Guilt offering and the missing imputation

Reformedguy said:
Nope. I explained and blew your stupid postion out of the eater as usual. Now go play somewhere else. Your embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...
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
 
fltom said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reformedguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes contradiction

Imputation involves guilt

you denied guilt

you err
 
fltom said:
Yes contradiction

Imputation involves guilt

you denied guilt

you err
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reformedguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
No I stated he was imputed guilty by God

That is God reckoned him guilty which you denied

but now you contradict yourself
 
fltom said:
You have missed the point entirely

Atonement does not require wrath or retributive punishment
Click to expand...
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).
 
Last edited:
MattRyan said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Welcome to CARM!
 
MattRyan said:
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).
Click to expand...
Excellent!!
 
MattRyan said:
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).
Click to expand...
I suggest you keep this in Mind when speaking with the Posters here. The Scriptures are often wrongly divided from applying to one another...
 
Last edited:
MattRyan said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.

Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

Sin nature passed down thru the father? why no verse stating this concept? Yes, Jesus is unlike any of us because of who He is God. but He became a man, some want to modify that as if there is something like being a partial You are making one point Since He did not sin it means He did not have a...
forums.carm.org
 
MattRyan said:
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).
Click to expand...
No problem

Thinking back It was the sacrifices of the day of atone and the two goat offering in particular which was in view

As was noted the goat which was killed did not have any sin confessed over it and the goat which had sin confessed over it was not killed

Neither goat was stated to be punished and neither goat were seen as unholy or sinful as a result of the practice
 
Hebrews 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.
 
Dizerner said:
Hebrews 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.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see anyone who disagrees with the passage you just quoted
 
fltom said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Can't be cleansed of sin which remains unforgiven
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top