Featured The Israel of God

Perhaps you should look up atonement and see what the Word of God has to say about it. In fact...what God has said about animal sacrifice.

For example:


Leviticus 4:20

King James Version (KJV)

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.

This contrasts the incomplete standard of the (Covenant of) Law's offerings. It does not negate that atonement was received through these offerings.


Hebrews 9:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


In view, KR, is the Writer, and Author's attempt to distinguish between the temporal quality of the First Covenant (covenant of Law), and the complete nature of the remission of sins bestowed under the New Covenant. This remission is not temporal and does not have to be repeated, but is complete, signified throughout the Book with the words perfect and perfection and a few other variants.

I've been called worse. lol.

God bless.

 

The religion of the Jews has been thoroughly cast off:

.... Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever....Mt 21:19

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

...and condemned:

...the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Rev 2:9
...the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie... Rev 3:9

 

6 Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old?
7 will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6

 

Don't be, OB, sometimes a disconnect can happen when we try to communicate something that perhaps goes a little deeper than the norm, and this is a subject that I believe many people do an injustice to. Hopefully the responses in this post will help hone the focus so we can bring this to the same table, lol.

That is correct, it was addressed from my perspective. In detail.

Israel still came out of Egypt, regardless of application of the quote to Christ. That is still considered a redemptive act on the part of God. When God brought Israel out of Egypt, they were redeemed. That doesn't mean they had received Redemption in the eternal perspective, any more than Joseph was saved by being taken from prison and made a ruler in Egypt.

Consider, OB, the responses which directed your attention to the fact that the Provision of God given to Israel was misunderstood by Jews, whereas Christ makes it clear that He is the True Provision.

Now, let's look at a more mundane (if you will) matter: physical sustenance. When God provided physical life for the Children of Israel in the Wilderness, was the Manna...Christ?

No, it was a physical food provided so they would not physically die. Now if you go to John 6 you will see a rebuke of the Jews for their temporal understanding contrasted with the spiritual truths Christ conveys to them, primarily, He is the True Bread. See the Contrast?

Now compare that to the contrast of Israels: we do not negate the truth of Israel's relationship with and to God through the creation of the Nation, but, we keep in mind that Nation was not to be considered the completion. And that is what many Jews did, relied on heritage rather than faith.

Glad to do it. Hopefully something we discuss will profit both of us. At the very least, is there anything better than discussing the Word of God?

And onward we go.

I don't see a yes or no would have been sufficient, because we can answer yes and no. It's not a yes or no question or issue.

I ask you...has Christ come?

Yes or no?

I do not follow the teachings of others, my views are derived through personal study which is tested through discussion and debate.

My Teacher is God. Those who disagree with my views may deny that, but then...that's what we're here for, right?

What I do not see, accompanying your charges, are detailed addresses as to what it is you think is misapplied. Point it out and we will address it in focus.

Not yet. But that should be your goal, so that, if I am in error, you can show me why. You have not done that so far, but rather have levied a charge of error only.

Where? Just saying it does not help the discussion.

You do not understand my view that the Old Testament Saint did not receive the benefits of the New Covenant?

You do not understand that a promise is a promise until it is fulfilled?

You do not understand my position that Israel was a created people, just as the Church is, but that Israel was not the Church, not even those that were spiritually Jews through faith?

You do not understand that the True Bread, the True Vine...has a place in time when He came to bestow what was only shadow in the Old Testament, still promise remaining to be fulfilled?

These are just a few points of what has been discussed so far, so tell me what you don't understand, where you see error, and we can go from there.

And that is exactly the point I have made with not only you, but several here who impose New Covenant promises being fulfilled under Old Testament Economies.

Again I stress the word promise: if it is fulfilled it is no longer a promise, but a reality.

You say my view does not represent a Biblical view but my friend...my view in no way conflicts with this quote.

Read it again: you will see that what Paul is saying in the promises are fulfilled in Christ. In order for those promises to have been fulfilled...Christ had to come. That is when we see the promises fulfilled.

Now lets go back to Israel, the Nation:


Romans 9:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.


This is not talking about spiritual Israel, my friend.

And all it means is that through Israel the promises were made. Not just to Israel, but without question...through them. All of these work toward the ultimate Redemptive Plan of God. They are not excluded as a Nation by Paul, so I see no reason for us to do that.


Continued...

 

That doesn't mean the promises were made to Christ alone. Read it again: "...to Abraham and his seed were the promises made."

You charge me with isolating a text and creating an erroneous doctrine when that is precisely what you are doing here. You forget that the promises were for Israel and all families of the earth. There were many promises, yet here the focus is that found within the Abrahamic Covenant. That does not negate specific promise to Israel which was made within Israel's history, primarily...

...the promise of the New Covenant and the promises within that Promise.

Paul interjects the Law within this promise, teaching it was temporary until the Seed should come.

Understand?

Until Christ should come.

Which promise of God do you think God will renege on? Which one can we view as frivolous and insignificant in Redemptive History?


Hebrews 6:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:


Now which heirs was this oath made to, my friend?

It is because of the truth that God does not lie, which would be the case if He were to make promises to Israel and renege, and that God does not change (do that which He has stated He would not do, or not do what He has stated He will)...

...that we can fully trust in those promises.

If they are no good for Israel, neither are they trustworthy for us.

And aren't you glad we can trust in God?

So show me the one born...regenerate? Show me born again believers in the Old Testament Economies.

If you will simply study that one topic...you would see my perspective better.

Salvation in Christ is never in regards to the flesh, but, that does not erase the Redemptive History which Israel plays the biggest role, apart from any other people.

One of the great lessons of Hebrews is not to show the Covenant of Law to be something to be despised, or something that was ineffective, but to show man's inability. God found fault with them, not the Law. The Law was temporary until Christ should come. When Christ came the promises were fulfilled.

Here is the New Birth promised in the Old Testament, and promised to Israel:


Ezekiel 36:22-27

King James Version (KJV)

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


This was not fulfilled until Christ died for our sins, Rose again, returned to Heaven, and sent the Comforter.

If you say it was fulfilled in the Old Testament, then you create a burden for yourself you cannot bear, because you are going to have to show how the promises which awaited Christ were fulfilled prior to His Coming.

Just a little advice...don't try. If you read the posts regarding the new birth that have been in this thread, you will see how effective men try to present a Biblical Basis for such doctrine.

A promise is a promise until fulfilled, and unless you can show me in and from Scripture where God fulfilled this/these promise/s, then negate the specific statements which demand that only Christ fulfilled these promises, then perhaps we might equate "spiritual Israel" with the Church.

As I said before, Christ is building His Church on the truth of His Person, which was not revealed...even to the disciples.


Continued...

 

Again I see the same erroneous application of a term:


Matthew 23:37-39

King James Version (KJV)

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


You see this to refer to the Temple, the temporal House of God they had under the Economy of the Law. That is not what's in view, but rather their heritage is in view. The Priests are not alone in their idolatry and murder of the Prophets, this sin is ascribed to the Nation as a whole.

This is the same error which leads you to your perspective of spiritual Israel.

Left desolate forever?

So the Lord will not graft natural branches back in? Amazing.

You're just seeing what you want to see:


39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

These are actually the words of Paul, and nothing He says negates the promises of God. You seem to think I deny the teaching that those of faith are counted as the children of promise, but, this is not the case. I am not saying Israel as a Nation falls into a redeemed category on an eternal basis, all I am saying is that Israel as a Nation stood in direct relationship with God through the Law, which is what you seem to rail at. The promises of redemption in the more complete manner which was promised is still applicable to Israel as a Nation.

Not only do we have God's Word on that, we have specific teachings in the Gospels, the Epistles, and in Revelation.

When Israel, as a Nation, fulfills that spoken by Christ...

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

...thus shall Paul's teaching be realized...


Romans 11:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


The reason all Israel shall be saved is that only those of faith, who fall into that category of "spiritual Jew," will fulfill Christ's teaching that a man must be born again to enter into the Kingdom of God. Again, that Kingdom is the Kingdom Nicodemus would have been familiar with, and expectant of. It is the literal Kingdom which is established accompanied by the judgment of God which you refer to above:


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Only two results in Christ's return, being left (to enter the Kingdom), and being taken (in judgment).

All Israel will be saved because only those born again during the Tribulation will enter into that Kingdom.

But guess what: in regards to spiritual Israel, it will be comprised of both Jew and Gentile, even as the Church is.

Not sure why you would present such a basic teaching concerning those who are not of Israel spiritually. You address me as though this is some hard lesson I am unaware of. Relationship through heritage is not something I have ever implied in any post at any time.

God bless.

 

Could you point out the use of "religion" in my statement?

So when, if you don't mind showing me, was this fulfilled:



Zechariah 14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:

7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.


And before you try to make this the Eternal State...


10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.


...take into consideration what is actually stated here.

Great, so you apply the judgment of spiritual Babylon as a finality, despite what Prophecy teaches.

How is this relevant to anything that has been said?


God bless.

 

How does this negate the fact that remission of sins was granted through animal sacrifice?

I guess you want to play Bible-Pong:


Isaiah 43:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel.

23 Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense.

24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.


The sacrifices prescribed were not optional and the Lord, had He taken your perspective, would not have fulfilled the Law:


Matthew 8:3-4

King James Version (KJV)

3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

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.


Leviticus 14

King James Version (KJV)

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:

3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;

4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:

6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:

7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

8 And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days.

9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.

11 And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:

12 And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord:

13 And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest's, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:

14 And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

15 And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand:

16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord:

17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering:

18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord.

19 And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering:

20 And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meat offering upon the altar: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean.



Doubt seriously you will read it, but if you do, perhaps it will help you better understand this:


Hebrews 9:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:


Just because you take an extreme view to support your own doesn't mean you actually invalidate the Word of God.

There is a reason why the shedding of blood was necessary as a temporary means of atonement until Christ came.

Now, instead of taking potshots about irrelevant issues, and contriving arguments through misrepresentation of what I have said, how about stepping up and actually answering the posts I have responded to your doctrine in.

Until you do this I cannot see you as a genuine antagonist interested in dialogue, simply someone seeking to express hostility because someone disagrees with what they believe, hence their conscious is pricked.

Heed that goad, my friend, and I guarantee you will benefit from it.

You say men were born again before Pentecost and chide me as a fool, then say the posts are too long, then...start talking potshots.

Am I supposed to respect that? Do you?


God bless.

 

Didn't say you did, but you clearly believe there was efficacy in the OT ceremony, contrary to what we've been told:

10 Hear the word of Jehovah, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11 What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I have had enough of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. Isa 1

13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mt 9

Next chapter:

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Mt 23

Yes. Babylon 'the great city' is identified in the Prophecy:

8 And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. Rev 11

10 And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand. Rev 22

Because you clearly believe there was efficacy in the OT ceremony, contrary to what we've been told.

 

My gosh, you are Judaized to the hilt. Are you Jewish? This is basic Christianity 101; the Old Covenant was intended as a harsh schoolmaster to drive us to Christ, it was a yoke that the Jews were not able to bear, it was the ministration of death and condemnation, it was weak and beggarly. It had it's glory but there absolutely was no salvation to be had through the works of the law.

6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2 Cor 3

I suggest to you that your strict literalizing of the letter is killing the wonderful spiritual truths revealed to us in the NT.

 

Address the Scripture provided that shows without controversy that men received atonement for sin through the death of animals.

Again you interject something I have never once said by using the word efficacy, which apparently is the bridge you use, from the atonement so clearly presented throughout the Old Testament to the Sacrifice of Christ (which you suggest I equate), beginning first with Adam and Eve, then Abel, then Noah, et cetera, et cetera...

...et cetera.

By equating the Efficacy of the Cross with the efficacy of the shedding of blood as vicarious death for the remission of sins...you create a false argument...I never offered. You ignore what I do say and argue something I have never implied.

So did you read Leviticus 14?

Here's a shorter passage or two:


Job 1:5

King James Version (KJV)

5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.


Hebrews 9:22

King James Version (KJV)

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


Leviticus 4:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.


Numbers 15:25

King James Version (KJV)

25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their ignorance:



Shall I go on?

If you build upon a false premise in our discussions, my friend, you will draw false conclusions.

Better if you address what is said instead of creating what you want my posts to say.

At no time did I equate sacrificial offerings which have taken place long before the Law was established with the Sacrifice of Christ. That you go to an extreme and deny that those sacrifices were the God-prescribed method of receiving atonement in those economies shows either an unwillingness to accept Scripture as it is written or an over-zealous loyalty to a an erroneous Theology System which is forced to extreme exclusion to support it's doctrine.

Men were forgiven sin through vicarious death. That is not in an eternal perspective, but temporal. Hebrews shows completion in regards to remission of sins through the sacrifice of Christ. All men awaited that sacrifice, including...

...the Old Testament Saint.

Men did not enter into God's presence due to the fact they awaited remission of sins in completion. Christ opened up the way into the Holiest, that is Heaven.

Now, if you continue to ignore the points I will have to forego discussion with you. So I ask that you address what is said in detail without, as you have done several times, misrepresenting what I say. If you quote me then it is a little more difficult for that type of response.

Since you have an admittedly short attention span, I might suggest you just pick one point to discuss. You deny remission of sins due to animal sacrifice, so if you want to address that issue, you have been given quite a few passages which explicitly state this truth.

Start there.


God bless.

 

Okay, this is just ridiculous, lol.

Address the Scripture provided, KR. I'm not going to engage in playground discussions with you.

If you do not, then you show your fear of having your doctrine exposed as being in error. If you cannot defend your doctrine...why do you embrace it? Why do you make statements you cannot back up with Scripture?

Show how the atonement provided men by God...wasn't atonement. How he forgiveness they received wasn't after all actually forgiveness?


God bless.

 

Folks, just want to point out that this is the primary reason why many fail to see the magnitude of the Redemptive Efforts of God in Christ. When we take extremes to support a particular doctrine that we are forced to deny some very basic teachings in Scripture, it is then that we should examine the doctrines we seek to defend.

I would just ask of anyone participating in this thread if they would deny, as one here does, that atonement was provided both under the Law as well as before it was established though the vicarious death of animals in man's stead?

We do not equate the atonement of those offerings with the Atonement, but neither do we deny the atonement so clearly presented.

Just curious how many would agree with this member and agree with his view.

And have to get going, so will check in tomorrow to see if any care to weigh in on this particular aspect of this discussion.


God bless.

 

I already have:

4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Heb 10

 

Extreme? Sheesh. You are extremely Scofield brand dispy if you believe there was salvation through the law covenant.

Doctrine, Christianity 101:

Gal 3

 

8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah; But the prayer of the upright is his delight. Prov 15

27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: How much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind! Prov 27

1 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God; for to draw nigh to hear is better than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they know not that they do evil. Ecc 5

The sacrifice of the unregenerate did no good whatsoever, yea, it only made things worse for them.

 

Sorry, this does not negate the Scripture you refuse to address.

Try again.

The context deals with complete remission which came only through Christ's offering of Himself.

God bless.

 

I have already quoted many passages which do show the unregenerate benefitting from vicarious death of animals for temporary sin.

Just as I have already posted numerous passages which deny regeneration prior to Pentecost, lol.

Not sure why you would equate the offerings of the Priesthood, commanded to by God, and that of those who had faith that God was true and would forgive as He said He would if they offered up sacrifice...

...with the sacrifices offered by fools and the wicked.

Give it some thought, KR.


God bless.

 

Better that than unreformed reformed.

Or not being ready to give an answer to any man.



And I will add...you're making the rest of us rednecks look bad...

God bless.

 

By the way, who exactly is this Scofield you speak of? Apparently you know more of him than I.

Let me know if your ever interested in serious discussion.

God bless.