How Are We Made Right With God?

[francisdesales]

Hi

Yes, I read your whole post thoroughly. And what I read, I came away with someone handling the righteousness of the Word in unrighteousness.

God did require the blood sacrifices and burnt offerings of Israel ! As I said, God is always looking at the heart of mankind. And it was not for us, that God required it !

I'm afraid you didn't read my Scriptural posts where God denies He needs the blood of bulls and goats to satisfy Himself. He requires a pure and humble heart.

The requirement of a lamb is part of the Mosaic Law. WHY is the Law given to the Jews? What does Paul say??? Is it for God's sake???

Are you still sacrificing your lambs to get good with God, since according to you, that is what He needs???

The reference to 2 Cor 2, Eph 5 and Phil 4 is refering sacrificial TERMINOLOGY, but is NOT refering to a literal sheep tossed onto a fire. Paul is speaking about what God has always desired - a pure heart from man. Obviously, Christ's sacrifice of Himself is pleasing to the Father, since that is what "lamb sacrifices" are supposed to point to, not our substituting lambs for ourselves, but sacrificing our very selves for the sake of God.

Yes, God looks at the heart, but the sacrifices in the OT , as well as the sacrifices made by Christ and the members of the body of Christ, are done to please God !

For what purpose does God have for slaughtered sheep? The prophets ask that same rhetorical question, and answer it as I have. Just because you don't want to read the prophets and accept what they say is not my fault.... In my study of the Minor OT prophets during the last few weeks, I ran across these verses, along with what I already have posted. Just from the Minor prophets, I get:

Read Zeph 2:3 or 3:12-13.
Read Jonah 3: 9-10
Read Amos 5:14-15; 21-24
Read Joel 1:8; 13-15; 2:12-13, 18
Read Hosea 5:15-6:1, 6; 14:2-4

Besides the number I have already given, like Micah. Numerous times, we are told that God does not need those sacrifices. They are commanded of men (Jewish men) for other reasons than for God's enjoyment of watching His creatures be slaughtered. The Bible does not detail WHY blood purifies the offering - but it certainly must be a necessity for MAN, NOT GOD!!!

You have an interesting idea of what God wants, especially after He repeats over and over and over again....

 

[francisdesales]

:amen God certainly did require a sacrifice. Not from man because man is not spotless. Jesus took our sins and covered us with His righteousness. That's about as basic a Christian doctrine as there comes. I'm a little surprised that the Catholics don't see that. Maybe they do and it's not widely known.

Yes, I know all about your childish games. I ask for evidence from Scriptures, and yet again, you ignore the call. I am thinking people here are familiar with your inability to defend something not found in Scriptures....

It's time to remove your head from the sand for a moment and address some basic issues...

WHY does God require sacrifices when He says over and over that He doesn't need them?

He doesn't feast on blood and flesh, like other pagan gods are purported to. What is the PURPOSE of God demanding sacrifice in this fashion?

To help you (since you appear incapable of independent thought and analyzing a position that differs from yours...), ask yourself "What did Paul say was the purpose of the Law?" What does the Bible say, according to Paul, as the purpose of the Mosaic Law which commanded sheep sacrifices?

Is it for God's sake or man's? Who is being "x'ed", according to the answer you get from the question????

Since God doesn't need sacrifices, as He says numerous times, what then??? What are they for???

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi

Yes, I read your whole post thoroughly. And what I read, I came away with someone handling the righteousness of the Word in unrighteousness.

God did require the blood sacrifices and burnt offerings of Israel ! As I said, God is always looking at the heart of mankind. And it was not for us, that God required it !

I'm afraid you didn't read my Scriptural posts where God denies He needs the blood of bulls and goats to satisfy Himself. He requires a pure and humble heart.

The requirement of a lamb is part of the Mosaic Law. WHY is the Law given to the Jews? What does Paul say??? Is it for God's sake???Its God's requiment. He requried it, so that makes it His buisness , not ours, nor those of Israel in the OT

Are you still sacrificing your lambs to get good with God, since according to you, that is what He needs???What a redundant comment !

The reference to 2 Cor 2, Eph 5 and Phil 4 is refering sacrificial TERMINOLOGY, but is NOT refering to a literal sheep tossed onto a fire. Paul is speaking about what God has always desired - a pure heart from man.God will never get a pure heart from man ! Every man sins and falls short of the glory of God ! Obviously, Christ's sacrifice of Himself is pleasing to the Father, since that is what "lamb sacrifices" are supposed to point to, not our substituting lambs for ourselves, but sacrificing our very selves for the sake of God.

