[naatmi]

Originally Posted by Krsto

No one deserves to be in his presence, even before sin, but obviously it is the nature of God to have fellowship with his creation, before and after sin. Adam & Eve had fellowship before and after sin, in fact, God took the initiative to rekindle the fellowship that was being lost due to A&E trying to hide from God.

Many teach sin caused a separation from a holy God who can not have fellowship with a sinner because that would be contrary to his holy nature, kind of like trying to mix oil and water. But the story of A&E shows otherwise.

God has determined in his wisdom that the wages of sin is death. It's his economy, he can do what he wants. To say death equates with eternal conscious suffering is a teaching with weak support in scriptures and is contrary to biblical teaching about destruction of the soul and the fact we are not born with immortal souls that have to go somewhere when we die.

The fact that death is the wages of sin does not mean that the death of a sinless man was the ONLY way for God to provide an alternative to his payment. He created the whole spiritual economy to begin with and he is in control. He can provide an alternative payment for sin any way he wants to. He's God.

Right and wrong does not come from God's will. God can not just make up what is right and wrong. Right and wrong are self-evident based on the nature of reality (God, people, etc). The knowledge of right and wrong originates in God's intelligence, not His will. "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" and "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things"

[IXOYE]

Originally Posted by naatmi

It is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to forgive sins. Those sacrifices were a foreshadowing of the atonement. If finite sacrifices could have atoned for our sin then the Lord could have had His prayer answered in the garden. He could have been replaced with a mountain of slaughtered bulls and goats. No way. Sin is worse than that. God's law is better than that.

God is justified for the forgiveness of sins past through the atonement, not through the animal sacrifices of the past.

So, GOD was a liar.

GOD said it would when the laws were given to them.

While it is true that the blood of bulls won't forgive sins.
It's also true that the blood of CHRIST won't forgive sins.

So, what are you going to do with that. I know all the vss you will post, don't waste your time looking them up. They avoid the point.

So let's address the point. Why did the goats and bulls blood forgive the sins of the jews? Because God told them it would. And Unless you think God doesn't keep His word, then he forgave them their sins.

Christ came, and provided one sacrifice for sins for all for all time, thus no longer needing the yearly sacrifices. If you read how Paul states this, he doesn't deny blood of bulls as being instrumental to the forgiveness of sins, he addresses that it was constantly having to be renewed. With Christ it didn't have to be renewed.

But CHRIST'S blood doesn't forgive sins. GOD'S promise that He would forgive sins is what forgives the sins.

Nobody's blood, even Christ's has power over God. If it did then God is not omnipotent.

And mr. N, this isn't an "in your face" post, even though it reads like that. I enjoy your thoughts and thank you for sharing them.

[IXOYE]

For the record, it appears that people don't like to address these posts of mine. Well Krusty did in PM to the most pertinent, but everyone else ran.

I'm really curious to see the argument for Christ's blood overpower God's hand and forces forgiveness.

I contend Christ forgives based on Grace, not blood, and that you get Grace through faith, not sacrifice, and that faith is merely trusting God to do what He said He'd do.

[naatmi]

Originally Posted by Krsto

Those who fear God also do not teach the doctrines of men as if they are the doctrines of God, hence my questions to you regarding what you believe.

Truth is truth, whether it came from the Bible or from nature. Logic is a part of nature, a divine attribute God shared with us. It is reliable enough that God will send men to hell for trampling on it and sinning in spite of it. It's not man vs God. It's God-given logic (the fire) vs fallible human Bible interpretation (a long nap).

I asked you about eternal suffering as a consequence for sin, and I think you agree that even one sin, no matter how trivial, as long as done by a responsible adult with his eyes open, leads to the same fate.

There are varying degrees of immeasurable punishment. Punishment can be immeasurable and vary in degree by lasting forever but differing in intensity based on the degree of knowledge the person sinned against (Jesus said more tolerable for some than others).

The question is, what fate? What would be just? You say a just God will condemn a person to eternal torment for a single sin and I say a just God would simply let the person live his life and then return to the dust with no gift of eternal life.

Yeah right. Eye for an eye. Not absolutely nothing have a nice nap for an eye.

Not only is your idea of justice contrary to all biblical teaching on the subject but the scriptures you quote support my doctrine, not yours.

"perish" = "tribulation and anguish"

When you say "Biblical teaching" it means "What I think the right way to interpret the Bible is". Unless you can back up your interpretation with some solid logic then it is no more reliable than papal infallibility.

The severity of the crime is equal to the value of the law. God's law is immeasurably valuable because it protects the well-being of God and the whole universe, intrinsic good, not contingent/relative value. The punishment must fit the crime. The severity of punishment must equal the value the law protects (immeasurable, but augmented by one's degree of knowledge).

[naatmi]

Originally Posted by IXOYE

So, GOD was a liar.

GOD said it would when the laws were given to them.

Of course God is not a liar. I wouldn't even think that. When people say stuff like that it comes across like they are not willing to learn anything or ever find out if they are wrong. There were symbolic laws. Sacrifices were symbolic. Many of the laws were symbolic. There was even a sacrifice required for postpartum bleeding. Totally symbolic.

