Seeking Antagonists

[Darrell C]

Unfortunately the site closed so I may have lost the first part of this response (and no rejoicing, lol), and time is waning so will post what I have left, I hope, and probably continue this later:

that this is equivalent to his sins being forgiven.

Not according to Scripture.


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


I would remind you that the Law was the last Economy prescribed for Israel (which extends to all proselytes) prior to the establishment of the New Covenant.

The primary point being that the death of animals...cannot take away sins.

That is contrasted with Christ's sacrifice, so we conclude without a doubt...Abraham's transgression were not redeemed until Christ died.

That is why the Writer points out the difference between the First and New Covenants, and he does that repeatedly through the Epistle.

Again...


Hebrews 12:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Now, to ensure that there is no question that the New Covenant is superior to all others that came before it (and I mean superior in that it fulfills all Covenants in it's establishment), the Writer, hence the Holy Ghost...goes all the way back to the sacrifice offered by Abel.

This covers all of human history in regards to atonement for sin through the very penalty sin reaps...death:


Genesis 4

King James Version (KJV)


4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Contrary to what you seem to claim, his sins were not temporarily forgiven because he offered up a substitutionary animal for atonement,

You will need to address the Scripture provided already in order to support your denial of this Doctrine, which as I said, is basic to the Old Testament Economies, as well as highlighted in Hebrews for their inadequacies in regards to remission of sin.

I would rather not have to repost the same Scripture over and over without response, but, if that is necessary so be it.

Understanding the theme of Perfection in Hebrews will help you understand this better. Those sacrifices, from Abel unto Christ's...could not take away sins. And the taking away is a reference to the penalty owed for sin. Abraham died with his sin debt. Being justified secured his eternal destiny, but that did not take away his guilt and the penalty for that sin.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

but simply because he believed what God had promised, and this faith was accounted as righteousness.

I agree, however, the belief which resulted in faith was not in the Cross of Christ, it was a general faith in God, which is also a basic teaching, called by the writer of Hebrews...foundational:

Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,


Faith in God was a requirement, as it took faith to obey the will of God. Abraham is a picture of that foundational principle which the writer states we are not "to lay again," but we are to go on, progress...unto perfection. And perfection simply refers to completion, fulfillment, and that is what Christ accomplished.

If one lays again that foundational principle they regress to what was only meant to picture what God was going to do. This is called shadow, and is a "parable," not the actual fulfillment, even as the Tabernacle was only a picture of the True, that is, Heaven itself in which men would come into the presence of God in reality.

That way was opened by Christ, not the shadow of the Law.

And without question...not the sacrifices of the Old Testament Economies.

My friend, I told you that if we do not understand this we would diminish the magnitude of the Work of Christ. That is how I see it, hence my desire to help you see that also. When we understand the fact that only Christ could bring Reconciliation we will not have misunderstandings about the Security of the Born Again believer, because we do not look to ourselves, but to Christ.

Please excuse my proviso here, because I do not believe in OSAS,

I understand, and I would suggest that the primary reason why the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) cannot settle that issue is (1) they proof-text their belief with misunderstood passages and verses, (2) they ignore the many clear statements of the Word that clearly teach salvation is the work of God, not man, and that it is never ending, and (3) they defend their position in the same way you are defending yours on these matters, which is, when someone points out a passage that teaches Eternal Security, they ignore that passage and say "Well what about..."

And you can insert your favorite L.O.S.T. in there.

But if you address the arguments for Eternal Security, and address the response to using such passages as 2 Peter 2, Hebrews 10:26, and Hebrews 6:1-6...you will see your defense answered, and at the very least, that should give you pause to consider that your view may not agree with Scripture.

And contributing to your view that salvation can be lost is your refusal to see the distinction in ministries of God towards men in the different Ages. This hinges on the fact that revelation is progressive, and you are forced to equate salvation throughout Scripture in order to maintain what is probably the key Doctrine which has you denying the magnitude of Christ's Work.

but I believe in probation after initial salvation.

