Cults, Christian Faith and Practice

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Never does the NT say that a scapegoat is needed for us when we confess our sins.

No, because scapegoat function was already included in the resurrection and post-Crucifixion ministry of Jesus Christ.

As I noted before - the post-crucifixion work of Christ IS explicitly discussed in the NT.

1John 2:1 - our advocate.
Heb 4 - our High Priest
Heb 7 - Our High Priest
Heb 10 - our High Priest

Lev 16 -- our High Priest.

But never do we see the NT post-Crucifixion work of Christ described as "our scapegoat".

In fact Heb 9 is explicit in saying that Christ's role in "bearing sin" and "taking sin upon Him" ended at the Crucifixion. After that He is our High Priest.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
That is a good example of the wicked sent out to pay their own debt of sin and not covered by the blood of the lamb.

Eliyahu
The problem with the wicked was that they didn't believe the effect of the LORD's Goat, not because any sins were left unforgiven.

James 2 "the devils believe and tremble" --

The lost who DID bring their sin offering sacrifice all during the year DID believe the sin offering would get them "out of jail free" so also do those n Matt 7 who are hoping for a "get out of jail free card". The issue is not that they doubt "God can forgiven anyone He wants" -- the issue is that they do not want to die to self. They don't want the Romans 6 "conditions" for salvation.

Only a "sin offering" can serve as an "offering for sin" and according to the book of leviticus ALL sin offerings must be sacrificed - must be burnt offerings. Christ died in our place -- suffering the punishment for sin that we owe.

So we see Him in the NT as the slain lamb of God and we see Him in His role as High Priest. But never as "scapegoat".

Some people don't get this point - and it is not one that I go around whacking people over the head with if they don't understand it. But for my part I accept the Bible teaching on this point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: But for my part I accept the Bible teaching on this point.

HP: Now that is a debatable notion indeed.

 

[BobRyan]

My claim is not that everyone will agree with me - nor will they agree with the Bible points I am raising. I simply say that this is not a topic that I focus on with others trying to convince them that they are wrong if they do not agree with what I find scripture to say about the non-sin-offering of Lev 16 -- the goat "presented ALIVE before the Lord" that has sins "placed on him' AFTER the sin offering has already been slain.

I can certainly see that there are those who differ with me on this topic. I don't think they have a good Bible case for their difference - but I admit that the symbol is less clear than "Sin offerings" that are in fact killed and then burnt as all sin offerings are. Even the High Priest symbol is fully explained in the Nt.

How "nice" it would have been to find in the NT "satan is the scapegoat" or "the wicked are the scapegoat" or "Christ is the scapegoat". But that is missing -- whereas the High Priest symbol IS stated in the NT so also the LAMB OF GOD that is SLAIN for the sins of the World.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Never does the NT say that a scapegoat is needed for us when we confess our sins.



As I noted before - the post-crucifixion work of Christ IS explicitly discussed in the NT.

1John 2:1 - our advocate.
Heb 4 - our High Priest
Heb 7 - Our High Priest
Heb 10 - our High Priest

Lev 16 -- our High Priest.

But never do we see the NT post-Crucifixion work of Christ described as "our scapegoat".

In fact Heb 9 is explicit in saying that Christ's role in "bearing sin" and "taking sin upon Him" ended at the Crucifixion. After that He is our High Priest.

in Christ,

Bob

We don't see any linkage between Jesus and Scapegoat in NT, because it is already included in His resurrection, and maybe because it needs a lengthy explanation for the readers and therefore it was left to the readers and to the Holy Spirit as we read this:

Heb 5
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.( sorry to Bob !) :laugh:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, F15 even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Bob,
Would you explain once again what the Scapegoat point out or indicate or imply, exactly?

Why did it carry the iniquities of All Israel ( including all the Believers) ?

Please note what Epistle James meant was that one should have the Faith which can work out the Fruits, otherwise, it is a fake Faith. It is simple.

Matt 7 :20-23 people were the unbelievers from the beginning. They never believed in Jesus from the beginning, never born again at all, and therefore they have no fruits to show to the Lord. They had no faith at all from the beginning, and there are so many people on this world today like them. Their sins were carried away by Jesus as He cried " Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing"

 

[Eliyahu]

Bob,

Do you know that Satan was sentenced to death at the Cross?
Then it means that when the LORD's Goat was killed, Satan was sentenced to death too. Then does he carry away the sins of ALL Israelites?

Then Jesus didn't have to die the cruel death !

 

[BobRyan]

You keep referencing a teaching I never claim.

I will repost my POV here -- you can differ with it - but why invent a new one?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We don't see any linkage between Jesus and Scapegoat in NT, because it is already included in His resurrection, and maybe because it needs a lengthy explanation for the readers and therefore it was left to the readers and to the Holy Spirit as we read this:

Heb 5
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.( sorry to Bob !) :laugh:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again

#1. This makes not reference at all to doctrines about the scapegoat.
#2. IF we could possibly alter the method of exegesis so that by quoting Heb 5 we could "freely insert" new teaching into the NT that are not mentioned there - then I dare say that a lot of groups like Mormons and JWS would be tickled pink to know of this opening in scripture for ad hoc ideas to be inserted.