While it is true that the blood of bulls won't forgive sins.
It's also true that the blood of CHRIST won't forgive sins.

So, what are you going to do with that. I know all the vss you will post, don't waste your time looking them up. They avoid the point.

You only made an assertion here. You didn't back it up. The Lord's atonement indeed justifies God offering pardon to people. The atonement didn't need to come before offering pardon, it just needed to happen eventually. God knew the best time. Apart from the atonement (happening eventually), pardon is not justifiable. Not loving, not wise, not righteous. God has free will and therefore He has moral obligation. Right and wrong do not come from His will. Obligation originates in the mind, being self-evident.

So let's address the point. Why did the goats and bulls blood forgive the sins of the jews? Because God told them it would. And Unless you think God doesn't keep His word, then he forgave them their sins.

I didn't say God never forgave sins before the atonement. Of course He did. The whole reason He provided the atonement was not make Himself forgiving, but to justify how forgiving He already was and is. It's not "the atonement so happened that God would love the world" but "God so loved the world that.."

Christ came, and provided one sacrifice for sins for all for all time, thus no longer needing the yearly sacrifices. If you read how Paul states this, he doesn't deny blood of bulls as being instrumental to the forgiveness of sins, he addresses that it was constantly having to be renewed. With Christ it didn't have to be renewed.

Forgiveness and pardon do not have to be renewed.

But CHRIST'S blood doesn't forgive sins. GOD'S promise that He would forgive sins is what forgives the sins.

Amen! Christ's atonement only figuratively forgives sins in the sense that it justifies God's forgiving treatment of all of us criminals. God is the one who forgives. Christ is the one who suffered to justify it. In that sense the atonement makes forgiveness possible even though forgiveness was already occurring.

Nobody's blood, even Christ's has power over God. If it did then God is not omnipotent.

I think I addressed this above. The atonement doesn't make God loving. God provided the atonement because He was already loving. God has an obligation to uphold the law for the well-being of His kingdom. Therefore He had to provide an atonement to justify Himself showing so much mercy in spite of the law.

[naatmi]

Originally Posted by IXOYE

For the record, it appears that people don't like to address these posts of mine. Well Krusty did in PM to the most pertinent, but everyone else ran.

I'm really curious to see the argument for Christ's blood overpower God's hand and forces forgiveness.

I contend Christ forgives based on Grace, not blood, and that you get Grace through faith, not sacrifice, and that faith is merely trusting God to do what He said He'd do.

blood and faith are the conditions of grace - God's love in the atonement plus our love in response (faith without love is legalism) allows God to accept us.

[IXOYE]

Originally Posted by naatmi

Truth is truth, whether it came from the Bible or from nature. Logic is a part of nature, a divine attribute God shared with us. It is reliable enough that God will send men to hell for trampling on it and sinning in spite of it. It's not man vs God. It's God-given logic (the fire) vs fallible human Bible interpretation (a long nap).

Logic is part of creation.

God is not part of creation but existed before.

To say God would always make Logical sense, as from the perspective of inside the Creation is problematic.

[IXOYE]

Originally Posted by naatmi

blood and faith are the conditions of grace - God's love in the atonement plus our love in response (faith without love is legalism) allows God to accept us.

So, you agree, the blood of Christ isn't what results in forgiveness of sins.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Krsto

No one deserves to be in his presence, even before sin..,

That's what I said.

...but obviously it is the nature of God to have fellowship with his creation, before and after sin. Adam & Eve had fellowship before and after sin, in fact, God took the initiative to rekindle the fellowship that was being lost due to A&E trying to hide from God.

You fail to point to a time when they were ever again in His presence after that. Fellowship and being in His actual presence are separate things. We all have fellowship with Him if we want, even in our mortal bodies.

Many teach sin caused a separation from a holy God who can not have fellowship with a sinner because that would be contrary to his holy nature, kind of like trying to mix oil and water. But the story of A&E shows otherwise.

It's not about fellowship. And the story of Adam and Eve is not the only story wherein God has fellowship with sinful man. The entire rest of the Bible is about God's relationship with sinful man.

God has determined in his wisdom that the wages of sin is death. It's his economy, he can do what he wants. To say death equates with eternal conscious suffering is a teaching with weak support in scriptures and is contrary to biblical teaching about destruction of the soul and the fact we are not born with immortal souls that have to go somewhere when we die.

If the wages of sin were physical death then those who received the gift of God through our Lord Jesus Christ; eternal life; would not suffer physical death. The death that is the wages of sin is death of the soul in separation from God for eternity.

Now, where does the Bible state that the soul is destroyed or that they are not immortal: annihilation?

The fact that death is the wages of sin does not mean that the death of a sinless man was the ONLY way for God to provide an alternative to his payment. He created the whole spiritual economy to begin with and he is in control. He can provide an alternative payment for sin any way he wants to. He's God.

The only way God could pay for all sin, for all time, was to suffer the wages of sin Himself. Any argument that such is not the case is steeped in foolishness and ignorance of His word.

