Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Did Jesus Die To Appease God's Wrath?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#61 Julian

Julian

    B-TA Forum Manager

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 09:34 PM

Hi Richard.

>>I don't remember much of the discussions on CTA but I know that I don't tend to agree with you. Is that allowed?<<

Well there you go, you have had a memory loss, but you DO remember you don't tend to agree with me!!

Fair enough Richard, seems I misjudged you, in many ways, know what I mean?

Love in Jesus, Julian (who has not lost his memory, yet!! ;-))

#62 Julian

Julian

    B-TA Forum Manager

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 09:35 PM

>>What you have to remember, Julian<<

Who is suffering from memory loss here mate? ;-)

Love in Jesus, Julian

#63 Julian

Julian

    B-TA Forum Manager

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 09:41 PM

>>We are covered by the sacrifice of Christ, but until our faith, counted for righteousness, is fulfilled in works, there is no salvation.<<

So, you have to be saved by works? Is that what you are saying?

The sacrifice of Jesus was not enough, Richard has to earn his place in the Kingdom, right?

Faith is indeed evidenced by works, but those works CANNOT save anyone.

You can try to earn your place Richard, I will be thankfull for the sacrifice of Jesus, provided by God.

Yep, you have forgotten the discussions we had, what a shame. I remember them well (they were not that long ago Richard).

Oh and BTW, you can disagree with me as much as you like, so long as you can accept I will do all I can to defend the truth, is that ok with you?

You need to work on your memory loss my friend (I can copy our discussions from CTA to here, if you need a reminder?)

Love in Jesus, Julian

Edited by Julian, 09 September 2005 - 09:41 PM.


#64 Julian

Julian

    B-TA Forum Manager

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 09:47 PM

Richard, just to joggle your memory:


->>He died to appease God’s wrath because God was angry with sinners, and God took it out on Jesus instead of us.<< (from your opening post)

This was discussed on CTA at great length, but you do not remember it? Do you not remember what was said?

>>This has nothing to do with the discussions on CTA. <<

Oh, I think it does, as we have a whole forum on the subject, which you participated in.

But then again, you don't remember.

Go figure.

Love in Jesus, Julian

#65 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 09:54 PM

I find phrases like “saved by works” and “earn your place” far too emotive. The simple fact is though, Julian, that unless we walk according to the high calling with which we are called, there is no salvation.

Salvation is two-fold, let me demonstrate.

Deuteronomy 6, towards the end, tells us that God brought Israel out of Egypt for a reason – that he might bring them in to the Promised Land.

The salvation of Israel was predicated on their faith in the blood of the lamb and that the angel would pass over their house.

But that initial act of salvation was only the beginning. They still had to get off the behinds and walk to the Red Sea. And having crossed that Sea they still had to walk to the Promised Land. With many God was not well pleased and their carcasses fell in the wilderness. Of those that were saved out of Egypt onto two entered the land.

Why? Because they walked in faith, their faith was made evident by their works. The rest were saved, but they did not realize that salvation in its fullness because they didn’t walk, they didn’t obey.

God, who does not change, demands the same of you and I. Unless we obey him do you think he is going to want us in his kingdom? The testimony of thousands of carcasses in the wilderness of Arabia answers the question.

This is the danger of false doctrine. This is why we stand apart from Christendom, why we do no fellowship with Christendom, and why we need to be on constant guard against their doctrines working their way into our thinking. They produce a mindset that says “oh, salvation is by faith, therefore there is nothing that I can do for my salvation”. It sounds humble and it sounds good. But it is plain wrong. God wants us to get up off our lazy butts and walk to the Promised Land.

Or was James just having a laugh in his epistle?
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#66 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 09:57 PM

Richard, just to joggle your memory:


->>He died to appease God’s wrath because God was angry with sinners, and God took it out on Jesus instead of us.<< (from your opening post)

This was discussed on CTA at great length, but you do not remember it? Do you not remember what was said?

>>This has nothing to do with the discussions on CTA. <<

Oh, I think it does, as we have a whole forum on the subject, which you participated in.

But then again, you don't remember.

Go figure.

Love in Jesus, Julian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I remember is that there were some posts made about how angry God can get.

I am sorry Julian, but honestly those discussions have been wiped from my memory except for vague recollections. This thread was started without even a passing thought to those discussions. Sorry!

*Manly hug*
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#67 Julian

Julian

    B-TA Forum Manager

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 10:07 PM

OK Richard. I am a bit upset with you right now.

Maybe you can just wipe out all the discussions we had, I find that just a little insulting.

No point going over it all again here, my memory is in tact, but my patience is not doing quite so well!!

Sorry Richard, I will just keep off here, as it is winding me up that you can treat the time we spent in discussion with such apathy.

