Kevin
New member
Jerry,
I've agreed to this.
Agreed. I was mistaken.
Agreed. I was mistaken.
Agreed.
Disagree. Collectively, verses 1-7 is a prayer for the continuance of former mercies from the Lord (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary). Verses 1-3 shows the Psalmist reflecting upon those mercies. Verses 4-9 shows the plea to be restored (Israel), in light of the fact that they had been conquered.
Nowhere in there does it speak of the Lord giving authority to the OT priests to actually forgive sins. The Lord often told priests in the OT what needed to be done in order to have their sins forgiven - animal sin sacrifices. This does not ultimately forgive sins. When sins were "forgiven" in the OT, they were forgiven in the sense that the people had done what the Lord had told them to do get back in God's favor and mercies. Their sins were then covered.
But this does not mean that they were fully forgiven, because Heb. 9:15 clearly states that Christ died for the "redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant,...". If sins were fully forgiven, there wouldn't be any transgressions to redeem.
Again, these sins may have been forgiven to a certain degree where they were back in the mercies of God, but they weren't fully forgiven because Heb. 10:11 clearly states that "...every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifiecs, which can NEVER take away sins."
So the priest's sacrifice in Lev. 4:35 that you mentioned couldn't have possibly fully forgave sins according to Heb. 10:11.
Heb 10:11 speaks for itself... that the sacrifices of the priests of the OT could NEVER take away sins. And you acknowledge that "... the Lord could only do that because He knew that the penalty for these sins would be paid in the future at the Cross." There would be no penalty to pay if the sins were fully forgiven in the OT.
Agreed. But without the act of sacrifice and hence the blood, there faith would have been useless. If they hadn't obeyed the Lord's commands on what to do for forgiveness, do you think their faith would have saved them? True faith is a faith that includes obedience.
Agreed. But by you acknowledging that Abraham's sins would be placed upon the cross shows that they couldn't have been fully forgiven.
Again, agreed, but those sacrifes cannot fully take away sins, as Heb. 10:11 states. And again, your acknowledgment that those sins would be put upon the cross shows that they weren't fully forgiven, else there would be no need to put them on the cross.
I will agree with you that time certainly doesn't constrain the Lord, however, that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist in heaven.
The bottom line is that there was not FULL forgiveness of sins until the death of the cross. Hebews 9:15 shows that it's by "means of death" (of Christ) that the sins of the OT were forgiven. So up until that "time" (until He died), there was not total forgiveness of sins.
Your agruement that the Lord automatically forgave those sins by putting them on blood that hadn't been spilled yet is purely hypothetical. There's no scripture that supports this arguement.
There is scripture, however, which supports that "by means of death", Christ paid for the transgressions of the sins of the OT. So until that death occured, there couldn't have been total redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant. This indicates a period of time. This death is recorded at a certain place in time, and I argue that God didn't forgive the sins until that time, which is entirely possible.
"The Son of Man hath power on earth to FORGIVE sins..."(Mt.9:6).
I've agreed to this.
The word "forgive" is from a Greek word meaning "to send away"(#863).
Agreed. I was mistaken.
According to your definition of "remission",that word also means to "forgive".
So both "forgive" and "remit" can mean "to send away".
Agreed. I was mistaken.
And the Scriptures reveal in no uncertain terms that BEFORE the Cross the Lord was able to "forgive" the sins of His people,either by doing it Himself
Agreed.
or by giving the priests the authority to do it:
"Thou HAST FORGIVEN THEIR INIQUITY of Thy people;thou hast covered all their sin"(Ps.85:3).
Disagree. Collectively, verses 1-7 is a prayer for the continuance of former mercies from the Lord (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary). Verses 1-3 shows the Psalmist reflecting upon those mercies. Verses 4-9 shows the plea to be restored (Israel), in light of the fact that they had been conquered.
Nowhere in there does it speak of the Lord giving authority to the OT priests to actually forgive sins. The Lord often told priests in the OT what needed to be done in order to have their sins forgiven - animal sin sacrifices. This does not ultimately forgive sins. When sins were "forgiven" in the OT, they were forgiven in the sense that the people had done what the Lord had told them to do get back in God's favor and mercies. Their sins were then covered.
But this does not mean that they were fully forgiven, because Heb. 9:15 clearly states that Christ died for the "redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant,...". If sins were fully forgiven, there wouldn't be any transgressions to redeem.
Notice the tense--HAST FORGIVEN--meaning that it has already happened.And these words werewritten BEFORE the Cross.
No one´s sins can be "atoned" for unless their sins have been taken away.And we see that the priests had the authority to make "atonement" and to forgive sins:
"And the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed,and it shall be forgiven him"(Lev.4:35).
Again, these sins may have been forgiven to a certain degree where they were back in the mercies of God, but they weren't fully forgiven because Heb. 10:11 clearly states that "...every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifiecs, which can NEVER take away sins."
So the priest's sacrifice in Lev. 4:35 that you mentioned couldn't have possibly fully forgave sins according to Heb. 10:11.
You would have us belive that the priest did make atonement for the sin but the sin would not be forgiven until after the Cross.But "atonement" is impossible until the sin is forgiven.
Heb 10:11 speaks for itself... that the sacrifices of the priests of the OT could NEVER take away sins. And you acknowledge that "... the Lord could only do that because He knew that the penalty for these sins would be paid in the future at the Cross." There would be no penalty to pay if the sins were fully forgiven in the OT.
And it is not the "blood" of the sacrifice that makes atonement,but instead it is the "faith" of the one that brings the sacrifice.
Agreed. But without the act of sacrifice and hence the blood, there faith would have been useless. If they hadn't obeyed the Lord's commands on what to do for forgiveness, do you think their faith would have saved them? True faith is a faith that includes obedience.
The Lord took away his sin and declared him righteous,knowing all the while that he would be able to place Abraham´s sins upon the Cross.
Agreed. But by you acknowledging that Abraham's sins would be placed upon the cross shows that they couldn't have been fully forgiven.
Before the Cross the priest was able to forgive the sin of the sinner who brought a sacrifice in FAITH because God knew that in the future He could place those sins upon the Lord at the Cross.
Again, agreed, but those sacrifes cannot fully take away sins, as Heb. 10:11 states. And again, your acknowledgment that those sins would be put upon the cross shows that they weren't fully forgiven, else there would be no need to put them on the cross.
Again,as I said previously,"time" is a created thing.It is a law of our being,and in some instances we are constrained by "time".However,The Lord,Who lives in ETERNITY (where time does not exist),is not constrained by "time".He can act as if time doesn´t even exist.So he can take away sins that were committed before the Cross knowing that He will place those sins on the Lord at the Cross.
I will agree with you that time certainly doesn't constrain the Lord, however, that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist in heaven.
The bottom line is that there was not FULL forgiveness of sins until the death of the cross. Hebews 9:15 shows that it's by "means of death" (of Christ) that the sins of the OT were forgiven. So up until that "time" (until He died), there was not total forgiveness of sins.
Your agruement that the Lord automatically forgave those sins by putting them on blood that hadn't been spilled yet is purely hypothetical. There's no scripture that supports this arguement.
There is scripture, however, which supports that "by means of death", Christ paid for the transgressions of the sins of the OT. So until that death occured, there couldn't have been total redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant. This indicates a period of time. This death is recorded at a certain place in time, and I argue that God didn't forgive the sins until that time, which is entirely possible.