Conference yukon::christian_v7

From the Word,

Psalms 69.14 Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be
delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead by which we
were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of
the letter.

Romans 8:21 Becasue the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of his beloved Son.

Must go, work calleth, more later.

Bob

                   death

    One to add that covers past, present, and future:
    
    "Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we
    trust that he will yet deliver us;" 2 Cor. 1:10

A quick search on "deliver" in Job (just cut out these few):


Job 33:24  Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going
down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

Job 33:28  He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life
shall see the light.

Job 36:18  Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his
stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee.



Among *many* in Psalms:

Psalms 39:8  Deliver me from all my transgressions: make me not the reproach
of the foolish.

Psalms 51:14  Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my
salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.

Psalms 56:13  For thou hast delivered my soul from death: wilt not thou
deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of the
living?

Psalms 71:2  Deliver me in thy righteousness, and cause me to escape: incline
thine ear unto me, and save me.

Psalms 79:9  Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and
deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake.

Psalms 86:13  For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my
soul from the lowest hell.

Psalms 116:8  For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from
tears, and my feet from falling.

Jesus delivered *for* (because of) our sins...

Romans 4:25  Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
justification.

Romans 8:32  He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,
how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Romans 11:26  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


More delivered from passages....

Galatians 1:4  Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from
this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Colossians 1:13  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

1Thessalonians 1:10  And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from
the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.


About God's judgment and execution of same....

2Peter 2:4  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down
to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto
judgment;


2Peter 2:9  The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations,
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

We are delivered from the power of darkness and enslavement to sin and Satan.
Would look up specific references (some have already been mentioned) but don't
have time right now.

John Paul II in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (best known as "the new
encyclical" on morality) explains how a Christian's freedom is not freedom
_from_ obedience but freedom _for_ obedience.  By Christ's death and
resurrection, we are freed from enslavement to sin and the powers of darkness --
freed so that we might obey God, not freed so that we might be able to do
whatever we wish.  This is the meaning of the verse, "Where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is freedom."  I have heard this verse interpreted to mean
license -- not necessarily moral license, but some well-meaning Christians use
it to reject the authority of God's Church to govern its members and establish
unity in worship and practices.  But that is not what it means at all -- it
means we are freed from sin and Satan.

"For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the
kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of
our sins." (Col 1:13)

Eric

      Hi,
    
        Thanks for your inputs!
    
        Given _all_ of the excellent texts, would they harmonize if
        the sum total of the necessity of the cross is to deliver us
        _from sinning_?
    
        Does the cross provide for anything above this?
    
        Acts 3:25
        Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which
        God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed
        shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
    
        Galatians 3:8
        And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
        through faith, preached for the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In
        thee shall all nations be blessed.
    
        So Acts 3:25 is the preaching of the gospel and it speaks of what
        constitutes the justifying of the heathen (so says Galatians 3:8)
        and it refers to the blessing.
    
        Acts 3:26
        Unto you first God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to
        bless you,...
    
        [Again, what is the blessing?  What does the preaching of the 
         gospel accomplish?  What is the justifying of the heathen?]
    
        ...in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
    
        That is what the cross accomplishes.  To be justified is to be
        made righteouss.  The blessing of the gospel is to be turned from
        our iniquities.
    
        We need to be delivered from sin and the cross is what enables
        precisely what that deliverance is.  It is the cross which turns
        us from our iniquities.
    
        I gotta run, but what is your opinion of what the cross accom- 
        plishes, what is justification, and what is the atonement?  
      
        How does the cross accomplish what it does?
    
                                                   Thanks!,
    
                                                   Tony
    

>        We need to be delivered from sin and the cross is what enables
>        precisely what that deliverance is.  It is the cross which turns
>        us from our iniquities.
    
    I don't want to in any way take away from the work of the cross.  But,
    to me it is the life of Christ which enables us to live free from sin.
    
    "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in
    him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9) 
    Indeed, it is the cross that gives us entrance into this life.  Without
    the cross, we would be without hope.  The cross is the remedy, but the
    life is the result.
    
    Mark L.
     

      Hi Mark L.,
    
        Actually, I agree with you on that one, however when looking
        at death as Paul does in Romans 7 (guilt that wells us after
        seeing sinfulness in a deeper light as a result of seeing 'the
        law' [God's love] deeper in combination with sinful flesh 
        correspondingly revealing that sinfulness), Jesus began to die
        (began to bear the cross) right away.
    
        The physical cross event was the culmination.  It included looking
        behind the veil, i.e. seeing God's love to such a fulness that
        (via sinful flesh) He saw sinfulness to its fulness, was made to
        feel (again via sinful flesh) to be that sinner, and thus tasted
        that death in its fulness.
    
        In other words, the death of the cross is continuous.  He began to
        die perhaps in the incarnation.  That death reached its apex as
        Christ cried, "It is finished!"
    
        So we agree!  I just think the cross encompassed His entire earthly
        life.
    
                                                     Thanks!,
    
                                                     Tony

    delivered from sinning....
    
    true - because the old man was crucified *with* the Messiah.
    
    If we *really* would believe Gal 2:20 and continued to be transformed
    by the renewing of our mind (thinking) in this area - how then would we
    live?
    
    we should not sin, however, if we do.....(1John 1:9)

  Hi All,

    If we could maybe look a little more at this...

    How does the atonement contribute to man's deliverance?

    Here, I'll assume the atonement was finished at the cross.
    Just to simplify, let's remove (for now) the revelatory aspect
    of the cross and just pay attention to the cross alone.  

    (The reason I am suggesting to do this is that while we must 
    receive revelation in order to be saved, it has already been
    assumed that the finishing of the atonement is not dependent 
    on that reception; it is dependent on the sacrifice alone and 
    not on what that sacrifice ends up producing in the hearts of 
    any who receive it.)

    To follow through...

    Jesus has died on the cross.  He has just paid for sin.  The
    sacrifice is complete.  Nobody knows of the cross (again no
    revelatory aspect considered yet) and thus no one is saved.

    Again, assuming the atonement is finished at the cross...


      o What did the atonement just accomplish?

    
    Romans 5:11 says we have now received the atonement.  In the New
    King James, it says we have now received the _reconciliation_.

    Again, looking at the sacrifice only and not getting into its
    revelatory aspect (assuming the atonement in and of itself is
    finished apart from the additional revelatory aspect of the 
    sacrifice):

      o What has just been reconciled?

      o What was alienated in the first place?  What was that alienation?

      o What has the finished atonement (again no revelation yet) just
        contributed to justification?

      o What is justification?  How are we justified?  On what basis?

      o What has the finished atonement just delivered man from (again...
        NO REVELATION yet!!)?

                                                  
    I'd be really interested in your thoughts...

                                                 God Bless,

                                                 Tony

      I'm surprised no one has replied to this.
    
      This is FOUNDATIONAL!!  Don't we know of the pillars on which
      we stand?  The answers to these questions ought to come immediately
      and if not, there's a severe problem.
    
                                              Tony

  Tony, weve had snow and lots of it, maybe people just wernt here.
  There is  A LOT of content in what you are asking and it would
  take time and thought to address it all.

  Though these tenants are foundational, you threw us a left curve
  with the non-revelatory "speculative" aspect of the questions.

  There is generally two aspects of "salvation" 1) Positional (dosnt
  depend on anything but the Decree and Work of God  2) Actual or temporal
  (requires  a response on the part of man).

  Positionally - everyone is saved who will be saved.
  temporally - no one is saved

  etc, etc...

  So positionally and as far as God is concerned, everything is done
  and as a matter of fact it has been done (completed) fron the
  foundations of the world...

  Actually , it must play itself out in the passing of time.

  I'de rather refrain from the other detailed questions, Ive got one out there
  myself...Note 427, very similar to yours and I'de like the JWs (and others)
  to respond.
  
                   Hank

.13

On the other hand, some of us just don't want to get into another debate.
Perhaps this is more surprising than not replying at all?

MM

God created man in His own image (Genesis 1:26), perfect and without sin so that
he could know and love God.  Man is the highest distinction of God's creative
genius, separate from Him, made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5)
with dominion over all the earth (Genesis 1:28).  In Eden, man fell by
disobedience; henceforth all men are conceived in sin with a depraved nature
destined for damnation unless they are spiritually reborn (John 3:3).  More
supportive Scriptures can be found in Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:19,
Psalm 51:5, Romans 1:21.

      o What has just been reconciled?
      
      reconciled - (Greek - katallasso {kat- al-las-so})

      1) to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivelent value
       1a) to reconcile (those who are at variance
       1b) return to favour with, be reconciled to one
       1c) to receive one into favour

      Romans 5:10
    
      For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death
      of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

      2nd Corinthians 5:18

      And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus
      Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconcilliation.

      o What was alienated in the first place?  What was that alienation?
      
      alienated - (Greek - apallotrioo {ap-al-lot-ree-o'-o})

      1) to alienate, estrange
      2) to be shut out from one's fellowship and intimacy

      Ephesians 2:12

      That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
      commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
      having no hope, and without God in the world.

      Ephesians 4:18

      Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God
      through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their
      heart.

      Colossians 1:21

      And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked 
      works, yet now hath He reconciled.

      o What has the finished atonement (again no revelation yet) just
        contributed to justification?
      
      atonement - (Greek - katallage {kat-al-lag-ay'})

      1) exchange
       1a) of the business of money changers, exchanging equivelent value
      2) adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favour
       2a) in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that
          repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ

      Romans 5:11

      And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
      by whom we have now received the atonement

      o What is justification?  How are we justified?  On what basis?

      justification - (Greek - dikaiosis - {dik-ah'-yo-sis})

      1) the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to Him
      2) abjuring to be righteous, justification

      Romans 4:25

      Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our 
      justification.

      Romans 5:16

      And not as is was by one that sinned, so id the gift: for the judgement
      was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is the offences unto
      justification.

      Romans 5:18

      Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to 
      condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came
      upon all men unto justification of life.

      Romans 3:24

      Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in
      Jesus Christ.

      Romans 3:28

      Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds 
      of the law.

      Romans 5:1

      Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
      Lord Jesus Christ.

      Romans 5:9 

      Much more than, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved
      from wrath through Him.

      Romans 8:30

      Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called, them He also 
      justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.

      Galatians 2:16

      Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the 
      faith of Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
      justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by
      the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

      Titus 3:7

      That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according
      to the hope of eternal life.

      James 2:24

      Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

      o What has the finished atonement just delivered man from (again...
        NO REVELATION yet!!)?

      All of the above, and much, much more. One very important verse of what
      we are redeemed from is:

      Galations 3:13-14

      Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse
      for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:
      That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through Jesus
      Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

      What was the GREATEST blessing Abraham had? Proserity? Health? A son
      born to him at a very old age? Nations coming from his loins? No, the
      greatest blessing he had was a relationship with the Father. He spoke to
      God, and God spoke back. He heard, and knew the voice of the Creator of
      the universe. He knew (intimately) God. And God knew (intimately) 
      Abraham) They loved each other, and the one of the greatest things 
      Jesus did was to open the door closed by sin, to the throne room, 
      where God IS! To experience love (Greek - agape - {ag-ah'-pay}) is
      the desire of mankind, as God put that desire in mankind. Only He
      can fulfill that desire to the utmost.

      Ephesians 3:16-21

      That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be
      strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may
      dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in
      love (God - 1John 4:8 ...for God is love) May be able to comprehend with
      all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and 
      know (intimately) the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye
      might be filled with all the fulness of God. Now unto Him who is able
      to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to 
      the power that worketh in us, unto Him be the glory in the church by
      Jesus Christ throughout all ages, world without end, Amen.

    The symbol of what Christ did at the time of His death was the tearing
    of the temple curtain, FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, Mark 15:38.  This happened
    immediately when Jesus died.  By His death, God removed for us the
    barrier between us and Him.  Jesus, through His atonement, enables us
    to be reconciled to God.  
    
    The temple curtain kept the Holy of Holies closed off from access by
    men.  Symbolically, when the curtain was torn, that access was made
    available to man.  It was torn top to bottom, indicating  that this was
    God's work - people couldn't reach up to tear it.
    
    But, we can't lose sight of the fact that the atonement is half the
    story.  Christ rose!  Not only did God grant us access to Him through
    Jesus Christ, but Jesus has overcome death.  
    
    Thanks for the question
    
    Don Randall

RE:       <<< Note 446.3 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!" >>>
   >                    -< Deliverance From Sin Alone!!! >-

        
    >    Redemption is from sin and sin alone and not from a punishment
    >    God has to give because of sin.  This has just illuminated to
    >    greater depth a revelation of God's character!
    
         
         
         
     >   WHAT A REVELATION!  God doesn't require a judicial punishment
     >   for sin!  He has no need.  His government, His _law_ needs no
     >   requirement for itself for "agape seeketh not her own" (1 Cor
     >   13:5).  There's no payment in the judicial sense only a payment 
     >   in the sense of such a revelation of love that when received in
     >   the heart, the heart is really and actually delivered from sin.
    
          
     >   This has radically shifted my understanding of why the cross is
     >   necessary, what is justification by faith, and what is the
     >   atonement.
    
      


        Why, in your opinion, was the cross necessary if there was no judicial
        punishment for sin?




 Jim

  Hi Jim,

    This is in reply to your asking why I believe the cross is
    necessary if there is no judicial requirement for sin.

    A good starting point is to take the Bible as it reads and
    by this I mean please give Acts 3:25/Galatians 3:8/Acts 3:26
    a LONG LOOK.

    Why would a passage mention

                o the blessing

                o the covenant

                o the gospel

                o the resurrection

                o justification by faith

    and in order to include more context (Gal. 3:1)

                o the cross???

    In fact, if one looks at Galatians 3:1, the context of the saving
    work of the cross is REVELATORY.  As the cross is SEEN in faith,
    the process of sin being really and actually removed from the heart
    is seen.

    But, back to the Acts/Galatians question...deliverance is mentioned.
    One would think that something that mentions so much (as listed above)
    would not be silent about something as foundational as that which we
    are delivered from.

    In other words, why does not Acts 3:26 include deliverance from a
    judicial death sentence required by God for transgression?

    ANSWER: Because there isn't one.

    So why is the cross necessary if there is no judicial requirement?

    Answer: Because we need to be delivered from sin and the cross is
    necessary in order to deliver us from sin.

    Its as simple as that.

    Why is the cross necessary to deliver from sin???

    Because of a spiritual reality implicit in the fact that we can discern
    right and wrong and with the fact that we have this thing called sinful
    flesh.

    As we behold the love of God more and more deeply, we behold the 
    sinfulness of sin and we can't bear that experience of facing sin
    without an incredible revelation of love and without a Forerunner
    who trod the steps before us.  This is why the cross was necessary.
    It is love received that delivers from sin (that cleanses the heart),
    BUT this is a painful process.  We need to be enormously secure in God's
    love in order for Him to show us all of us.  We need to know that someone
    paved the way before us.

    We all have a cross, but we do not die the exact same death He did, 
    because that death is one void of an Example to follow.  Christ had no
    benefit of a forerunner.  Yes, I believe we die the second death - we
    bear the guilt wrapped up in sin, but we do so with eyes of faith that
    see a Saviour who guarantees our success because His steps preceded ours.

    Jim, I have begun to have an especially keen eye regarding the Bible
    as it refers to deliverance.  Always it is equated to 'from sin'.  The
    whole sacrificial system tells us that "without the shedding of blood
    there is no remission of sin."  This (taken by itself) could allude to
    remission meaning actual removal of sin from the heart or a judicial
    pardon.  But, CONTEXT gives the correct answer.

    Always the High Priest applies the blood (sprinkles it) and this blood
    CLEANSES.  Hebrews 9 refers to the shedding of blood scripture and
    its context _numerous times_ is the actual ridding of sin from the
    heart.  NOT ONCE is it inclusive of a judicial pardon.  Now, if there
    is a judicial deliverance, WHY IS SCRIPTURE SO SILENT?

    Our salvation is from sin and sin alone.  We are accounted righteouss
    when we have begun taking the steps of this process of heart-cleansing.
    (See the life of Abraham and notice that partial basis for the preaching
    of the gospel and for Abraham's being accounted righteouss by faith is
    because he was able eventually to bear the three day Mount Moriah exp.
    This basis has no relevence to a judicial mode of deliverance.)

    Hebrews 11:39,40 allude to the same thing.  A last generation MUST be
    perfected.  And that perfected last generation PERFECTS all prior men
    of faith who went to the grave not having taken 'the last steps.'  There
    is absolutely no basis for a last generation doing anything of the sort
    with a judicial mode of deliverance.

    Finally, people say "the law demands death."  That this is so is why there
    is also a judicial deliverance required.  Well, Isaiah 51:7 equates God's
    law to His righteoussness which we know is His love.  1 Corin 13 says 
    that God's love seeks not her own.

    The judicial deliverance hinges upon the idea that God's law requires
    something.  Its as if God needs death FOR HIS LAW; His law needs it.
    As God is the Lawgiver, God requires death.  Now...how is it possible 
    that God "who seeks not His own" requires an infinite price for Himself???
    How can His 'self' require an infinite price before He can have a heart
    of forgiveness toward lost man???

    How can He who is selfless be so selfish???

    The answer is...He can't.  And if you could just CONSIDER what I am saying,
    you would find incredible harmony.

    For example, it wouldn't be perplexing that not once does the Bible state
    that God is paid by the sacrifice of His Son.  A judicial deliverance
    would require this, being delivered from sin would have no relevence to
    such a concept.  

    You can find ransom texts and no context (alongside them) that allude
    to a judicial deliverance.  But, you can find context that alludes to
    deliverance from sin itself.

    The consistency with the word would just explode if you could even 
    consider the possibility, but unlearning certain things is mighty hard
    to do.

    I would again ask you to consider the Acts and Galatians texts, the
    fact that the Bible never mentions God receiving a ransom payment, and
    the context of those texts long held to defend a judicial deliverance
    (i.e. they are completely silent contextually, but can be shown to allude
    to actual deliverance from sin).

                                                     Tony

      Hi,
    
        One correction...
    
        when I mentioned "the law demands death" and how this shows
        there is a judicial deliverance, I did so without being clear.
        Some people say this.  I do not.
    
        However, I do believe the law demands death in a certain sense.
        Because of our fall, there is a spiritual reality that cannot
        be circumvented.  Inclusive in this spiritual reality is bearing
        guilt as sin is revealed.  Not guilt in the sense of a certain
        status before God, rather guilt in the sense of that death Paul
        refers to in Romans 7.
    
        The existence of this spiritual reality is not a result of a need
        for a judicial deliverance.  Rather it is a result of the fact
        that as moral creatures (having some ability to discern right from
        wrong which ability is a consequence of God's character of love).
    
                                                         Tony
    
                                                    Tony

RE:      <<< Note 423.20 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!" >>>
   

>    The answer is...He can't.  And if you could just CONSIDER what I am saying,
>    you would find incredible harmony.


     I'd consider it if I could understand it.  Perhaps its cobwebs in
     my brain, or the fact that I left my glasses home and can't quite
     read clearly, but I'm afraid I don't understand.
  



    >For example, it wouldn't be perplexing that not once does the Bible state
    >that God is paid by the sacrifice of His Son.  A judicial deliverance
    >would require this, being delivered from sin would have no relevence to
    >such a concept.  


      Hmmm...Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of
      God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord"... Romans 5:8 "but
      God commendeth His love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ
      died for us



Jim

      re -1
    
      "The wages of sin is death..."
    
      This has two possible interpretations Jim.
    
      1) God judicially requires death for sin.  Jesus dies for us
         and the wages which are judicially required are satisfied 
         by Jesus.
    
      2) There is a spiritually reality that God Himself cannot circumvent.
         Which is that death IS INHERENT to sin.  This would be like
         the cold I now have.  I have real bad congestion.  The congestion
         I have is inherent to the cold bug that I caught.  I don't have
         congestion because after I caught the cold bug, some _external_
         entity gave me congestion.  No...the congestion is INHERENT to
         the cold bug.  I could say "The wages of a cold bug is
         congestion."
    
      Jim, there is no sense proceeding unless this point is clearly
      understood.  I believe Romans 7 clearly presents death being INHERENT
      to sin.  Yes, it is awakened by God's love.  This is the crucial
      point.  Is death (due to sin) a punishment God has to give
      (judicially) or is it inherent to sin itself?
    
      To put another way...if someone has a cancerous tumor, one doesn't 
      ask for a judge to pronounce the person well...one asks for a doctor
      to remove the tumor.
    
      I believe salvation works the same way...Jesus is my Physician and
      He roots out the tumor (sin) from my life.  He makes me well.  That
      which is making me 'not well' is not a punishment God must give, it
      is SIN itself.
    
      The death of Christ provides eternal life and it is a gift.  You see
      it as the satisfaction of a punishment God requires.  I see it as
      a revelation of love such that when received ACTUALLY REMOVES THE
      SIN.
    
      And this is how the Bible views it.  You will NEVER read about a
      High Priest undergoing a sort of _financial transaction_ whereby
      He takes the blood and makes some judicial payment with it.  You
      will repeatedly read about a High Priest who applies the blood to
      the sanctuary (heart) and cleansing (actual removal of sin)
      takes place.  This is not just O.T.  Please read Hebrews 9 where
      the remission of sin verse is alluded to.  The context is 0% the
      blood satisfying some judicial price.  It is 100% the blood being
      applied to the heart to actually remove sin.
    