Surely you are kidding with that reference above.

,
Would you explain once again what the Scapegoat point out or indicate or imply, exactly?

Why did it carry the iniquities of All Israel ( including all the Believers) ?

#1. It is not a sin offering -- it "forgives nothing".
#2. It shows the sins of the wicked who are "forgiven nothing".
3. It also applies to specific sins of the wicked in that they had part (Satan and his angels) in tempting the saints to sin not just tempting the members of their own kingdom of darkness - but also tempting the saints - the people of the camp of the saints.

But since it is not a sin offering - the scapegoat "forgives nothing".

Matt 7 :20-23 people were the unbelievers from the beginning. They never believed in Jesus from the beginning, never born again at all, and therefore they have no fruits to show to the Lord. They had no faith at all from the beginning, and there are so many people on this world today like them. Their sins were carried away by Jesus as He cried " Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing"

While it is true that those who "never were saved" -- were never saved (as if that would be debated) it is not true that during the yearly service they never had a sin offering slain - never confessed sins over the head of a sin offeirng -- never had the blood of the sin offering taken in to the temple. That would be a denial of all that God taught.

So what we see happening in Lev 16 is that the claims made are rejected and the guilt comes BACK out to the scapegoat for those who "never were saved".

(At this point you might have benefitted from some of the insights in scripture brought out in the OSAS threads as they deal also with the Ezek 18 cases and the Matt 18 cases very much like the John 15 cases). All of which would have come back out from the Sanctuary and have been placed on the head of the scapegoat.

notice that since this is "ceremonial" the fact that "all" are listed generically simply shows that the scope covers the entire camp -- no "individuals" are singled out in Lev 16 as "not saved".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Double Post !

 

[Eliyahu]

While it is true that those who "never were saved" -- were never saved (as if that would be debated) it is not true that during the yearly service they never had a sin offering slain - never confessed sins over the head of a sin offeirng -- never had the blood of the sin offering taken in to the temple. That would be a denial of all that God taught.

How would you interpret this?
Lv 16
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

So what we see happening in Lev 16 is that the claims made are rejected and the guilt comes BACK out to the scapegoat for those who "never were saved".

(At this point you might have benefitted from some of the insights in scripture brought out in the OSAS threads as they deal also with the Ezek 18 cases and the Matt 18 cases very much like the John 15 cases). All of which would have come back out from the Sanctuary and have been placed on the head of the scapegoat.

notice that since this is "ceremonial" the fact that "all" are listed generically simply shows that the scope covers the entire camp -- no "individuals" are singled out in Lev 16 as "not saved".

in Christ,

Bob

NO, Sir. I consider such thread as a quagmire.

Some people may be like Ever-changing believers, others may be very solid after being born again. However, as for the changing believers, there must have been distinctions between 2 groups, one going to the Hell, the other to the Heaven, from the beginning. When a tribulation comes, it reveals who belongs where. There is no neutral Zone, but if anyone was converted from the danger of the curse, he must have been saved from the beginning. If another was cursed due to the Apostasy, he must have never been saved from the beginning.
The solid believers who have the actual experience of Being born again never doubt about their Eternal Safety of their salvation.

The Unsolid believers will pass thru the test where they are revealed to be true believers or fake believers.
The Holy Spirit doesn't come into the hearts of the people, then go out, then come in again, then go out. He is NOT Hanky-Panky.

John 15 doesn't tell us the Forfeit of the Salvation, but the exclusion from the fellowship.
Does 1 Cor 3:12-13 tells you the Forfeit of the Salvation?

In your logic, if the hay and stubble are burnt, does it mean that the believer goes to the Hell ? No, but it means he will have no reward.

Remember this, even the adultrous man in 1 Cor 5 is saved despite his grievous sin.

If the person is truly saved, he or she will repent on his or her sins eventully.

So, your argument is dismissed, Sorry.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

While it is true that those who "never were saved" -- were never saved (as if that would be debated) it is not true that during the yearly service they never had a sin offering slain - never confessed sins over the head of a sin offeirng -- never had the blood of the sin offering taken in to the temple. That would be a denial of all that God taught.

Eliyahu
How would you interpret this?
Lv 16
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

That is an example of what is done with "The Sin offering" in Lev 16. The Lord's goat is slain and the blood is brought into the sanctuary to make atonement for BOTH the sanctuary and the people.

Christ's "atoning Sacrifice" 1john 2:2 (shed ONCE for ALL Heb 10) is represented there and as for bringing it into the sanctuary after the death of The Sin offering - this is Christ's role as our High Priest.

Christ's blood alone can forgive sins.

in Christ,

Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

NO, Sir. I consider such thread as a quagmire.

Some people may be like Ever-changing believers, others may be very solid after being born again. However, as for the changing believers, there must have been distinctions between 2 groups, one going to the Hell, the other to the Heaven, from the beginning. When a tribulation comes, it reveals who belongs where. There is no neutral Zone, but if anyone was converted from the danger of the curse, he must have been saved from the beginning. If another was cursed due to the Apostasy, he must have never been saved from the beginning.
The solid believers who have the actual experience of Being born again never doubt about their Eternal Safety of their salvation.

The Unsolid believers will pass thru the test where they are revealed to be true believers or fake believers.
The Holy Spirit doesn't come into the hearts of the people, then go out, then come in again, then go out. He is NOT Hanky-Panky.

John 15 doesn't tell us the Forfeit of the Salvation, but the exclusion from the fellowship.
Does 1 Cor 3:12-13 tells you the Forfeit of the Salvation?

In your logic, if the hay and stubble are burnt, does it mean that the believer goes to the Hell ? No, but it means he will have no reward.

Remember this, even the adultrous man in 1 Cor 5 is saved despite his grievous sin.

If the person is truly saved, he or she will repent on his or her sins eventully.

So, your argument is dismissed, Sorry.

This looks like an OSAS argument. Are you sure you do not want to respond to the OSAS texts on the thread where they are listed?

Seems like an important topic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

This looks like an OSAS argument. Are you sure you do not want to respond to the OSAS texts on the thread where they are listed?

Seems like an important topic.

in Christ,

Bob

Thank you for your invitation. I may think about it some time later. I am not ready to get into the quagmire at this stage.
In the meantime, we can remain in the faith that, you have the revocable faith as you confess, while I have irrevocable and solid faith as I confessed. It sounds mine is better and stronger than yours.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you accept the Bible teaching on perseverance?

If you accept it AND you cling to OSAS anyway - then your "firm assurance" is such that you would retro-delete today's supposed assurance when it is found that ten years from today you fail to persevere.

IF you reject Bible doctrine on perseverance - then I agree you have a firm story for assurance -- at the cost of ignoring basic Bible doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Do you accept the Bible teaching on perseverance?

If you accept it AND you cling to OSAS anyway - then your "firm assurance" is such that you would retro-delete today's supposed assurance when it is found that ten years from today you fail to persevere.

IF you reject Bible doctrine on perseverance - then I agree you have a firm story for assurance -- at the cost of ignoring basic Bible doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

True believers are expected to persevere the tribulation.

However, I agree that there are so many people who betray the Lord during the tribulation, more or less.

In that case, I don't think they lose the salvation though they may lose the reward.

I understand there are many apostasies by the fake Christians.

Apostasies by the Fake Christians are different from the desertion by the Born again believers.

Do you think this man would have to go to the hell if he didn't keep under his body?

1 Cor 9: 27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myslef should be a castaway.

 

[BobRyan]

"I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching (the gospel) to others I myself should be disqualified" - 1Cor 9:27 - NASB

Paul states that the danger is real -- not simply fake. But as you said before - this is the topic of those other threads.

 

[Eliyahu]

"I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching (the gospel) to others I myself should be disqualified" - 1Cor 9:27 - NASB

Paul states that the danger is real -- not simply fake. But as you said before - this is the topic of those other threads.

There must have been many great believers throughout the history who attempted to glorify the Lord in greater scale, but failed. However, I don't think, they lost the salvation.

The word there can be translated as " disqualified". There is nothing wrong with it. Then does it mean that Paul could have lost the salvation? NOPE!

Paul could have been disqualified for the blessed rewards, if he hadn't kept under himself. But it doesn't mean the loss of salvation.

Would you read 1 Cor 5? Did he lose the salvation? He might have received " naked salvation" only the salvation without any more reward or blessings.

There are shameful salvation and blessed salvation.

 

[BobRyan]

It is a little easier to make that case if you don't actually look at chapter 9 of 1Cor where Paul points out that the reward - the benefit of the Gospel "is salvation".

So "in context" Paul is talking about being disqualified from the Gospel that he preaches.

hint: Apart from the Gospel - no salvation

 

[Eliyahu]

It is a little easier to make that case if you don't actually look at chapter 9 of 1Cor where Paul points out that the reward - the benefit of the Gospel "is salvation".

So "in context" Paul is talking about being disqualified from the Gospel that he preaches.

hint: Apart from the Gospel - no salvation

Do you think Galatians would have lost the salvation because they didn't follow the Holy Spirit but stuck to keeping the Law?

There is no other Gospel than the news of Blood of Jesus Christ and His Death, and His Resurrection. But Galatians departed from thence.

Your religion is too difficult and risky to follow, I may have to give it up !

 

[BobRyan]

In Galatians Paul says "you have been severed from Christ" he also says "you have fallen from Grace".

Question - does the gospel you believe in proclaim salvation apart from Christ and grace? If so - then OSAS is for you.

in Christ,

Bob