Yes, God looks at the heart, but the sacrifices in the OT , as well as the sacrifices made by Christ and the members of the body of Christ, are done to please God !

For what purpose does God have for slaughtered sheep? I explained this already -- Obedience ! The prophets ask that same rhetorical question, and answer it as I have. Just because you don't want to read the prophets and accept what they say is not my fault.... In my study of the Minor OT prophets during the last few weeks, I ran across these verses, along with what I already have posted. Just from the Minor prophets, I get:

Read Zeph 2:3 or 3:12-13.
Read Jonah 3: 9-10
Read Amos 5:14-15; 21-24
Read Joel 1:8; 13-15; 2:12-13, 18
Read Hosea 5:15-6:1, 6; 14:2-4
Can you show me one man, other than Jesus Christ who did not sin ? Man has constantly disobeyed God and went back to their evil ways. This is why man could not accomplish that which would make one righteous. God had to send his Son and be sacrificed in order that we would be called righteous in the eyes of God. Not of our works, but by the work of Christ , who died for us .
Besides the number I have already given, like Micah. Numerous times, we are told that God does not need those sacrifices. They are commanded of men (Jewish men) for other reasons than for God's enjoyment of watching His creatures be slaughtered. The Bible does not detail WHY blood purifies the offering - but it certainly must be a necessity for MAN, NOT GOD!!!No, it is not necessary for man. God commanded it, so it must be necessary for God. He is righteous, and the righteous one commands something, who is man that can judge the righteousness of God ?

You have an interesting idea of what God wants, especially after He repeats over and over and over again....

 

[francisdesales]

The difference is so minor that the Bible is able to transpose the terms without destroying the meaning of the verses. Clearly, we are initially justified, one point in time. But we are continuously justified FURTHER in God's eyes - or we lose that justification, that righteousness, when we sin grieviously.

But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11

The same event, baptism (being washed) shows that the words are interchangeable and refer to the same event of the past.

I will deliver you from the [Jewish] people, as well as [from] the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, [in order] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Acts 26:17-18

Here, you would expect to see "justified" by faith in me... But we see sanctified. Why? Because they are interchangeable. They are synonymous. One who is seen as righteous, just, is also holy and being made more holy...

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:1-2

Just as before, we see sanctified when we would expect to see "justify". It is during justification where we receive the spinkling of the blood of Christ at baptism... Note, here also, we have the Spirit performing in the realm of justification...

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 2 Thess 2:13

From the beginning we are chosen for salvation - the act of initial justification, correct? By the Spirit!
The Spirit is again working interchangeably with the Son in justifying and sanctifying you and I.

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:29

And yet again, we have an example of sanctification used where you would expect to see justification, as Paul is describing that point where one entered into the Covenant of the blood of Christ, initial justification, being made righteous by the blood of Christ through Baptism.

There are more, but I would just be piling on. clearly, justification and sanctification are interchangeable words with similar meanings - and are ongoing in the life of the Christian. As one grows in holiness, one grows more just in the eyes of God.

He is more pleased with His handiwork...

In addition, I think the Bible very clearly tells us that Abraham was justified in God's eyes on several separate occasions. Justification is thus an ongoing event.

Sanctification is a process. We are "set apart", that is not the same as being justified. We are "washed" (regenerated) not by baptism, but by the cleansing of our sins by the blood of the Lamb. So we are washed (cleansed of sin by the washing of regeneration), sanctified (set apart and being made holy), and justified (given a right relation with God).

We are justified by faith and set apart (sanctified) for God's use. We are being made holy by the work of the Holy Spirit (on-going process of sanctification).

Yea, I should have known... You don't have an answer for all of those Scriptures that deny your point of view, so you just mumble the "company line" back at me, as if merely repeating the assertion proves a darn thing...

Those who are justified are set apart!! That's a no-brainer. What does the word "elect" mean???

The only time the NT speaks about "being washed" is in baptism. Our souls are cleansed BY baptism, since it is the blood of Christ that is first brought into contact with us through that visible ritual!!!(Romans 6:1-6). Read your bible...

And of course, you still haven't told me WHY someone must be sanctified or made holy, in your heretical scheme, when we are invisible to God and covered by Christ!!!

