old man" had nothing to do with redemption at all. The "old man" is NOT redeemed. He dies and we are made anew.
Your view does not necessitate the cross in terms of redemption. It does not need Christ to have died at all.
It merely needs God to have redeemed us through the law and given the law what it demanded of God.
Instead, Scripture presents Jesus as bearing our sin (not God pretending that Jesus sinned but Jesus actualky coming under the bondage of our sin), suffering and dying under this bondage, raising to live having conquered this evil and freeing us from its bondage, removing the "sting" of death, and becoming a life giving Spirit.
We do not need to play pretend. God does not need to step away from reality. Simply read the Bible and consider tge possibility that what God said happened and happens may really be true.
You believe that God took our sins (our past actions, our evil deeds we committed) and put thrm on Jesus to punish them there.
I stole a ball. God took "stole a ball" from me and put "stole a ball" on Jesus.
God then punished "stole a ball" on Jesus.
That does not change the fact that I stole the ball. I am still guilty.
So you say God took my guilt (my "having done it") and put "having done on" on Jesus and pretended Jesus did it.
Your theory does not work. It sounds logical if you say it enough times and ignore reality.
1. Sin and guilt are not material things. One cannot take an action committed and put that on another person who did not do that action. We are guilty because we did something. That is not a material thing but a fact that we did an action.
2. This does nothing to address the "old man". You do not acceot the idea that we are made new creations in Christ (you continually go back to what the "old man" did, ignoring the "old man" no longer exists at Judgment).
BUT some Calvinists (probably moat) acceot that God has predestined us to be conformed into the image of Christ.
They still have a problem. This means Christ's suffering the punishment of the "old man" had nothing to do with redemption at all. The "old man" is NOT redeemed. He dies and we are made anew.
Your view does not necessitate the cross in terms of redemption. It does not need Christ to have died at all.
It merely needs God to have redeemed us through the law and given the law what it demanded of God.
Instead, Scripture presents Jesus as bearing our sin (not God pretending that Jesus sinned but Jesus actualky coming under the bondage of our sin), suffering and dying under this bondage, raising to live having conquered this evil and freeing us from its bondage, removing the "sting" of death, and becoming a life giving Spirit.
We do not need to play pretend. God does not need to step away from reality. Simply read the Bible and consider tge possibility that what God said happened and happens may really be true.
Last edited:
The flaw is that you are placing all this not at the judgment, but after it. Read Rev. 20:12, which I posted earlier, again. 'The dead were judged according to what they had done.' If God can simply forgive sins without a propitiation or atoning sacrifice, then not only does Rom. 3:25-26 not belong in the Bible, but Christ doesn't belong there either!
Well, if I were one of these 'wicked' people, I would complain: "How come that Martin Marprelate did all those wicked things and yet is forgiven, while we are not?" And the devil himself would complain: "How can you just let one set of people off and then 'conform them into the image of Christ, while another set, who were no more wicked than some of the others, are sent to hell?
Well this is your opportunity to explain yourself.
This sounds rather like Penal Substitution to me. How does it differ?
This is what I want you to explain - in detail, please! Why, under your scheme, did Christ have to die? Why, if God is going to make us all new creations anyway, did Jesus have to suffer and die in the terrible way He did?. And why did He refuse the wine mixed with Myrrh (Mark 15:23)?
First of all, your likening sin to stealing a ball is not helpful in coming to the truth. Proverbs 21:24 applies. However,our problem is that it is not a theory, it's the word of God. 'All we, like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity [ball-stealing and all] of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). 'He Himself bore our sins [ball-stealing and all] in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24).
So you say, yet God has done exactly that. He has taken our sins and put them on the Lord Jesus. Your theory does not stand the scrutiny of Scripture
[/QUOTE]
Yet though we are new creations in Christ Jesus, we are still the same people (or do you think that JonC and Martin Marprelate will be obliterated?). God has to be 'Just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'
Probably all do; it's in the Bible.
Please! Read Romans 3:25-26 again. God cannot deny Himself; He must be just, and seen to be just.
