A sacrifice-less salvation?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by convicted1, Jan 23, 2015.

  1. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    T'other day in the C vs A forum, I made mention of Aaron making sacrifices for Israel only. Then Brother Bob Ryan mentioned the Ninevahites and stated this....



    Now, to me, this doesn't pass the 'sniff test', because salvation always had/has a sacrifice that pertained/pertains to it. God took a coat of skins and covered Adam and Eve. Isarel took a male goat or sheep and sacrificed it prior to God coming through Egypt and slaying all the firstborns that had not the blood applied to the lintels and doorposts. Noah made a sacrifice after the ark rested on the mountain. Job daily sacrificed for his children. Then Christ sacrificed Himself for us, making an atonement for us.

    Another word for 'atonement' is 'reconciliation'. How could the Ninevahites be reconciled to God without a sacrifice?


    I am not saying I have the answer, because I don't. But this just doesn't sound right to me. I also put it here so that Brother Bob Ryan can participate.

    Okay guys, go.....
     
  2. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still mulling this one, but as an addendum to your OP, C1, I recently had a discussion in this here "Other Denominations" forum where I found someone who believed the atonement under Christ came not from the cross, but from Christ bleeding in the garden. His assertion was that Christ only bled in the garden. He claimed the Roman scourging and the crucifixion did not cause Christ to bled, because the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus bled during those things. It was certainly a take I had never encountered before, and it definitely reeked of "sacrificeless" or "bloodless" atonement.
     
    #2 PreachTony, Jan 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2015
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Not all sacrifices were performed to cover sin (or for salvation); often they were performed during covenant rituals.

    Sacrifices were a merely a shadow of the ultimate sacrifice that Christ performed.

    Do a word study on the Hebrew word for ‘salvation’ and you will find part of your answer. Compare translations.
    ‘Salvation’ in a churchy word that takes various meanings.

    The population of Nineveh that Jonah witnessed to were only temporarily delivered.

    We can speculate that some individuals in the city may have been delivered from eternal destruction by their faith in God but this is not part of the story. They certainly didn’t impact the next generation of their city.

    God showed the Ninivites mercy for a time but later the judgment they deserved was delivered, if not swiftly, mightily.

    Rob
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Not to worry, the Bible provides a very quick, simple, and binding answer:

    Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Christ's sacrifice covers "all of time" as Heb 10 says "once for all time". In Matt 17 Enoch and Elijah appear with Christ in glorified form - both of them fully forgiven - and not by animal blood as Heb 10:1-4 reminds us. IT is only the blood of Christ that takes away sin.

    It covers in both directions past and future.

    The blood of animals "could not forgive sins" according to Heb 10 and indeed it did not.

    Dan 9:1-12 Daniel prays for forgiveness for himself and his people "without priest or sacrifice".

    This is also true for over a century while Mose's people were in the land of Egypt not able to do any sacrifices at all - yet godly people including Moses' parents and brother and sister there.

    In Jerusalem at the time of Daniel's prayer there was no surviving altar nor temple, no priests officiating --- nothing.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #5 BobRyan, Jan 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2015
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is not possible that the nails produced no blood and the spear in the side, the thorns the Roman scourge that had metal tips and ripped off flesh -- all of it "produced blood" -- but the fact that Christ was indeed dying the death of the atoning sacrifice starting in Gethsemane is also true. It did start there. It could have ended there too if the Jews had not shown up with that mob.
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    That was decades later and a number who were alive at the time of Jonah would have died in their old age - peacefully retired before the city was destroyed.

    God asks the question to Job "should I NOT have mercy"??

    And then HE mentions the 120,000 people in the city and the animals saying that he could not destroy them as long as there is some hope of repentance and turning on their part.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is all very convenient because it helps us understand that the statement of Christ in John 12:32 drawing all mankind to himself - is true in all ages. Thus in 1 Peter 1 - "The Spirit of Christ within them" was indicating both the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow -- even in the OT.

    For God "does not change" and Christ is the "same yesterday today and forever".
     
  9. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    John 19:33-35Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

    "and having come to Jesus, when they saw him already having been dead, they did not break his legs; but one of the soldiers with a spear did pierce his side, and immediately there came forth blood and water; and he who hath seen hath testified, and his testimony is true, and that one hath known that true things he speaketh, that ye also may believe."


    Some people should be ashamed with how they handle God's record we call the bible....


    Now, in the sacrifice came the atonement, correct? How then could the Ninevahites have been reconciled to God w/o it?
     
  10. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    The point I am making Brother Rob is that there had to be some sacrifice made for them to flow with the rest of the bible. Now sacrifice, no blood, no blood, no atonement, no atonement, no reconciliation.

    I agree that some sacrifices were only temporary, but there still had to be one made. How did the Ninevahites find reconciliation w/o a sacrifice?
     
  11. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3

    bingo!!!!!
     
  12. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3

    I agree that Christ's atonement covers "all time", but that doesn't negate the necessity of the sacrifice of a lamb or goat during the days prior to Christ coming in the flesh.

    In regards to Moses and Daniel, they made sacrifies after their deliverance, correct? I know Moses did, but not sure on Daniel...


    But to say that deliverance happened w/o a sacrifice being made is a foreign concept in scriptures....
     
  13. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3

    Then how does what you're purporting jive with the flow of the scriptures?

    Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac, yet afterwards there was a ram with his horns stuck in the thickets....

    Noah made sacrifices after being delivered in the flood....

    Isarel made sacrifices after being delivered from Egypt's tight grasp...

    God made Adam and Eve coats of skins as a sacrifice/atonement....



    This sacrifice-less deliverance/salvation doesn't jive with the bible...
     
  14. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems to me that the animal sacrifices, as part of the law, were only an obligation on the Jewish nation, not the Gentiles. Therefore they could have been spiritually redeemed, via Christ, without the prefiguring animal sacrifice.
    But then we have the problem of Noah, Job and Abraham offering sacrifice before the Law. :tonofbricks:

    Personally I side with the view that the Ninevites were only spared (for a time) temporal judgment because of their brief repentance. They did not savingly (in the eternal, spiritual sense) belief in Yahweh. Therefore a sacrifice was not necessary.
     
  15. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3

    I agree with this with one caveat...there were gentiles that became part of the Jewish peoples, namely Ruth and Rahab....I am sure there were others, but I can't remember off the top of my head...

    But the shedding of the lamb's or goat's blood was what was required during the OT days...from Adam and Eve up until the days of Malachi and afterwards...

    The problem with those OT sacrifices were that men were performing them. The High Priest had to first make an offering/atonement for himself before he could for the Jewish peoples. Then it was compounded by the fact that they started offering their 'castoffs', the halt, lame, blind, &c. As Malachi stated, "they have polluted God's altar with corrupted bread". Yet, there still had to be an animal sacrifice made.


    I feel the same way you do, Brother....:tonofbricks:

    I am not so sure on this, Brother. Out of that many people, surely God brought some of them to Him...but my stance is just as much conjecture as your's or anyone else's is...


    I just get an uneasy feeling when I think about a sacrifice-less salvation/deliverance...
     
    #15 convicted1, Jan 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2015
  16. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. But as you said, those were Gentiles joining the Jewish nation and thus becoming partakers of the Mosaic Covenant. I don't see any indication that Nineveh sought that.

    True. But it wasn't only the men offering the sacrifices that were inadequate. The sacrifices themselves were.

    I don't know.
     
  17. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    I am ready to teach to you the gospel that is in Rome also. For I am ashamed of the gospel of men : for it is the power of men unto salvation to every man believing it; for therein is the righteousness of men exposed from unbelief to arrogance.

    <<<no blood, no blood, no atonement, no atonement, no reconciliation.>>>
    <<<deliverance happened w/o a sacrifice being made is a foreign concept in scriptures>>>
    <<<This sacrifice-less deliverance/salvation doesn't jive with the bible>>>
    <<<I just get an uneasy feeling when I think about a sacrifice-less salvation/deliverance>>>

    Re:
    <<<Now, in the sacrifice came the atonement, correct? How then could the Ninevahites have been reconciled to God w/o it?>>>

    <I know…>

    <<<…there still had to be One made.>>>

    Re:
    <<<I recently had a discussion in this here "Other Denominations" forum where I found someone who believed the atonement under Christ came not from the cross, but from Christ bleeding in the garden.>>>

    Mind to tell us who the <someone> was who <<believed the atonement under Christ came not from the cross>>?