All the best,

manly hug back (with just a slight tap round your ear hole at the same time!!!) ;-)

Love in Jesus, Julian

#68 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 10:19 PM

:thumbsup: I am sorry I offended you Julian, honestly. I have no idea why you are so upset. It has nothing to do with apathy.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#69 Julian

Julian

    B-TA Forum Manager

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 09 September 2005 - 10:54 PM

:thumbsup: I am sorry I offended you Julian, honestly. I have no idea why you are so upset. It has nothing to do with apathy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



No probs, thanks for the email.

Off to bed for me, sorry for being snappy.

Love in Jesus, Julian

#70 gerard the watchman

gerard the watchman

    Iota

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 04:45 AM

Umm...

this talk of 'manly hugs' has me a little worried here....wink wink...

haha...but...umm...

someone tell me what a manly hug is???...;-)

#71 twoofseven

twoofseven

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 991 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 06:27 AM

One of those funny things men do to show affection. It generally involves a lot of back slapping and sometimes spitting. I don't know if it actually qualifies as a hug, but is meant to serve the same purpose of showing brotherly affection. ;)
twoofseven

"The power of a man's virtue should not be measured by his special efforts, but by his ordinary doings." Blaise Pascal

#72 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 07:25 AM

It's a sign that there really is too much estrogen in the water.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#73 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 02:33 PM

Did Jesus Die To Appease God's Wrath?

Lets just ask "Is God Just"?

God is perfect in justice. We see in Isaiah 53 that Jesus sufferred. For whom was he sufferring such punishment and death?

Did he make God to be just and the justifier of all who believe in Jesus?

#74 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 07 November 2005 - 03:09 PM

God is holy and just and must punish sin. He is almighty and able to punish sin, he can't lie and has said that sin will be punished; but he is also merciful, hence a willing, all-sufficient substitute is provided---Jesus. Jesus bore our sins in his own body. God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. He gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Being justified fully by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God, to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. The law is not made void, but through faith we establish the law. Jesus kept, made honorable, magnified and satisfied the law, becoming our accepted substitute, his righteousness, his right-doing, is imputed to us by faith and so we through him have kept the law. He took the sinner's place, bore his sins, met the penalty, and offers the sinner a child's place, and lets the sinner, who trusts him go free.

Praise Jesus Christ; I am so glad he came!

#75 Paidion

Paidion

    Eta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 01:07 AM

Offerings and Sacrifice

The first offerings to God were those of Cain and Abel. Did God require these offerings? Did He ever ask for them, or suggest them? There is nothing in the Scriptures indicating that He did. Cain and Abel thought they might please God somehow by offering the best fruit of their labours. It wasn't that God needed these things. Can anyone give the Creator of the Universe a gift? The idea is preposterous to one who understands His Majesty! Those who serve lesser gods may try to give their gods something. For their gods did not create the things that were offered to them. But what does God Himself say about attempts to give Him a gift?

Job 41:11 Who has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.

No doubt the apostle Paul had this passage in mind when he wrote:

Rom 11:35,36 Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen.

Yet God will regard the offerings of man. Won’t any good father do the same when his little daughter brings him the gift of a dandelion or his little son, a toad? The father doesn't want or need either a dandelion or a toad. Nevertheless he will accept these gifts given in their childish innocence, and make some positive remark besides. In this way, he'll recognize the intent of his children to please him. God, in whose image we are created, will also graciously receive the gifts with which we try to please Him, although He doesn't need or want them.

In Genesis 4:3-5, we read:

In the course of time Cain brought to Yahweh an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And Yahweh had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

Why did God have no regard for Cain and his offering? You may have heard preachers say that God was displeased with the kind of offering that Cain brought. Many who consider atonement as a sacrifice to appease an angry God, tell us that Cain's offering was not accepted because it was not an animal offering. They quote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." They say that Abel's offering was acceptable because it was an animal from his flock. But notice that this passage does not say that God did not have regard for Cain's offering, but rather that He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. When we read on, we find out why.

Genesis 4:6,7 Yahweh said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

Now the truth of what God requires comes out! God would have accepted Cain and his offering if he had done well! It is not that God requires a certain kind of offering, that is, a bloody one. Indeed He doesn't require any offering! Rather God requires people to do well, and to master sin. God didn't say to Cain, "If you offer an animal sacrifice, will you not be accepted?" Rather he said, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" and "If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door... but you must master it ."
God had regard for Abel and his offering. Was it because Abel offered the right kind of offering? No! It was because Abel did well. Cain's failure to master sin manifested itself soon afterward in that he committed the first murder - that of his brother.

Doing Well and How it is Possible

God requires us to do well. He requires us to master sin. But He understands our weaknesses, our inability to work righteousness. This is why He sent His Son to die for us. This is the reason for the means of mercy provided by Christ.