The law demands that the soul that sins shall die. 'But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us' (Romans 5:8).Your mocking does you no credit. It was God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, who came to satisfy His own justice and pay the penalty for our sins (cf. Acts 20:28). Where does the Bible talk about the Lord Jesus "coming under the bondage of our sins"? What does that even mean?
I suggest you do just that.
You are still not comprehending what I am saying.
1. God does NOT just "simply forgive".
Scripture tells us what God requires ("repentance", "turning away from wickedness", "turning to God", "a new heart", "dying to sin", having "a mind set on the Spirit").
The Bible says IF those things happen that God will forgive us. My view is that God actually majes those things happen.
2. I DID read the passage AND I agreed with it.
At Judgment we WILL be judged according to what we have done.
But at Judgment we will not be "the old man". We will be new creations in Christ. We will be in His image. Our deeds will be the works of the Spirit. God will not hold us accountable for what somebody who no longer exist did (the "old man"). We must die to sin. We must put to death the flesh (this "old man").
3. You seem to want to keep your sins, to keep that "old man" and have God justify this sin. He will not.
At Judgment if you stand before God as the "old creation" set on the flesh you WILL perish.
But of you "put to death the deeds of the flesh", if you "die to sin", if you ARE NOT the "old man" but instead have been made a new creation in Christ and are conformed to His image then you will be justified.
Yet though we are new creations in Christ Jesus, we are still the same people (or do you think that JonC and Martin Marprelate will be obliterated?). God has to be 'Just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'
Probably all do; it's in the Bible.
Please! Read Romans 3:25-26 again. God cannot deny Himself; He must be just, and seen to be just.
The law demands that the soul that sins shall die. 'But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us' (Romans 5:8).Your mocking does you no credit. It was God Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, who came to satisfy His own justice and pay the penalty for our sins (cf. Acts 20:28). Where does the Bible talk about the Lord Jesus "coming under the bondage of our sins"? What does that even mean?
I suggest you do just that.
[/QUOTE]
No, stealing is a sin. If is a violation of God's command. Why you would think otherwise is odd.
You just misapplied God's Word.
The reference is Ezekiel 18.
The passage begins with the law of Israel and God telling them that the person or soul who sins shall die, that they will not judge the son based on the father's crime. God commands them to not use a saying.
BUT half through the chapter God explains to Israel "His ways".
God tells them that He will hold them accountable for their sins - unless they repent from evil and turn to Him. God even tells them this requires a "new heart". And God says if this occurs He will forgive their sins.
But you flat out rejected that God forgives us based in this "new heart", that we are forgiven because we are made into Christ's image, made "new creations" in Christ.
Instead you insist that the "new creation" is really the "old man" who has had Christ suffered his punishment. That is completely unbiblical.
If you mean by your last sentence that repentance and faith are gifts of God, then I agree with you. But the fact is that God requires something more than repentance, the New Birth and so forth. 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission' (Heb. 9:22). I have quoted a couple of times Numbers 15:27-31. I really don't have time to write it all out again, but if people haven't read it yet, they need to do so to understand the issue. In the O.T., there had to be an offering, a propitiation, an atoning sacrifice to satisfy God's outraged justice. Now, in the New Covenant, people are called simply to repent and believe, but only because the blood has already been shed, once and for all, by the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:24-28).
Well you didn't understand it then.
But we won't, not entirely. Read Romans 7 and 1 John 1 again. We are still debtors to mercy and will be until the day we die. If we end up at the Day of Judgment as new creations, it will be because God, in His mercy, placed our sins upon the Lord Jesus and He paid the penalty for them in full.
I was made a new creation 30+ years ago when I first trusted in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). The good news is that God justifies sinners (Romans 5:6), of whom I, next to Paul, am the chief. But when I stand before the judgment seat of Christ, my hope will be in nothing else but the blood of Christ
Don't think you can frighten me with your hobgoblins! I will stand before God with my sins forgiven because God has laid them upon the Lord Jesus, and He has willingly paid the price for them in full upon the cross, looking to nothing in myself, for I shall get no help there, but 'Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.' And what was the joy set before Him? Firstly, it was the doing of God's will (Psalm 40:8), but secondly it was the becoming the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29; cf. Hebrews 2:11-17).
