Rimi said:
If God's love alone was enough, then Jesus would not have had to die. I can't understand why you don't get this simple point.
It may be a simple point, brother; but it is simply a faulty point. Jesus had to die, and his blood had to be placed upon the mercy seat to fulfill the law.
Under the curse of the law, there is no forgiveness without blood.
WE are under GRACE, not under the law. The significance of Jesus' blood under grace is not identical to its significance under the law. The author of Hebrews puts it this way...
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
From that we can see the purpose of the blood is 1) "for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the first testament, and 2) that "they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" under the new testament.
The redemption of the transgressions under the law had to be accomplished to fulfill the law, and to fulfill the new covenant.
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
How can the promise that "all nations be blessed" be fulfilled under the curse of the law. If the world is under a curse, it surely cannot be under a blessing?
Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
So he redeemed us from the curse of the law, and did that with his blood of atonement. And with "one offering he perfected for ever them that are sanctified." That's why he had to die.
You and I were not born under the law, Rimi. The New Testament was written by men that had lived under both covenants with God, and so their writing reflects that. I was not born under a curse, but grace. I was never under the law, because that covenant was finished on the cross, and that was approximately 2000 years ago.
Rimi said:
As for those Jesus forgave, it was possible that He did so because he could see repentence in the person before Him. Take the two thieves: one ridiculed Him, one asked Him to remember Him. Were they bother forgiven? If so, why didn't Jesus address Himself to the ridiculing thief as well?
Why does it matter which one was forgiven? The paradox is that he is forgiving anyone before his blood has been spilled upon the mercy seat. That is a paradox, if there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. That doesn't make you stop and think? :think:
Rimi said:
A person repents from unbelief and a life of filth and sin before a Holy God. Do you understand that?
A person repents from unbelief, period. Your carnal mind has never been subject to God's law, and it never can be. The only thing that covers your present filth is the righteousness of God. Believe it.
Peace
###