This is just so sad. Sad that you have perverted the Gospel so much. Our last two weeks has proven which side is more Scripturally sound of a position:

We await the Scriptures that tell us we are saved by faith alone.
We await the Scriptures that tell us that Christ's righteousness is applied to ANYONE.
We await the Scriptures that tell us, in your scheme, the point of sanctification.
We await your admittance that Abraham was justified three times in the Bible.
We await your admittance that Abraham was justified (as told by James) AT THE ALTAR, in front of God and no men present.
We await your admittance that the Scriptures interchanges the terms "sanctify" and "justify". To make just IS to make holy!!!
We await the Scriptures that tell us that God demands a perfect offering BEFORE He forgives sins. Numerous Scriptures remain unrefuted.
We await the Scriptures that tell us that God must HAVE blood sacrifices for His OWN sake.

I think the discerning person will be able to tell that you stand on an invention that has nothing to do with the Sacred Scriptures or any believing Christians for 1500 years... Classical protestantism's idea of soteriology has little to do with proper exegeis of Sacred Scriptures.

A tradition of man has been identified. Please escort it out of the building...

 

[francisdesales]

God will never get a pure heart from man !

Ah, so when Christ says "blessed are the pure of heart", He meant NO ONE is blessed!!! Typical

Think for a minute. God doesn't require absolute purity of heart. As I asked GD, where is that idea in Scriptures???

We are not living under the Law, but under Grace. God, in His mercy, can hear the Mediator, Jesus Christ, interceding for our sake, since He BECAME man. He can speak for us and beg God for the sake of ALL of humanity the forgiveness of sins. As such, God can now treat us a His children, while the slavery of sin has been defeated by God becoming man.

For what purpose does God have for slaughtered sheep?

I explained this already -- Obedience !

where have you been on our discussions on "works of the law"???? Simple obedience with an impure and wicked heart are not what God desires, and Paul says they do NOT justify. The prophets I cite are ADAMANT about that!

Every man sins and falls short of the glory of God !

Which is fortunate for everyone that God is merciful and forgives sins by us ASKING Him to forgive us. A humble heart. Oh, you already read all of the prophets and the requirements... Right...

There is no point going further with someone who ignores Scriptures in black and white and then holds to notions that are NOT in Scriptures, and then in his hypocritical mode, complains when someone else not bound to sola scriptura offers a doctrine for belief that doesn't fit YOUR notion of Scriptural citations...

How utterly ironic. Sola Scripturists cannot find hardly anything in the Bible to back up their sad soteriological theories. I have asked numerous times, and have gotten nothing but wishful assertions.

Maybe that is good for the non-theologically minded person, the man who puts religion in the back of their minds, once they get their fire insurance issued to them... But in the field of debate with someone who cares about this stuff seriously, you guys utterly fail.

The verses I have gotten say nothing about the subject I ask for.

Nothing on Christ's righteousness applied to me.
Nothing on the necessity of me or ANYONE being perfect before God forgives sins.
Nothing on being saved by faith without anything else.

 

[Mysteryman]

God will never get a pure heart from man !

Ah, so when Christ says "blessed are the pure of heart", He meant NO ONE is blessed!!! Typical

Think for a minute. God doesn't require absolute purity of heart. As I asked GD, where is that idea in Scriptures???

We are not living under the Law, but under Grace. God, in His mercy, can hear the Mediator, Jesus Christ, interceding for our sake, since He BECAME man. He can speak for us and beg God for the sake of ALL of humanity the forgiveness of sins. As such, God can now treat us a His children, while the slavery of sin has been defeated by God becoming man.

Every man sins and falls short of the glory of God !

Which is fortunate for everyone that God is merciful and forgives sins by us ASKING Him to forgive us. A humble heart. Oh, you already read all of the prophets and the requirements... Right...

There is no point going further with someone who ignores Scriptures in black and white and then holds to notions that are NOT in Scriptures, and then in his hypocritical mode, complains when someone else not bound to sola scriptura offers a doctrine for belief that doesn't fit YOUR notion of Scriptural citations...

How utterly ironic. Sola Scripturists cannot find hardly anything in the Bible to back up their sad soteriological theories. I have asked numerous times, and have gotten nothing but wishful assertions.

Maybe that is good for the non-theologically minded person, the man who puts religion in the back of their minds, once they get their fire insurance issued to them... But in the field of debate with someone who cares about this stuff seriously, you guys utterly fail.

The verses I have gotten say nothing about the subject I ask for.