In no passage do we read that Christ died in order to forgive us our sins so that we could get to heaven. Rather, as the above Scriptures make clear, He died in order that we would no longer be self-serving sinners, but rather come under Lordship of Christ, overcome sin, become healed of our sin-sickness, and by His enabling grace actually become purified and righteous people who are eager to do good deeds, deeds that will help others to meet their needs. Proponents of the substitutionary theory of atonement believe that we are saved from hell. However, the angel announced, “You shall call His name “Jesus” for He will save His people from their sins.

Matt 1:20,21
But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."


The Enabling Grace of God

In examining the passage in Titus in its entirety, we find that Paul makes clear the true meaning of "grace". Paul first tells Timothy to instruct older men, older women, young women, and younger men how to live godly lives. Then he urges Timothy to be a model of good deeds himself. He asks Timothy to instruct slaves to show true fidelity to their masters. Then he writes the following to show that these instructions in righteous living cannot be carried out in the weakness of fallen man, but requires the enabling grace of God, made available to us through the death of Christ:

Titus 2: 11-15
For the grace of God appeared for the saving of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly desires, and to live sensibly, righteously, and piously in the present age, expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself on our behalf to redeem us from all lawlessness, and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and correct with all authority. Let no one disregard you.


Notice that, in this passage, the grace of God is said to be the means by which we are trained to live righteous lives in this world. This is a far cry from the "unmerited favour" of God overlooking our sins because of Christ's "substitutionary death". Rather, in this passage Paul gives us the purpose of the death of Christ as he does so often elsewhere. Was it to "redeem us from hell"? No! It was to redeem us from all lawlessness! To purify for Himself a people of His own who are eager to do good deeds.

Righteousness Before the Time of Christ

The question may well be asked, “How could people be righteous and pleasing to God before the sacrifice of Christ?” There is plenty of Old Testament evidence that some were. Here are just a few references:

Gen 6:9 ... Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation.
De 16:19 You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil.
Ps 33:1 Rejoice in Yahweh, O you righteous! Praise befits the upright.
Ps 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Yahweh delivers him out of them all.


So there were plenty of righteous people before Jesus shed His precious blood. How, then, could they attain that righteousness without the enablement which came with Christ’s sacrifice? I can only guess that Christ’s death was efficacious also for all who would entrust themselves to God during the many centuries before He died. My understanding is that God from the beginning anticipated all possible choices that man could make, and had in his wise counsel, ways to respond to these choices. Thus it could be said that the lamb of God “was slain from the foundation of the cosmos”. Rev 13:8

What follows are several other quotes of what has been done from the foundation of the cosmos (universe), or even before:

Lu 11:50 that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the cosmos, may be required of this generation,
Mt 25:34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the cosmos;
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the cosmos, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Re 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is to ascend from the bottomless pit and go to perdition; and the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the cosmos, will marvel to behold the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.


Such statements have suggested to many, that at or before the creation of the universe, all events had been determined by God to take place. The ramifications of such an idea are mind boggling. Fatalism of this kind negates free will, one of the ways in which man was created in the image of God. It is also inconsistent with accountability for man’s actions, whereas much, if not most, of the Bible makes clear that man is responsible for his actions, and will be rewarded or punished accordingly.

The context of the following verse concerns Peter’s statement that his readers were redeemed from the futile ways inherited from their fathers with the precious blood of Christ.

1Pe 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the cosmos but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.

As I see it, God’s foreknowledge is his knowing all possibilities, every choice that man could make, and thus having a way of responding to these choices. So, in anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ, this foreknowledge of the slaying of Christ could have allowed the enabling grace to become available to true followers of Yahweh before Christ died.

A Fuller Sacrifice
At first glance, the following passage seems inconsistent with the statements made concerning the sacrifices of Cain and Abel:

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. (KJV)

One who has been taught the substitutionary view might think that this passage is saying that the kind of offering is the important thing here, that a blood sacrifice was necessary. Thus Abel’s sacrifice was “more excellent”. But the more literal meaning of pleiOn ,is “more” or “greater” or "fuller". This word indicates that the difference between their sacrifices was one of degree rather than one of kind. Also, notice this passage speaks of Abel’s sacrifice and also his gifts. These are two different entities! Abel’s sacrifice was not his gifts. In Genesis 4, his gifts, the firstlings of his flock, were called “an offering”, but not “a sacrifice”. One could conclude that Abel’s sacrifice was that of himself, and that he found the grace of God sufficient for mastery of sin. Perhaps Cain also sacrificed himself in some fashion, but it was incomplete and inferior. God did not accept Cain and his gifts. God explained why. "If you DO WELL, will you not be accepted?" and "If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door... but you must MASTER IT." If Cain had made some progress in doing well by mastering sin, God would have accepted him and his offering. By offering himself more completely to God and overcoming sin, Abel’s sacrifice was greater than that of Cain’s.