Great, now let's see the Scripture for it. And when you go to post a proof-text, consider the distinction between the eternal and the physical. Clearly Christians are called to live holy before God, but nowhere does Scripture state the consequences are losing one's salvation.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If Abraham died immediately after this declaration by God accounting his faith as righteousness, or in other words his sins were forgiven, then he would be guaranteed a place in the future Kingdom of God upon the earth.

That is not accurate at all, because it limits salvation as the result of what he did, and completely ignores what Christ did.

You say you believe in God justifying a man, but are you imposing works as a means to that end?

Rather, consider Abraham's sin after being justified, and there you will find the grace of God, which is how every man who will be saved...is saved.

Yes and I agree, he will only be resurrected and given this blessing because of the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So salvation through Christ was only to achieve resurrection?

No, salvation in Christ cannot be divided, but we see that man's sin had to be atoned for, relationship restored between man and God, and resurrection into glorified form is simply the culmination of salvation.

My only clarification, that might help our impasse on this aspect,

It cannot be an impasse until you address the points raised, lol.

is that God is not limited by time.

I agree, but, we don't impose contradiction into His Word either, which is what you do if you equate remission of sins under Old Testament Economies with the remission of sins provided through the Work of Christ.

It is popular to say the Old Testament Saints were "saved on credit," and from a positional perspective this is true. However, just as those saved today have been known to God since before the foundation of the world, their sin is not atoned for until they are born again.

So too with the Old Testament Saints, their eternal destinies were not in jeopardy, and this because they gained a position of Just. But that does not mean, like those saved today, that their sins were overlooked and did not have to be atoned for through the Death of Christ. It does not mean that they went into Heaven itself, into the very presence of God.

That had to await the Work of Christ. At that point only, just like those saved today, are they said to have had their sins atoned for.

He knows the end from the beginning. He knew that Christ would die and be resurrected and save mankind before and after his sacrifice. So I will say again, God forgave Abraham his sins, then and there, and what God forgives, God forgives.

And that is not what Scripture teaches.


Romans 5:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


Now what is the "obedience" in view here? When did it take place? And why would we not simply take Scripture's clear statement that the transgressions under the First Covenant (which would include any transgressions made prior to the establishment of the First, which is highlighted because Hebrews is written to Hebrews) were redeemed when He died, and that He obtained Eternal Redemption for us in that death?

The penalty for sin had to be remedied, and this was done through Christ's death.

What God justifies or accounts as righteousness, is accounted as righteousness.

That is true, but that doesn't mean their sins did not have to be atoned for.

Their salvation was a positional standing, but they still had to be imputed with the righteousness of Christ. Abraham was righteous from a temporal perspective, but his faith is not equated to the Work of Christ.

That is what you are doing.

There is one system of salvation, justification by faith, before and after the sacrifice of Christ.

Sorry, there is no salvation apart from the Cross. If men could be saved apart from that...Christ need not have died on the Cross.

That is another basic Bible truth which many fail to recognize the significance of.


Colossians 1:12-14

King James Version (KJV)

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Abraham's sins were not forgiven in completion...until provision for that forgiveness became available. This is stated in many passages, many of which I have already posted without an address or response.

You diminish the Death of Christ in ascribing an equality between the righteousness, justification, and remission of sins available to Abraham.

There is no temporary forgiveness based upon substitutionary animals.

There is, it is just a basic Bible truth.

Here is another passage to consider in light of that truth:


Leviticus 4:19-21

King James Version (KJV)

19 And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar.

20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

21 And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.


They were forgiven through that sacrifice, and this is stated by God Himself.

You are denying what God has said, my friend, and I know you don't mean to, but that is what you are doing.

That these sacrifices would be offered over and over, continually, well, that is made clear as well:


Hebrews 10:1

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.


