Discussion in 'Doctrinal Discussions' started by PeaceLikeaRiver, Aug 24, 2014.
Certainly, if for no other reason than by dying for them.
WAsn't the ashes of a Red Heifer mixed with spring water used to cleanse the Israelite who came into contact with a dead body?
However would you agree that a covenant is between "two" parties, and His signature which was signed with His own shed blood is only half of that covenant occurring at the cross? For we are the other contractual agent and are by voluntary contract "duty-bound" to be holy even as He is holy. Yet we are imperfect and sin will manifest amidst our disobedience; thus sin is reconciled in the confines of obedience, but tangible still in the confines of disobedience. I would simply argue that sin abounds when Christians engage disobedience. Thus it still exists today.
For if all sin is now vanished because of the cross then all our decisions are godly, and would simply say in context to conversation that "sin" is handled differently in our covenant with Christ that it was in the Mosaic covenant.
I could not agree more.
For when Christ died he initiated a new contract that was made available for all of humanity who will agree to it, and that contract is greatly improved from the old covenant from Moses. For our new contract is surrounded with grace, and power; the old contract was surrounded by violence.
Thus, do you feel that you are still under contract to obey the contract from Moses? Please know that I respect you in your liberty to embrace it if you do.
What contract from Moses do you mean?
The covenant was offereed here by God
3 Then Moses climbed the mountain to appear before God. The Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “Give these instructions to the family of Jacob; announce it to the descendants of Israel: 4 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians. You know how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you will obey me and keep my covenant, you will be my own special treasure from among all the peoples on earth; for all the earth belongs to me. 6 And you will be my kingdom of priests, my holy nation.’ This is the message you must give to the people of Israel.”
The covenant was accepted here by the people
7 So Moses returned from the mountain and called together the elders of the people and told them everything the Lord had commanded him. 8 And all the people responded together, “We will do everything the Lord has commanded.” So Moses brought the people’s answer back to the Lord.
The covenant was ratified here
4 Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord’s instructions. Early the next morning Moses got up and built an altar at the foot of the mountain. He also set up twelve pillars, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent some of the young Israelite men to present burnt offerings and to sacrifice bulls as peace offerings to the Lord. 6 Moses drained half the blood from these animals into basins. The other half he splattered against the altar.
7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it aloud to the people. Again they all responded, “We will do everything the Lord has commanded. We will obey.”
8 Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring, “Look, this blood confirms the covenant the Lord has made with you in giving you these instructions.”
Basically do you feel that this covenant is the "contract" that you agreed to, or do you feel this contract was offered and accepted by the children of Israel? Do you differentiate it from the "salvation covenant" in the new testament?
I suppose I will have to modify my previous statement.. (That no one really objected to....)
Jesus DID forgive ONE specific "Law of God"... A VERY significant one at that.....
This "Law of God" is that Willful and Presumptuous sin can NEVER be forgiven. This is the ONE specific thing that Jesus CHANGED! This is perhaps the most significant thing that could possibly be changed... We Christians tend to completely gloss over it...
This is enumerated in Numbers 15:30-31 and Deuteronomy 17:12 - but it is the Explanation of the Sin of Adam...... Original Sin....
Original Sin is specifically the Willful, Presumptuous, Intentional breaking of "God's Law." The REASON you did it does not matter... It was STILL intentional, presumptuous sin - even if it was done "To Do Good"... Jesus runs through this in the parable of "The Good Samaritan"...
Notice in the case of Adam (Paul runs through this in 1st Timothy 2:14) - the idea Paul is trying to convey is that Adam loved Eve so much that he decided to eat the fruit to SHARE in whatever punishment Eve would receive..... What Adam may not have realized is that Eve - being deceived - was only guilty of "Trespass" and could be Forgiven... Adam's sin was Willful and intentional - and his sin could NEVER be forgiven - as well intentioned as it may have been..... (Notice that both of their eyes are not opened until Adam eats on purpose in Genesis 3:7)
Through Jesus blood - we can obtain Forgiveness for INTENTIONALLY breaking God's law... so we don't have to CHOOSE between "Do Good and be eternally cursed" vs "Do no good but do not be cursed"....
Well done! I have often wondered about their eyes being opened after Adam ate. It also explains why the original sin passes from the father to the child and not the mother, allowing Jesus to not be tainted by sin.
Yes sir, I would agree.
I enjoyed your line of thought in this entry immensely.
Yet may I be allowed to persuade for further analysis of "what is the Law of God?”
Can you define what the “Law of God” is and then differentiate it through time for its application in various contracts, or defend it as an unchanging constant for all people?
For example: Once an animal-sacrifice was a “lawful requirement from God (a law),” yet today we hold true that Christ is that perfect sacrifice. Thus if all of “Gods Law” is an all encompassing constant, then it would not change and animal sacrifice would still be required.
Is it possible that “Gods Law” has two layers (Natural Law and Covenants/Contracts)? His delegation to earth in Genesis (all encompassing- Natural Law) and then specific law regarding various contracts He established with individuals, the children of Israel, and finally all of humanity with His glorious sacrifice at the cross?
For if if the only Law of God that changed is the original sin then what of various laws regarding animal sacrifice? Are they forgiven as well, or are they a “constant through time to all people?"
Thank you for your laser-beam focus regarding the blood that flowed at Calvary
I'll have a go, if I may.
I believe the Law of God that is a constant is that life is required to pay for sin. (Natural law). God warned Adam this when He told him to not eat of the tree of knowledge. Ye sin, ye shall surely die.
In Leviticus 17, God makes it clear that life is in the blood, and it is what is required to atone for sin.
17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
So the law was blood must be sacrificed to pay for sin. God knew it was unsafe and damaging if they were to use their own blood, so He substituted animal blood to be a temporary fix. (Old covenant)
The permanent fix came from Jesus' precious blood, which paid for all sin as an inheritance. To inherit, one must be in the will. God's will so to speak. Hebrews 9 speaks of this.
9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
The Mediator’s Death Necessary
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
So, the law was not changed, just the way the payment was made for sin. So the old covenant was satisfied by Christ and the new covenant was made available to all for their salvation. Each individual must accept this covenant to become a party to the contract. I guess this is where the Protestants break from the Old Church in that one cannot be born, baptized, or prayed into this covenant. Once one comes of age, they must agree to the contract by asking Christ to be their Lord and Savior.
You realize that the "answer" to your question can necessarily fill up about a 20-volume set titled "Systematic Theology"
At the most basic level - yes - I believe God gives situational instruction.... A key point has always been that "Do Whatever God Says NOW" trumps previous revelation and instruction....
I do agree that we need to be sensitive to differences between revelation pertaining to the physical reality vs spiritual revelation.... For example... Jesus statement "It is not what goes into a man that defiles a man" - was clearly talking Spiritual defilement, not Physical defilement.... We all know from evidence that you can contract parasites, diseases, and poisonings from eating and drinking things.. That has been proven medically....
On your question of "Sacrifice".... It's really not ONE question - but several....
There's the Spiritual Atonement piece - and yes... That is fulfilled...
There's ALSO the issue of "Perpetual Inheritance of the Levites" - the command that Israel supply the Levites with food.... which was done through the Sacrificial system.... Remember that everything except a wholly "Burnt Offering" was given to the Levites as food.
There's the inheritance of the Sons of Aaron - similar to the Levites with the Sons of Aaron being a subset of Levites - they received certain, specific pieces of the Sacrifices....
Then, there's the upkeep of the religious establishment - this was done through tithes and offerings... and some of these were allowed to be sold as needed....
But... The "Pouring out of the Blood" of any animal killed - this was a command given to Noah - and it's separate.. and apparently didn't get cancelled.... Remember that the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 gave specific directions to Gentiles amongst other things to "Abstain from blood".. For whatever reason - this is still important to God.
I agree. And that is made even clearer in Acts when Paul and Barnabus are asked by the jailer........"What must I do to be saved"?
They answered....."Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".
Believing requires knowledge about the subject in question and THEN we can make a choice.
How do you reconcile what is “now,” regarding “situational instruction?”
Would you agree that “situational instruction” is based upon covenants/contracts with specific people, or a specific nation of people? Then also can the covenant/contract of salvation then also provide “situational instruction” to the whole world, also an opportunity for all people?
I agree that spiritual and physical application regarding revelation should also be differentiated.
Your breakdown to give credence to the sacrifice is detailed and understood.
Do you then believe that “animal sacrifice” is then “situational instruction, or positive law (compulsory law) through Moses constituting the Mosaic covenant, which also was a custodial mandate that would point to “divine law,” which would be revealed and fulfilled in the promise to come.
Also that animal-sacrifice coming from Mosaic compulsory law differentiates from “divine law” in our covenant/contract with Christ? For Christ internalizes “divine law” by means of the Holy Spirit, which the old compulsory law of Moses could never do.
I think your attention to detail is critical here because you give attention to the “second delegation” from Noah in the old testament, but to gentiles after Christ died in the New Testament (meaning its to all people, for the Jews already observed). I would point out further that the “first delegation” to mankind in Genesis was very similar to Noah’s delegation. I would suggest that both delegations are applicable to “all mankind.” These two delegations which apply to all of mankind constitutes what is “Natural Rights” in the confines of what is “Natural Law” in the "State of Nature." I would contend also that our rational ability to discern “divine law” and the eternal constants of God as He reveals it to mankind is our “Natural Reason.”
I also contend that Natural Law is contractually premised on the “two delegations,” in that we are delegated our life, liberty, the earth, and all things that are in it as our property. Yet the earth is not delegated in common but “individually” as we obtain property “honestly.”
However regarding the strangling and the mention of blood? Would you agree that there is much theological debate that Paul tolerated the elders in their joint decision to restrict or in contrast that he was in lock-step with the decision?
I have to disagree. The word of God is based on truth, principles not situations. God never changes. It is man that needs to see this. David deserved death. David got the principle of the law, to show God's mercy. Every example in the scriptures is based on the goodness of God. The scriptures only show the different dealings God has with man to show the diversity of and power of His love.
How did Elijah reconcile the direction to eat what Ravens dropped on the ground vs the Law's requirement that he not touch such?
How did Isaiah reconcile the direction to wander around naked around Jerusalem for a period of time vs the Law's requirement that he not do such?
How did Hosea reconcile the direction that he marry a Harlot vs the Law's requirement that he not do such?
How did Jesus reconcile HIS purpose that the Innocent should die in place of the Sinner guilty of willful, presumptuous, intentional sin - when the Law clearly forbids such?
I reconcile it by:
"Behold, it is better to obey than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams" (1st Samuel 15:22)
Not always - see above.
The "General Case" is that we should seek to Obey the previously given revelation as best as we can understand it - relying upon the Clarification that God provides through his prophets.... In general - we must view the situational revelation as more of an Exception....
God's instruction that Elijah eat food brought by Ravens does not mean that this is a sanitary and acceptable practice for society at large.....
Though it was a fine idea for Hosea - Marrying Harlots generally never works out as planned....
Remember that Sacrifice did not start with Moses - but rather with God providing Adam and Eve tunics of skin back in Genesis 3... but yes - I do believe it does point to "Divine Law" that Sin must always be paid for with Death.
It was always the Holy Spirit that internalized God's Law... I still find it quite startling that Jesus scolded Nichodemus that he did not understand the process for being "Born again" - literally "Fathered from Above".... (John 3:7-10) ... when I can't find any guidance in the whole Old Testament for what Jesus expected Nichodemus to understand about the nuts and bolts of how the process worked for Jewish Prophets....
You have a lot more faith in Man than I do... My experience is that "They love the lie"
You know.. The more God sorts me out.. The less and less I see the supposed "Disagreements" that so many theologians wrangle over.... For example.. I see no disagreement what-so-ever between the epistles of James and Paul.....
Wow. I looked back through this a little tonight, although I'm half asleep. and realized that I had not actually read many of the posts here. I apologize. I am too tired to deal with this tonight, but I did think that certain of the posts were somewhat pointed at me, Abdicate. I also noted that one of the posts was particularly compassionate, JohnC, #47.
Oh, it's not that I think someone wants me to evaluate anything written here, but I found these things to be interesting.
You really don't like me do you. I wasn't thinking of you when I said (whatever it was that was supposedly directed to you). *SIGH*
HUH? I don't understand! Actually, I do like you....