Another Offering
The next scriptural record of an offering made to God was that of Noah as the people and animals were leaving the ark.

Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when Yahweh smelled the pleasing odour, Yahweh said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." Gen 8: 20-22

As in the case of Abel, Yahweh was pleased with Noah and his offering. For Noah has lived a life of obedience to God. He had "done well" in building the ark and preserving life on it in obedience to God's command. Did God require this offering from Noah? Nothing in the text suggests such an idea.

The origin of Sacrifices

From early times, the nations of the world tried to appease their gods through offering sacrifices to them. “The gods of the nations are demons.” The nations sacrificed animals and they sacrificed people. Of course the demons delighted in the worship they were receiving as well as the fact that their worshippers were helping to destroy people with their human sacrifices. The Hebrews learned to sacrifice from the nations. What follows includes some scriptures that tell of sacrifices made by God’s people to the demons The nations offered up even human sacrifices to their gods,and so did the Hebrews, following their example:

They did not destroy the peoples, As the LORD commanded them,
But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices,
And served their idols, Which became a snare to them.
They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons... Psalm 106:34-37


The First Sacrifice Recorded in the Bible

The first sacrifice recorded in the Bible is that of Jacob. This is found in Genesis 31:54. This was offered by Jacob in connection with the covenant he made with Laban.

Then Laban said to Jacob, "See this heap and the pillar, which I have set between you and me. This heap is a witness, and the pillar is a witness, that I will not pass over this heap to you, and you will not pass over this heap and this pillar to me, for harm. The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us." So Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac, and Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain and called his kinsmen to eat bread; and they ate bread and tarried all night on the mountain.

Where did Jacob learn to offer sacrifice? Could he have learned it from Rebekah his mother, who was a Syrian? (Gen 25:20) Or could he have learned to sacrifice from Uncle Laban? Jacob had lived with Laban for many years, and must have observed Laban’s form of worship. Laban was a Syrian (Gen 31:20). The Syrians were worshippers of other gods. Evidence of this appears in the following passage from Judges:

Judges 10:6 And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines; and they forsook Yahweh, and did not serve him.

One may also notice that it is not recorded as to whom Jacob offered the sacrifice. Jacob had heard from Yahweh and was obeying Him. But did he sometimes sacrifice to other gods as did his mother and uncle? Perhaps not. Perhaps he transferred the concept of sacrifice to his worship of Yahweh. One thing is certain. Yahweh, the God of his father Abraham did not ask Jacob to offer sacrifice.

Yahweh had asked Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. But He hadn’t said a word to Moses about sacrifices! Yet Moses and Aaron knew about sacrifices which were meant to appease. Did Moses learn about such sacrifices from the Egyptians by whom he was raised? He must have. For God has never required anyone to offer to him an appeasing sacrifice! Moses and Aaron gave the following as a reason in asking Pharaoh to let them go into the wilderness.

Exodus 5:3 Then they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us; let us go, we pray, a three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Yahweh our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword."

Obviously they knew the meaning of an "appeasing sacrifice". But God didn’t require it or desire it! Did Moses get the idea from the Egyptians and transfer it to his God Yahweh?

God Himself declared through Jeremiah that He had not said anything to the Hebrews about sacrifices or given them any commands about them when He brought them out of Egypt.

Jeremiah 7:22,23 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

As always, God’s main concern was obedience and righteous living. His instructions to those whom He brought out of Egypt was that they “walk in the way” that He commanded them. But he hadn’t spoken to them about burnt offerings and sacrifices!
The fact that God does not wish or require sacrifice is written in the book of Psalms:

Ps 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.

Literally, it is “you have dug ears for me”. God has cleaned out the wax from my ears, so that I can hear properly. It is not sacrifice that He wants. Rather He wants me to hear and to obey the words that I hear!

Was the feast of the Passover a sacrifice of appeasement to Yahweh? No. It was a memorial of the occasion in which Yahweh passed over the Israelites while destroying the first-born of every Egyptian household. Yahweh asked every Israelite household kill a lamb, and to eat the flesh of the lamb in haste, and then place blood on their door posts. The record of God’s instructions. is found in Ex 12:1-20., but makes no mention of sacrifice. He did ask that a feast of the passover be held annually as a memorial to what He would do. However, when Moses related the revelation of God to the Israelites (verses 21-28), he called it “the sacrifice of Yahweh’s passover”. Did Moses have in mind an appeasing sacrifice or propitiation such as he had learned from the Egyptians? Or did he have in mind, when he used the word “sacrifice” that the Israelites would have to give up their choice lambs in order to honour Yahweh in this remembrance feast? The close parallel with the development of the communion is striking. Jesus asked his disciples to “do this in remembrance of me”. But later, the catholic church called this remembrance, the eating bread and drinking wine a “sacrifice”.

Yahweh Accepts Sacrifice as a Concession
Did Yahweh accept the sacrifices of the Israelites or even command them? Doubtless He did. He also commanded the Israelites to choose Saul as king.

When Samuel saw Saul, Yahweh told him, "Here is the man of whom I spoke to you! He it is who shall rule over my people." 1 Samuel 9:17

Does this fact imply that Yahweh wanted Saul to rule over His people? If this scripture were all the information we had about the matter, we might so conclude. But the account prior to this clearly shows that Yahweh did not want any king at all to rule over His people.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations." But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." And Samuel prayed to Yahweh. And Yahweh said to Samuel, "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. I Samuel 8:4-7

Gideon understood that Yahweh is the one and only sovereign! This is what he said:

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian." Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; Yahweh will rule over you." Judges 8:22,23

Yes, the Israelites wanted a king like the other nations. In a similar manner, the Israelites wanted to sacrifice to their God to appease Him just as the other nations did to theirs. So God gave them specific instructions as to how to do it. Here is the first time in the Old Testament in which Yahweh gives instructions for sacrificing to Him:

Exodus 20:24 An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you.

Now let’s consider the context in which this instruction was given. Moses had just related the ten commandments to the Israelites. Notice the very first of them:

Exodus 20:2-5 "I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I, Yahweh, your God am a jealous God...

This commandment was especially applicable, for among the many ways in which the Israelites wished to emulate the nations around them, perhaps worship of other gods was the chief. The final thing Yahweh said to them (before He told them how to sacrifice to Him) was:

You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold. Exodus 20:23

It was in the hearts of the Israelites to copy the ways of the nations ---- to have a king like other nations, to have a temple like other nations, to sacrifice like other nations, to worship the gods of other nations. Doubtless Yahweh anticipated what they would do while Moses was up communing with Him on the mountain. Instead of waiting faithfully for Moses to descend from the mountain, the Israelites
...made a molten calf; and they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" Exodus 32:4

Probably Yahweh realized that all of this “worldliness” could not be fully extirpated from the hearts of the Israelites. He permitted them to express their desire to sacrifice, but limited their sacrifice in that it was to be directed only to Himself. They were not to make gods of silver or gold and sacrifice to them along with Yahweh. If they made a stone altar, it was not to be hewn in the manner of the nations. The priests were not to ascend the altar naked in the sight of all, as was the practice of the sacrifices of the nations:

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven. You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold. An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. And if you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it.’ Exodus 20:22-26

After the Israelites woshipped the golden calf, Yahweh laid down strict instructions as to the attitudes they were to have toward the gods of the nations wherever they went.

Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land wherever you go, lest it become a snare in the midst of you. You shall tear down their altars, and break their pillars, and cut down their Asherim, (for you shall worship no other god, for Yahweh, whose name is “Jealous”, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they play the harlot after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and one invites you, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters play the harlot after their gods and make your sons play the harlot after their gods. "You shall make for yourself no molten gods. Exodus 34:12-17

So appeasing sacrifices were never the will of God. But He allowed them as a concession to the desires of the hearts of His people ---- desires which they had learned in their observations of the nations they encountered. Yes, Yahweh permitted the Israelites to offer appeasing sacrifices, although He didn’t actually want them, and certainly didn’t need them. What He really wanted was their obedience and their righteousness. He knew that that was what was best for them. But since they were determined to sacrifice, their sacrifices were to be directed toward Himself only.

Another Kind of Sacrifice

There is a distinctly different kind of sacrifice with which our God is pleased! It is not an attempt to appease God. It is a willingness to give up something which we may want for our selves in order to fulfill the greater purposes of God for our lives as well as the lives of others.

There is, for example, the “sacrifice of praise” as mentioned in Hebrews:

Heb 13:15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. In what way is praise a sacrifice? In order to make room or to have time to offer to God oral praise (the fruit of our lips), we need to give up something else that we wish to do, or think that we need to do.

So the Passover too, might correctly be called a “sacrifice” in the sense that the Israelites had to give up their choice lambs in order to participate in the remembrance feast.

It is in this same sense that Jesus sacrificed Himself for the sin of the world, and in the same sense the Father sacrificed His Son on our behalf. The Father was well-pleased with the willingness of His Son to die that people might be enabled to be righteous. Righteousness, holiness, and yes ever perfection, is His chief desire for mankind. Many early Christians, as well as Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, were willing to die for their allegiance to Christ.

The greatest sacrifice of this kind that can possibly be made is described in Romans 12:1

[i]I encourage you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your logical worship.


