Those who demand a scripture that demands a Limited Atonement !

[cygnusx1]

^ Christ death is all about the Law , the Covenants are mirrored.

You assume repentance is the answer to sins of commission such as murder (David) but they are not .

The Law of sacrifices prefigured Christ sacrifice which did deal with David's sin .

"Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin " means exactly that , I am puzzled why you think Christ had to die if men could "just repent"

 

[ForceofTime]

My point was only that Heb makes a distinction between the legal sacrificial system and the kind of non-legal salvation that comes from Christ.

Whose sacrifice was the fulfillment of the Law! It is a non-legal Salvation for us because it is given by God as grace. But that doesn't change the fact that the Cross of Christ is the perfection of that legal sacrificial system because it was made under the law.

I don't think 1 Sam was saying that the latter is impossible. That would be to maintain a completely unbiblical doctrine that there are sins which God won't forgive even if we repent. (It is, of course, possible that the Lord spoke as he did because he knew that Eli's sons would never repent.)

What in Hebrews 10:26 or 6:6 tells you that repentance will work? Not to mention Mt. 3:29 and I Jn. 5:16 or have I misunderstood? Nadab and Abihu and Uzzah didn't even have time to repent.

Num. 3, 8 & 18 show that the relationship of the Levites and God was closer than towards Israel (and by extension, the world). They had an access, a nearness, to God as close as anything could get under the law. Therefore, sins take on a more dire and rapid consequence in that nearness.

Now, in the Incarnation, it got significantly nearer, and is the warning any less for us, or even the world?

I'm not quite sure what your last sentence means. The OT doesn't refer explicitly to Christ, for obvious reasons.

Must that mean He's not there? The Rock in the wilderness isn't explicitly stated as being Christ in the OT, yet, Paul (I Cor. 10:4), and so on with Peter (Acts 2:25-36), and Jesus (Mt. 22:42-45, Jn. 8:56), etc.

I'm not aware, however, of any Biblical concept of two kinds of repentance, once of which counts and one of which does not. To my knowledge repentance always includes turning to God.

That was my point, there is only one.

For us, of course that includes explicitly turning to Christ. That connection is only hinted at in the OT.

Yes, I Peter 1:10-12 makes that clear.

When I said the Ps 51 referred to a repentance not associated with sacrifice, obviously I didn't mean to dissociate it from Christ's sacrifice. It is a repentance not associated with the OT sacrificial system.

So, you meant to dissociate Christ's sacrifice from the OT sacrificial system? How then are we, who were under the law, brought out from under the law if not from He who was dead and buried under the law and rose on the third day?

Which I think is the point being made in 1 Sam. It is very unlikely that 1 Sam is referring to Christ's sacrifice. Sure, God could insert anachronisms in the OT if he wanted to. I just don't see any reason to assume it when there's a perfectly reasonable understanding that doesn't require that. I think you're adopting a very forced interpretation of this passage.

I do appreciate your opinion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

^ Christ death is all about the Law , the Covenants are mirrored.

You assume repentance is the answer to sins of commission such as murder (David) but they are not .

The Law of sacrifices prefigured Christ sacrifice which did deal with David's sin .

"Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin " means exactly that , I am puzzled why you think Christ had to die if men could "just repent"

Since there is no quote associated with this post, could you please identify to whom your post is addressed to? That would be very helpful.

 

[hedrick]

So, you meant to dissociate Christ's sacrifice from the OT sacrificial system? How then are we, who were under the law, brought out from under the law if not from He who was dead and buried under the law and rose on the third day?

Not entirely. The OT sacrificial system pointed to Christ. But the sacrifice of animals never actually atoned for sin. Ps 51 and the prophets make it clear that God never actually needed the sacrifice of animals. Heb 10 says quite explicitly that the sacrificial system did not take away sin. Thus I would assume that sacrifice was effectively a sacrament, a way of making visible and sealing someone's repentance.

Forgiveness is, and was for people in the OT testament, based upon Christ, of course, and thus the fact that the sacrament foreshadowed Christ is important, but that connection is something that mostly isn't visible in the original OT context.

The exegesis of Heb is interesting. People quote 9:22 as if it claimed that blood atones for sin. But too much of 9 and 10 is explicit that the OT sacrifices didn’t take away sin. In fact the context of 9:22 isn’t sin offering at all. It is covenant sacrifice. 9:15-22 speaks of Moses’ establishment of the covenant. 20 is specifically a covenant sacrifice. The argument at the beginning of 10 is that Christ redeems us by establishing the new covenant of Jer 31:31, quoted in 10:16-17. Read the argument of 10 carefully. It says that OT sacrifice can never remove sin. Christ perfects us through his sacrifice by sanctifying us, writing the new covenant in our hearts. His sacrifice is thus a covenant sacrifice. Clearly it takes away sin. But it takes away sin specifically by establishing the new covenant.

This matches Jesus’ own statement at the Last Supper, which speaks of his blood as blood of the new covenant.

 

[sdowney717]

Not entirely. The OT sacrificial system pointed to Christ. But the sacrifice of animals never actually atoned for sin. Ps 51 and the prophets make it clear that God never actually needed the sacrifice of animals. Heb 10 says quite explicitly that the sacrificial system did not take away sin. Thus I would assume that sacrifice was effectively a sacrament, a way of making visible and sealing someone's repentance.

Forgiveness is based upon Christ, of course, and thus the fact that the sacrament foreshadowed Christ is important, but that connection is something that mostly isn't visible in the original OT context.

The exegesis of Heb is interesting. People quote 9:22 as if it claimed that blood atones for sin. But too much of 9 and 10 is explicit that the OT sacrifices didn’t take away sin. In fact the context of 9:22 isn’t sin offering at all. It is covenant sacrifice. 9:15-22 speaks of Moses’ establishment of the covenant. 20 is specifically a covenant sacrifice. The argument at the beginning of 10 is that Christ redeems us by establishing the new covenant of Jer 31:31, quoted in 10:16-17. Read the argument of 10 carefully. It says that OT sacrifice can never remove sin. Christ perfects us through his sacrifice by sanctifying us, writing the new covenant in our hearts. His sacrifice is thus a covenant sacrifice. Clearly it takes away sin. But it takes away sin specifically by establishing the new covenant.

This matches Jesus’ own statement at the Last Supper, which speaks of his blood as blood of the new covenant.

Revelation 5:9
New King James Version (NKJV)
9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us[d] kings[e] and priests to our God;
And we[f] shall reign on the earth.”

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Shedding the blood of animals obtained a temporary forgiveness.
The blood of Jesus Christ is contrasted to that of an innocent unblemished animal as a perfect one time sacrifice for us.

 

[hedrick]

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Shedding the blood of animals obtained a temporary forgiveness.
The blood of Jesus Christ is contrasted to that of an innocent unblemished animal as a perfect one time sacrifice for us.

The problem is that Heb is quite explicitly against you. 10:4-6. The blood of animals never forgave anyone.

It certainly says that forgiveness is through Christ's blood, but it interprets this as a covenant sacrifice. 9:17 uses Paul's concept of covenant as a will, which takes effect only at the death of the testator. It seems to derive the discussion of the significance of blood in a covenant sacrifice (18-22) from that, since it bases a covenant on death. (The argument is actually a bit weird, since in Moses' covenant, it was animals that died, and they weren't the testator. But I'm not the author of Hebrews.)

Rev doesn't contradict any of this. It simply refers to Christ's blood, with no explanation of what it means.

I'm concerned that later ideas of penal satisfaction have blinded people to what Hebrews actually says. Try to put aside your preconceptions, and look at what the argument actually is.

 

[sdowney717]

The problem is that Heb is quite explicitly against you. 10:4-6. The blood of animals never forgave anyone.