Again we see that those sacrifices did not bring completion to remission of sins, and it is no different with the sacrifices made by all men since the beginning of time.

Only Christ could bring that completion, that perfection.

And Christ accomplished that when He died on the Cross. That is why He calls Himself the Bread of Life, because He came down that men might have life, and that Life is distinguished from the physical life of men that is highlighted in Old Testament Economies.

And not sure if I am going to be able to get to the rest of this today, as I have to work.

But I will, to remind myself I have not finished, say...


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Trevor, I did lose the first part of this response. Been a while since that happened, but it does from time to time.

I think that some of the primary issues are dealt with in the posts presented at this point, so I hope you will read them and maybe we can hone the discussion even further, and concentrate on issues which I see of great importance in this discussion.

Again, thanks for the responses.

I am contemplating starting another thread for us to continue in, as this thread has as a priority the issue of antagonists interested and willing for their posts to be used elsewhere, and we have gotten off of that.

God bless.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Darrell,

I appreciate your responses. I have been busy as well as spending some time on another post. Perhaps we can partly agree, but I still suggest that you need to have a proper consideration of what is meant by Abraham was justified by faith. This is used by Paul extensively in Romans 4 and what James states in James 2 could be discussed, especially wrt OSAS.

I stated that “I believe that when Abraham was justified by faith, that this is equivalent to his sins being forgiven.” I have abbreviated your response, refer Post #61:

Not according to Scripture. Hebrews 10:1-4 [Refer Post #61]
I would remind you that the Law was the last Economy prescribed for Israel (which extends to all proselytes) prior to the establishment of the New Covenant.
The primary point being that the death of animals...cannot take away sins.
That is contrasted with Christ's sacrifice, so we conclude without a doubt...Abraham's transgression were not redeemed until Christ died.
That is why the Writer points out the difference between the First and New Covenants, and he does that repeatedly through the Epistle.

Abraham was not under the first covenant. The first covenant was the Law given to Moses. Abraham was justified by faith, not by the sacrifice of animals. But I agree that ultimately Abraham’s sins were to be forgiven as a result of Christ’s sacrifice. The animal sacrifices pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ.

Perhaps the following is a partial explanation of the language and ideas used:
Romans 4:17 (KJV): (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Darrell C]

Greetings again Darrell,

I appreciate your responses. I have been busy as well as spending some time on another post. Perhaps we can partly agree, but I still suggest that you need to have a proper consideration of what is meant by Abraham was justified by faith. This is used by Paul extensively in Romans 4 and what James states in James 2 could be discussed, especially wrt OSAS.

I stated that “I believe that when Abraham was justified by faith, that this is equivalent to his sins being forgiven.” I have abbreviated your response, refer Post #61:

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Not according to Scripture. Hebrews 10:1-4 [Refer Post #61]
I would remind you that the Law was the last Economy prescribed for Israel (which extends to all proselytes) prior to the establishment of the New Covenant.
The primary point being that the death of animals...cannot take away sins.
That is contrasted with Christ's sacrifice, so we conclude without a doubt...Abraham's transgression were not redeemed until Christ died.
That is why the Writer points out the difference between the First and New Covenants, and he does that repeatedly through the Epistle.

Abraham was not under the first covenant. The first covenant was the Law given to Moses. Abraham was justified by faith, not by the sacrifice of animals. But I agree that ultimately Abraham’s sins were to be forgiven as a result of Christ’s sacrifice. The animal sacrifices pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ.

Perhaps the following is a partial explanation of the language and ideas used:
Romans 4:17 (KJV): (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Kind regards
Trevor

Again, the point is that the sacrifices prior to the First Covenant are identical in their atoning capability, and we see in Hebrews that if the sacrifices of the Law could not take away sins, neither could those sacrifices prior to it. Thus all animal sacrifice is held within the same framework.