Nothing on Christ's righteousness applied to me.
Nothing on the necessity of me or ANYONE being perfect before God forgives sins.
Nothing on being saved by faith without anything else.

Hi

You constantly take scripture out of its proper context , in order that you might try and make your point

You babble so much, it is no wonder that anyone puts up with you. If that is all you think I have given you is wishfull assertions. Then I absolutely know for a fact, that you are not reading my posts in their entirety. I have given you nurmerous references to think about. I have given you detail accounts of scripture. Yet you feel hell bent on putting others down , without even considering the information that has been given you by another poster.

It appears to me, that you can not defend your stance. So these types of responses usually follow your inability to defend your stance.

If blood sacrifices were only for man to make man feel that he was giving some purpose other than for the high priest to give once a year for his own sins and the sins of the people. Then by all means, let me lay hands upon your eyes, and pray for you, so that you may regain your sight. :shades

 

[francisdesales]

You constantly take scripture out of its proper context , in order that you might try and make your point

Where? Identify which verse I take out of context and give me your alternative.

Othewise, stop making false accusations...

 

[Mysteryman]

You constantly take scripture out of its proper context , in order that you might try and make your point

Where? Identify which verse I take out of context and give me your alternative.

Othewise, stop making false accusations...

geesh, what do you want me to do -- Repeat myself ??? :biglol

Go back and read what I have already explained to you !! Go and make yourelf useful for a change !

 

[francisdesales]

It appears to me, that you can not defend your stance. So these types of responses usually follow your inability to defend your stance.

RIGHT!!! That's why you ignore over a dozen verses of Scriptures with your wave of the hand and "it's all out of context" babble...

If I ignore something in one of your posts, bring it to my attention again. I am keeping busy trying to write complete refutations to these fallacious ideas that require more than "because I said so" that seems prevalent from others. You may call them "babble", but others appreciate the lengths I am going to to make my point - which to them, requires more than just asserting it...

But know that if it is just a mere repetition of what has gone before, I am not interested in wasting my time. Give me some supporting evidence for your point of view beyond what I have already responded to...

If blood sacrifices were only for man to make man feel that he was giving some purpose other than for the high priest to give once a year for his own sins and the sins of the people.

That is what God said. He doesn't PERSONALLY need blood sacrifices...

You have not yet told me why GOD needs the blood of bulls. What does He do with that blood???

You spoke of obedience. Very well. I concur, though, that God DESIRES our obedience. He doesn't need it. He is quite capable of existing without our obedience. It is quite a Scriptural notion that God is totally independent of anything we can provide God, whether food or shelter...

Then by all means, let me lay hands upon your eyes, and pray for you, so that you may regain your sight. :shades

Pray for yourself, first. Then, you can include me.

 

[francisdesales]

geesh, what do you want me to do -- Repeat myself ??? :biglol

Go back and read what I have already explained to you !! Go and make yourelf useful for a change !

I have posted a lot today, and I may have missed a comment you made that was integral to your argument. If it was important, you'll repeat it. If you won't, it probably is because it not worthy of repetition.

If you are refering to your misapplied collection of 2 Cor, Eph and Romans, I have already responed to that post, see my post from 9:44 am on this thread. Your next post was not exactly extensive, and I also posted a response regarding obedience to that one...

Do you have anything better to say to me than direct me to a spelling error or a missed piece of a post as an indication of my worthlessness???

I think I will make myself more useful by ignoring you, since you have nothing good to say and nothing beneficial can come from conversations such as yours... :gah

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote francis: "Ah, so when Christ says "blessed are the pure of heart", He meant NO ONE is blessed!!! Typical "


Hi

Well, why not take the context into account here , shall we ?


Matthew 5:3 - "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their is the kingdom of heaven" < So, if I am poor in spirit. Must mean here - less is better

Matthew 5:4 - "Blessed are they that mourn : for they shall be comforted" < Must mean that I need to be a cry baby

Matthew 5:5 - "Blessed are the meek : for they shall inerit the earth" < This must mean, to be poor and a cry baby, and not to cry about it

Matthew 5:6 - "Blessed are thy which do hunger and thrist after righteousness : for they shall be filled" < I think someone told me once, that I am to take this literally - eat his flesh and drink his blood :ohwell

Matthew 5:7 - "Blessed are the merciful : for they shall obtain mercy" < God wants us to forgive anyone who does not believe as that person does

Matthew 5:8 - "Blessed are the pure in heart : for they shall see God" < Must mean that I need to pray without ceasing :halo

Matthew 5:9 - "Blessed are the peacemakers : for they shall be called the children of God" < This must mean, to let anyone and everyone walk all over you :eyebrow

Matthew 5:10 - "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" < This must mean, that one can't wait to be persecuted for righteounsness sake, because of the promise made here

Last but not least - Matthew 5:11 - "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely , for my sake" < This is the reason I come to this forum, for the shear joy of being persuecuted

Seriously, no one has a pure heart , unless our heart has been made pure.