May it be so, Almighty Yahweh! May it be so for each one of us who professes to belong to Jesus the Messiah, the Altogether Lovely One!
Paidion

#76 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 06:47 PM

If a person does not accept the substitutional theory (Jesus life for our sins) what is he trusting in? His own works.

Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. God does not deal with believers according to their sins; he laid them upon Jesus and he suffered for their sins. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from all sin. The only righteousness that man can have is the righteousness of Christ by faith in his sacrifice. Jesus gave himself a sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:14). He gave his life a ransom for many (Mt. 20:28). We are redeemed by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The redeemer pays a ransom. Jesus is our redeemer and the ransom he paid was his life. We can only be redeemed from sin by faith in Jesus and what he did for us. A person must not, dares not trust in anything other than the atonement we have in Jesus, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. No man can come to God except through Jesus Christ.

#77 Paidion

Paidion

    Eta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 09:08 PM

If a person does not accept the substitutional theory (Jesus life for our sins) what is he trusting in? His own works.


Simpleton, that is simply not true. Nowhere in the Bible are we required to accept the substitutionary theory of atonement in order to trust in Christ. But for some reason, believers in the substiturionary theory THINK that you either trust in "the finished work of Christ" (supposedly his dying in our place) or else in your own works.

As I tried to show in my post above, Jesus died not to appease an angry God so that we could go to heaven. Rather, the Scripture indicate in many places, that He died in order that we might become righteous persons who are living in submission to Christ.

1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself offered up our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

2 Corinthians 5:15 ... He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.


In every case but one, statements that Christ died for us, a Greek word for "for" is one that means "for the sake of" or "for the benefit of" or "on behalf of". That one exception is the one you quoted, spoken by our Lord Himself in Matt 20:28, that Jesus came to "give his life as a ransom for many." This word is also recorded by Mark in chapter 10 verse 45. In this case, the word "for" is the translation of the Greek preposition "anti" (instead of, or in place of). But does this constitute substitutionary atonement?

We find that by examining the statement in context, that Jesus was not speaking here of giving His life on the cross, but of giving up the living of his life in order to free others.

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She said to Him, "Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left."

But Jesus responded, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?"

They said to Him, "We are able."

He said to them, "My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father."

And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Matthew 20:20-28 [i]


So Jesus gave His life in the sense that He did not hold onto His life for Himself while He was here on earth, but gave up His life for the sake of others so they might be freed from whatever bound them, whether sickeness or their own sinful choices.

Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. God does not deal with believers according to their sins;


This statement is contrary to the words of Paul in Romans 2:6-11

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury; affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good ...for God shows no partiality.

Edited by Paidion, 05 January 2006 - 09:18 PM.

Paidion

#78 Jeremy

Jeremy

    Order of the Golden Pedant

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,434 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 10:48 PM

If a person does not accept the substitutional theory (Jesus life for our sins) what is he trusting in? His own works.

Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. God does not deal with believers according to their sins; he laid them upon Jesus and he suffered for their sins. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from all sin. The only righteousness that man can have is the righteousness of Christ by faith in his sacrifice. Jesus gave himself a sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:14). He gave his life a ransom for many (Mt. 20:28). We are redeemed by the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The redeemer pays a ransom. Jesus is our redeemer and the ransom he paid was his life. We can only be redeemed from sin by faith in Jesus and what he did for us. A person must not, dares not trust in anything other than the atonement we have in Jesus, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. No man can come to God except through Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that another problem with the substitution theory is that it reduces the need for faith. If we understand the sacrifice of Christ as I correctly believe it to be, faith is essential: it's what justifies God, and forms the basis of our justification (not by works - a ridiculous suggestion, we all agree).

But if Christ's sacrifice was only a ransom, a mere commercial transaction where one party (Christ) buys off another party (God) for an agreed consideration (his blood), where's the need for faith? It's all been done for us, hasn't it? We just take our ticket to the celestial check-out and cash in our prize. Bingo - we don't have to do anything.

Inactivity has no part in redemption. We couldn't do it for ourselves, but we certainly can't do nothing.
And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

#79 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 11:11 PM

It is not that God is angry but that he is just. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22). Those who have their sins forgiven have not robbed God of any satisfaction for their offenses because Jesus suffered for their sins and God is perfectly just to justify believers based upon their faith in Jesus as their only atonement. The believer can not count on any works or anything at all other than faith in the finished work of Jesus at Calvary. It is Jesus' work that is the only basis of salvation, the only means of reconciliation, and the only ground for justification.

It is not that certain action brings salvation but salvation brings certain action. God accepts the believer by his faith in Jesus and changes his heart so that he does the good works of salvation naturally. The believer is not living by his works but is doing what comes natural to him from a regenerated heart that was changed by God by his grace through the faith of the believer. Even the faith of the believer is a gift of grace from God so that no one can glory before him.

