You ran from evidence once againAnd I explained, thank you.
Guilt offering and the missing imputation
Then you cannot impute sin upon him for to reckon is a meaning of imputation Who says?
forums.carm.org
You ran from evidence once againAnd I explained, thank you.
I explained, thank you. Run alongYou ran from evidence once again
Guilt offering and the missing imputation
Then you cannot impute sin upon him for to reckon is a meaning of imputation Who says?forums.carm.org
You ranI explained, thank you. Run along
Nope. I explained and blew your stupid postion out of the eater as usual. Now go play somewhere else. Your embarrassing yourself.You ran
as you always do
Guilt offering and the missing imputation
Then you cannot impute sin upon him for to reckon is a meaning of imputation Who says?forums.carm.org
right after you put your foot in your mouth
NopeNope. I explained and blew your stupid postion out of the eater as usual. Now go play somewhere else. Your embarrassing yourself.
No contradiction as I explained. Another failed gotcha. From here on out I will be happy to discuss this with civic. Your a waste of time and a parrot. Nice talk and remember, In all things give thanks.Nope
you put your foot in your mouth affirming a definition that contradicts you
evidence was presented showing imputation of sin is an imputation of guilt
Yes contradictionNo contradiction as I explained. Another failed gotcha. From here on out I will be happy to discuss this with civic. Your a waste of time and a parrot. Nice talk and remember, In all things give thanks.
Guilt as you put it absolutely. You imply because our guilt is imputed to Christ He is actually guilty. Not so as was explained. Come up with something different here or I am done here. There are actually productive conversations to have here. Unfortunately your not one of them. Remember, in all things give thanks.Yes contradiction
Imputation involves guilt
you denied guilt
you err
No I stated he was imputed guilty by GodGuilt as you put it absolutely. You imply because our guilt is imputed to Christ He is actually guilty. Not so as was explained. Come up with something different here or I am done here. There are actually productive conversations to have here. Unfortunately your not one of them. Remember, in all things give thanks.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m just stumbling upon this.You have missed the point entirely
Atonement does not require wrath or retributive punishment
Welcome to CARM!Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m just stumbling upon this.
The trouble with the original post and this particular comment is it is reductionistic. The various offerings outlined in the book of Leviticus differ according to their function. If you want to understand the wrath bearing sacrifice of the atonement, then this is not the place to look. There we have a clear view of the transference of guilt from the party who has sin to the head of the animal which shall bear that guilt away, both in the burnt offering and in the scapegoat. However, the offerings in the text quoted above are part of a larger corpus of laws regarding burnt offerings, guilt offerings, sin offerings, free will offering, peace offerings, food offerings, etc. Each has their own rules according to their purpose. And the ultimate purpose of each is to prefigure something of what Christ is for us as mediator, reconciler, sin bearer, purifier, healer, redeemer, substitute, bread of life, etc. No one of these sacrifices is intended nor should be understood to perfectly prefigure Christ and the redemption that is in his blood. Rather each is but a fragment of the lens through which we look forward to the coming of “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
Excellent!!Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m just stumbling upon this.
The trouble with the original post and this particular comment is it is reductionistic. The various offerings outlined in the book of Leviticus differ according to their function. If you want to understand the wrath bearing sacrifice of the atonement, then this is not the place to look. There we have a clear view of the transference of guilt from the party who has sin to the head of the animal which shall bear that guilt away, both in the burnt offering and in the scapegoat.
However, the offerings in the text quoted above are part of a larger corpus of laws regarding burnt offerings, guilt offerings, sin offerings, free will offering, peace offerings, food offerings, etc. Each has their own rules according to their purpose. And the ultimate purpose of each is to prefigure something of what Christ is for us as mediator, reconciler, sin bearer, purifier, healer, redeemer, substitute, bread of life, etc. No one of these sacrifices is intended nor should be understood to perfectly prefigure Christ and the redemption that is in his blood. Rather each is but a fragment of the lens through which we look forward to the coming of “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
It is a good observation you’ve made regarding the difference between this and other sacrifices. You are correct, hands were not laid on the animal nor since confessed over it as in other offerings. That certainly is an observation worthy of our notice. Perhaps then the better question would be to ask, “what is the function of this particular sacrifice/transaction as it prefigures something of Christ?“ I think you’ll find the term “compensation” to be helpful here. The sacrifice in the text you’ve quoted is not a sacrifice of atonement, but one of compensation. I’ll leave that for you to meditate on.