      In fact, the force of Mark Metcalfe's defense was the remission of sin
      verse.  Context, however does not bear out his interpretation which
      is that the blood refers to some financial payment.  Always the 
      shed blood is applied to the heart and cleanses it from sin.
    
      In no way however am I in disagreement with the beautiful truth of
      full pardon once one has faith.  I am in disagreement though with
      the BASIS.  It is not a price being paid to satisfy a judicial 
      payment.  It is God honoring our first steps on the partial basis
      that He knows that if He has oppurtunity, He can incorporate 
      sufficient love into the heart such that sin (the inherent source
      of death) is completely removed.
    
      And this basis MUST BE VALIDATED (please see Heb. 11:39,40).  The
      last generation goes all the way.
    
                                                     Tony

    .23
    
    Hi Again Tony,
    
    I just wrote a response under the "Does God Like Us" topic concerning
    the Righteousness of God.  I believe that His RIGHTEOUSNESS is the
    reason for the Cross.  We cannot be reconciled as unholy vessels to
    God.  And this also disproves your SARX theory as well.  When we die it
    is our soul, not our flesh that is resurrected.
    
    Our soul will either spend eternity in Heaven or Hell [I know you
    believe that *perish* means complete and utter death].  Either way it
    is still not the FLESH that goes into eternity, but the soul.
    
    

	RE. Pick a reply, any reply  8*)

	Tony,

	It is unclear to me why you insist that there is no judicial attribute
with God when we have the clear testimony of His word.

	For instance:

	"Who, knowing the righteous judgement of God,..."  Romans 1:32

	"But we know that the judgement of God is according to truth.." 
								Romans 2:2

	"And do you reckon this...that you will escape the judgement of God?"
								Romans 2:3

	"... in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of 	
	God"							Romans 2:5

	"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my 	
	gospel by Jesus Christ"					Romans 2:16

	".. For we shall all stand before the judgement-seat of God" 
								Romans 14:10

	"For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ,.."
								2 Cor 5:10

	"One is Lawgiver and Judge,.."				James 4:12

	"And the dead were judged by the things which were written in the 	
	books..."						Rev 20:12

	"...and they were judged according to their works"	Rev 20:13

	
	Perhaps someone could reason that God's judgement doesn't apply to
them, or that God's judgement will be satisfied somehow, but it's incredible to
me how anyone who regards the Bible as above all other authority could not see
the judicial aspect of God. But, stranger things have happened! 

	Tony, what do you do with these verses?

Thanks,
Ace

      Hi Nance,
    
        Sorry, but there must be a disconnect.
    
        Without getting into details, could you explain how what you
        are saying implies that we are delivered from a judicial
        penalty of death for sin rather than from sin itself?
    
        Agape = law of God and it does not seek its own.  It is an
        inescapable contradition that something that does not seek for
        itself could require an infinite sacrifice for itself (for God
        is the Lawgiver, it is His law) in order to be able to have a 
        forgiving heart?
    
                                                   Tony

    See Ace's notes. :-)  
    
    Nance

RE:      <<< Note 423.23 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!" >>>
                          -< Hope This Clarifies Jim >-

 >        "The wages of sin is death..."
    
 >     This has two possible interpretations Jim.
    
 >     1) God judicially requires death for sin.  Jesus dies for us
 >        and the wages which are judicially required are satisfied 
 >        by Jesus.
    
  >    2) There is a spiritually reality that God Himself cannot circumvent.
  >       Which is that death IS INHERENT to sin.  This would be like
  >       the cold I now have.  I have real bad congestion.  The congestion
  >       I have is inherent to the cold bug that I caught.  I don't have
  >       congestion because after I caught the cold bug, some _external_
  >       entity gave me congestion.  No...the congestion is INHERENT to
  >       the cold bug.  I could say "The wages of a cold bug is
  >       congestion."
   
 
   >   Jim, there is no sense proceeding unless this point is clearly
   >   understood.  



     OK...I am not the thinker that some folks in here are, however I believe
     you are, as has been mentioned, taking verses out of context.




   Jim

>      "The wages of sin is death..."
>    
>      This has two possible interpretations Jim.
>    
>      1) God judicially requires death for sin.  Jesus dies for us
>         and the wages which are judicially required are satisfied 
>         by Jesus.
>    
>      2) There is a spiritually reality that God Himself cannot circumvent.
>         Which is that death IS INHERENT to sin.  This would be like
    
       Tony, why can't it be both?  Paul says in Romans that the law brings
    us death because it shows us our imperfections.  Jesus paid the price
    to free us from the laws of sin and death.

    Here's another one.  Its all over the place.  (Delivered from sin
    and not a price for sin.
    
    Jim...as far as taking out of context...show me one verse that says
    the Father was paid.  How was Heb 9 out of context?  Or what the
    High Priest does with the blood (actually cleanses from sin)?
    
    Or, or, or...
    
From:	WMOIS::VINCENT_S "There are 16 entries left,  06-Apr-1994 0301"  6-APR-1994 09:25:01.02
To:	Morning
CC:	
Subj:	Wednesday, April 6th, 1994

   Good Morning,

	For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 
 
	It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and 

	to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present

	age, while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of

	our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to
	
	redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people 

	that are His very own, eager to do what is good.

					Titus 2:11-14  NIV

      re: .29
    
      Mike, I do not believe its both because I see perfect harmony with
      all texts interpreted as deliverance from sin and such foundational
      things as atonement (High Priest applies blood to actually root
      out sin) I would expect to explicitly refer to a judicial
      deliverance.
    
      They do not.  Silence is a powerful testimony.
    
      Of course, a big reason is agape = God's law and does not seek its
      own and a judicial deliverance implies that agape requires an 
      infinite price before man can be redeemed.  Irreconciliable.
    
                                                  Tony
                                                    

    Tony, you have made many references to agape not seeking its own, and
    I'm afraid I don't understand that.  Can you explain what that phrase
    means to you?  
    
    Thanks/John

    re -1,2
    I've been wondering about that phrase too...
    
    > agape = God's law and does not seek its own
    
    you have tossed that phrase out as if it justifies everything, but for
    those of us who haven't quite figured it out, it doesn't help much.

God will judge.  It's not a matter of payment as it is a matter of righteousness,
holiness, and justice.  It is a matter of payment in that we will get what
is rightfully deserved by our disobedience, or the judge will pardon us and
get what we do not deserve because of God's mercy.

But God will judge.  That is hard and fast scripture.

The questions Ace puts are simple.  The answers provided to such questions
are often shrouded with "if you study closely you can see how this
connects to this and this to this... it is so simple for those who will
see."  

God is the Judge and He will judge the quick and the dead.  And
there will be a Judgment Day on which he will separate the sheep and
the goats.

God is definitely a Judge.

    I pray that God doesn't give me what I *deserve*!

 My prayer as well, Mike..





Jim

Me, too, fellows.  That *is* the wonder of God's grace and mercy.
We're all deserving of punishment, but grace is *unmerited favor.*
Not of us are blameless, but those who will can be pardoned, thank the
Lord!

MM

 Jesus paid it all
 all to Him I owe
 Sin had left a crimson stain
 He washed it white as snow.

      Judgment is a rather deep subject.  How many of you know
      that in the book of Judges, God raised judges that they 
      might _deliver_?
    
      What I mean by using agape is simply this...
    
      Isaiah 51:7 equates God's law to His righteoussness.  God's
      righteoussness equates to His love which in the Greek is called
      _agape_.  1 Corin 13 says that God's love 'seeks not its own.'
    
      There is an idea in Christianity that God's law demands death
      in a judicial sort of way.  In other words, God cannot save anyone
      unless He can kill somebody.  He has got to kill somebody for His
      law requires death.
    
      This seems to me a contradiction.  Agape seeks not its own...it
      has no requirement for itself...and yet God cannot save unless
      agape is satisifed by the killing of someone.  Incorporate into
      this the belief that the sacrifice is an infinite price to pay...
      God cannot save unless His law is satisfied with an infinite 
      price.  
    
      So God's law (agape) seeks not its own AND agape seeks an infinite
      price before forgiveness is possible.
    
      An irreconciliable conflict.
    
      I believe that sin is death inherently and this is a reality that
      God cannot circumvent.  The cross is the love demonstrated that
      when unsealed into the heart is so constraining that it cleanses
      the heart completely from sin and that this is what we need to be
      delivered from.  With this idea which I believe is scriptural, agape
      does not require an infinite price.  God is always love and His
      judgment/justice/or whatever else is never inconsistent with His
      love.
    
      Mark, there is much to learn about judgment and yes in the last days
      God's character will be known far better than it is today.
    
                                                Tony

    Isn't the fact that He would do it Himself, for us, the best
    illustration of agape?  (rom 5:8)
    
    I think the contradiction exists when we try to reconcile His ways with
    our own - but the Bible is very clear that His ways *aren't* our ways;
    and, we're not to lean on our own undertanding, but in all our ways, to
    aknoweldge Him...
    
    Steve

    speaking of providing it Himself out of agape, read Genesis 22:8

    excellent Andrew!

    Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, my son, god will provide himself a lamb
    for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 
    
    2 Samuel 14:14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the 
    ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect
    any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not
    expelled from him. 

      Its really a contradiction. Assuming that He required a price,
      its an awesome act of love that _He supplied it_.  Of course!
    
      But, this does not imply that it is not a contradiction that
      He required it in the first place.  
    
      This does not follow...
    
      To use an analogy...if my daughter did something wrong and if
      after doing so she knew _I knew_ and she saw the hurt in my 
      eyes.  If perhaps she saw tears in my eyes and I just grabbed
      her and gave her a hug.  And if in that beholding of my love,
      her heart was warmed and as a result she no longer wanted to
      do the bad thing anymore...
    
      Would I have to spank her anyway for love's sake?  Or is the
      heart-change (provided by that demonstration of love) enough?
    
      I say the cross' sole purpose is to change the heart and rescue
      it from sin...it is not to satisfy some punishment love itself
      requires.  And I also say that if we say we can't fathom these
      things...not even perhaps the pillar of salvation doctrine, how
      in the world do we present a gospel to the world.
    
      The true gospel will have no such unfathomable perplexities.
    
                                                  Tony

    "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend."

    re -1
    
      Yes Mike...I am not saying the cross is not necessary.  I agree
      that God had to lay down His own life.
    
      I disagree with the BASIS.
    
      Unbelievable that after this many replies, this is not coming
      through.
    
      We need to be delivered from sin and not from God who must punish
      because of sin.
    
      Beholding Christ hung for us is what delivers from sin and what 
      enables us to overcome all sin in spite of the spiritual reality
      of Romans 7.
    
