The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[Kevin]

Jerry,

"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.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

You admit that "forgiven" means "to send away".

However,later you say that the sinswere not "fully forgiven".

How can the sins be only partially forgiven?The
sins are either "sent away" or they were not.There is nothing in between.

Please allow me to explain the "type" of the sacrifices on the day of atonement.

There were "two" sacrifices,and these sacrifices represent "two" different ways that the Lord deals with the sins of the believer.

The first goat is "killed",and this goat is "for the people"(Lev.16:15).This answers to the believer´s "righteousness".He is "righteous" because the Lord declares him to be righteous and not because he is in fact "righteous".The Lord is able to do this because the penalty of the "sin" has been paid by a substitute--the goat.

In regard to the second goat,the sins of the whole congregation is laid upon the head of that goat,and "the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited"(Lev.16:21-22).This "type" represents the believers "sanctification".This is what is meant by "the forgiveness of sins"--"to send away their sins".

Now God is sovereign and is not constrained as we are by "time".He can send away the sins from whomever He so desires whenever He so desires.He can do this because He knew that the penalty of these sins will be paid in the future at the Cross.

Do you not believe that the Lord actually forgave sins BEFORE the Cross?Do you not believe that these sins were fully forgiven,or taken away?Here are the Lord´s own words BEFORE the Cross:

"Her sins,which are many,are forgiven..."(Lk.7:47).

Her sins were fully forgiven,no doubt about it.And the Lord also gave the High Priest the authority to make atonement for the sins of the people.And in order to partake of the "atonement" it was necessary for the priest to forgive their sins.And they did just that,and they did it by the authority of the Lord.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

However,later you say that the sinswere not "fully forgiven".

How can the sins be only partially forgiven?The
sins are either "sent away" or they were not.There is nothing in between.

I've already shown why they can't be fully forgiven. Why did you not address the points? Here it is again:

"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 sacrifices, 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."

And I also said:

"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."

So basically, you need to reconcile that OT sacrifes were done to take away sins, YET, Hebrews CLEARLY says that OT sacrifices could NOT take away sins. If there was total forgivness, then Heb. 10:4,11 are lies.

And it doesn't make sense to put sins that are already supposedly forgiven by OT sacrifices on the cross so they can be paid for again. Why would Christ need to pay for sins that are already fully forgiven? If there was full forgiveness of sins under OT sacrifices, then there would be no need for Christ to come and die for our sins.

Answer these points, please.

The Lord is able to do this because the penalty of the "sin" has been paid by a substitute--the goat.

It couldn't have been paid for in full by the goat, "for it is NOT POSSIBLE that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.".

Now God is sovereign and is not constrained as we are by "time".He can send away the sins from whomever He so desires whenever He so desires.He can do this because He knew that the penalty of these sins will be paid in the future at the Cross.

The fact of the matter is that (here, I'll use your words): "these sins will be paid in the future at the Cross". UNTIL that happened, the sins could NOT have been paid for in full at the cross! None of your assertions will change this simple fact. If they are paid in the future at the cross, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the OT fully forgive sins, or else those sins would NOT have to be paid for at the cross. But they WERE paid for at the cross which means they were still THERE up until the cross. If they are still there, then they have not fully been paid for.

Do you not believe that the Lord actually forgave sins BEFORE the Cross?Do you not believe that these sins were fully forgiven,or taken away?Here are the Lord´s own words BEFORE the Cross:

"Her sins,which are many,are forgiven..."(Lk.7:47).

I've already agreed to this more than once. Jesus had the authority to do that. Only He, and the people that He directly gave authority, had the power to fully forgive sins, because Christ had that authority even before the cross. The priests of the OT were NOT given this authority. Just because the Lord told them what they needed to do because of their sins (animal sin sacrifices), is does NOT mean that the preists had authority to forgive sins.

And the Lord also gave the High Priest the authority to make atonement for the sins of the people.

Show me where he gave the OT priests authority overs sin. The preists were commanded of what they needed to do in order to have their sins forgiven, which involves animal sacifeces. And if you would take into consideration, and address, the Hebrew verses and points that I made above, you would realize that those sacrifices could NOT fully take away the sins of man.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Sins under the old testament were fully forgiven but the law still remained and it was possible to sin again. The death of Christ removed the law therefore it took away sin and granted eternal life.