But again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice prefigures it allBut again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice can be said to perfectly prefigure Christ! How wonderful then is our Lord and his work of redemption!? Truly his is a glory that surpasses the glory of the law! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).
I suggest you keep this in Mind when speaking with the Posters here. The Scriptures are often wrongly divided from applying to one another...Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m just stumbling upon this.
The trouble with the original post and this particular comment is it is reductionistic. The various offerings outlined in the book of Leviticus differ according to their function. If you want to understand the wrath bearing sacrifice of the atonement, then this is not the place to look. There we have a clear view of the transference of guilt from the party who has sin to the head of the animal which shall bear that guilt away, both in the burnt offering and in the scapegoat.
However, the offerings in the text quoted above are part of a larger corpus of laws regarding burnt offerings, guilt offerings, sin offerings, free will offering, peace offerings, food offerings, etc. Each has their own rules according to their purpose. And the ultimate purpose of each is to prefigure something of what Christ is for us as mediator, reconciler, sin bearer, purifier, healer, redeemer, substitute, bread of life, etc. No one of these sacrifices is intended nor should be understood to perfectly prefigure Christ and the redemption that is in his blood. Rather each is but a fragment of the lens through which we look forward to the coming of “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
It is a good observation you’ve made regarding the difference between this and other sacrifices. You are correct, hands were not laid on the animal nor since confessed over it as in other offerings. That certainly is an observation worthy of our notice. Perhaps then the better question would be to ask, “what is the function of this particular sacrifice/transaction as it prefigures something of Christ?“ I think you’ll find the term “compensation” to be helpful here. The sacrifice in the text you’ve quoted is not a sacrifice of atonement, but one of compensation. I’ll leave that for you to meditate on.
But again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice prefigures it allBut again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice can be said to perfectly prefigure Christ! How wonderful then is our Lord and his work of redemption!? Truly his is a glory that surpasses the glory of the law! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).
Good insight matt and Welcome ! Also take a look at the other thread on Psalm 22 and I would like your thoughts on it as well. Start here as I have revised it as my studies have progressed. In fact I'm still in that process of revision with my studies. There are 4 consecutive posts which are now more thorough and exhaustive then with the original OP.Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m just stumbling upon this.
The trouble with the original post and this particular comment is it is reductionistic. The various offerings outlined in the book of Leviticus differ according to their function. If you want to understand the wrath bearing sacrifice of the atonement, then this is not the place to look. There we have a clear view of the transference of guilt from the party who has sin to the head of the animal which shall bear that guilt away, both in the burnt offering and in the scapegoat.
However, the offerings in the text quoted above are part of a larger corpus of laws regarding burnt offerings, guilt offerings, sin offerings, free will offering, peace offerings, food offerings, etc. Each has their own rules according to their purpose. And the ultimate purpose of each is to prefigure something of what Christ is for us as mediator, reconciler, sin bearer, purifier, healer, redeemer, substitute, bread of life, etc. No one of these sacrifices is intended nor should be understood to perfectly prefigure Christ and the redemption that is in his blood. Rather each is but a fragment of the lens through which we look forward to the coming of “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
It is a good observation you’ve made regarding the difference between this and other sacrifices. You are correct, hands were not laid on the animal nor since confessed over it as in other offerings. That certainly is an observation worthy of our notice. Perhaps then the better question would be to ask, “what is the function of this particular sacrifice/transaction as it prefigures something of Christ?“ I think you’ll find the term “compensation” to be helpful here. The sacrifice in the text you’ve quoted is not a sacrifice of atonement, but one of compensation. I’ll leave that for you to meditate on.