      We are ransomed - from sin.  Without the shedding of blood there
      is no remission of sin - it is the blood which when applied to the
      sanctuary (heart) cleanses - from sin.  (No mention of some judicial
      paymen.)
    
      Why don't you guys just show me one single text that pictures the
      High Priest giveing the blood to the Father as a price or some
      other allusion to a 'financial' payment.
    
      Its just not there!
    
      We are delivered from sin and sin alone.  And the truth of scripture
      portrays God's character like some idea that agape needs to be
      judicially satisfied with death simply cannot.
    
                                                     Tony

    your analogy is incomplete.
    
    God's holiness is perfect and complete, thus:
    He cannot bear any sin in His presence, thus:
    For us to be close to Him, to abide with Him, we must have our sin
    removed, which can only be done through the shedding of blood from an
    unblemished sacrifice.  (ultimately from Jesus)
    
    you seem to be stuck on the punishment - it isn't punishment, as much
    as consequence.
    

    For God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.
    
    Consequences...  

    Is this what you are asking for in terms of payment for sin?
    Note especially verse 7 and verse 22
    
    Hebrews 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances
        of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
      2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the
        candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is
        called the sanctuary.
      3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called
        the Holiest of all;
      4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant
        overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot
        that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables
        of the covenant;
      5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat;
        of which we cannot now speak particularly.
      6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went
        always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service
        of God.
      7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every
        year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and
        for the errors of the people:
    	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the
        holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first
        tabernacle was yet standing:
      9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were
        offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him
        that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the
        conscience;
     10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings,
        and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of
        reformation.
     11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come,
        by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with
        hands, that is to say, not of this building;
     12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
        blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
        eternal redemption for us.
     13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an
        heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying
        of the flesh:
     14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
        eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge
        your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
     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.
     16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be
        the death of the testator.
     17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
        is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
     18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without
        blood.
     19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people
        according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of
        goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and
        sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
     20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath
        enjoined unto you.
     21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and
        all the vessels of the ministry.
     22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
        without shedding of blood is no remission.
     23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in
        the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly
        things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
     24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with
        hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven
        itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
     25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high
        priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of
        others;
     26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of
        the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he
        appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
     27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
        the judgment:
     28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and
        unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time
        without sin unto salvation.
    

      re: .48 to .50
    
      YES!!!  YOU GOT IT!!!
    
      Exactly!  The reason Jesus had to die was because only by His
      death could He deliver from sin.  And as Leviticus and Hebrews
      and other texts indicate, only by the shedding of blood can there
      be remission of sin.
    
      That is the merits of the cross are applied to the sanctuary.
      That tremendous love expressed (the blood) is applied to the
      sanctuary (the heart) and this really and actually removes (remits)
      sin from the life.
    
      And this is deliverance.
    
      No judicial requirement.  No need to 'spank' anyone.  Just a 
      reality that God Himself cannot help.  Sin in the presence of His
      love destroys. So the cross is partial means (remember...the High
      Priest has to do something to...He applies the blood) whereby man
      is delivered from sin.
    
      And when we take our first steps of allowing heart-cleansing...
      God honors them.  he accounts us righteouss.  Partial basis is
      that He can finish the work.  The last generation validates this
      partial basis (Heb 11:39,40).  They go all the way with Christ.
      The full cup of blood (all that love demonstrated at the cross)
      is applied to the heart and they are completely delivered from
      sin.
    
      You guys got it...praise the Lord!!
    
      Its an inherent consequence to sin.  NO judicial price.
    
                                                   Tony      

>      Unbelievable that after this many replies, this is not coming
>      through.

You wonder why but you can only reason that we are blinded, unable to see it,
it is so simple, right.  It can't possibly be that it isn't coming through
because it is on the wrong wavelength, can it.  No, it can't be.  You've
studied and studied so you know it's the right wavelength.  But the decimal
point is out of position, Tony.

>      That tremendous love expressed (the blood) is applied to the
>      sanctuary (the heart) and this really and actually removes (remits)
>      sin from the life.

Why is death a sign of tremendous love?  Why is the laying down of one's
life greater love?

Answer: because it is death by proxy.  His death in exchange for our death.

What does it mean by our death?  Our death is required because of sin.
The consequence (wages) of sin is death.  We have sin, we're going to die.
We have our sins washed away, and we don't have to die.

Why do we have to die?  Because God will not abide sin in his presence.
How will we die with sin in us?  God will separate the "sheep from the
goats" (the pardoned from the unpardoned).  He will send the unpardoned
into hell for eternity to be absent from His presence; He will bring the 
pardoned into heaven for eternity to be with Him.

Who will do it?  God will do it.  He is the Judge and will execute 
righteous judgement.  This is Scriptural.

Mark

    Tony, 
    offered != washed, cleansed

    the blood is the price of being cleansed - it does not come for free. 

    the text I gave is my example of the High Priest making a 'financial'
    payment.
    
    What does "which he offered for himself" (v7) mean?
    or in v25:"or yet that he should offer himself"
    
    Sacrifices and gifts are a form of payment - there is no invoice, but
    they are a payment.  The payment allows the cleansing.
    
    this has gotten quite heavy, however, I have work to do.
    
    HiR!
    p

    Tony (and BTW it's Kent not Kurt),
    
    Let me ask you how this fits into your theology.  In the OT, God gave
    us many types and shadows of the work of the cross.  You have chosen
    one of cleansing the articles of the tabernacle, which I, in part might
    agree with.  Consider the children of Israel, walking through the
    desert to the Promised Land.  They rebel against God (so what else is
    new).  As a result of this rebellion God sends fiery serpents as a
    judgement against sin.  Many died from the bites of the serpents. 
    Finally, the Israelites cried out in repentance to God and God, 
    who is infinitely just is also infinitely merciful, tells Moses to 
    erect a standard upon which hangs a brazen serpent (Christ who knew no 
    sin was made to be sin for us).  By God's word, if the children of Israel 
    were bitten by the fiery serpents then they were to gaze upon the
    brazen serpent and they would be delivered.  Note that the sepents were
    not destroyed but the effect of their venom was nullified.
    
    Summary:	The people sin.
    		God judges the sin (but loves the people).
    		The people repent.
    		God provides deliverence not from the sin but from the
    		   result of the sin which was God's judgement.
    
    If you truly believe that God does not exact a judgement then you need
    to reread Joel.  We like the part about restoring what the locust and
    the cankerworm have eaten but we fail to see that it was God who sent
    them in the first place.
    
    Kent
    

      Mark,
    
        Your replies are useless for me so why don't you just
        leave them for someone else?  I'm speaking of your
        decimal point one.  They do nothing.
    
        By getting through...all I meant to refer to was the
        concept of the punishment being inherent to sin and
        this because of a spiritual reality that is a result
        of God's character of love.  That's all.
    
        My only source of frustration was people bringing up the 
        cross as a ransom/price/sacrifice and (having this) being 
        the proof that it must be a 'judicial' model.
    
        If a doctor exhausts his life coming up with a cure, in 
        a sense he was ransomed/sacrificed/etc. 
    
        That's all.
    
        Anyway, Mark, save those kind of replies...unless they do someone
        other than myself any good.  They are utterly useless for me.
        I just want you to know.  No sense having you waste your fingers
        or your time, unless they satisfy something in you.
    
                                                  Tony

To add to that Kent:

  David was sorry for his sin, but God exacted a judgment (of David's
choice: three years of famine, three months on the run from his enemies,
or three days of devestation).

  David was also forgiven his sin of adultery and murder but took the child
anyway AND split the kingdom.

  There's a whole lot more, too.  The whole Levitical system, for example.

MM

    How about we all lovingly deliver ourselves from any heat in this
    debate and trust the L-rd to shed His own light on the matter?

>        Anyway, Mark, save those kind of replies...unless they do someone
>        other than myself any good.  They are utterly useless for me.
>        I just want you to know.  No sense having you waste your fingers
>        or your time, unless they satisfy something in you.

Perhaps, as you have hope for me at times, you will someday have your
eyes opened to the Truth instead of what you incompletely understand today.

Mark

    Moderator Request:
    
    May we please keep the discussion strictly to the topic at hand.  
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    Co-mod CHRISTIAN
    

      Hi Kent,
    
        Sorry I called you Kurt!!
    
        The way I understand it is that the fiery serpents are not
        judgments against sin, but represent the sting of sin itself.
        They do sting don't they?  ;-)
    
        Yes, God most certainly has used punishment as some object 
        lesson.  If He used inherent punishment, we'd be consumed.
        I honestly believe that the punishment He uses symbolizes
        destruction due to sin and not destruction external to and
        above and beyond any destruction inherent to sin itself.
    
        The unsaved are destroyed by the same fire the saved bask in.
        The fiery furnace tells me that there was something about sin
        that caused the Babylonian guards to die and not Daniel's
        friends (I speak of what the story symbolizes).
    
        The fire is the same.  Its God's love.  But, if sin is in the
        mind, when the commandment comes, there is an awakening.  And
        the guilt (as in inner feelings...not as in being guilty before God)
        leads to despair thanks to unbelief and the unsaved are destroyed.
    
        That's honestly what I believe.
    
        What is the sword that smites Shephard and remnant?  Isn't the
        sword God's word?  That is the commandment coming.  Jesus survived
        seeing behind the veil, the last generation (remnant) survives,
        and the unsaved are destroyed.
    
                                                  Tony

      re: .59
    
        I can in complete honesty say Amen in my heart to your
        suggestion.
    
        I hope 1 Corin 8:2 sears our hearts with conviction that
        there is so much more to understand...and perhaps much
        to unlearn...for all of us.
    
                                                 Tony

>    May we please keep the discussion strictly to the topic at hand.  

We are delivered from the wrath of God because He has provided propitiation
for our sins that we might not be held accountable to the consequences of our
sins by His loving grace and mercy towards us.  We are delivered because
we have believed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died in our stead
though we deserved to pay that penalty for our sins, not He.  We are delivered
because Jesus Christ rose from the dead, having paid sins price and conquered
death and hell.  We are delivered because we put out trust in God to remove
our sins and consequences according to His Word.  We are delivered from our
sins so that the righteous judgment and wrath of God does not need to be
rendered against us.

Those who reject God's propitiation will still be held accountable and will
receive God's wrath and judgment.

Mark

.62>

Yes, Tony, I still hold out hope.  (Less at some times than others, mind you.)

For those who may wonder about the Scripture reference in .62:

1 Corinthians 8:2  And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth
nothing yet as he ought to know.

    I rather enjoy Mark's replies, he's an eloquent writer.  
    
    Mike

    Mark helps provide a balance - when presented with both sides of an
    argument, one is able to make a better decision.
    
    Thanks Mark!
    
    Tony, I feel you could cut some things out of your replies that would
    make them more well recieved - (I'm not refering to the content) things
    like "after this many replies and you still don't get it" and various
    other blanket statements that make me feel like I'm really stupid for
    disagreeing with you. (I feel that way just trying to follow the
    discussion - I don't need to be told:-)

    Tony,
    
    It's a good point that you bring out about God being the instrument
    that struck Jesus (the Shepherd).  Let's elaborate on that.  In Isaiah
    53 we read that "we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and
    afflicted".  But it goes on to say that he was "wounded for our
    transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of
    our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."  In other
    words, there was a substitutionary work on the cross where Jesus was
    smitten of God because of our sin.  In fact, it says that our
    iniquities were laid upon him.  It goes on to say that he was taken
    from prison and from judgement.  What prison?  The prison of death. 
    Who's judgement?  God's judgement.  If we continue to read it says that
    he was without sin and yet it "pleased God to bruise him".  The word
    for bruise is actually a much more sever word which means to crush. 
    Now God was not happy in the fact that he had to smite Jesus but the
    alternative is to smite us and in smiting Jesus we are reconciled to
    God.
    
    Second, you mentioned the sting of sin.  My Bible talks about the sting
    of death, the consequence (wages) of sin.  It also says that through
    the work of the cross that sting has been eliminated.  There is no
    consequence of sin which has not been, or will not be, dictated and
    administered by the hand of God.
    
    Kent
    

      We are delivered by faith which works by love because faith
      allows the creative word of God to perform its work.  Faith
      allows Christ to recreate our hearts which includes deliverance
      from sin.
    
      Before we are completely delivered from sin, we are accounted 
      righteouss because God honors our first steps and because He
      can perfect our faith which when perfected has completely 
      delivered from sin...
    
      Romans 4:20-22
      He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but
      was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
      and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also
      able to perform.
      and THEREFORE "it [FAITH] was accounted to him for righteoussness."
    
      And faith was accounted to Abraham for righteoussness when Abe's
      faith faltered like mad.  But, when Abraham did the Mount Moriah
      experience (when he survived that symbolic three day sign of the
      cross...i.e. faith completely delivering from sin and enabling one
      to be smitten by the sword), THAT is what the 'therefore' is alluding
      to.
    
      THIS is the basis for the giving of the gospel (that it can perform
      this)...
    
      Genesis 22:16-18
      and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, BECAUSE YOU HAVE
      DONE THIS THING, and have not withheld your son, your only son,
      in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will mutliply
      your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which
      is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of
      their enemies.
      In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because
      you have obeyed My voice."
    
      Acts 3:25
      "You are the sons of the prophets and the covenant which God made
      with our fathers saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the
      families of the earth shall be blessed.
    
      Galatians 3:8
      And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the nations by
      faith preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying "In you all the
      nations shall be blessed."
    
      Acts 3:26
      "To you first God having raised up His servant Jesus, sent Him to
      bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."
    
      Again...just being honest here...
    
      I see no need for Abraham to survive the Mount Moriah experience
      with the judicial model.  But, with what I have proposed...that
      God accounts us righteouss when faith is first there because of
      what God can ultimately do with that faith.
    
      And I see what Abraham did as a type of what the last generation
      MUST do (Heb 11:39,40).  And again..I honestly see no reason for
      any of this with a judicial model.
    
      Now referring to Acts 3:26, the entire purpose of the gospel, of
      the covenant, of the blessing, of the resurrection, of the cross...
      is to turn us from our iniquities for that is our condemnation - 
      sin and sin itself.
    
      Please, please give some thought to why in the world Abraham's
      faith was accounted righteouss partially because of what it had
      to become.  And give some thought to what Acts 3:25/Gal 3:8/Acts 3:26
      say and do not say.  It is to take away the sin.
    
      That's it!
    
                                                    Tony
      

      re: .66
    
        I am sorry.  Please forgive me.
    
        What a bummer to be so fallible.  Ahhh, now I feel the guilt
        and the worthiness.
    
        Thanks for pointing out my sin.
    
                                                   Tony

    Tony can you answer my question?

      What question Nance?
    
      You've asked so many!
    
      Hurry, I'm about ready to leave!
    
                                          Tony

    re: .69
    
      I thinkI meant to say unworthiness!
    
                                          Tony

    What a bummer to be so fallible.  Ahhh, now I feel the guilt
            and the worthiness.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    do you mean unworthiness?
    :-)
    
    I thought .68 was much better....
    :-)
    
    I'll agree with you on the fallible part, it is a bummer!
    I'm tired of being fallible.
    
    oh - you're welcome.  
    but its scriptural (can we agree on that?;-)

    ok, so I type slowly...
    :-)
    see what I mean by fallible...:-)

      re last two
    
      Hi,
    
        Sorry I don't know your name!
    
        Thanks, I fall so short of the glory of God.  I look through a
        glass darkly, but I do hope that the glass which I look through
        will become less and less dark.  "The path of the just is a shining
        light that grows brighter and brighter..."
    
        I'm gonna read over my replies and summarize main points...I really
        want to see how it is that my writings are often viewed as Mark
        (Metcalfe) viewed them.  So, I'll reread and summarize points made.
    
                                                     Tony

    call me Phil, (or Robin, if you're like Nancy and want to confuse me)
    
    Christ died for your fallibilities and mine :-)
    
    as I'm taking two days off this week (Thursday and Friday) I'm going to
    try to restrain myself from spending too much time in here, so I can
    get everything done that I need to.
    
    HiR!
    p

>        I'm gonna read over my replies and summarize main points...I really
>        want to see how it is that my writings are often viewed as Mark
>        (Metcalfe) viewed them.  So, I'll reread and summarize points made.

I sincerely tried to help at one time to help you (Tony) to communicate
what you want to say so that there was no misunderstanding.  But I have 
come to realize that (a) there is a fundamental rift in position on some
key points (the judicial model, sin (and sarx), to name a couple) and
(b) there is a fundamental difference in basis for communication.

I've used the term "jargon" before and this is not a negative term.
It simply implies using known words but meaning something esoteric.
Baptists and Nazarenes have jargon.  (They say that England and the USA
are two nations divided by a common language.)  

I don't think you'll find how I've viewed your writings by examining them
because you're the one who wrote them.  I know from personal experience
how difficult it is to be objective about one's own writing.  To me, my
writings communicate perfectly; I know exactly what I mean and it makes
perfect sense.

Instead, try to recognize the fundamental differences between the two positions.
Once you understand the other side, then how the other side rejects your
view becomes more clear, though it doesn't necessarily change your own
viewpoint.  Seeing how others see is important.  If Tony presents a new,
deeper revealed truth (which I believe is mistaken) then he has either
(a) communicated it poorly or (b) presented something that is understood
but rejected.  You see, people can reject things that are not understood
and this is maybe where you see me (in particular, or us in general).  I
wanted to make sure that I didn't reject some of your views based on
not understanding them.  I believe I understand your views well enough
in our exchanges to say that I understand (at least enough) to reject
portions of your views.  Of course, these are likely the fundamental
portions.

Nevertheless, I hope that I haven't frustrated you too badly.  (I'm not 
opposing your views to frustrate you.)  But you know that I will speak 
about what I feel is truth and error.... and you will and should do the 
same.

Despite our wranglings, I don't have a problem with where you stand in 
relationship to the Lord; just the presenting of ill-formed doctrine.
May the Holy Spirit be actively speaking to the both of us in regards 
to understanding God better.

Mark

    >Instead, try to recognize the fundamental differences between the two
    >positions. Once you understand the other side, then how the other side 
    >rejects your view becomes more clear, though it doesn't necessarily 
    >change your own viewpoint.  Seeing how others see is important. 
    
    Worth repeating... 
    

      re -1
    
        This is fast...I gotta work.
    
        Mark, I'll give you two examples though of where I see huge
        disconnects.
    
        I'm almost positive that in the last big discussion over this,
        your MAJOR defense was the sacrificial system AND the "shedding
        of blood" verse.  And I'll be honest...I wasn't sure how to 
        respond to that.
    
        But, since then I have seen scripture so clearly utilize those
        exact verses in a context completely in support of my view and
        in conflict with yours.
    
        To take the remission of sin verse.  I cannot find one single
        instance where the context of that verse supports a judicial
        model whereby the blood is the 'payment.'  NOT ONE!
    
        But, just perhaps three weeks ago I studied Hebrews and what
        do I find?
    
        I find that verse to appear within the context of SIN ACTUALLY
        BEING REMOVED FROM THE EXPERIENCE.  I see no 'financial transa-
        ction!'  I see no payment!  I see no remission in terms of
        satisfying payment.  I see remission in terms of the conscience
        being PURGED FROM SIN.  Absolute clear 100% endorsement of my
        position that being we are delivered from sin and only the shed
        blood can take away the sin (literally).  That is clearly what
        Hebrews 9 says.
    
        Now onto the sacrifice.  Do I EVER see the High Priest perform
        a 'financial transaction' with the blood?  NOT ONCE!!!  But,
        time and time again, I see Him take the blood and apply it to 
        the sanctuary which is symbolic of the heart, i.e. "Build Me
        a sanctuary that I might DWELL AMONG THEM."
    
        Every time, the shed blood (yes, the shed blood is required) is
        applied to the heart and the heart is actually cleansed from sin.
        Every time.  Sin is actually REMOVED (this is the meaning of
        remitted) when the High Priest applies the shed blood and cleanses
        the sanctuary (heart).
    
        So Mark...this is the kind of disconnect I get.  The deeper I go,
        the more I study, the more I see scripture unfold this model and
        the more I am recognizing it being oh so silent with the judicial.
    
        I hope you understand what I am saying.  
    
        And I really appreciate you reply.
    
        I'll tell ya Mark...I am hoping to read the entire Bible and mark
        virtually every text that refers to what we are delivered from 
        and what condemns.  I have yet to find a single text state that
        we are delivered from a judicial penalty of death.  I honestly
        haven't seen it!
    
        But, I'll keep looking.   I AM LOOKING!!!
    
                                                      Tony

>        To take the remission of sin verse.  I cannot find one single
>        instance where the context of that verse supports a judicial
>        model whereby the blood is the 'payment.'  NOT ONE!
...
>        But, I'll keep looking.   I AM LOOKING!!!

Hmmm....  If I made this statement, perhaps you might be able to 
accuse me of either (a) being unable to see [it], or (b) being unwilling
to see [it].

>        So Mark...this is the kind of disconnect I get.  The deeper I go,
>        the more I study, the more I see scripture unfold this model and
>        the more I am recognizing it being oh so silent with the judicial.

The deeper you go, the more you think you've had greater revelation.  But
all you have found is how to fit verses into your particular view.  