    Re:
    <<<His assertion was that Christ only bled in the garden. He claimed the Roman scourging and the crucifixion did not cause Christ to bled, because the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus bled during those things.>>>

    So you agree with this <someone> that <<<the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus bled during those things>>>. But could you please quote where the <<Bible does … explicitly say Jesus bled during those things … the Roman scourging and the crucifixion>>?

    Re:
    <<<It was certainly a take I had never encountered before, and it definitely reeked of "sacrificeless" or "bloodless" atonement.>>>

    Why do you think so?
    That <someone>, does he deny Jesus was the <Sacrifice> of the <atonement>?
    Does He claim Jesus did not give his life’s blood for an <atonement>?
    Will you please give us the thread and post where he claims these things?

    Re:
    <<<the Bible provides a very quick, simple, and binding answer:
    Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission
    .>>>

    Don’t tell me that <someone> denies it?! You must be joking!?

    Re:
    <<<fully forgiven - and not by animal blood as Heb 10:1-4 reminds us. It is only the blood of Christ that takes away sin.>>>

    Absolutely!
    And also not by blood from sacrifice made by men. Or isn’t it what you say?

    Re:
    <<<forgiveness for himself and his people "without priest or sacrifice".>>>

    Jesus needed <blood to take away sin>>>? or <<forgiveness for himself>>? Or for <<his people "without priest or sacrifice">> of or by, man?

    Re:
    <<<It is not possible that the nails produced no blood>>>.

    Surely! That was why they drove those nails through the palms of Jesus’ hands after they had “crucified Him”—which was done, with binding his hands and arms, and feet, to the pole. They wanted Jesus’ BLOOD! “They wagged their heads.” They were dumbfounded that they got no blood. <<<It is not possible that the nails produced no blood>>>!!

    Re:
    <<<the thorns the Roman scourge that had metal tips and ripped off flesh -- all of it "produced blood" -- but the fact that Christ was indeed dying the death of the atoning sacrifice starting in Gethsemane is also true. It did start there. It could have ended there too if the Jews had not shown up with that mob.>>>

    …had not what followed, been God’s Eternal Plan and Purpose as well?

    Re:
    <<the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow>>—, <to follow> : <<… the spear in the side>>! “BUT THEY BRAKE NOT HIS LEGS … SO THAT THESE THINGS WERE DONE that the SCRIPTURES should be FULFILLED … and they (should) LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED” : <<that ye also may believe>> TO THE GLORY OF GOD.

    <<<Some people should be ashamed with how they handle God's record we call the bible>>> and how they twist the record we call this forum.

    <I know!> “Even as they did NOT LIKE to retain GOD in their knowledge, He gave them over to a reprobate mind.”

    <I know!> One definitely must get an uneasy feeling thinking about a sacrifice-less salvation/deliverance—It’s simple why: there is no such thing. WHO SAYS THERE IS?

    Final answer … <<<The problem with those OT sacrifices were that men were performing them.>>>

    <<bingo!!!!!>>

    <<<True. But it wasn't only the men offering the sacrifices that were inadequate. The sacrifices themselves were.>>>

    Again… <<bingo!!!!!>>

    Therefore…
    <Some people should be ashamed with how they handle God's record we call the bible.>
    Very true!


     
    #17 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Jan 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 24, 2015
  18. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Bro. Gerhard,

    Would you please give me a more concise response? I am having an awfully hard time figuring out you belief(s) from your last post. Thanks ever so much. :wavey:
     
  19. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ditto. What's with the < > ?
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Where again - I would refer you to other examples as well as in the case of Daniel's situation as well as Moses #5 and how this is consistent with God who reaches all, loves all, provides one Gospel in all ages Gal 1:6-9 and does not change #8.

    No animal sacrifices by any priests in all those cases

    And as for God so-loving non-Jews in the OT --

    Even Balaam a non-Jewish prophet whose text leads the wise men to Christ in the story of the nativity. And Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithe. Non Jews all.
     
    #20 BobRyan, Jan 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 24, 2015

Share This Page

Loading...