But again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice prefigures it allBut again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice can be said to perfectly prefigure Christ! How wonderful then is our Lord and his work of redemption!? Truly his is a glory that surpasses the glory of the law! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).
No problemSorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m just stumbling upon this.
The trouble with the original post and this particular comment is it is reductionistic. The various offerings outlined in the book of Leviticus differ according to their function. If you want to understand the wrath bearing sacrifice of the atonement, then this is not the place to look. There we have a clear view of the transference of guilt from the party who has sin to the head of the animal which shall bear that guilt away, both in the burnt offering and in the scapegoat.
However, the offerings in the text quoted above are part of a larger corpus of laws regarding burnt offerings, guilt offerings, sin offerings, free will offering, peace offerings, food offerings, etc. Each has their own rules according to their purpose. And the ultimate purpose of each is to prefigure something of what Christ is for us as mediator, reconciler, sin bearer, purifier, healer, redeemer, substitute, bread of life, etc. No one of these sacrifices is intended nor should be understood to perfectly prefigure Christ and the redemption that is in his blood. Rather each is but a fragment of the lens through which we look forward to the coming of “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
It is a good observation you’ve made regarding the difference between this and other sacrifices. You are correct, hands were not laid on the animal nor since confessed over it as in other offerings. That certainly is an observation worthy of our notice. Perhaps then the better question would be to ask, “what is the function of this particular sacrifice/transaction as it prefigures something of Christ?“ I think you’ll find the term “compensation” to be helpful here. The sacrifice in the text you’ve quoted is not a sacrifice of atonement, but one of compensation. I’ll leave that for you to meditate on.
But again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice prefigures it allBut again, to rehearse the greater point: each of the offerings and sacrifices laid out in the ceremonial system of the law is intended to refigure something of Christ. No one sacrifice can be said to perfectly prefigure Christ! How wonderful then is our Lord and his work of redemption!? Truly his is a glory that surpasses the glory of the law! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).
I have yet to see anyone who disagrees with the passage you just quotedHebrews says it was impossible for the blood of goats to forgive sins (implying the obvious connection).
It doesn't just then add a period and leave no cause or mechanism connected to forgiveness.
It says forgiveness requires a sacrifice much better than these.
According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. So it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
"Forgivness", however isn't too important. And in the OLD TESTAMENT the offerings were nothing more that a TEMPORARY COVERING for SIN which remained on the people.Lev. 5:13–6:7 —ESV
“Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven. And the remainder shall be for the priest, as in the grain offering.”
¶ The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
“If anyone commits a breach of faith and sins unintentionally in any of the holy things of the LORD, he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation, a ram without blemish out of the flock, valued in silver shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering.
He shall also make restitution for what he has done amiss in the holy thing and shall add a fifth to it and give it to the priest. And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven.
¶ “If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the LORD’S commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity.
He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him for the mistake that he made unintentionally, and he shall be forgiven.
It is a guilt offering; he has indeed incurred guilt before the LORD.”
¶ The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
“If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the LORD by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor
or has found something lost and lied about it, swearing falsely—in any of all the things that people do and sin thereby—
if he has sinned and has realized his guilt and will restore what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit that was committed to him or the lost thing that he found
or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt.
And he shall bring to the priest as his compensation to the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering.
And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty.””
It should be noted there is no laying on of hands and no confession of sin over the sacrifice
Yet atonement is made, and forgiveness procured.
Can't be cleansed of sin which remains unforgiven"Forgivness", however isn't too important. And in the OLD TESTAMENT the offerings were nothing more that a TEMPORARY COVERING for SIN which remained on the people.
The NEW Testament isn't about "Forgiveness" primarily, but CLEANSING FROM SIN.
Everything in the OLD Testament is only a Shadow of the REALITY in the New Testament which starts after the crucifixion.
When you're CLEANSED of SIN, then there is no SIN to be forgiven any longer. Forgiveness means nothing more that "Tearing up the I.O.U."Can't be cleansed of sin which remains unforgiven