[naatmi]

Originally Posted by IXOYE

Logic is part of creation.

God is not part of creation but existed before.

To say God would always make Logical sense, as from the perspective of inside the Creation is problematic.

God has a logical mind. God had reason/logic before He created. Logic is uncreated.

[naatmi]

Originally Posted by IXOYE

So, you agree, the blood of Christ isn't what results in forgiveness of sins.

Not literally. Figuratively.

[IXOYE]

Originally Posted by naatmi

Of course God is not a liar. I wouldn't even think that. When people say stuff like that it comes across like they are not willing to learn anything or ever find out if they are wrong. There were symbolic laws. Sacrifices were symbolic. Many of the laws were symbolic. There was even a sacrifice required for postpartum bleeding. Totally symbolic.

The first sentence was a bit of rhetorical hyperbole to get folks to stop and think.

When the law was handed down, the promise was, those sacrifices would forgive them of their sins. So, either they did or didn't, ya know?

I'll agree sacrifices were symbolic. And in the same Spirit, so was Christ on the cross symbolic. For the same reasons.

Originally Posted by naatmi

You only made an assertion here. You didn't back it up. The Lord's atonement indeed justifies God offering pardon to people. The atonement didn't need to come before offering pardon, it just needed to happen eventually. God knew the best time. Apart from the atonement (happening eventually), pardon is not justifiable. Not loving, not wise, not righteous. God has free will and therefore He has moral obligation. Right and wrong do not come from His will. Obligation originates in the mind, being self-evident.

What assertion did I make that I need to back up?

Your response here doesn't address the fact it's GOD'S promise that forgives sins. Not the blood of sacrifices. I don't want to "not reply" but I'm missing something.

The ONLY thing that forgives offenses against God, is God's will to forgive.

Originally Posted by naatmi

I didn't say God never forgave sins before the atonement. Of course He did. The whole reason He provided the atonement was not make Himself forgiving, but to justify how forgiving He already was and is. It's not "the atonement so happened that God would love the world" but "God so loved the world that.."

by, THE atonement, does that reference Christ, or one of the ritualistic acts to fulfill atonement? God forgave Adam, and Cain and that was before ANY atonement sacrifices. I'm just not sure what the time frame here for "atonement" as you use it means.

Originally Posted by naatmi

Forgiveness and pardon do not have to be renewed.

Christ didn't have to die to have either.

OT sacrifice had to be renewed, because GOD said so. Same reason that CHRIST'S atonement handles all sins, because GOD SAID SO.

You are forgiven your sins, BECAUSE GOD SAID SO, if you appeal for forgiveness.

Originally Posted by naatmi

Amen! Christ's atonement only figuratively forgives sins in the sense that it justifies God's forgiving treatment of all of us criminals. God is the one who forgives. Christ is the one who suffered to justify it. In that sense the atonement makes forgiveness possible even though forgiveness was already occurring.

Lookie there, we were so far off I thought, but we agree on the main point. Shhhh I have a reputation to keep.

Originally Posted by naatmi

I think I addressed this above. The atonement doesn't make God loving. God provided the atonement because He was already loving. God has an obligation to uphold the law for the well-being of His kingdom. Therefore He had to provide an atonement to justify Himself showing so much mercy in spite of the law.

What amazes me, is how your mindset and resulting words to describe things, set me into a defensive mode. But the gist of the important parts we agreed upon. Just not the semantics.

[IXOYE]

Originally Posted by naatmi

God has a logical mind. God had reason/logic before He created. Logic is uncreated.

Logic only is logical within the environment of observations.

It's logical to us if you hold a glass out, and release it, it will hit the floor.

In a place with no gravity, that is no longer logical.

God is in a place beyond where our tennets for logic are founded.

So, God may be logical to God, but His ways are beyond our kin.

[IXOYE]

Originally Posted by IXOYE
So, you agree, the blood of Christ isn't what results in forgiveness of sins.

Originally Posted by naatmi

Not literally. Figuratively.

Wait, is this right? The blood of Christ doesn't literally cause God to forgive us? Or did you mean it the other way.

Sigh, sorry, but with you and real thinking, clarity is important. And I'm apparently half drunk or something today.

[IXOYE]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

The only way God could pay for all sin, for all time, was to suffer the wages of sin Himself. Any argument that such is not the case is steeped in foolishness and ignorance of His word.

Oh hogwash.

Speaking of ignorance, you should put that word in NEON LETTERS over your head like a walking comic thought cloud.

God didn't have to pay for sin. He's the arbiter of Sin. He wouldn't pay Himself for our debt. it's preposterous.

God forgave sins, because He promised He would. Period. He's offered different ways through the years, and Christ is the culmination of those other ways.

Christ's death did NOT OVER POWER GOD and force forgiveness of a debt. The debt was forgiven because God said, X, Y, Z = freedom. So if when we meet the X, Y, Z we are freed from that debt.

It's God's promise. And God is God, no limitations. He could have forgiven that debt anytime, but He chose a time and a method to get that message to us.

What you are claiming makes God less than God. It's closer to muslim thinking of God, than Christian omnipotence of God.