I have said before that I think you have started with an assumption and
found what you went looking for rather than accepting what is there for
what it means.  Yes, the Bible has deeper truths and is living in this 
regard, but to quote from my own notes:
-----------
John Wesley has a "quardalateral sources of authority" (and the scholars
in here can help me out) for determine what Truth is when it is in question.

1. The Word
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience

The trouble is that many of us want to zip on past 1, 2, and 3, and rely on
number 4.  Nothing is Truth that contradicts the tenor of Scripture.

But Scripture is interpreted.  Anyone who says we rely on the word of God
and the Word only has their interpretation of the Scripture.  So these other
pieces come into play, remembering the hierarchy.  An interpretation CANNOT
contradict the tenor of Scipture and be held as a truth.

"Tradition" is claimed by some, and should not simply mean "the unbroken
succession" of an orgainzation.  The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
church of Jesus Christ is not limited to an organization.
The church is One in Jesus, holy in that it belongs to God not men,
catholic in that it is worldwide; universal, and apostolic in that it
has not varied from what the disciples taught.  (Friend Catholic: I hope
you can see that I am not tearing down your church by lifting up His Church.)

Reason is given to change with the debasement of humanity and only
more fleeting is personal experience.  Yet, when they affirm the tradition
which affirms the Word, they then can be trusted, for none of these four
points of the quadralateral are sufficient alone, but taken together,
provide a mechanism by which we, as humans, can interpret the Truths
that pre-exist the law.
-----------

This is a hierarchy and doesn't work well when you come at it from the opposite
direction.

Peace,

Mark

      re -1
    
      No, what you are saying doesn't apply in this case.
    
      The remission of sin verses really do apply contextually
      to actual removal of sin in the conscience.  Hebrews 9 is
      plain.  Do you contend with this?
    
      If the above is so...it follows (not from presumption, not
      from trying to prove anything, but from context) that the
      remission of sin verse speaks of actual removal of sin.  It
      simply does not refer to judicial payment.
    
      Same with the High Priest's use regarding the shed blood.  
      It doesn't matter what I believe, objective fact is this:
    
      If you take the blood and undergo a payment with it, you are
      satisfying a judicial price.
    
      If you take the blood and do something with it that includes
      actually taking sin away, you are satisfying just that -
      actually taking sin away.
    
      If the High Priest ALWAYS takes the blood, but never pays anybody
      with it, OBJECTIVE FACT (outside of any presumption, bias, anything)
      is that He is not supporting doing just that...making a judicial
      payment.
    
      If the High Priest ALWAYS takes the blood and uses it in such a 
      way that He actually removes sin, OBJECTIVE FACT (outside of any
      presumption, bias, trying to 'prove' something) is that the High
      Priest is doing just that - taking the sin away.
    
      This is one humongous disconnect.  These are simple concepts.  They
      are too simple to be called fantastical or stretches or whatever.
      What the blood is said to ACCOMPLISH unarbitrarily supports a 
      conclusion outside of trying to force in this case (for the 
      ideas are so simple).
    
      You clean, you get rid of.  You pay, you satisfy a required price.
      You remit in the context of the conscience actually being purged 
      from sin (paraphrase: "There is no more conscioussness of sin"),
      you actually take the sin away.  You remit in the context of 
      (make believe quote: "and the High Priest satisfied the broken 
      law by paying the Father with the full cup of His blood" you
      are satisfying a judicial penalty.
    
      Again...these are quite simple concepts and the content is too
      straightforward in order for one to be able to say conclusions
      are formed from presupposition.
    
                                                  Tony
                                    

>      The remission of sin verses really do apply contextually
>      to actual removal of sin in the conscience.  Hebrews 9 is
>      plain.  Do you contend with this?

      If the above is so...it follows (not from presumption, not
      from trying to prove anything, but from context) that the
      remission of sin verse speaks of actual removal of sin.  It
      simply does not refer to judicial payment.
    
I never contend that Hebrews is not plain. 

>      If the above is so...it follows (not from presumption, not
>      from trying to prove anything, but from context) that the
>      remission of sin verse speaks of actual removal of sin.  It
>      simply does not refer to judicial payment.

But I have seen you contend with the judicial model, yet in Hebrews 9 it says:

 27  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment:

Hmmm...  rethink Hebrews 9 perhaps?

>      If you take the blood and undergo a payment with it, you are
>      satisfying a judicial price.
    
The blood atones...

>      If you take the blood and do something with it that includes
>      actually taking sin away, you are satisfying just that -
>      actually taking sin away.
 
That's what atonement is.  The EXCHANGE is blood for sin.  Because of sin,
blood must be shed.  Sounds like wages to me.

>      If the High Priest ALWAYS takes the blood, but never pays anybody
>      with it, OBJECTIVE FACT (outside of any presumption, bias, anything)
>      is that He is not supporting doing just that...making a judicial
>      payment.
    
Here where you have made your assumption, that there is no payment.
Judgment came upon Adam and Eve and the serpent way back in Genesis and
some animals were killed also as a result of sin.

Genesis 3
 21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and
clothed them.

You want to think that the priest is not "paying" anyone, but atonement is
just that: exchange of blood for sin.  Haven't you read the scripture
that "you were bought with a price?"


1Corinthians 6:20  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1Corinthians 7:23  Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Is this not a payment, Tony?

>      This is one humongous disconnect.  These are simple concepts.  They
>      are too simple to be called fantastical or stretches or whatever.
>      What the blood is said to ACCOMPLISH unarbitrarily supports a 
>      conclusion outside of trying to force in this case (for the 
>      ideas are so simple).

Disconnect, yes.  Fantastical and stretches, still.  Simple, based on 
your predispositions, but not on what the Word has said, for it clearly does
support a judicial model and a payment, but since you cannot accept these,
there is the disconnect.

Mark

  Hi,

    I had a talk with my 11 (soon to be 12) year old daughter
    this morning.

    I asked Erica a simple question...

    "Do you think the blood is being used here to take sin
     away from the heart or as a payment for something?"

    I showed her the following text...

    Hebrews 9:14
    how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
    Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience
    from dead works to serve the living God?

    The conversation proceeded as follows...

    Erica: "I don't know."

    Me:    "What's the problem?  What don't you understand?"

    Erica: "I don't know what purge means."

    Me:    "It means to cleanse."

    Erica: "Its used to take the sin away."

    Me:    "Ok Erica...that's all I wanted to know.  Thanks!"

    Erica: (turning around and walking away) "Dad, that was obvious!"


    Hebrews 9:15
    And _for this reason_ He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by 
    means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the
    first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise
    of the eternal inheritance.

    [for what reason?  vs 14: "how much more shall the blood of Christ...
     purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?"]

    Hebrews 9:22,26,28,10:1,2
    And according to the law almost all things are purged with blood,
    and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
    Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the
    heavens _should be purified_ with these, but the heavenly things
    themselves with better sacrifices than these...
    He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the
    world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared _to put
    away sin_ by the sacrifice of Himself...
    For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the
    very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices which
    they offer continually year by year, _make those who approach perfect_.
    For then would they not have ceased to be offered?  For the worshippers,
    _once purged_, _would have had no more conscioussness of sins_.

    
    The text continues in the exact same vein and please recall, it is
    all in the context of the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ, of
    necessity of the shedding of His blood, of what that blood accomplishes.

    10:3  With the O.T. sacrifices, there is a remembrance of sin.  This
          is their imperfection.

    10:4  Within the context of there being a remembrance of sin...the 
          blood of animals could not take away sins.

    10:10 After reference to the sacrifice of Christ..."By that will we
          have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
          Christ once for all."

    10:16 reference to the covenant, yet unfulfilled, of the law being
          written in the heart.

    10:22 reference to the heart being sprinkled from an evil conscience.

    
    Some may call this presupposition forcing the context of what one
    would call the scriptural purpose of Christ's shed blood.  But, as
    my 12 year old daughter said in passing, "Its obvious."

    To insist this is being built on presupposition is tatamount to
    pointing to a white rock and saying, "Look!  The kettle's black!"

    This is not complicated.  Its simple.  But, it is difficult in a 
    different sense.  The reason is because it is hard to UNLEARN.

    I heard a story once of a woman who had a brain tumor.  She found
    it had to be surgically removed and after it was removed, she had
    a strange thing happen when she sat to have her first meal.  Her
    food tasted strange.  She called her doctor and complained about 
    this and her doctor said, "Oh, hasn't anybody told you?  The part
    of your brain that was removed contained your sense of taste.  You
    cannot taste anything at all!!!"

    The concept of not being able to taste is easy.  But to _unlearn_,
    so difficult that even while actually not tasting a thing, she
    thought herself to be tasting.

    I think the following is accurate...
   'We have many lessons to learn and many, many to unlearn.'

                                                  Tony

      Hi Mark,
    
        I believe you are defining terms incorrectly.  
    
        Atonement means reconciliation.  In fact, my NKJV renders the
        Romans 5:? verse "we have now received the atonement" as "we
        have now received the reconciliation."   I would put this in
        the realm of _meaning_.  You define atonement incorrectly.
    
        As to bought with a price.  If sin destroys and God must pay
        a steep price in order to deliver me from sin, I am still "bought
        with a price."  I would put that in the realm of _interpretation_.
    
                                                  Tony

      Oh yes, that's right, the other point was judgment.
    
      I would also say that you are packing a lot of interpretation
      into that single word _judgment_.
    
      God says there is a judgment and you necessitate that the fact that
      there is a judgment implies...
    
      God judicially requires payment for sin.
    
      There can be a judgment without such an implication.  Again, you
      are adding to the text by forcing your meaning into things.
    
      Judgment would be a LONG discussion, but suffice to say...to just
      say "Look there IS a judgment!" and to conclude from that..."Ah
      hah!  Thus there is obviously a judicial requirement of death for
      sin!"  is quite a stretch requiring LOADS of presupposition.
    
                                              Tony

Rather than show you where your conversation with your daughter and 
your "interpretations" are "clearly" mistaken some more, I'll pass, Tony.

Thanks for another round, though.

Mark

But one last volley (I hope):

>      Judgment would be a LONG discussion, but suffice to say...to just
>      say "Look there IS a judgment!" and to conclude from that..."Ah
>      hah!  Thus there is obviously a judicial requirement of death for
>      sin!"  is quite a stretch requiring LOADS of presupposition.

Think about what you have just said here.  I've taken the Scripture at its
word ("ah ha, there is obviously a judicial judgment") and it is therefore
a stretch?  It's not taken out of context, either.

Let the reader decide.

Markz

      Sounds good...
    
      Just take an honest look at exactly what the blood is 
      accomplishing.  I have no problem with that.
    
      I hope I didn't bias my daughter when offering two
      possibilities.  I didn't favor one over the other.
      I just stated them, asked her to look at a representative
      text (a text explicitly stating what the blood actually
      does) and asked her to tell me what she thought.
    
      Without hesitation, she gave me her answer.
    
      She had no presuppositions.  All she had was a multiple
      choice containing two answers and the word of God.
    
      I'll admit presupposition in terms of the multiple choice,
      but to be fair, I equally 'presupposed' both models of
      deliverance.  I stated them bothj accurately and fairly
      and let her decide from the word.
    
      That's all I could ask.  Candidly read what the word says
      about what the blood accomplishes.
    
                                                 Tony

      re: .87
    
        Not so easy.  Jesus says "You judge yourselves guilty."
        The judgment of the lost could refer to that time God
        allows sin to condemn them.
    
        Judgment also alludes to the deliverance of the saved.
        It refers to a resolution of heretofore 'not yet resolved'
        truth.  It refers to God (in a sense) being on trial and
        both lost and saved being witnesses before a universal
        court.  Some of the most complex prophecies contain judgment
        themes.
    
                                               Tony

      Hi,
    
        I forgot...I said I'd reply to .67.
    
        By the way, if anyone can point me to any replies that
        specifically address the blood texts that speak explicitly
        of what the blood accomplishes, give me a holler.  I'm not
        sure of any, but I'm sure willing to read any.
    
        I'll get to ya Kent.
    
                                                 Tony

>It refers to God (in a sense) being on trial 

backwards backwards backwards topsy turvy and upside down

>      Just take an honest look at exactly what the blood is 

The looks have been honest; were you implying otherwise?

MM

(BTW, hint: ask someone else's daughter, perhaps the daughter of a Sunday 
Baptist worshipper, or someone else.  Ask my daughter.  Also, the "I down know"
(without hesitation) indicates something.  Lastly, the one verse is not
sufficient to hinge the doctrine of sacrafice and atonement by the blood.)

sigh

    Er, uh, have missed something here..???
    
    The blood cleanses us from sin because it is applied as an offering to
    God on behalf of us... Yes it cleanses from sin and it is required
    judicially for *atonement*.  Why Tony pray tell are you finding this
    hard to grashp?

      I'm sorry Nancy...show me a single text that refers to the
      blood as making a payment and NOT as actually removing sin
      from the heart.
    
      Mark, Erica didn't know what 'purge' means.
    
      By 'honest', I refer to the difficulty of unlearning.
    
                                             Tony

    Galatians 1:6  I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
    called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
      
    7  Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and
    would pervert the gospel of Christ.
    
    8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
    unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    
    9  As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other
    gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
    
    

    The OT sacrifices foreshadowed the Lamb of God, "slain from the foundation 
    of the world" (Revelation 13:8), whose shed blood would be the final
    sacrifice and cleansing for sin (I John 1:7).  Man, whose sinful rebellion 
    has separated him from God, can now have "peace through the blood of his 
    cross" (Colossians 1:20) and be "reconciled" to God (II Corinthians 5:19) 
    because of his vicarious, substitutionary death.  More supportive 
    Scriptures can be found in I Peter 2:24, Romans 5:8, Acts 4:12, 
    Hebrews 9:22, I John 1:9.

    Tony,
    I think we see a sacrifice as being a form of payment, while you see it
    as more of a bath/cleansing.
    
    I haven't yet found God's checking account, tho.
    What bank would He use?
    :-)
    
    

      re .94
    
      So what are you saying Nancy...that the gospel you preach 
      is perverted and thus you are accursed?
    
      (You said NOTHING about the content of the gospel.)
    
      re: .95
    
      Everything you stated is in 100% support of the gospel I
      am trying to convey.  That is that the entire purpose of
      the sacrifice and the shed blood is to reconcile the heart
      of man back to God.  To make man righteouss, to cleanse from
      sin.
    
      Virtually everything you said is entirely consistent with a
      model of deliverance that is from sin and sin alone and not
      from God having to judicially punish on account from sin.
      And Mike, if you reread what you entered, you will find ample
      support for the model I gave and no support whatsoever for
      the (supposed) requirement of a judicial penalty of death.
    
      Were a judicial penalty for death required BY GOD, it would
      follow that at least to some degree, it is He who must be reconciled
      for it would imply that He cannot forgive man unless something
      HE requires is satisfied.
    
      Do you see what I'm saying.
    
      Mike, I couldn't have picked better scriptures for defending my
      position if I wanted to!!  (I really couldn't have!)
    
      I wonder what that means.
    
                                                    Tony

  Hi,

    Just a quickie on judgment...

    Romans 3:4
    Certainly not!  Indeed, let God be true [margin: "found true"]
    but every man a liar.  As it is written:

    "That you may be justified
          in Your words,
     And may overcome when
          _You are judged_."

    There is a text in Daniel that says...

    "Unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."

    I looked up the word cleansed in the Hebrew.  It is 'tsadek.'  In
    every other rendering (save one) of which there are ~40, it is
    translated _justified_.

    "Unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be justified."

    "Thy WAY O God is in the sanctuary."

    Daniel, that little book, is sealed unto the end at which time 
    knowledge shall increase.  Much of the theme in Daniel is judgment.
    I suggest that the very fact that Daniel is sealed and is laden 
    with judgment themes is some support for my contention that it may
    not be proper to claim that judgment, by the very nature of the term,
    must imply a judicial requirement of death for sin.

    I believe that before Christ can come, His WAY is justified to the
    satisfaction of the entire intelligent universe.  The little horn 
    speaks words against the Most High.  The saints prevail against the
    little horn in a scene not depicting physical overthrow (although the
    little horn will be destroyed), but rather in a scene depicting a
    forum for the weighing of issue - the judgment.

    Something about the saints in the last days tips the scales and 
    destroys the little horn power in the realm of issues.  The little
    horn had leverage against the saints and I believe against God.  The
    little horn speaks words against the Most High Himself and isn't defeated
    until the judgment.  But, at the time of the judgment, the saints 
    overthrow the little horn.  This is the time God's sanctuary is justified.

    Ultimately, the manner of judgment and the question of whether or not
    God could be on trial depends on one's conception of the agape of 
    Christ.  If agape is completely self-emptying and God only does for
    His creation, if all that the plan of redemption is about is something
    for His creation and has nothing to do with satisfying anything He requires
    for Himself, it then becomes possible God's supreme aim is to settle the
    perfection of His way in the minds of His intelligent creation.  that were 
    His creation to be confused about the way things are, He would be willing
    to have His government put on trial as it were and would submit Himself
    to be found true and just in all His ways.

    Some might say God would never 'stoop' to be put on trial.  I believe 
    God, who could be willing to undergo the steps of condescension as stated
    in Phillipians, could be willing to submit Himself to a forum for the
    resolution of issues in order to sear in the minds of His creation, the
    perfection of His way and thus eternally safeguard His followers from
    sin.

    Ultimately, that is what judgment is.  Not a forum whereby the lost must
    undergo a judicial penalty of death for sin, but rather a forum whereby
    any and all questions concerning the government of God, His character
    are forever settled.  That is, the judgment, ultimately is a setting for
    the weighing and final resolution of issues which resolution is for and
    takes place in the minds of God's followers and which forever safeguards
    them from sin.

                                                       Tony

    Tony, 
    
    It is a scriptural warning... for EVERYONE.

    Tony,
    
    What is salvation to you?  Is it automatic for the entire world?
    
    If your model of judgement is correct, then all of our Christian lives
    are in vain...  
    
    

>      Virtually everything you said is entirely consistent with a
>      model of deliverance that is from sin and sin alone and not
>      from God having to judicially punish on account from sin.
>      And Mike, if you reread what you entered, you will find ample
>      support for the model I gave and no support whatsoever for
>      the (supposed) requirement of a judicial penalty of death.

>      So what are you saying Nancy...that the gospel you preach 
>      is perverted and thus you are accursed?
>    
>      (You said NOTHING about the content of the gospel.)

Tony, be very careful.  If you indeed say that the gospel you are 
presenting, and the gospel that we have presented (the orthodox view,
as it were), are different (not merely interpretation), then one is 
another gospel and subject to some pretty stiff penalties according to the
Word.

> Title:  Judgment/And Yes It Is Scriptural That God Is Judged

This is backwards and balderdash.  And you have shown that it is easy
to claim it is scriptural, and easy to understand, but you have not
demonstrated either.  Be careful, because you are dancing close to the 
cliff's edge with the doctrine you espouse in contradiction to the
orthodox gospel that has been in place since Christ and before.

Mark M

      Hi Mark,
    
        Because of your fancy for terms such as 'balderdash' and other
        styles of writing, I have elected to not read your replies.
    
        Just to let you know, so you can address them not to me, but 
        to others.
    
                                                  Tony

      Hi Mike,
    
        I will reply to your second to last reply with some detail,
        but here I want to offer a different _interpretation_ to
        Romans 6:23
    
        For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal
        life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    
        If you can appreciate a difference between INHERENT punishment
        and JUDICIAL punishment, you can see that Romans 6:23, taken
        by itself, could apply either way.
    
        For example, a person might have a gigantic tumor in his liver,
        a fatal one at that.  One might say...
    
        "The wages of that tumor is death."
    
        Then again, a person might commit armed robbery whose penalty 
        for the crime is 10 years in the slammer.  In this case, the
        penalty is judicially given because of the crime BUT is not
        inherent to the crime itself.  One might say...
    
        "The wages of armed robbery is 10 years in the slammer."
    
        Mike, there is NO WAY to understand this if you cannot see
        the fundamental difference between these two examples.
    
        The interpretation of Romans 6:23 which I happen to believe
        in is exactly in harmony with the first example and is not
        in harmony with the second.
    
        I believe you err by stating that Romans 6:23 MUST imply the
        second of the two examples.  I believe the grammatical structure
        and words are such that it can apply to both examples and we 
        need to study further to see which of the two is indeed correct.
    
        In addition, I have come to believe that life is inherent to
        righteoussness, that sin did not destroy Christ, but rather His
        faith conquered all that sin could throw at Him.  His sacrifice
        was complete when He cried "It is finished" and His physical
        death and resurrection are schoolmasters pointing to an earlier
        death (bearing the death of Romans 7 while alive) and resurrection
        (overcoming that death by faith - see Psalm 22:9-11,19-31) that
        occured completely while Christ was alive.
    
        I'll get to your other reply (tommorow at the soonest).
    
                                                    Tony

    Bad analogy imho, Tony.  a tumor is not sin...
    
    Another problem with this analogy is that any sin requires a judicial
    penalty.. whether it be lying or murder.
    

      Hi Nancy,
    
        Could you elaborate on .100???                     
    
