SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Welcome & Intro : Hello everyone, I'm new

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )

Joined: 2011/1/29
Posts: 149


Hey Doug,

It seems that both of us are not budging an inch to the left or to the right in regard to this matter. THat being said I do feel a need to clarify some things that may have been misunderstood in my previous posts. Also I apologize if my previous post seemed to harsh. I want you to know that I did mean those things not a negative way so as to attack you but rather to correct from what I am convicted is true.

1. "The two goats both represent our Lord's sacrifice. They are both for the "sin offering", (see Leviticus 16:5.) Two goats were necessary, because one goat alone could not both die and be seen to "bear away" at the same time. The one goat was killed, the other bore the sins (i.e. the defilement of them) away."

I agree with this first point. The insufficiency for the animal sacrifices here point to CHrist whose sacrifice could accomplish both. However again I disagree on your interpretation of bore I think that He LITERALLY bore our sins away so that what the scapegoat was doing symbolically (since it could not being an imperfect animal) Christ did LITERALLY to fulfill this function.
Again the Israelites knew and understood the insufficiency of this and so this also pointed them to Christ!

“I do believe the Jesus bore our sins away. Your deep interpretation of all these texts leads to you believe it is necessary to think "bearing sins" means our Lord was actually sinful. Every robbery, every murder, every rape; you say our Holy Lord was a robber, and murderer, a ... You believe saying these things about Him brings Him glory.”

2. Sorry to clearify when I say that Christ became sin I do not mean that He became a sinner or else He would not be a perfect sacrifice. What I mean is that He took on the sins of the world and bore them literally in His body (flesh). In this way He became sin. This had to happen or else how could the Father justly pour out His wrath on the Son if He did not carry the sin of the world? (though I guess on this point we also disagree)

3. Regarding Isaiah 53. I agree that Christ was counted as a transgressor by people but more importantly in the eyes of the Father. Christ took the place of punishment we should’ve taken so in court when someone takes the place of a criminal he is seen as the criminal in the eyes of ALL the people and the judge! If this did not happen then the one substituted for would still be seen as the transgressor and not be free! There is an EXACHANGE His righteousness for our unrighteousness in order for this to happen it has to happen literally on BOTH sides of the exchange. But we know that the Father no longer sees us as criminals worthy of death but as righteous Children. Likewise for this to happen Christ had to be regarded as a criminal and transgressor (though He did not Himself sin)

4. As I said before If Jesus only bore the penalty as you say, we would be justified but we wouldn't have power over sin because sin would still be in us since it did not go to Him. Jesus had to bear our sin and defeat the sting of death (sin) so that we, having his own resurrection power, would be able to have victory over sin. Being forgiven of sins is not enough; we must have power over sin. If Jesus was only the perfect sacrifice and did not bear our sin, he would only be the justifier but not the sanctifier. But we know and testify as Christians that His blood justifies and sanctifies. There is power in it!

Dear Doug,

I would still exhort you to pray and seek out this matter and bring it before the Lord. I do see what you are saying but I believe that it is only half of what Christ did and is NOT complete and a half truth is no truth at all but a lie.

In Christ

 2011/11/22 11:27Profile

Joined: 2007/6/29
Posts: 342

 Re: EvangelTam

Dear EvangelTam,

I would say this has been a worthwhile discussion. And you have well-written again. I appreciate your view, and I respect you for holding to it.

Though I might think rather that I may have proven otherwise, but that is for the Reader, and especially the LORD, to judge.

In the end it seems however, that we Both believe Jesus bore our sin, we Both believe Jesus paid the penalty of it, we Both believe He makes us Holy. We just believe differently about how it was wrought.

I would say after reading your last post, that though you seem to think otherwise, you and I seem to agree more than we disagree... And that is well, and as it should be, for that is the blessed fruit of Brothers digging into the Scriptures together.

I understand you feel you are "contending for the faith"; I don't begrudge you that. You must of necessity therefore, give no quarter to my "lie", as you call it.

Know that I will continue to prayerful study the truth of God's Word. I trust the others of the Church who likewise believe as I have here tried to convey, have and will likewise continue to do so as well.

I ask merely that you prayerfully consider the doctrine you have received likewise. Our mother Church is still repairing the breach of a thousand years of darkness. The Reformation was just a start. While certainly a bright new beginning after a long miserable night of falsehood, it did not restore all.

I would counsel you to hear the testimony of the ancients as well; of the first few generations of the Church too. You may find that the apostles' disciples understood some of the Scriptures differently than the Reformers and our Reformation-influenced modern Church does today.

Finally, thank you for your time. Be well my friend,

 2011/11/22 15:47Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy