Michael Wrenn...
Honestly, I dont understand why some folk seem to want to throw the "heritic" card out at the drop of a hat. Just for the littlest thing???
I usually bend over backwords..over and over again..to give the person every chance to convince me that they ARE NOT holding to heresy..
I get the impression that some on here are literally LOOKING for heresy.
That aint right.
Orthodox Christians
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Anastasia, Oct 31, 2012.
Page 4 of 16
-
-
Park kez Der Azdvadz mer! Praise be to the Lord our God!
Don't worry. Chances are, I shan't be here (on this board) long. -
-
No, it's not right.
And if I may repeat what I've said before: I'm glad God is in charge and not some Christians I know. -
ONE GOD .... EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING.
Christianity has jealously guarded its ear to both God & Jesus/Christ over others (Christians & Non-Christians). Why does it seem to drift to fire and brimstone instead of "Love one another" ???
zara ....:1_grouphug: -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. Ordinary flour was not used:
Lev. 2:1¶ And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:
2. It was a sweet savor offering:
Lev. 2:9 And the priest shall take from the meat offering a memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
3. It was to be unleavened bread
Lev. 2:4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.
Lev. 2:11 ¶ No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.
4. There was no blood in this sacrifice
The term "meat" simply means "food" and the food described is a cake or wafer with oil and frankincense with fine flour.
5. It was to contain the "salt of the covenant"
Lev. 2:13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
Leaven is a well known Biblical symbol for sin and thus unleavened is to be without sin.
Oil is a well known Biblical symbol for the Holy Spirit
Salt of the covenant identifes this offering with the covenant of redemption and the salt is a well known Biblical symbol of preservation
Frankincense is a well known Biblical symbol of acceptance as it gives a sweet aroma = sweet smelling savor
Bread is a well known Biblical symbol for Christ
The sacrifices are symbols/types (Heb. 10:1-4) as many scriptures teach this well known Biblical truth. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. Christ was "MADE" to be sin for us who "knew no sin" = There was no experientially sinfulness in Christ and thus to be "made sin" was by substitutionary representation and thus the non-imputation of sin to us because he satisfied our sins in our behalf.
2. We were "MADE" righteousness in Christ = There was no experiential righteousness in us and thus "made righteousness" was by substitutionary represenation and thus HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS must be imputed.
These two aspects represent "imputed righteousness" in Romans 4:5-6 and non-imputation of sin in Romans 4:7-8 which together constitute JUSTIFICATION and any man thus justified is the "blessed" man.
1. The animals sacrifices were not imperfect in regard to TYPE as all types in Scripture convey the truths they are designed to convey when administered properly.
2. Their imperfection was in regard to their literal nature not their typical nature.
3. The act of incarnation did not constitute any sacrifice whatsoever and therefore is no basis for imputation one way or the other. The cross is the altar of sacrifice and not before.
4. The incarnation only provided for the proper antitype of all the previous types but was no sacrifice in any form.
It is clear from the New Testament language "for us" "made to be sin" that the type of personal substitution was performed also in the antitype.
1 Pet. 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. -
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
You don't understand the sacrifices at all! All five are in fact different aspects of the same atonement provided by Christ. All five provide essential truths to understand the atonement of Christ.
God cannot justify anyone who is coming short of the glory of God and so the atonement cannot be provided by anyone who comes short of the glory of God.
The unleavened finely sifted meal offering PICTURES the complete sinless humanity of the Christ which did not come short of the glory of God. The burnt offering pictures the complete devotion to the will of God by the life of Christ. The tresspass offering pictures complete payment of our sins by Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:14). The sin offering pictures the complete payment of the Adamic sin nature by Christ (Rom. 5:12-19). The Peace offering PICTURES the offerer partaking of the reconciliation provided by Jesus Christ on the cross by his satisfaction of God's righteousness against sin.
You don't understand the abc's of the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the simple words "for our" (1 Cor. 15:4-5) but war against it. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
However, your clarification really is mystifying. The nature and content of your responses directly contradict this clarification. Your responses declare you have absolutely no understanding of even the simpliest aspects of these sacrifices in Leviticus chapters 1-8. Anyone who had done any serious study of these sacrifices would not make such unstudied statements. If you have studied them was it with your eyes closed? -
I'd be willing to bet I've studied all of this more than you ever have or will. But I'm tired of defending myself against your ignorance and insults. You can have the last word. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Anyone who would deny the sacrificial system clearly approved of by God in Genesis 4:4 as demonstrated in Hebrews 11:4 is a heathen invention has not done his homework or has such bias that they cannot even comprehend what they are reading.
Anyone who would take a handful of scriptures that IN CONTEXT condemn ONLY HYPOCRITICAL worship by sacrifice and then PIT them against the MASS of scripture that clearly and unmistakenly have God as the author of the Leviticual sacrificial system is living in a fantasy world.
Anyone who would take the clear and explicit command and approval of Christ of the sacrificial system (Lk. 5:12-17) and then PIT his words were he is condemning ONLY HYPOCRITICAL practice of sacrificial worship has really thrown intellectual honesty with scriptures under the bus and out the window.
The real motivation behind this eisgetical mess is the false doctrine of Christus Victor that repudiates any necessity for the cross at all. Hence, it is heresy at the bottom of this total abuse of the God ordained and God commanded sacrificial system that is constantly reaffirmed from Genesis to Revelation -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
The rest of your post is re-itteration of what I've just dealt with. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
It is IMPOSSIBLE for sinners to satisfy either demand. They cannot satisfy it by "spiritual union" with Christ as they are still in their own person sinful (1 Jn. 1:8-10) and neither can they satisfy it in their own person by the work of the Holy Spirit through progressive sanctification as they continue to be sinful in their own person.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the whole basic purpose of the sacrificial system and its antitype.
He was not "made" to be a sinner but "made to be sin FOR us" or in our place. The wrath belonging to us was poured out on him as our Second Adam, our representative man.
Think about this. He could not be "made sin for us" if he were not SINLESS in his own Person or else the condemnation poured out upon Him would be just in regard to him alone and thus worthless to us or anyone else. The lamb to be sacrificed must be "without spot or blemish" which is a TYPE of sinlessness. Satisfaction of the Law's righteousness is WORTHLESS if the one dying deserves the Law's wrath IN HIS OWN PERSON!
Jesus was not "made" a sinner in regard to his own person any more than the sacrificial goat on the day of Atonement was "made" a sinner in regard to is own being.
Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Note that verse 6 is designed to introduce David as further evidence ("even as") that righteousness is by IMPUTATION not works.
What you fail to grasp is that satisfaction of God's righteousness in regard to those condemned as "ungodly" (v. 5) must remove sin or else no justification can be possible as the law cannot justify sinners but only condemn them. Hence, Justification requires remission of sins or that standard of righteousness (sinlessness) is not obtained and thus no justification occurs.
The value of a type is that it correctly provides the characteristics necessary to convey the TRUTHS God designed it to convey.
Laying hands on the head of the goat and confessing the sins of the people prior to its death CORRECTLY PROVIDED THE CHARACTERISTICS necessary to convey the truth of IMPUTATION!
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. Statement concerning Abraham - Romans 4:1-3
2. Statement reinforced by Principle - Romans 4:4-5
3. Statement reinforced by Example - Romans 4:6-7
4. Final application to Abraham and his seed - Romans 5:9-12
5. Statement concerning Mosaic Law - Romans 4:13
6. Statement reinforced by prinicple - Romans 4:14-17
7. Statement reinforced by Example - Romans 4:18-20
8. Final application to Abraham and his seed - Romans 4:21-25
9. Conclusion and resultant applications - Romans 5:1-11.
Do you see the pattern and line of argument? Your conclusion are based on a failure to recognize and/or understand his line of argument. He is not teaching multiple justifications or two types of justification but one type which is completed at the point of faith based upon imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of our sins to us - that is justification.
The second line of argument in Romans 4:13-25 explains the nature of justifying faith as summarized in Romans 4:21 in the application aspect of that line of argument. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Your view, (anselm's view) is actually a repudiation of Jesus Christ and His righteousness rather than a satisfaction.
I am sorry but theological positions that simply use the term "satisfaction" are worthless unless they harmonize with the Biblical meaning of satisfaction and your theory does not. You do not believe in Biblical satsifaction of God's righteousness because your views make that impossible. Christ cannot satisfy the Law without satisfying both its penal demands for sin as well as its righteous demands for perfection.
Believers do not cease to be sinners in their own person regardless of imparted grace, regeneration and the progressive work of the Holy Spirit in and through them. Hence, no theory of impartation or progressive justification can acheve what the law of God demands.
Page 4 of 16