It certainly says that forgiveness is through Christ's blood, but it interprets this as a covenant sacrifice. 9:17 uses Paul's concept of covenant as a will, which takes effect only at the death of the testator. It seems to derive the discussion of the significance of blood in a covenant sacrifice (18-22) from that, since it bases a covenant on death. (The argument is actually a bit weird, since in Moses' covenant, it was animals that died, and they weren't the testator. But I'm not the author of Hebrews.)

Rev doesn't contradict any of this. It simply refers to Christ's blood, with no explanation of what it means.

I'm concerned that later ideas of penal satisfaction have blinded people to what Hebrews actually says. Try to put aside your preconceptions, and look at what the argument actually is.

How then does this make sense?
Leviticus 17:11
New King James Version (NKJV)

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.’

 

[hedrick]

How then does this make sense?
Leviticus 17:11
New King James Version (NKJV)

If you read the whole OT, particularly the prophets, and interpret in the light of Hebrews, I think sacrifice atoned only in the sense that it acted as a sacrament of repentance, thus satisfying Ps 51:16. Note that after saying that God did not require sacrifice, Ps 51 goes on to speak of God as rejoicing in sacrifice in a future more ideal world. The implication seems to be that sacrifice is important only to the extent that it shows the "broken and contrite heart." Hence my explanation that sacrifice is in effect a sacrament, showing the seriousness of the repentance. But ultimately it's the contrite heart that matters, not the blood of bulls.

Hence the blood of animals didn't actually atone for anything, as per Heb 10:8, but they did make visible the sinner's repentance, on the basis of which God forgives. Lev 17:11's speaking of blood as atoning is a short-hand for that, if you want to avoid a contradiction with Heb 10:8.

 

[hedrick]

I have to say that I find it odd that most people seem not to have noticed the significance of covenant sacrifice. Both Jesus' own words and Hebrews understand Jesus' death as a covenant sacrifice. I don't exclude other ways of speaking of his death, but I'd prefer to give priority to Jesus' own explanation.

 

[sdowney717]

This verse tells us that to God this was extremely important, the blood sacrifice.
Exodus 30

10 And Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns once a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonement; once a year he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.”

Even the alter had to be toned for.
Leviticus 8:15

and Moses killed it. Then he took the blood, and put some on the horns of the altar all around with his finger, and purified the altar. And he poured the blood at the base of the altar, and consecrated it, to make atonement for it.

God passed over former sins in forbearing deference to the coming pouring out of the blood of His Christ. To me this includes the OT saints, God overlooked their sins by the animal sacrifices to show a pattern to them of the one to come who would take away their sins by His blood sacrifice.

Romans 3:25

whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

Romans 5:9

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

Seeing we are justified by His blood being shed, we shall all the more by saved from wrath because of what Jesus did and what Jesus does even today.

 

[sdowney717]

Jesus still offered His blood in Heb 10 passage.
verse 8 has to do with animal sacrifices, which were not a perfect offering for sin as they had to be done over and over again.
But with Jesus he suffered once, one sacrifice of His blood was sufficient for all the sins from beginning to end.

10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever

Christ’s Death Fulfills God’s Will

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”[a]
8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Christ’s Death Perfects the Sanctified

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

 

[sdowney717]

Please read this about the blood Jesus offers in Heb 9.

The Heavenly Sanctuary

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 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.

Greatness of Christ’s Sacrifice

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin,
for salvation.

 

[hedrick]

My point isn't the Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary. It is that the model for his sacrifice is not the OT sin offerings, but the OT covenant sacrifice. The passages you cite from Hebrews say that. Read them.

 

[ForceofTime]

Not entirely. The OT sacrificial system pointed to Christ. But the sacrifice of animals never actually atoned for sin. Ps 51 and the prophets make it clear that God never actually needed the sacrifice of animals. Heb 10 says quite explicitly that the sacrificial system did not take away sin. Thus I would assume that sacrifice was effectively a sacrament, a way of making visible and sealing someone's repentance.

Forgiveness is, and was for people in the OT testament, based upon Christ, of course, and thus the fact that the sacrament foreshadowed Christ is important, but that connection is something that mostly isn't visible in the original OT context.

The exegesis of Heb is interesting. People quote 9:22 as if it claimed that blood atones for sin. But too much of 9 and 10 is explicit that the OT sacrifices didn’t take away sin. In fact the context of 9:22 isn’t sin offering at all. It is covenant sacrifice. 9:15-22 speaks of Moses’ establishment of the covenant. 20 is specifically a covenant sacrifice. The argument at the beginning of 10 is that Christ redeems us by establishing the new covenant of Jer 31:31, quoted in 10:16-17. Read the argument of 10 carefully. It says that OT sacrifice can never remove sin. Christ perfects us through his sacrifice by sanctifying us, writing the new covenant in our hearts. His sacrifice is thus a covenant sacrifice. Clearly it takes away sin. But it takes away sin specifically by establishing the new covenant.

This matches Jesus’ own statement at the Last Supper, which speaks of his blood as blood of the new covenant.

To which I can only reply John 1:29 KJV The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

If you read the whole OT, particularly the prophets, and interpret in the light of Hebrews, I think sacrifice atoned only in the sense that it acted as a sacrament of repentance, thus satisfying Ps 51:16. Note that after saying that God did not require sacrifice, Ps 51 goes on to speak of God as rejoicing in sacrifice in a future more ideal world. The implication seems to be that sacrifice is important only to the extent that it shows the "broken and contrite heart." Hence my explanation that sacrifice is in effect a sacrament, showing the seriousness of the repentance. But ultimately it's the contrite heart that matters, not the blood of bulls.

Hence the blood of animals didn't actually atone for anything, as per Heb 10:8, but they did make visible the sinner's repentance, on the basis of which God forgives. Lev 17:11's speaking of blood as atoning is a short-hand for that, if you want to avoid a contradiction with Heb 10:8.

Felt like something just died in me when reading this. Sorry, it is not ultimately a contrite heart that matters.

But I do thank you once again for the discussion, Hedrick.

 

[hedrick]

Felt like something just died in me when reading this. Sorry, it is not ultimately a contrite heart that matters.
.

Tell that to the prophets, and to Jesus.

Jesus taught that following him came from changed hearts. That's what repentance is. The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector is only one of many where he speaks of forgiveness being based on repentance.

Jesus also understood that too many people weren't responding to his call to repent. He said that his death was God's attempt to change people's hearts for them: the new covenant writing the law into our hearts.

Paul says that in union with Christ, we die to our old selves and rise to new life. That's his way of speaking of Jesus' changing our hearts with his death. Hebrews speaks in terms closer to Jesus', of the new covenant.

Jesus is certainly spoken of as the lamb of God. There's no question that his death was for us. But its purpose was to change our hearts.

 

[cygnusx1]

My point isn't the Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary. It is that the model for his sacrifice is not the OT sin offerings, but the OT covenant sacrifice. The passages you cite from Hebrews say that. Read them.

So explain how you think Jesus death was necessary ?

It cannot be for deliberate sin because you have said repentance is all that is required ?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jesus taught that following him came from changed hearts. That's what repentance is. The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector is only one of many where he speaks of forgiveness being based on repentance.

Specifically, forgiveness is based on faith in Christ. So, one needs to define "repentance". Many today define it as "turning from sin", which is one way to look at it. But in that sense, it cannot lead to salvation, for no one is saved by turning from sins. The other meaning is "change of mind", which is absolutely necessary in order to understand that we are sinful, headed to the lake of fire and that Jesus Christ died for our sins and gives eternal life to those who believe. So, depending on the context, we need to be carefule what is being referred to by "repent".

Jesus also understood that too many people weren't responding to his call to repent. He said that his death was God's attempt to change people's hearts for them: the new covenant writing the law into our hearts.

Are there any verses that say that His death was God's attempt to change people's heart for them. I'm not aware of any.

Scripture teaches that Christ's death was for sin and the paying the penalty.