'When from the dust of death I rise
To claim my mansion in the skies,
E'en then shall this be all my plea,
Jesus hath lived, and died for me!'
If your hope is in anything in yourself, if it is anything else but in Christ and Him crucified, it is more than likely to be disappointed .
I don't think you'll find I did.
What you miss is that all the way through the Old Covenant, the various Levitical offerings were still being offered. 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.' Once again, you do not appear to know what to do with Christ crucified.
I insist on nothing of the kind as you know very well. We are justified when we repent and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. We are not made new creations when we do not believe in Christ. 'For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God.....' How? By being made new creations? No! '.....by the death of His Son....' (Romans 5:10). It is when we believe on Him - at that very moment, that we are united to Christ by faith, made into His image and become new creations. Yet, as we know, it does not mean that we become sinlessly perfect - far from it! But because we are united to Christ by faith, God credits us with His spotless righteousness. This is Luther's great exchange. He has our sins imputed to Him and suffers for them to satisfy God's justice; we have His righteousness imputed to us.
'When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upwards I look and see His face
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Saviour died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.'
I agree that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
We differ, though. Where you see this as a law God had to follow, I view this as foreshadowing Christ.
We both agreed that Jesus died. We both, I hope, agree that this was so by His death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.
Paul placed our hope in the Resurrection. This includes (obviously) Jesus dying to brea the power of the one who holds the power if death (Satan).
Scripture describes our being made into new creations much differently.
Punishing the guilty sins on Christ would not remove the guilt (even if sins could be treated as material things.
Transferring our guilt onto Christ would not recreate us (even if guilt coukd be treated as a material thing).
The Bible says we are made new creations in Christ - not by God punishing Christ.
We are conformed into His image.
This is God removing our heart of stone and giving us a new heart.
This is God removing our old spirit and giving us a new spirit.
This is God putting His Spirit in us.
This is being born of the Spirit.
God foreknew us in Christ.
He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son
The reason is that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Now, I know you probably do not believe that but check it out anyway.
All of that is in God's Word.
What is not in God's Word is your theory.
The bottom line is I believe what God has given us, "what is written", is more than enough without your theory.
You are more than welcomed to believe as you want, choose to "do as though wilt".
But why try to talk people out of believing God's own words and into believing your theory?
Do you actually know of any passage that states that Jesus suffered God's wrath in our stead?
You did.
Behold, all souls are Mine; the [d]soul of the father as well as the [e]soul of the son is Mine. The [f]soul who sins will die.
Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
But when a wicked person turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. Since he understood and turned away from all his offenses which he had committed, he shall certainly live; he shall not die.
Therefore I will judge you, house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord God. “Repent and turn away from all your offenses, so that wrongdoing does not become a stumbling block to you. Hurl away from you all your offenses which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why should you die, house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live!”
Yet you, @Martin Marprelate , say, "The way of the Lord is not right."
God's way does not satisfy the demands of your philosophy.
You cannot accept that God is able to make man a new creation in Christ, to make a guilty man innocent.
God tells us there is a manifestation of His righteousness apart from the law.
You scream "How can this be????"
God says "you must be born again".
And you go away disappointed because that truth makes you decide who you will follow, and you have already made your decision.
I was serious when I told you that I do not post for your benefit.
I post so that others who may face the decision you have already made have an opportunity to evaluate your theory, and what I have posted, against God's words. They may still choose to follow their understanding. But perhaps some will choose God.
Maybe everybody here has already made their choice. Maybe, like you, many here are already carried away by their philosophy. I don't know, and it is not my responsibility to know. It is my responsibility to point to God and His words. The damned will be damned. The saved will be saved. That is God's lane. But for me and my house, we will serve God.
Look at it this way, @Martin Marprelate
We have Scripture (the biblical text).
We have what the sect you believe is right says the Bible really means.
BUT we have many other sects who tell us the Bible really means something else.
What you, and those other sects, believe the Bible teaches is not in the biblical text.
So, why should we believe your sect got it right and those other sects got it wrong?
Since you and those other sects depart from "what is written" the authority of your (and their) faith is subjective.
When we depart from God's Word we start leaning on our own understanding. You pick a theology that you believe is right, but you cannot prove it is right because it is not actually in the biblical text.