Be ye the lights unto the world, because God has made you who you are in Christ Jesus. :amen

 

[Drew]

There is no point going further with someone who ignores Scriptures in black and white and then holds to notions that are NOT in Scriptures, and then in his hypocritical mode, complains when someone else not bound to sola scriptura offers a doctrine for belief that doesn't fit YOUR notion of Scriptural citations...

Yes. MM has, in the past, made the same, frankly outrageous claim that gd sticks with - that all the Bible translators have made an error in how they render Romans 2:6-7.

When pressed for evidence of this claim which, if correct, would revolutionize Biblical scholarship, we get, of course, nothing.

 

[francisdesales]

There is no point going further with someone who ignores Scriptures in black and white and then holds to notions that are NOT in Scriptures, and then in his hypocritical mode, complains when someone else not bound to sola scriptura offers a doctrine for belief that doesn't fit YOUR notion of Scriptural citations...

Yes. MM has, in the past, made the same, frankly outrageous claim that gd sticks with - that all the Bible translators have made an error in how they render Romans 2:6-7.

When pressed for evidence of this claim which, if correct, would revolutionize Biblical scholarship, we get, of course, nothing.

Hey, it was my pleasure to so thoroughly dismantle these vain inventions like sola fide and alien righteousness and legal fiction... What is sad is that everyone reading but our interlocutors realized the poor defense of such a "pillar" of sand...

Regards

 

[Dave...]

Yes Dave..., you're insane! (inside joke, dave and I are buddies)

lol :D

 

[Dave...]

Drew, perhaps you should have noticed after the "we", and the "you", the "for no one", and the "if any man" which directly set the table for the passage in question.

No Dave, this is simply not how language works. The "no one" and "if any man" do not open the domain of consideration up to include all people as you seem to think. These terms are all subject to the "we" vs "you" distinction that Paul has introducted in verse 9.

For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Note how Paul has clearly marked out those who function as builders - himself, Apollos, and other leaders (by implication). And to make things even more clear, Paul has identified the rest of believers as the "building" - the church that is being built by the builders.

Paul then goes on to make the statements you refer to (e.g. the "any man"). But these are statements that are clearly about the activity of building. These are things that builders do. And Paul has clearly marked out the builders from those who are the "building". So these "any man" kind statements are necessarily limited in application to the builders.

This is not "game-playing" on my part - this is honouring how language works. You cannot open up the scope of application of the "any man" statement without violating the logic of the argument.

Drew, I simply pointed out what was plain for all to see. And one doesn't need to be an English wizard to see it. Obviously, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. The plain reading of that passage just doesn't allow for your explination of it.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

Drew, God is not a respecter of persons.

This is simply not a correct way to argue this matter.

Actually, it's a very profound statement in light of your interpretation of the passage in question. Think about it, Drew.

 

[glorydaz]

Drew, are you really saying the body of Christ is being "built" by the preachers? :crazy

We are the building and the preachers are the builders? Really?

That's quite the theory, I must admit.

Well its Paul's theory not mine. You continue to simply ignore and / or dismiss texts that you do not like:

For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

You have found an interesting, bold approach that few would dare to take: simply ignore and / or re-write texts that you do not like.

Paul could not possibly make a more clear statement than this that, yes, the "leaders" do indeed build the church.

What does Paul say about the church?

you.......are........what??........God's building

What you are suggesting Paul is saying is contrary to the whole Word of God. You're doing what you do with Roman 2, 4, and 8. You're twisting scripture to suit your own doctrine. In fact, this is exactly what Paul is addressing...those who come forward with false teaching.

You're claiming the hand is better than the foot. You're claiming the hand is above the rest of the body and is building what only God can build.

For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

The Apostles set forth the doctrine....(Was Apollos an apostle?)

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

All believers are of the household of God built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
All the building (all believers) fitly framed together (a holy temple in the Lord).