And the writer does not just go back to the sacrifices of Abraham, but back to the first known sacrifice apart from the animal/s that died to cover Adam and Eve's sin:


Hebrews 12:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

And I am out of time so this will have to be brief:

Abraham was not under the first covenant.

That is correct, lol.

The first covenant was the Law given to Moses.

It was a Covenant made between God and Israel, that is an important distinction, and is contrasted with the promises of God as given in the Garden, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and all of these fulfilled when the New Covenant was established. We are close, as I said, in viewing all of these Covenants to be connected, we disagree, though, as to them being identical. The reason they are not identical is that the New Covenant was not established until Christ died.

The sacrifice seen in the Abrahamic Covenant, for example, does not pertain to the sacrifice of Christ. And all sacrifice is covered by the writer of Hebrews in that he begins with Abel's.

Abraham was justified by faith,

So was Moses. So was Lot. But they were not eternally redeemed nor were their transgressions redeemed. Only Christ can do that, and He did that on the Cross.

not by the sacrifice of animals.

And that is what the Writer makes clear, stating (in general and all inclusive of every sacrifice of an animal) that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. And just as I said in the beginning of our discussion, Abraham died having only offered up animal sacrifice for atonement.

But I agree that ultimately Abraham’s sins were to be forgiven as a result of Christ’s sacrifice.

That is what the Writer of Hebrews makes clear. This does not mean that Abraham was not justified by faith, he was, but, neither do we dismiss the serious nature of sin, and the necessity for the Atonement of Christ. If we equate the two, then we have two ways for a man to be "saved." If we equate the two, we conflict with Hebrews and ourselves are found to say "The Blood of bulls and goats did take away sins."

The animal sacrifices pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ.

And the Writer makes this clear too, and points to the services of the Law as a parable:


Hebrews 9:8-9

King James Version (KJV)

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;


The Tabernacle (the writer never mentions the Temple which again points to the exclusively Hebrew Context of the Epistle) was a "parable" (see the link, "was a figure").


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


The Law held but a shadow of "the good things to come," which makes it clear...they were not present then. This would include both the economy of the Law as well as that of Abraham's Age, for he does not say that it was only the blood of bulls and goats of the Law, but a general statement meaning that no blood of animals could take away sins or, which is again very important...make the "comer thereunto" (the worshipper) perfect.

The "perfection" in view (see the link) is a making complete, Strong's giving this Biblical usage:



I.to make perfect, complete

A.to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to an end


II.to complete (perfect)

A.add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full


B.to be found perfect


III.to bring to the end (goal) proposed


IV.to accomplish

A.bring to a close or fulfilment by event

i.of the prophecies of the scriptures


So we would not suggest, "Well, he might say the blood of bulls and goats doesn't take away sins but that doesn't mean that the animals those prior to the Law offered didn't."

The bottom line is that only Christ's sacrifice could make perfect and this has a context specific to remission of sins, and as we see in the promise of the New Covenant...that was what God promised to do in the future for Israel (who was divided at the time the promise of the New Covenant was given:


Hebrews 8:12-13

King James Version (KJV)

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Hebrews 10:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

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.

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




Lastly, I would just again point out we do not ascribe something that first conflicts with what the writer states here in economies prior to the Law, nor would we deny his clear statement. All that men had for remission of sins and atonement was the sacrifices available to them in that day. Even the Lord prescribed them:


Matthew 8:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


The Lord does not impute the Atonement of the Cross prior to His death here. It is not until He dies that men will be forgiven through belief in the Cross of Christ, and this was not revealed to men until the Comforter came on the day of Pentecost.

Thanks for the response, Trevor, it's been a pleasure discussing these issues with you.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Is that to say you are giving express permission for me to use your posts in discussions we have had?


God bless.

Yes -- just let me know where I can see the book.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes -- just let me know where I can see the book.

Bob, I appreciate that. And not sure it will ever be realized, but because you are the first to agree, if it does...I will send you one, lol.

That makes my day.


God bless.