You can claim that what you believe the Bible teaches is in fact what is taught by the Bible.
But every sect that trusts in their understanding says exactly the same thing.
Since your belief is not actually in God's Word (in the text of Scripture) how do you know your understanding is correct?
How do you know that God holds Renaissance Legal Huminism?
What I mean is other people hold different philosophies of justice. Today we have modern humanism. We have the Hebrew understanding of justice. We have so many ideas out there, but you want us to assume God holds your view (a philosophy primarily limited to 16th century France).
Your theory of the Fall is not in the biblical text. It certainly was not the Hebrew understanding. Why should we just assume yours is correct.
I could go on but I think you see my question. Your beliefs are not in the biblical text itself, there are literally dozens of other sects telling us the Bible really teaches something else, and the assumptions upon which your faith is founded is not in the biblical text.
You cannot verify your faith against God's Word ("what is written"), so why should anybody accept it as truth?
We have Scripture (the biblical text).
We have what the sect you believe is right says the Bible really means.
BUT we have many other sects who tell us the Bible really means something else.
What you, and those other sects, believe the Bible teaches is not in the biblical text.
So, why should we believe your sect got it right and those other sects got it wrong?
Since you and those other sects depart from "what is written" the authority of your (and their) faith is subjective.
When we depart from God's Word we start leaning on our own understanding. You pick a theology that you believe is right, but you cannot prove it is right because it is not actually in the biblical text.
You can claim that what you believe the Bible teaches is in fact what is taught by the Bible.
But every sect that trusts in their understanding says exactly the same thing.
Since your belief is not actually in God's Word (in the text of Scripture) how do you know your understanding is correct?
How do you know that God holds Renaissance Legal Huminism?
What I mean is other people hold different philosophies of justice. Today we have modern humanism. We have the Hebrew understanding of justice. We have so many ideas out there, but you want us to assume God holds your view (a philosophy primarily limited to 16th century France).
Your theory of the Fall is not in the biblical text. It certainly was not the Hebrew understanding. Why should we just assume yours is correct.
I could go on but I think you see my question. Your beliefs are not in the biblical text itself, there are literally dozens of other sects telling us the Bible really teaches something else, and the assumptions upon which your faith is founded is not in the biblical text.
You cannot verify your faith against God's Word ("what is written"), so why should anybody accept it as truth?
Do you? Really? When I see you bouncing up and down on Ezekiel 18 like a trampoline, I tend to doubt it.
So God doesn't have to follow His own rules in the O.T.? Is that what you're saying? God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), not because He can't do what He wants, but because He cannot deny His own nature. So when He says in Lev. 17:11, "It is the blood that makes atonement for your soul,' I think we should believe that He means it. The Lord Jesus Himself declares, "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill' (Matt. 5:17). That claim has reference to the whole law in all its fulness, the ritual aspect as well as the moral. And not only did He claim it in Matt. 5:17, He made the same claim in Luke 24:44, after His resurrection. "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." Much of the Book of Hebrews, especially Chapters 7, 9 &10, was written to establish that point.
That is one reason, and I will come to it.
First of all, we must consider the purpose of a Priest as laid out in Heb. 5:1-5. It is twofold: to present offerings and to make intercession.
Firstly, to present offerings. Heb. 10:11-12. 'And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices , which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God...' What is this infallible sacrifice that He offers? He makes the one perfect acceptable sacrifice of Himself. 'Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption' (Heb. 9:12). There is a pile of other supporting texts: John 1:29; Rom. 3:25-26 (of course!); 5:6; 1 Cor. 5:7; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Heb.10:10,12,14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 3:18; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5.
Secondly, to make intercession. Hebrews 7:25. 'Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.' What is His intercession that is able to save infallibly everyone who comes to God through Him? Does He say, "Oh, let him in, Dad! He loves his mum and he has a standing order to Oxfam"? No! He shows His pierced hands and feet and says, "I died for that one!" "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out' (John 6:37). See also Rom. 8:34 below.
Thirdly, our Lord paid a ransom. So what's a ransom? It is a price paid for liberating either a person or a thing that has been taken or possessed by another. The key texts are Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:5-6, and also 1 Cor. 6:19-20; 1 Peter 1:18-19 which use the word 'redemption' which has a similar meaning of paying a price to get something back.
