Regenerate Elect and Animal Sacrifices ?

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Is there any such thing as regenerate elect who have not had their sins washed away by the blood of the cross?

Is there any room to say it was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?
 
Last edited:

civic

Well-known member
Got N.T. scripture for those questions ?

or do you like to just make things up out of thin air ?
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Is there any such thing as regenerate elect who have not had their sins washed away by the blood of the cross?
No, unless they have sinned again since they accepted the gospel, like "The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter 2:22)
Is there any room to say it was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?
Obviously not, since "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb. 10:4)
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Olg

Is there any such thing as regenerate elect who have not had their sins washed away by the blood of the cross?
No such thing. In fact there's no such thing as a unregenerate elect that has not had their sins washed away by the blood of Christ shed for them.

Is there any room to say it was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?
Uh No. I believe in the old testament the regenerate elect sacrificed animals in faith as they believed in the coming Messiah that would put their sins away by His Sacrifice of Himself for them Isa 53
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I asked:
Is there any room to say it was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?

And you replied:
Uh No. I believe in the old testament the regenerate elect sacrificed animals in faith as they believed in the coming Messiah that would put their sins away by His Sacrifice of Himself for them Isa 53

Was that suppose to make sense?
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
I asked:
Is there any room to say it was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?

And you replied:


Was that suppose to make sense?
Yes it made sense to me. Let me ask you what do you mean by:

was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Yes it made sense to me. Let me ask you what do you mean by:

was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?

So when I asked whether is is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?

And you replied NO

and they you say
I believe in the old testament the regenerate elect sacrificed animals


That is supposed to make sense?

Can you please make some sense out of your nonsense for us?

brightfame52 said:
Uh No. I believe in the old testament the regenerate elect sacrificed animals in faith as they believed in the coming Messiah that would put their sins away by His Sacrifice of Himself for them Isa 53
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
So when I asked whether is is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?

And you replied NO

and they you say
I believe in the old testament the regenerate elect sacrificed animals


That is supposed to make sense?

Can you please make some sense out of your nonsense for us?
You are too confusing to discuss this with so I will pass.
 

civic

Well-known member
another failed OP from a non trinitarian so here is my top 10 reasons why off the top of my head :)

1)They do not understand the bible
2)They do not know the True God
3)They have a false gospel and christ
4)They do not understand reformed theology
5)They make things up as in the OP
6)They make nothing but fallacious arguments
7)They do not understand biblical context
8)They do not understand spiritual things they are foolishness to them
9)They accuse the brethren just like their father does
10)They have their mind blinded by the god of this world, and the Glory of Christ they cannot see

hope this helps !!!
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Is there any such thing as regenerate elect who have not had their sins washed away by the blood of the cross?

Is there any room to say it was/is ever appropriate for the regenerate elect to sacrifice animals for their sins?
1) No...

2) Yes; but only while contractually under the Old Covenant, through an existing Tabernacle/Temple...

Since it was appropriate for Jesus to pay the Temple Tax while he was maintaining his Fulfillment of the requirements of the Law, it was also appropriate for Regenerate Elect like Simeon to pay the Temple Tax. So since they lived in a time of Works Righteousness, they were required to keep all the Law...

Now when it comes to whether Jesus had to keep the entire Law and make Sacrifices, he never had to keep the feminine Laws of God like purification after Menstruation; though he kept the entire Law for us...


Sorry guys, I've been on the Atheism Secualar Board spending some time with them. It's fun; I get them to like one of my points, then use that against them. Before long, they stop talking to me and I come back here...
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
1) No...

2) Yes; but only while contractually under the Old Covenant, through an existing Tabernacle/Temple...

Since it was appropriate for Jesus to pay the Temple Tax while he was maintaining his Fulfillment of the requirements of the Law, it was also appropriate for Regenerate Elect like Simeon to pay the Temple Tax. So since they lived in a time of Works Righteousness, they were required to keep all the Law...

Now when it comes to whether Jesus had to keep the entire Law and make Sacrifices, he never had to keep the feminine Laws of God like purification after Menstruation; though he kept the entire Law for us...


Sorry guys, I've been on the Atheism Secualar Board spending some time with them. It's fun; I get them to like one of my points, then use that against them. Before long, they stop talking to me and I come back here...

So these people had their sins washed away by the blood of Jesus yet they went on to sacrifice animals for their sins. Ya don't see a problem there eh? They were washed away by the blood of the covenant which has not arrived yet? Interesting notion you have there.

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.... Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.... Hebrews 10

Bring on the spin.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
So these people had their sins washed away by the blood of Jesus yet they went on to sacrifice animals for their sins. Ya don't see a problem there eh? They were washed away by the blood of the covenant which has not arrived yet? Interesting notion you have there.

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.... Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.... Hebrews 10

Bring on the spin.
I do see the problem; I'm not your average 5-Point Calvinist. Elect Old Covenant Saints were still under the Mosaic Covenant; a Covenant of Works. Paul said the problem with the Old Covenat Jews is that they didn't mix Works with Faith; Old Covenant Saints mixed Works with Faith. They were not under the New Covenant where they could forsake the Ordinances. The Old Covenant Sacrifices were never a True Atonement for Sin, but was a Type for the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If the Old Covenant were Perfect, there would be no need for a New Covenant. An Old Testament Saint would be Stoned or Arrested (as Paul was); but when Paul went to the Temple; it was not an attempt to practice the Old Covenant...

How would you describe yourself here on this Sub-Forum? I'm a Christian; a Reformed Independent Fundamental Baptist. Understanding where we are coming from is helpful and expedient...
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I do see the problem; I'm not your average 5-Point Calvinist. Elect Old Covenant Saints were still under the Mosaic Covenant; a Covenant of Works. Paul said the problem with the Old Covenant Saints is that they did not mix Works with Faith. They were not under the New Covenant where they could forsake the Ordinances. The Old Covenant Sacrifices were never a True Atonement for Sin, but was a Type for the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If the Old Covenant were Perfect, there would be no need for a New Covenant. An Old Testament Saint would be Stoned or Arrested (as Paul was); but when Paul went to the Temple; it was not an attempt to practice the Old Covenant...

How would you describe yourself here on this Sub-Forum? I'm a Christian; a Reformed Independent Fundamental Baptist. Understanding where we are coming from is helpful and expedient...

Please deal with the passages I quoted. Thank you.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Please deal with the passages I quoted. Thank you.
The Old Covenant Saints mixed the Sacrifices with Faith; Faith in the coming Messiah, that is. No Old Covenant Sacrifice ever Atoned for any Sin. They were contractually obligated to keep the Old Covenant, even though it was like looking into a mirror in the dark...

Faith in the coming Jewish Messiah's Atonement did though...
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
The Old Covenant Saints mixed the Sacrifices with Faith; Faith in the coming Messiah, that is. No Old Covenant Sacrifice ever Atoned for any Sin. They were contractually obligated to keep the Old Covenant, even though it was like looking into a mirror in the dark...

Faith in the coming Jewish Messiah's Atonement did though...
Except that.......

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.... Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.... Hebrews 10
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Except that.......

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.... Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.... Hebrews 10
Well said...

So if I hadn't clarified enough, Elect Old Covenant Saints have never ever actually had their Sins Atoned for under any Old Covenant Sacrifice. But since they were contractually obligated to keep the Old Covenant, they offered prescribed Sacrifices which were a 'Type' for the new and living way. It was appropriate for them to offer animal sacrifices because they were in a Synergistic Covenant with God; even if those sacrifices were always impotent...

A Contract is a Contract, a Covenant is a Covenant. The Covenant they were Contracted to was Totally Unable to deliver them since they were Fallen, but Jesus was able to keep the Old Covenant because he was not Fallen...
 
Top