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

As you can see...we are all members of the "building" (temple - body). Church "leaders" are not "building" the body as if they were the head. Jesus Christ is the only head of the body.

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. .... 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: .... 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

The body of Christ is not built by men...but by the Holy Spirit. Church "leaders" are not the builders. It's amazing that you would even suggest such a thing. Even the Apostles were members of the body of Christ. The elders are over an individual assembly of believers for church governance. All individuals are given gifts (OF THE SPIRIT) to edify the body. Some use their gifts as teachers, some shepherds, some evangelists, etc. All members of the body are reponsible for building on the foundation that has already been laid. If they don't they are false prophets. They teach another gospel.

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

If you read this whole chapter, you should see that "ministers" are not the builders. They are the building just like the rest of us. We are all priests, offering up living sacrifices to God.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm afraid you didn't read my Scriptural posts where God denies He needs the blood of bulls and goats to satisfy Himself. He requires a pure and humble heart.

Unfortunately, a pure and humble heart does not take away sin.

The requirement of a lamb is part of the Mosaic Law. WHY is the Law given to the Jews? What does Paul say??? Is it for God's sake???

Sin is what separates man from God, and there is no putting away of sin without sacrifice.

There is only one sacrifice that can put away sin, and that is Jesus Christ ....the Righteous.

God's justice could only be "satisfied" by a blood sacrifice for sin.

He didn't want sacrifices for His own pleasure, but sin requires them. Sin needed to be atoned for by the Spotless Lamb of God. God had to come to earth and die for us. He provided His own spotless sacrifice because man couldn't, and man's "humble heart" wasn't what God was looking at when Jesus was nailed to the cross. Man's heart can only be "humbled" when he truly repents and sees himself in need of the blood covering. Even the most godly of men falls short of the GLORY of God. If man wants to continue to talk to God through the veil, then they would do well to put on the righteous robes of Christ and enter freely before the Throne. They won't get in unless they do.

The reference to 2 Cor 2, Eph 5 and Phil 4 is refering sacrificial TERMINOLOGY, but is NOT refering to a literal sheep tossed onto a fire. Paul is speaking about what God has always desired - a pure heart from man. Obviously, Christ's sacrifice of Himself is pleasing to the Father, since that is what "lamb sacrifices" are supposed to point to, not our substituting lambs for ourselves, but sacrificing our very selves for the sake of God.

Pleasing? You have got to be kidding? :help Jesus' sacrifice was required by God in order for sinful man be reconciled to a Holy God. Jesus didn't die on the cross to please God. That's a horrible thing to say. Truthfully, I'm shocked. I certainly hope you don't mean it.

Besides the number I have already given, like Micah. Numerous times, we are told that God does not need those sacrifices. They are commanded of men (Jewish men) for other reasons than for God's enjoyment of watching His creatures be slaughtered. The Bible does not detail WHY blood purifies the offering - but it certainly must be a necessity for MAN, NOT GOD!!!

God created the sacrificial system because sin needed to be atoned for.

We can not atone for our sins with persistance in doing good, or offering up sacrifices that can never be acceptable to God. Even denying self can't remove our sin. We can not atone for our sins by great deeds or acts of obedience. It was our Redeemer, Christ Jesus, and His perfect obedience that took away sin.

 

[francisdesales]

I'm afraid you didn't read my Scriptural posts where God denies He needs the blood of bulls and goats to satisfy Himself. He requires a pure and humble heart.

Unfortunately, a pure and humble heart does not take away sin.

I didn't say that, my friend. I said God requires it of us before HE takes away sin...

The requirement of a lamb is part of the Mosaic Law. WHY is the Law given to the Jews? What does Paul say??? Is it for God's sake???

Sin is what separates man from God, and there is no putting away of sin without sacrifice.

You didn't answer my question...I'll answer it for you later to clarify matters.

As to your comment, the second phrase is your opinion...

God said He doesn't require the blood of bulls! He has said so. I have gone to a lot of time to cite Scriptures on numerous occasions, both OT and NT. I would appreciate it if you could do a bit more leg work than just repeating an assertion without any sort of evidence.

Yes, sin separates us from man. But repentance is the first step that restores our relationship. God does not require a "present" first. A sacrifice CAN be part of the outward sign of inner repentance - and thus, the repentance and sacrifice are coupled together as the same action. HOWEVER, Paul makes it crystal clear that one is NOT saved (from sin) by "works of the Law", which means SACRIFICING LAMBS.

This theme is throughout the Scriptures, OT and NT. God does not desire the mere external works of going through the motions and then commit social injustice on the poor, thinking you are just because you did your daily lamb killing.

The sacrifice itself is not absolutely required. God said so. Be patient, I will address God's command to sacrifice later...

If there is a sacrifice, it is merely an outward expression of the heart's content - repentance. Furthermore, note in Romans 2, men are saved WITHOUT ANY knowledge of the Mosiac Law of killing sheep. They obtain eternal life based on their Spirit-moved acts of repentance, faith in God, and love of others - good deeds. The prophets make it clear over and over that God does NOT desire the blood of sheep - IF there is no inner repentance. Thus, the "gifts" are not needed to bring forgiveness...

There is only one sacrifice that can put away sin, and that is Jesus Christ ....the Righteous.

You haven't read the Old Testament, have you...

As to the work of Christ, we'll have to discuss that later. There are some key failures of your scheme that prevent you from seeing the effects of His Divine Work. As a precursor, I give you a hint: To summarize, Christ is the Mediator. He is our Advocate. He CONTINUES to intercede for us. Scriptural notations that will prepare you for that upcoming conversation... I have mentioned it before, but we'll get to that teaching later.

God's justice could only be "satisfied" by a blood sacrifice for sin.

Bible verse, please. I am not interested so much in your opinion, unless you can back it up with some Scriptures. I tire of the assertions. If you cannot put together a legitimate argument, then we should agree to go our separate ways. I have gone to great lengths to back up my thoughts. Could you perhaps do the same, somewhat?

He didn't want sacrifices for His own pleasure, but sin requires them.

Please explain why sin requires sacrifices of animals or humans...

A bible citation would be in order here, this is an important subject and we should have at least SOME grounding in Scriptures before we proceed.

I find this interesting, but par for the course, that a Catholic is telling a Protestant for several weeks to provide Scriptures - and the Protestant refuses...

Sin needed to be atoned for by the Spotless Lamb of God. God had to come to earth and die for us. He provided His own spotless sacrifice because man couldn't, and man's "humble heart" wasn't what God was looking at when Jesus was nailed to the cross. Man's heart can only be "humbled" when he truly repents and sees himself in need of the blood covering. Even the most godly of men falls short of the GLORY of God. If man wants to continue to talk to God through the veil, then they would do well to put on the righteous robes of Christ and enter freely before the Throne. They won't get in unless they do.

This is all based upon the "Theory of Atonement", further mutilated by Protestant forensic imputation. This teaching has some serious problems although there is SOME merit to bits and pieces of it - many of which, we have addressed and you have ignored to provide evidence. It is all based upon the cliches you've been taught without any actual attempts to find them in the Bible.

The reference to 2 Cor 2, Eph 5 and Phil 4 is refering sacrificial TERMINOLOGY, but is NOT refering to a literal sheep tossed onto a fire. Paul is speaking about what God has always desired - a pure heart from man. Obviously, Christ's sacrifice of Himself is pleasing to the Father, since that is what "lamb sacrifices" are supposed to point to, not our substituting lambs for ourselves, but sacrificing our very selves for the sake of God.

Pleasing? You have got to be kidding? :help Jesus' sacrifice was required by God in order for sinful man be reconciled to a Holy God.

Where does the Bible state that the Father REQUIRED the death of His Son???

WHO or WHAT "forced" God to give up His only Son to die? Required??? :gah

The Father found it pleasing in that the Son was an expiation for the sake of mankind. A sin offering. The Father did not REQUIRE any blood - frankly, the Bible never states WHY blood is needed, honestly, it is just presumed, I guess - He was pleased, as He is pleased with the INNER attitudes of those prophets and saints who gave their lives to Him.

Isn't this act THE act of love? Isn't giving one's life for the sake of another the highest form of love??? "There is no greater love then this..."?

Love is not a requirement!!! That's what makes it love!!!

Please, help, you got to be kidding??? Has Protestantism blinded its adherents so much to THE REASON WHY the Son of God becames man???

Besides the number I have already given, like Micah. Numerous times, we are told that God does not need those sacrifices. They are commanded of men (Jewish men) for other reasons than for God's enjoyment of watching His creatures be slaughtered. The Bible does not detail WHY blood purifies the offering - but it certainly must be a necessity for MAN, NOT GOD!!!