Sin is transgression of the law!

In Christ
Craig

 

[Kevin]

Hope,

Sins under the old testament were fully forgiven

No, they weren't. I invite you to answer the points and questions that I've shown as to why sins could not be fully forgiven in the OT.

but the law still remained and it was possible to sin again.

Well of course it was possible to sin again. It's still just as possible today.

The death of Christ removed the law therefore it took away sin and granted eternal life.

Yes, He grants eternal life to those who are obedient to Him (Heb. 5:9). But if you are trying to imply that we as Christians literally cannot sin, you are mistaken. There are definately examples in the NT that show that Christians can sin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

I can see that you put a lot of faith in what your denomination teaches,but very little in what Scripture says.You repeatedly deny the plain word of Scripture in order that you can keep your beliefs that you derived from your denomination.

For example,the words of Scripture could not be any plainer that the sins of the children of Israel were taken away and placed on the scape-goat (Lev.16:21,22),but you just cannot believe it.

We also see that Scripture plainly states that BEFORE the Cross God "hath forgiven the iniquity of Thy people"(Ps.85:2),but you cannot believe it even though it is there in black and white.

The sinner is saved when he BELIEVES GOD,not when he believes the teaching of his particular denomination.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

I can see that you put a lot of faith in what your denomination teaches,but very little in what Scripture says.

First of all, the church of Christ is not a denomination. Secondly, I put my faith into what the whole Bible says, not just the ones that fit my beliefs. If you want to cling to what the OT says while IGNORING the points of the book of Hebrews, then that's on you.

I raised valid arguments and questions, and your latest response shows that you have this problem dealing with what the whole Bible says.

You just keep pretending that:

• OT sacrifices fully forgave sins, despite the fact that Hebrews says that they didn't forgive sins.
• Christ had to pay for sins that were already supposedly fully forgiven. That makes no sense. And you never did explain why Christ had to come and die if there was already total forgiveness of sins. I wonder why.

Those are perfectly valid, biblically backed, arguements that you can't seem to answer. Definite signs of a weak arguement.

For example,the words of Scripture could not be any plainer that the sins of the children of Israel were taken away and placed on the scape-goat (Lev.16:21,22),but you just cannot believe it.

No, I do beleive they were taken away. But I also know that they had to perform a sin offering (animal sacrifice) affter doing that with the blood of bulls and goats, which can NEVER forgive sins (Heb. 10:4). If their sins were fully forgiven when they placed the sins on the scapegoat, then there would be no need for a sin offering. But there was a need, and that offering CANNOT forgive sins according to the Bible. "But you just cannot believe it."

The sinner is saved when he BELIEVES GOD,not when he believes the teaching of his particular denomination.

So when are you going to start believing what the book of Hebrews says?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

According to you,it is impossible for anyone´s sins to be forgiven before the Cross.

Well,did the Lord forgive the sins of the woman at Luke 7:47?

"Wherefore,I say unto thee,Her sins,which are many,are forgiven..."

Were her sins forgiven or not?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

According to you,it is impossible for anyone´s sins to be forgiven before the Cross.

Well,did the Lord forgive the sins of the woman at Luke 7:47?

"Wherefore,I say unto thee,Her sins,which are many,are forgiven..."

Were her sins forgiven or not?

I have answered this ALREADY! Do you read my posts??!! Can we stop going around in circles? I have said: "I've already agreed to this more than once. Jesus had the authority to do that. Only He, and the people that He directly gave authority, had the power to fully forgive sins, because Christ had that authority even before the cross."

Are you going answer answer my points and questions, or are you again going to ask me questions that I've already answered?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

If the Lord could forgive sins,why did He have to die on the Cross?

And if the Lord could forgive sins,why couldn´t He give others,like the High Priest,the authority to forgive sins?

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you,TO CLEANSE YOU,that ye may be CLEAN FROM ALL YOUR SINS before the Lord"(Lev.16:30).

"And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you,to make an atonement for the children of Israel FOR ALL THEIR SINS once a year"(Lev.16:34).

Once the High Priest made atonement for the children of Israel they were CLEAN FROM ALL THEIR SINS.