#80 Paidion

Paidion

    Eta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 11:54 PM

Your position, Simpleton, is certainly representative of the majority of evangelical and fundamentalist churches today.

Your reference to Hebrews 9:22 as a proof text for your position is unjustified in view of the context.

Jesus death is not about forgiveness of sins at all, as I showed from my previous posts. Did you read them?
And think about them?

Jesus died not to forgive our sin, but to deliver us from our sin.

Let's look at your proof text in its context:

Hebrews 9:22
And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


The writer is contrasting the way things worked under the law with the new order in Jesus the Messiah!

So Paul was able to say in a talk he gave:

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent.

In the new order, there is no forgiveness without repentance.

Looking at the verses which follow Hebrews 9:22

23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.


Yes, this is the contrast that the writer of Hebrews makes. Under the law there was a mere forgiveness,
an overlooking of sin, letting the sinners off the hook when they sacrificed in an attempt to appease Him.

But Christ sacrificed Himself to do away with sin ---- eliminate it entirely from His disciples. Search the New Testament to find out why Christ died. Every passage indicates that it was to enable us to overcome wrong doing.

Edited by Paidion, 06 January 2006 - 12:04 AM.

Paidion

#81 Paidion

Paidion

    Eta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 12:01 AM

It is not that God is angry but that he is just.


Just? Do you call it justice to punish the innocent Son of God for the wrongdoing of sinners, and to let the sinners of the hook? Doesn't "just" mean "fair"?

If you knew one of your children broke a window, would you be just to punish another child who had nothing to do with it?

How about letting a murderer go free, and putting to death an innocent person? Would that "satisfy" your sense of justice?
Paidion

#82 Jeremy

Jeremy

    Order of the Golden Pedant

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,434 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 08:43 AM

It is not that God is angry but that he is just. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22). Those who have their sins forgiven have not robbed God of any satisfaction for their offenses because Jesus suffered for their sins...

But that means God is only interested in His price. When somebody sins, He doesn't want their blood, anybody's blood will do. This makes God so cheap - it's awful to think about like this.

The believer can not count on any works or anything at all other than faith in the finished work of Jesus at Calvary. It is Jesus' work that is the only basis of salvation, the only means of reconciliation, and the only ground for justification.

Faith is essential, of course. We all agree with that. But faith is made living by the choices we make in our lives, yes? James 2 v 18 and all of Hebrews 11. The picture I'm getting from a substitutionary sacrifice is of a faith which doesn't need to do anything. Because Jesus is going to do everything for us, we can sit back. It leads to spiritual idleness.

This is a very far cry (it seems to me) from passages like Romans 6:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Look at my emphasis here: see how many times we're exhorted to do it with him, to do what he did, to lay down our lives also. This isn't substitution - it's involvement.

The sacrifice of Christ should prompt us to do things - not to try and earn our salvation, which is impossible, but to respond in love, laying down our lives as Christ did. Life in Christ is not about anybody doing anything instead of someone else - it's about involvement.

It is not that certain action brings salvation but salvation brings certain action. God accepts the believer by his faith in Jesus and changes his heart so that he does the good works of salvation naturally. The believer is not living by his works but is doing what comes natural to him from a regenerated heart that was changed by God by his grace through the faith of the believer. Even the faith of the believer is a gift of grace from God so that no one can glory before him.

I'd go with most of that, but I maintain that the motivation to do these "works of faith" doesn't come from worshipping a God who accepts someone else's sacrifice [i]instead of
mine. Take that argument to its logical conclusion, and what's just as acceptable to God as my works of faith is someone else's works. There's no difference between that and a substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, is there? This is where some churches (maybe I'm not allowed to point the finger) have gone so far wrong: you can practically get a priest and pay him to do all your works for you! God gets what He wants, but I don't lift a finger.

Sim, you're not as far from the mark as that, I know, but this is the direction we can be taken in by believing that Christ's sacrifice was a mere substitute.
And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

#83 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 03:38 PM

The sacrifice for sin has been made by Jesus and is a complete and total satisfaction for all sin. Sin has been dealt with for all who can believe in Jesus. We individually must accept this gift of God's grace. We must repent of our sins and make the confession of (Ro. 10:9-13). We commit our lives to Jesus who for our sakes died and was raised. For our sake God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Jesus we might become the righteousness of God. Jesus is our righteousness and we are to live for him (Php. 1:20; Gal. 2:10-21). A person is justified only by faith in Jesus (Gal. 2:16).

This is brought about in us by the working of the Holy Spirit who convicts us of our sin and brings us to repentance for the confession. If our repentance, confession, and acceptance of Jesus as Lord is genuine, we should experience regeneration. It is a God-given change in us from which love and good works spontaneously spring as a normal everyday activity.