God created the sacrificial system because sin needed to be atoned for.

Didn't you say that only Christ's perfect sacrifice was the ONLY thing that could atone for sins???

Make up your mind...

And of course, I disagree with the entire thesis. God created the sacrificial system for a different reason...

Why???

Now, I will answer my question that you refused to answer...

God enacted the sacrificial system AND the ENTIRE LAW as a teacher.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal 3:23-25

The Law (to include the sacrificial system) was given to bring people to an inner concept of FAITH.

Jesus touches on this concept (the Mosaic Law) in the Gospels, for example, when he speaks about marriage.

Have you not read that He who made [them] at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Mat 19:4-8

Consider the last verse "because of the hardness of your hearts".

God condescends to what we can handle. God establishes a Law and codes so that men can be trained to think in the ways of the Lord. Consider how long it took God to train the Jews to be totally monotheistic? Most of the OT, right? It was not always meant to be that way. But God is patient and trains His people to become more like Him.

And so, the sacrificial elements of the Law are meant as training tools, to get people to have an inner act of repentance that is drawn out by the external act of sacrificing something of VALUE! The Law commands that I give something of value to God. Over many years, that become engrained into my mind AND my heart. Eventually, the Law, the sacrificial system, can be done away with, abrogated, as Paul wrote. Why? Because now, we can live by faith, as God always intended through the means of the "Teacher". Abraham was considered just, without any sacrificial system. He was offering from his own sense of love and giving to God. But he was considered righteous and just BEFORE any offering was made, even while standing at the altar with Isaac (note, God did not require Isaac's blood).

Thus, it is my contention that blood is not a pre-requisite for God's declaration of justification or the forgiveness of sins. That, if done, is an outward expression of what God DOES require. An inner heart of humility and contrition. I posted numerous Scriptures to this effect. Would you like them again???

We do not atone for our sins - God accepts our heart-felt efforts. Where Jesus fits into all this, we'll get to later. First, we have to remove this idea that one has to be perfect or one has to offer blood BEFORE forgiveness is offered to men.

From the time of Abel, God has been pleased with man's imperfect efforts to please Him and seek Him out.

But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast Gen 4:4-5, NIV

Ever wonder why? Was it the sacrifice or the inner heart??? Continue reading Genesis 4 for Cain's inner heart attitude...

It's all about our inner heart, not about blood or wheat or meat. God is not hungry for that. He hungers for US and our LOVE!!!

 

[Drew]

Drew, I simply pointed out what was plain for all to see. And one doesn't need to be an English wizard to see it. Obviously, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. The plain reading of that passage just doesn't allow for your explination of it.

You are not reading the passage correctly Dave. This is the problem - when people do not, or will not, parse English statements properly, the debate comes to a grinding halt. This forum cannot be a place to educate people about how to understand English composition - that is a task for an English teacher, not "amateur theologians".

However, I will try one more time. In verses 1 through 9, Paul makes it clear that he has something he wants to say about the nature of the relationship about the relationship between the teacher / leader and those who are led. Fine. Now in verse 9, we get this:

For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

This is a statement that you simply ignore. If you actually took it seriously, you would, reading the words as written, be forced to acknowledge that Paul has, for the purposes of his argument, identified two distinct groups – those who work and build (Paul, Apollos, and other leaders) and those who are the “thing that is builtâ€. This distinction is fatal to your interpretation. Why?

Because Paul goes on talk about the responsibilities, yes, of those who build, culminating in the famous statement about salvation in respect to them. Yes, Dave, the builders – not humanity in general. That’s how English works – when you identify a set of people as builders, and then make a statement about those who build, no person who understands the flow of a logical argument would conclude that the statements are about humanity in general.

And yet you are doing precisely this – ignoring the clear sense of the text and widening the scope of application of the “salvation†statement at the end to all humanity.

You seem to think that statements like “if any man†and “for no one†mean that Paul is indeed talking about all humanity.

Simply not correct.

Imagine the coach of the NY Yankees lecturing his team before a game – “if any man does not give 110%, I will discipline him severelyâ€. You would argue as follows: “This statement applies to all human beings because of the use of the term ‘any man’â€.

And, of course, that is not correct. The context is that of a coach talking to 25 ballplayers. In the same way, verse 9 has clearly set up a context where the statements about “builders†that follow cannot (legitimately anyway) be deemed to be appl to the “you†that is the thing being built.