So obviously their sins have been sent away from them.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

If the Lord could forgive sins,why did He have to die on the Cross?

That's an easy one. Think about it. The Lord Jesus came and died so that ALL sins of ALL man could be forgiven. Up until the cross, the only way to have one's sins forgiven were those who were directly forgiven by Christ, or one that was given that authority by Christ. What about everybody else, Jerry? So is all mankind supposed to geograpchically find Christ and ask Him to forgive their sins? Is Christ going to walk around on earth forever and ever forgiving sins? NO! That was not God's plan at all.

God's plan was to have Christ die on the cross, and thus a new covenant began, that by the shedding of His blood, all people would have forgiveness of sins who obeyed the gospel.

And if the Lord could forgive sins,why couldn´t He give others,like the High Priest,the authority to forgive sins?

You won't find one instance in the OT where the Lord gave priests authority over sins. In the OT, when people sinned, the Lord told the priests what to do for atonement, but this is NOT giving them authority to forgive sins. What was it that the Lord told the priest to do, Jerry? Did it not involve the sacrifices of bulls and goats? Yes. Does this forgive sins? NOT according to Hebrews it doesn't.

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you,TO CLEANSE YOU,that ye may be CLEAN FROM ALL YOUR SINS before the Lord"(Lev.16:30).

And HOW do they make atonement, Jerry??? By sacrificing animals. How long will you ignore that Hebrews says that it won't take away our sins? How long?

"And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you,to make an atonement for the children of Israel FOR ALL THEIR SINS once a year"(Lev.16:34).

Yup, now let's see what Hebrews says about that atonement that is made "once a year":

Hebrews 10:3,4,11
3) But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.
4) For it is NOT possible for the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
11) And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, WHICH CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS.

In Lev., it speaks of how atonement will be make once per year. In Hebrews, it CLEARLY says that in this atonement that there is a reminder of sins EVERY YEAR, for it is NOT possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins! Verse 11 merely drives this point home, that these sacrifeces CANNOT take away sins. Clearly, the yearly atonement cannot fully forgive sins. If they were fully forgiven, why would they be reminded of those sins? Explain to me how this atonement, which uses animal sacrifices, and fully take away sins when Hebrews clearly says that it can't. You either believe what Hebrews says, or you don't. Simple.

Ok, Jerry, I grow tired of constantly answering your questions only to have you dodge my points and questions. It's time for you to address them. Will you address them? If you won't then there is no point debating you, and of course it only would amplify the weakness of your arguement. Well, what say you?

 

[c.moore]

Hello Jerry Shugart


I gave up going around dumm mountains, and I can`t help people Who don`t want to help themselves, so I wish you patience with Kevin , and many decieved christians , as long as you can , show them your love, and the love of God in you which is God who is love.
I will be standing back reading , and learning from your good posts

God bless you

 

[Freak]

Kevin,

Are you ready to discuss the issues at hand?

Or will you continue you in deflection...

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

Are you ready to discuss the issues at hand?

LOL! Look in the mirror and ask yourself the same exact question.

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Speaking of "decieved Christians" are you so decieved that you do not seem to know that God frowns upon people who spread lies? Or maybe you don't care? You have the nerve to spread lies about my beliefs, pretend like it hasn't happened (you haven't even acknowledged it), and then come in here and spew out your "dumb mountain" comment when it is you who created the mountain in the first place. I'm surprised you have the nerve to show your face. :down:

Pathetic.

 

[c.moore]

hello Freak , your thread is still going strong , and demons are manifesting more , and more here, it time for you to go to work on them.


God bless you freak
ps, say hello to your wife , we are waiting for you to come back to germany again praise God.

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Kevin
c.moore,

Speaking of "decieved Christians" are you so decieved that you do not seem to know that God frowns upon people who spread lies? Or maybe you don't care? You have the nerve to spread lies about my beliefs, pretend like it hasn't happened (you haven't even acknowledged it), and then come in here and spew out your "dumb mountain" comment when it is you who created the mountain in the first place. I'm surprised you have the nerve to show your face. :down:

Pathetic.

If you thinks so , I don`t :nono:

 

[Freak]

Praise Jesus!

