Hey all,
This OP is to show the disconnect between the OT "ensample" of salvation and the Calvinist perversion thereof.
But this is probably a good place to "finish what I started" on another thread. You see, those of the "doctrine of election" -- according as they understand how they gain spiritual "sight" enough to repent --- would have to take a rather perverse view of the OT tabernacle/temple salvation model.
The ensample: Here's how salvation was supposed to go --- The believer brings his sacrifice to the gate of the temple. It is presented to the priest and laid on the burning altar in place of the sinner. This is the part that we in the NT call dying and buried with Jesus.
Then the priest goes to the next "station" just outside the holy place, the laver, and washes his feet. This coincides with us washing our feet of the world in repentance. Do you see these 2 things as necessary before entering into the holy place? Before dwellling with God?
Then he takes the sacrifice into the holy place of regeneration -- dwelling with God and His Spirit. There the light of the menora/Spirit is shed on the bread of life (shewbread/scripture) and the altar of incense is there where our prayers proceed to God "inside the veil."
The perversion: But what "doctrine of election" people apparently see (their insistence on reading 1Cor 2:14, etal. the way they do) is that they, being "elect" already, are ushered into the holy place where they receive the indwelling without first making the sacrifice. They confirm this notion by insisting they cannot/DON'T "do" anything to "merit" God's grace in salvation (True statement, wrong application. There was an answer to "what must we do," Acts 2:38, but they claim NOTHING --- they are in the holy place already.).
So "do" is the critical word. They neither need to exchange their own life with their Sacrifice as a sign of belief and obedience nor to repent in order to enter into an indwelling relationship with God. As they sit in their pews and imagine they understand and agree with the scriptures, they believe they are "elect" -- meaning "chosen of God" -- already.
Afterward, we see many of them going through the "maintenance" sacrifices and repentance that were required year after year for sins. But remember -- in these the sacrifice bears the "blame" whereas in the original salvation sacrifice, the "scapegoat" bears the "blame" and is sent out to the ends of the earth but the "exchanged" life was taken into the holy place.
Anyway, many claim that I don't understand. Bottom line -- I understand them but I don't believe. And they do. That's what really riles them.
skypair
This OP is to show the disconnect between the OT "ensample" of salvation and the Calvinist perversion thereof.
But this is probably a good place to "finish what I started" on another thread. You see, those of the "doctrine of election" -- according as they understand how they gain spiritual "sight" enough to repent --- would have to take a rather perverse view of the OT tabernacle/temple salvation model.
The ensample: Here's how salvation was supposed to go --- The believer brings his sacrifice to the gate of the temple. It is presented to the priest and laid on the burning altar in place of the sinner. This is the part that we in the NT call dying and buried with Jesus.
Then the priest goes to the next "station" just outside the holy place, the laver, and washes his feet. This coincides with us washing our feet of the world in repentance. Do you see these 2 things as necessary before entering into the holy place? Before dwellling with God?
Then he takes the sacrifice into the holy place of regeneration -- dwelling with God and His Spirit. There the light of the menora/Spirit is shed on the bread of life (shewbread/scripture) and the altar of incense is there where our prayers proceed to God "inside the veil."
The perversion: But what "doctrine of election" people apparently see (their insistence on reading 1Cor 2:14, etal. the way they do) is that they, being "elect" already, are ushered into the holy place where they receive the indwelling without first making the sacrifice. They confirm this notion by insisting they cannot/DON'T "do" anything to "merit" God's grace in salvation (True statement, wrong application. There was an answer to "what must we do," Acts 2:38, but they claim NOTHING --- they are in the holy place already.).
So "do" is the critical word. They neither need to exchange their own life with their Sacrifice as a sign of belief and obedience nor to repent in order to enter into an indwelling relationship with God. As they sit in their pews and imagine they understand and agree with the scriptures, they believe they are "elect" -- meaning "chosen of God" -- already.
Afterward, we see many of them going through the "maintenance" sacrifices and repentance that were required year after year for sins. But remember -- in these the sacrifice bears the "blame" whereas in the original salvation sacrifice, the "scapegoat" bears the "blame" and is sent out to the ends of the earth but the "exchanged" life was taken into the holy place.
Anyway, many claim that I don't understand. Bottom line -- I understand them but I don't believe. And they do. That's what really riles them.
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