I could include the terms propitiation and reconciliation, both referring to our Lord's death, but I hurry on to get to:
Fourthly, the Lord Jesus defeated the devil. But what was the power of the devil? He is the 'accuser of our brethren, who accused [note the past tense] them before our God day and night' (Rev. 12:10). And how was he defeated? 'And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony...' (v.11). But what was the power of Satan? How could he enter into God's very presence (Job 1 & 2; Zech. 3:1-5) to accuse His people? If it were a question of power, the infinite resources of God would very quickly ovecome the devil. But Satan could appeal to justice! He may also indulge in slander, but his accusation against Joshua in Zech. 3 was spot on. Joshua was desperately unclean. So the defeat of Satan must include the removal of our guilt, and this is what we see in the N.T. Christ has taken away our guilt on the cross, '... having wiped out the handwriting of requirements tht was against us, which was against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross' (Col.2:13-15). So, 'who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies, who is he who condemns? Not Satan; not any more! 'It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.'
Well he did that (1Cor. 15:12ff), but he also placed it in Christ's atoning death on the cross, as I hope you have seen from all the supporting tets above. To try and separate our Lord's death from His resurrection is very silly. The bible does not do so. Each is absolutely indispensible to our salvation, but the cross comes first, and unless our Lord has satisfied God's justice, the resurrection is of no avail.
Dealt with.
You may not think so, but God says it does. Do I really have to trot out all those texts again? Read them!! 'Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption' (Heb. 9:12).
God does not punish Christ - He has done nothing worthy of punishment - God punishes sin in Christ. He placed all our sins on Christ (Isaiah 53:6) and punished them in Him. Now you may not think that's how God should have done it. Well, you can tell Him when you see Him, because that's how He did it.
Dur! You think I have a problem with any of that? Not at all! But you leave Christ out of our salvation, and you can't do that. It's not what's in your theory that's wrong - it's what you leave out; the cross and Christ willingly rendering satisfaction to the justice of the Father.
Well go through all the texts I've quoted and show me where I'm wrong.
You don't! You don't believe what God has given you, and that's your problem.
You have unfortunately fallen into the habit of aping another member of this forum who tells people they don't believe the Scriptures, while providing no evidence that he believes, or evn knows them himself.
I tell everybody who reads this that unless the Lord Jesus has paid the price for our sins in full they will have to do so themselves. Nothing more certain.
I gave it to you before. Romans 3:25-26.
Yes, as I have explained to you so many times before.
And yes, I do believe Ezekiel 18 is just as much God's words as is the rest of Scrioture. BUT you were the one who introduced Ezekiel 18 (well, one part of one verse). I just pointed out you were ignoring the context.
The passages I quoted (exceot pointing out you were misusing a part of one verse) were, if I recall, all from the New Testament (Ezekiel is an Old Testament book).
I do not see the importance of your doubt.
The difference is where you believe that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" really teaches that Jesus suffered God's wrath in order to forgive our sins I believe God's Own explanation is correct.
You quoted one part of the conclusion but omitted the entire argument (you again misused God's Word).
In Hebrews 9 God explains that Chriat entered the tabernacle not made by hands through His own blood, which will cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve God.
.God tells us that Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Where you view this as Jesus experiencing God's pinishment instead of us, God continues by explaining that where there is a covenant, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
Why? God answers this too. A covenant is valid only when people are dead (it is never in force while the one who made it lives).
Now....we are talking about the New Covenant but even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. (God took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself...the Law of Moses... and all the people. God said, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
BUT God says the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.
Now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
@Martin Marprelate , if you would stop looking for words in the Bible, or bits abd pieces of verses, and just read the Bible then you may find that God will draw you back into the faith, draw you to Himself.
We have Scripture (the biblical text).
We have what the sect you believe is right says the Bible really means.
BUT we have many other sects who tell us the Bible really means something else.
What you, and those other sects, believe the Bible teaches is not in the biblical text.
So, why should we believe your sect got it right and those other sects got it wrong?