Thank God for C. Moore, he has constantly battled these heretics on this forum for nearly a year....We are lookign forward to seeing you in Germany my dear brother in Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

You asked how a man´s sins could be forgiven by the blood of bulls and goats since Scripture states that the blood of bills and goats cannot take away sins.

Well,in the same way that a pauper can go from being broke to being rich just by having some pieces of paper.Suppose the pauper´s uncle died and left him all the cash that was in his safety deposit box (this would be during the time when the Dollar was still backed by either gold or silver).In the box was $1,000,000.00.

In actuality the Dollars are not woth the paper they are printed on.Their intrinsic value is practically nothing.

But because they REPRESENT the gold and silver stored in the U.S.Mint,they are very valuable.

It is the same with the “blood” of the bulls and goats.In actuality that blood cannot take away the sins of anyone.But because it represents the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ,it became very valuable and the way that the Israelite could remain “clean” before God.

When the Israelite confess his sin by bringing the required sacrifice,the Lord was able to “justify” him and to “cleanse” him from his sin,because He knew that in the future He could place those sins upon Christ at Calvary.

Scripture reveals that God treats all men the same when it comes to salvation(He is no respecter of persons),whether he lived before the Cross or after the Cross.Before the Cross the Lord could justify the sinner “by blood”(Ro.5:9) just as he does now.Today He justifies the siiner by blood by identifying that sinner with the death of Christ that was in the past.If He can deal that way with things in the past,why couldn´t He be able to do the same thing in regard to the things that will happen in the future?

So the Lord gave the priest the authority to make “atonement” for the sins of His people who were under the Mosaic Covenant.And the High Priest did in fact perform his priestly duties and the sins were taken from the people.

Now did the sins really pass from the people to the scape-goat when the priest laid his hands on the goat.Of course not.Sins are not of a material substance..So what was going on?

Well,the death of the Lord Jesus Christ has many applications in regard to the believer.So by these actions the Lord was given us “types” of the many applications that the death of Christ has in relationship with the sinner.These “types” help us to understand all the blessins we receive through the death of the Lord Jesus.And the sin-offering was but one of the many different “types” that represent the many different applications of His death in regard to the believer.

As I said before,the Lord saves all men in the same fashion.All men are “justified by blood”(Ro.5:9).Man has fallen under the sentence of death.No amount of law keeping will help him after he has received the sentence of death.If he is to be saved,it is by the penalty being paid.He must be justified by death,justifed by blood.

The sinner cannot please God.Even if the penalty is paid by someone else,no blessing can ever reach him unless it comes to him in spite of what he is,and not because of any good thing in him.He must be justified on some ground that is independent of self.He must be “justified by grace”(Ro.3:24).

Grace implies that there is no merit in him that receives it—there is no reason why he should be blessed.But that begs the question—how can one man be justified and another not,especially considering the fact that it does not depend on merit?It is because one rejects a righteousness which is independent of the sinner,and the other one accepts.How does one reject,and how does one accept?Well,he accepts by believing the gospel,and he rejects by disbelieving.—“Unto all and upon ALL THAT BELIEVE”.”It is by faith that it may be of grace”—any other ground would be inconsistent with grace.A sinner is “justified by faith”(Ro.5:1).

Anyway,sorry that this post was so long.But please consider the words in regard to the blood of the bulls and goats REPRESENTING the precious blood of our Lord and Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

If you thinks so

Correction, I know so. Your own words condemn you:

"So the hang up I have is your backward teaching , that first water baptism and then you believe and get saved and last get filled with the Spirit.
You keep putting the cart before the horses, and that can`t work."

You are plain saying that I teach that baptism comes before belief, and I have NEVER taught that, and I backed it up with reference after reference of me saying that it takes both belief and baptism, just as Jesus said. I have NEVER put baptism before belief. You are basically saying that I would teach people to get baptized into somehting before they believe in what they are getting baptized into. How rediculous. You just pulled that out of thin air. I have never even hinted that one should be baptized before belief. Never.

You are spreading lies about what I teach, even though I tried to tell you that I've often quoted Mark 16:16 for what it says: belief and baptism. And in light of the evidence that I've shown that proves what I believe, you haven't said jack squat.

Deny all you want, but you are spreading lies about my beliefs. Pathetic and uncool. :down: