Posted on 10/20/2009 8:00:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
Quit playing games, TC.
The issue isn’t what I think. The issue is what scripture actually says.
And in saying that there is no more sacrifice for sins, that means that an attempted “sin atoning sacrifice”, which never existed, will also not exist in the future.
That is NOT the same as saying that sacrifices will not be made. (Perhaps by Jews in a rebuilt Temple.)
The actual language leaves open the possibility.
You mean like Jesus and the apostles did repeatedly throughout the NT? I’m a Christian, so your charge is a non issue.
Because I recognize the truth of some of Calvins work does not mean I am a Calvinist
My only point was that you seem to imply that becoming Baptist was somehow automatically linked to being non Reformed or non covenantal. I do not see that necessary linkage.
I'm not the one who will not deal with all those Hebrews passages, my FRiend. I don't even need to refer to Daniel 9, although it does confirm the NT view of the end of the OT sacrifices once for all time with the coming of the Lamb of God.
That is NOT the same as saying that sacrifices will not be made. (Perhaps by Jews in a rebuilt Temple.)
Did you get this from the Bible, or did someone make it up for you?
The actual language leaves open the possibility.
Rather than read you mind, I’ll ask, what actual language are you referring to?
Shall I assume you didn't recognize the Hebrews reference in post #61?
Will there ever in the future be blood-based sin offering for atonement sanctioned by God as it was understood in the old covenant system, e.g., where God says:
And you shall offer a bull every day as a sin offering for atonement. You shall cleanse the altar when you make atonement for it, and you shall anoint it to sanctify it. (Exo. 29:36)
You may cuz I didn't. Which translation were you using?
“no more sacrifice for sins”
My memory is usually KJV, since that’s what I learned in my early years. I’ve used the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV pretty extensively.
The above quote which you posted answers your question about the future.
The above quote which you posted answers your question about the future.
So I take that to mean there will be no blood sacrifices, whether true or pretend, in the future. Certainly, there is nothing in the Bible that positively states anything about blood sacrifices in the future.
No. It means there will be no sacrifices that atone for sin.
Amen. "All one in Christ Jesus."
Will there be blood sacrifices of any kind, according to the Bible?
I'm interested in your answer, but let's not forget from when we came.
You claimed that the author of the OP was misapplying Ryrie. That the “remnant” included both those Jews in the Church and those end-times Jewish converts after the rapture. I asked where Ryrie states in in those terms. I'm still waiting for that answer.
You tried to steer us away from that question by asking, “Do you suggest that any biblical Christian would suggest that "On this rock I will build my Church" did not include the Jewish Apostles themselves?” Clearly a red-herring since no one denies that the Church includes believing Jews.
Later you stated:
Obviously, covered elsewhere, TC. Can you honestly say with a straight face that you think Ryrie did not consider the Apostle John, a Jew, to be part of the Church?
But that was not the original claim by you that was an alleged misapplication of Ryrie. Again, you were attempting to dodge the issue by changing the subject.
So, let's try again. You stated:
The premise of this article misapplis Ryrie. Ryrie clearly believed in remnant Israel ALSO being within the Church.
Where exactly does Ryrie equate the “remnant of Israel” with both the Church and the post-rapture Jewish believers?
Regarding the matter of blood atonement for sin, how do you understand the passage from Exodus I quoted:
And you shall offer a bull every day as a sin offering for atonement. You shall cleanse the altar when you make atonement for it, and you shall anoint it to sanctify it. (Exo. 29:36)What would the bull being made “a sin offering for atonement” mean to a Jewish believer living in the days of Moses?
Wrong. The original statement from which the sacrifice discussion arose was over your adding to scripture that the temple would be destroyed and that sacrifices were then ended for “all time.” The discussion, if you recall, was about “all time.” I stated that was an addition to the scripture.
There never were, and never will be, any animal sacrifice that in and of itself atoned/atones for sin. The blood of an animal is not sufficient to atone for sin.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that someone someplace, even now at this moment, is not offering an animal sacrifice. Nor does it mean that, if the Jews were to rebuild a Temple, that they would not offer animal sacrifices. Nor would it preclude other reasons for reenactments of sacrifices that we’re not thinking of at the moment.
What it means is those sacrifices would not atone for even one itsy bitsy sin. Ever.
What it meant to a Jewish believer has nothing to do with what an animal sacrifice actually accomplished in regards to atoning for sin.
You are, by the way, discussing the Old Testament law.
Yes, they routinely threw out the entire OT background of God's work in human history through the nation of Israel and discarded the literal interpretation of the OT. Highlight and expansion is one thing ... replacement theology is another.
My only point was that you seem to imply that becoming Baptist was somehow automatically linked to being non Reformed or non covenantal. I do not see that necessary linkage.
The linkage may not be necessary, I conceed the point. But there is no Baptist church I have ever been in that even had a hint of Covenant theological perspective.
Dispensational and non-dispensational theology will always dialogue ... as our evangelism approach and our desire to live a pure life in anticipation of the imminent return of Christ are common positions. But there is unlikely to be common ground in escatological discussions because we approach the formation of systematic theology at different starting points.
My FRiend, I backed up all the way in the conversation. You have continually tried to deflect the issue. Your taking off on what I said about the end of the temple and OT sacrificial system was another twist in the road. Just be honest.
Are you saying they were deceived, or just incompetent when it came to the words spoken to them by God? Or are you saying that then God said “a sin offering for atonement” He meant something different, we are not to take it in a honest and normal fashion?
You are, by the way, discussing the Old Testament law.
Ding ding ding. Give that man a cigar.
So what?
All the blood sacrifices for atonement were part of the Old Testament law, from Exodus on through. Not sure what exactly that has to do with anything we are discussing.
Some folks believe that God has said that sometime in the future (probably real soon now) that animals will again be put to death as an atonement for sin according to OT law in a band spanking new temple in Jerusalem.
Is that what you believe the Bible teaches? That the OT system from the law will be put in place again?
Animal sacrifice never accomplished atonement for sin.
That's not how folks I know characterize it, but if caricatures work for you, that's quite OK.
replacement theology
I can see you are one of those scared by the boogeyman.
But there is no Baptist church I have ever been in that even had a hint of Covenant theological perspective.
Try it. You'll like it. Many of them even use confessions and creeds. They are not tossed about by every doctrine of man.
But there is unlikely to be common ground in escatological discussions because we approach the formation of systematic theology at different starting points.
Quite true. And as long as wacky claims are being made by futurists about what the Bible teaches, especially as it relates to current events, there will always be those of us around to call their bluff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.