Paul says that in union with Christ, we die to our old selves and rise to new life. That's his way of speaking of Jesus' changing our hearts with his death. Hebrews speaks in terms closer to Jesus', of the new covenant.[/QUTOE]
The key here is "in union". That phrase describes those who have believed, per Eph 1:13. But, the issue of "dying to our old selves and rise to new life" isn't quite accurate. Paul does admonish his audience to "put off the old man", with it's lusts (Eph 4:22 - that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit), and "put on the new man" (Eph 4:24 - and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.). Both the "putting off" and the "putting on" are aorist middles. It is what believers are to do. This is not about what God does.

Jesus is certainly spoken of as the lamb of God. There's no question that his death was for us. But its purpose was to change our hearts.

I am interested in the verses that say this. His death was for our salvation.

 

[hedrick]

Jesus is certainly spoken of as the lamb of God. There's no question that his death was for us. But its purpose was to change our hearts.

I am interested in the verses that say this. His death was for our salvation.

Romans 6. This seems to be Paul's most specific explanation of the atonement. It says that Jesus' death and resurrection were to free us from sin and give us new life. This is a change in our basic allegiance, from being slaves of sin to being "obedient from the heart." It happens because we are united to Christ in baptism, and die and are raised with him. Read the beginning of Rom 6 for yourself.

See also Hebrews 9-10. The problem with the OT sacrifices is that they dealt only with ritual impurity (9:10). They didn't change us (9:9). But Christ's blood actually purifies us, changing our conscience (9:14), sanctifying us (10:10) and perfecting us (10:14); and writing the law into our hearts (10:16).

Similarly, at the last supper, Jesus said spoke of his blood as the blood of the new covenant. That makes his death a covenant sacrifice, to establish the new covenant writing the law into our hearts.

Both the "putting off" and the "putting on" are aorist middles. It is what believers are to do. This is not about what God does.

Quite the contrary. It is Christ's death and resurrection, which we experience through union with him, that frees us from the power of sin and creates new life. (Rom) It is Christ's blood of the new covenant that purifies us and writes the law into our hearts (Heb and the words of institution).

You're right that the passage from Ephesians describes the consequences in our lives, not the basis in Christ's death and resurrection.

Please remember again, that I have never said that we can repent without Christ, although the connection with Christ is more explicit for Christians in the NT than for Jews in the OT or others in Rom 2.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Romans 6. This seems to be Paul's most specific explanation of the atonement. It says that Jesus' death and resurrection were to free us from sin and give us new life.

Which is what salvation includes.

See also Hebrews 9-10. The problem with the OT sacrifices is that they dealt only with ritual impurity (9:10). They didn't change us (9:9). But Christ's blood actually purifies us, changing our conscience (9:14), sanctifying us (10:10) and perfecting us (10:14); and writing the law into our hearts (10:16).

Keep in mind that all this is true only of believers, not for all for whom Christ died.

Similarly, at the last supper, Jesus said spoke of his blood as the blood of the new covenant. That makes his death a covenant sacrifice, to establish the new covenant writing the law into our hearts.

Yes, referring to those who believe in Him. However, we know that Judas was present when Jesus instituted the Lord's Table.

Quite the contrary.

I have no idea why you think so. This is what I said:
Both the "putting off" and the "putting on" are aorist middles. It is what believers are to do. This is not about what God does.

There is no other way to understand the middle voice. It is what believers are supposed to do.

It is Christ's death and resurrection, which we experience through union with him, that frees us from the power of sin and creates new life. (Rom) It is Christ's blood of the new covenant that purifies us and writes the law into our hearts (Heb and the words of institution).

The fact of being "in union with Him" is related to our believing in Him first. Eph 1:13

 

[hedrick]

I have no idea why you think so. This is what I said:
Both the "putting off" and the "putting on" are aorist middles. It is what believers are to do. This is not about what God does.

There is no other way to understand the middle voice. It is what believers are supposed to do.

The problem is that you're looking at a text in Ephesians that speaks of the Christian life. I agree with you that it speaks of what we do. I was looking at other texts which talk about how Christ's death works.