Why not believe that God got it right (in His own words) and all of these sects that tell us what they Bible really means are simply false doctrines?
@Martin Marprelate
You didn't understand my question. Maybe this will help:
Scripture says "A"
One sect says it really teaches "B"
Another that it really teaches "C"
Yet another that it really teaches "D"
You choose a sect that says the Bible really teaches "E".
BUT the biblical text itself only says "A".
All of those sects comdemn those who believe "A" as not understanding what the Bible really teaches.
But the "A" believers understand "A". It makes sence to them. They see it as complete and perfect.
And they can objectively test their faith by reading "A" in the Bible.
Why should anybody choose your belief over the beliefs of any of those other sects?
Why should anybody choose your faith over what is actually written in Scripture?
You didn't understand my question. Maybe this will help:
Scripture says "A"
One sect says it really teaches "B"
Another that it really teaches "C"
Yet another that it really teaches "D"
You choose a sect that says the Bible really teaches "E".
BUT the biblical text itself only says "A".
All of those sects comdemn those who believe "A" as not understanding what the Bible really teaches.
But the "A" believers understand "A". It makes sence to them. They see it as complete and perfect.
And they can objectively test their faith by reading "A" in the Bible.
Why should anybody choose your belief over the beliefs of any of those other sects?
Why should anybody choose your faith over what is actually written in Scripture?
Last edited:
No, while Martin will answer for himself, he is probably sleeping, I think he said he lives in England....it is you who are butchering the text of Hebrews. I will show it right here.
In verse7. it shows the offering of the OT. Priest offering the blood of a lamb as the commanded blood sacrifice. It was about the blood...the tabernacle made without hands, while important is not the main issue, the conscience, while important is not the main issue.
Martin is completely correct to be focused on the blood. You mention the parts of the verses but leave out the blood, you talk about the tabernacle, the conscience, even forgiveness, but that is not the focus here. It is about the Blood of the Lamb SLAIN.
He is mediator, and Surety for sure, important, but not the main focus here
No..".not a death has taken place" as if He could have died of a heart attack, or fell off a cliff. It was the Lamb SLAIN. The blood of the lamb slain as Martin correctly points at ,over, and over, and over , The Lamb of God , who takes away the sin. That is the main issue here.
It was for the sins of the elect from all time. Before the Old Covenant, and after the Old Covenant.
He gets it from the whole Ot . sacrificial system, the lamb Slain on the day of Atonement, the blood of the Passover, and here Jesus blood was said to be the better Sacrifice than the one spoken of in verse 7. So while you claim to be following scripture, you are speaking of everything but the Blood of The Lamb Slain
true, but that is not addressing the issue in this passage
true, but not the issue. This way you sound as if you are trying to be biblical, but you avoid what the writer does not avoid.
Yes, but what you avoid , and Martin always brings up is vs.22:
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Here you use the word sacrifice, but divorce it from the work of the High Priest on the day of atonement.
yes 14x in the book of Revelation, we are told , the Lamb that was slain was now on the throne.
A blood sacrifice by the Lamb slain.
while that is true, it does not speak of the priestly sacrifice at all .
You never answer this! What doe sit mean...to bear the sins??? of many...sins plural, each and every sin. Not just generic sin.
What does it mean ...He was offered... Offered how??? you never answer! how did He bear the sin? was it piled into a wheelbarrel and he lifted it up like a weight lifter? Or was it like the texts describe/
No, not what the text points to;
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. The sin has been put away. The sins of the elect were put on him, to take the wrath and penalty of the elect sinners, that is why it says that he beared the sins of Many, not all as you suggest, but a multitude, who will have no condemnation for their sins, because Jesus beared them.
Why again to you slander a Pastor, and suggest he is outside the faith" he is right, you are not right.
you have just butchered the texts here in Hebrews, so you really do not have them then
Martin is not part of a sect. He is a Pastor of a Baptist Church in England. You can hear him preach on the internet.
I have never heard you preach or teach on the internet
It is to those who read it as it is found in context.
Because all the confessing Church believes what Martin believes.
He does believe that. You accuse him, but we all see Martin is right, and you are giving your own view, that no one holds.
No, it is the confessional faith, yesterday, today, and forever.
- Status