Salvation has always been based upon faith. God dealt with the sin of man.

Faith is a supernatural divine gift.

#84 Jeremy

Jeremy

    Order of the Golden Pedant

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,434 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 04:51 PM

The sacrifice for sin has been made by Jesus and is a complete and total satisfaction for all sin. Sin has been dealt with for all who can believe in Jesus. We individually must accept this gift of God's grace. We must repent of our sins and make the confession of (Ro. 10:9-13). We commit our lives to Jesus who for our sakes died and was raised. For our sake God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Jesus we might become the righteousness of God. Jesus is our righteousness and we are to live for him (Php. 1:20; Gal. 2:10-21). A person is justified only by faith in Jesus (Gal. 2:16).

This is brought about in us by the working of the Holy Spirit who convicts us of our sin and brings us to repentance for the confession. If our repentance, confession, and acceptance of Jesus as Lord is genuine, we should experience regeneration. It is a God-given change in us from which love and good works spontaneously spring as a normal everyday activity.

Salvation has always been based upon faith. God dealt with the sin of man.

Faith is a supernatural divine gift.

So not only does Jesus do everything instead of me, the only part I'm asked to contribute directly (faith) is actually supplied by God too! So that makes me less than a robot - I'm just a lump of flesh for God to toy with.

Which of course means, that if I don't repent and respond to the Gospel in faith, it's actually God's fault - because He hasn't supplied the Holy Spirit to prompt me.

Come off it, Sim. Think this through, and hopefully you'll see there must be a flaw in your reasoning.

On substitutionary sacrifice, have a look at what I offered here in another thread earlier today. It might help explain where I'm coming from.

All the best.
And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

#85 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 05:08 PM

I believe that Ro. 3:10-18 describes the state of man. Man is by nature a sinner, guilty, condemned, lost, helpless, and hopeless. It is impossible for man to be saved, but with God all things are possible. God takes the initiative in man's salvation and not man.

#86 Paidion

Paidion

    Eta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 11:46 PM

I John 3:4-10
Every one who practises sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who remains in him practises sin; no one who practises sin has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. He who practises sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one generated of God commits sin; for God's nature remains in him, and he cannot practice sin because he is generated of God. By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.


One thing is certain. Whatever we believe about the way to appropriate salvation through Christ, the above passage teaches that if we practise sin, we are not regenerated.

Ephesians 5:1-6
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. But fornication or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no fornicator or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.


Another thing is certain. Whatever we believe about the way to appropriate salvation through Christ, the above passage teaches that we cannot live wicked lives and expect to go unpunished or uncorrected.

Edited by Paidion, 07 January 2006 - 11:49 PM.

Paidion

#87 Jeremy

Jeremy

    Order of the Golden Pedant

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,434 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 08:44 PM

I believe that Ro. 3:10-18 describes the state of man. Man is by nature a sinner, guilty, condemned, lost, helpless, and hopeless. It is impossible for man to be saved, but with God all things are possible. God takes the initiative in man's salvation and not man.

Well said. But man still needs to do something - he needs to respond to God's initiative.
And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

#88 kensapp

kensapp
  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 07:43 AM

Jesus died to stand with His teaching and to let man witness Christ's resurrection.

#89 Jehonadab

Jehonadab

    Iota

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 14 December 2013 - 08:14 PM

This is truly a wholesome spiritual thread.

 

What does salvation mean?

 

Let's look at death, does a man have works in death?

 

In our unrepentant state we are become as: Psalms 88:5  "Free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom thou rememberest no more: and they are cut off from thy hand."

 

Just as the dead who lay in their graves, it is in a spiritual sense for those spiritually dead by sin: Ecclesiastes 9:10b  "... there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."

 

Therefore, if we are spiritually dead by sin, then God sees no works of us that he is able to recognize.   The dead cannot have any works but dead works.  As in literal death the only work being done is the work of decay (corruption), so also in spiritual death the only work being done is corruption.  And all anyone has to share with anyone else in that state is corruption.

 

That is quite the predicament apart from God's willing mercy to cover over that, raise us to a status of recognition by Him, and train us in works that are holy and corruption free which He can then credit to our account.

 

We learn from Christ what good works are: Titus 3:14  "And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful."

 

Ephesians 2:10  "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

 

Now, if we have not those works, are we not yet then dead?

 

How can there be any salvation if we remain fruitlessly dead?

 

There is no life until there is good works of God.


 

 


 


Edited by Jehonadab, 14 December 2013 - 08:17 PM.


#90 Jehonadab

Jehonadab

    Iota

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 15 December 2013 - 01:26 PM

:)


Edited by Jehonadab, 15 December 2013 - 01:28 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users