        Quickly: salvation is deliverance from sin.  We are accounted
        righteouss when faith is first operative at which time some
        cleansing has taken place (some sin has been rooted out from 
        the heart).
    
        Even though, the unveiled presence of God would destroy us while
        sin is still in the heart, He acounts us righteouss (justified)
        on the basis that what He has promised, He can fulfill Rom 4:21,22.
    
        This promise reaches fulfillment with the last generation who
        go all the way to the cross.
    
        Why do you see me implying our lives are in vain?
    
                                                       Tony

    Tony,
    
    Your note to ignore Mark's speaks very loudly, but I'm not sure exactly
    what it is saying...  Please consider the below.
    
    Balderdash may be a strong word to you, but it represents an accurate
    and honest level of communication... Don't be so quick to refute that
    which comes honestly... 

    Tony,
    
    What must one do to be saved?

      re: .107
    
      I applied the analogy on the basis that I believe God does not
      need to punish us judicially for sinning and because I believe
      sin has destructive force INHERENT to it and because a tumor has
      destructive force inherent to it as well.  
    
      The commonality is the inherent destruction.
    
      I do not see the Bible saying anywhere that God judicially required
      a punishment for sin.  Why don't you show me from the Bible?
    
                                                    Tony

>     I hope you can see how the position I have labored to present is 
>     retained with perfect harmony to the word of God.
    
    Tony,
    
    When we haven't even established that the word of God says that Jesus
    took on "sinful flesh", this is a pretty far-fetched statement.  Once
    again, my Bible only uses the term "sinful flesh" in *one* place, and
    there it *does not* say that Jesus took on "sinful flesh".  Why do you
    suppose that the Holy Spirit was careful to state so specifically that
    it was in *the likeness* of sinful flesh?  Does the term "likeness of"
    mean nothing to you?
    
    Mark L.

      re: .110
     
      Have faith.
    
                                        Tony

    Tony,
    
    What was the "law"?

Pretty soon, Tony, you'll have to ignore all the replies of everyone else;
balderdash-type words or no.

    Re: .104 (Tony)
    
>    Notice what strikes the Shephard.  It is the sword.
>
>    Hebrews 4:12
>    For the word of God, is living and powerful, and sharper than any 
>    two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit,
>    and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents
>    of the heart.
>
>    Ephesians 6:17
>    and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which 
>    is the word of God.
>
>    Jesus, the Shephard, is smitten with the sword which is the word of God.
    
    Something about this bothered me yesterday, but I couldn't say exactly
    what.  Saying that "the sword" equals "the word of God" struck me as
    being an "interesting" view, but something didn't sit right.  So, I did
    a little homework last night, and I found something *very* interesting.
    
    1 Chronicles 21:12 Either three year's famine; or three months to be
        destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies
        overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the Lord, even
        the pestilence, in the land....
    
    Notice that the "sword of the Lord" is equated to the pestilence.  Now,
    also notice:
    Ezekiel 6:3 And say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the
        Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the
        hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys; Behold, I, even I, will
        bring a sword upon you, and I will destroy your high places.
    Ezekiel 14:21 For thus saith the Lord GOD; How much more when I send
        my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine,
        and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man
        and beast?
    Ezekiel 21:3 And say to the land of Israel, Thus saith the LORD;
        Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth my sword out of his
        sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.
      4 Seeing then that I will cut off from thee the righteous and the
        wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of his sheath
        against all flesh from the south to the north:
      5 That all flesh may know that I the LORD have drawn forth my sword
        out of his sheath: it shall not return any more.
    Ezekiel 30:25 But I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon,
        and the arms of Pharaoh shall fall down; and they shall know that
        I am the LORD, when I shall put my sword into the hand of the king
        of Babylon, and he shall stretch it out upon the land of Egypt.
    
    It becomes quite clear that when the Lord speaks of His sword, he is
    not referring to His word.  In fact, it is obvious that He is speaking
    of *His judgements*.  Now, I know that Tony will not agree, but when
    God speaks of His sword falling upon the shepherd, I would suggest that
    it is a *much* stronger interpretation to say that God is saying that
    His judgement (for sin) fell upon the Lord Jesus.
    
    Mark L. 

  Continuing on...

    Romans 5:8
    But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were
    still sinners, Christ died for us.

    Yes, and taken by itself, this is a neutral verse.  It can support 
    either model of deliverance.  But, if you go on with your context, you
    will find it to speak of reconciliation and that it is our hearts that
    need to be reconciled to Him.  AND NOT He who needs to be reconciled to
    us (which is the meaning if God can't save us outside of having to 
    satisfy His broken law judicially).

    Acts 4:12
    "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under
    heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

    Amen.  Again, this is model neutral.  With either model of deliverance
    (from sin itself or a required judicial penalty for sin) death is required
    for our salvation.

    Hebrews 9:22
    And according to the law almost all things are purged with blood, and
    without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

    And here you once again defend the model of deliverance I have come to
    believe in because every time the word specifically mentions what is
    being delivered, it refers to from sin.  To purge means to cleanse.
    We are cleansed by teh shed blood (for example check out the 1 Peter 
    sprinkled verse) or if you would like to remain in Hebrews 9, check out
    what the BIBLE says the blood is used for (Hebrews 9:9,13,14,15,22,23,26,
    10:1-4,,10,14-17,22 and on and on and on).

    1 John 1:9
    If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
    and to cleanse us from all unrighteoussness.

    Partial basis of our right standing before God when faith is first
    there, but the work of cleansing from sin is not complete is amply
    given in the life of Abraham (Genesis and Romans 4) as well as Hebrews 11.
    I am not negating perfect assurance, perfect forgiveness!  

    Of course the "cleanse from all unrighteoussness" once again supports
    deliverance being from sin and sin itself.

    
    I wrote out this reply with full assurance that the scriptures you
    would give, if explicitly stating what deliverance is, would fully support
    what I have been saying.  I did anticipate that there might be some
    confusion in texts which state the requirement of the sacrifice/shed
    blood without explicitly referring to just why it is required.  And I
    hope you understand that the necessity of the sacrifice is there with
    either model of deliverance and so any text stating the requirement of
    the sacrifice without explicitly stating WHY (in and of itself) supports
    neither view over the other.  I really hope you can appreciate that.

    Finally, I hope you can appreciate the fact that never does the Bible
    state the purpose of the shed blood as to satisfy a judicial payment.
    And several times it states the purpose to deliver from sin itself.

    All reconciliation texts are of the context of reconciling the sinful
    heart of man to God and wrested in that context is _from sin_.

    All atonement texts, if explicitly stating purpose, speak of cleansing.
    Check out the myriad of times in Leviticus atonement is referred to in
    the context of cleansing.

    People may say I am treading dangerous waters.  I say, lets study the
    word and I honestly find it a bit difficult to really consider my 
    notions dangerous in the light of the magnitude of times it refers to
    the role of the cross/shed blood to be for removing sin from the heart 
    and the complete silence to reference to satisfying a judicial payment.

    I have yet to see a single text save Romans 6:23 which I believe is
    neutral (can support either position).

                                                         Tony

    >        I will reply to your second to last reply with some detail,
>        but here I want to offer a different _interpretation_ to

    Sorry Tony, I'm not buying what you're selling.  You're making the word
    of God more complicated than it has to be.  I take God's Word literally.  
    Romans 6:23 says the cost of sin is death.  There is no sugar-coating it 
    no matter how much you try to twist it.  No offense, but every time you 
    present your case, you have to use an irrelevant tangent to support your 
    case because the Word of God doesn't support your view.  It is starting
    to resemble the maze of Mormonism.  The Word of God isn't that
    difficult.  When you make it more complicated than it needs to be, you
    fall into cultism.

    Mike

    Tony you're so caught up in exegesis your failing to see the obvious.
    
    Sin would NOT need removing from the heart if it were not judicially
    required.
    
    It is simple.
    

    P.S.
    
    Please answer... What was the Law?

      re: .96
    
        Yup, you've got it!
    
        Everybody else...its back to work and I doubt I can contribute
        any more today.
    
        Mark...I did a 'dir' so I could skip your reply.  Pleae, no
        hard feelings.  If I need to be fed by you (if you feel it is
        urgent) write me offline or convey the warning message to anyone
        else.
    
        I have prayed over this and the conviction simply did not come
        to read your replies.
    
        I feel you are often not gentle and instead of merely stating
        opposition to a belief, you 'turn the knife' a little.
    
        I am not saying I have never done so (in fact I recall asking
        forgiveness just recently for my own sin), I am just saying
        I sincerely believe I will benefit by overlooking anything you
        write.
    
                                                     Tony

 re .120-.121  AMEN!




 Jim

      Nancy,
    
        I will not answer these questions any more.  I see no
        purpose.
    
      Mike,
    
        To have sin removed from the heart by the blood of Christ is
        not a difficult concept and neither is inherent punishment.
        I am VERY comfortable to be labeled a cultist by yourself
        when you are unable to give me a single text telling me that
        the blood is used to satisfy a payment all the while I can give 
        you at least 20 saying it is used to remove sin from the heart.
           
        Romans 6:23 can be interpreted either way.
    
        I continue to believe the sole purpose of the cross is to
        be so blown by seeing God hung for me that my warmed heart 
        allows Him to cleanse it from sin.  Not a difficult concept.
    
        If there are no other replies in this topic outside of threats
        of cultism and avoidance of the word of God (relatively speaking)
        I'll not reply (save to Mark L's recent reply).
    
                                                    Peace,
    
                                                    Tony

      re: .121
    
      One more thing Nance.  I will not heed the "word of nancy"
      unless it is supported by the word of God.
    
      Just show me a scripture that explicitly states that a judicial
      payment was necessary.
    
      I don't want your word, I want God's.
    
      Show me one text that states that the shed blood is used to provide
      a judicial payment.
    
      I suppose I am a cultic by believing just what Acts 3:25/Gal 3:8/
      Acts 3:26 says.
    
      So be it.  I'll lean on the word of God and not the utterances of
      men.
    
                                                     Tony

    Re: .120 (Mike H.)
    
>    When you make it more complicated than it needs to be, you
>    fall into cultism.
    
    2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
        beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be
        corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
      
    As has been well said, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common
    sense, seek no other sense."
    
    Mark L.

 re .126


 Romans 3:23  For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
 Romans 6:23  for the WAGES of sin is DEATH
 Romans 5:8   God commendeth His love for us in that while we were yet
              sinners Christ DIED for us...


    Who is a sinner?  ALL of us...what is the penalty? DEATH..who should
    have paid that penalty?  US..who paid that penalty? JESUS CHRIST.


 It is as simple as that.




Jim

    That was really an uncalled for remark, "word of nancy"... :-)
    
    Tony, my question is pertinent, what was the "law" as recorded in the
    old testament.  Was it judiciary?
    
    And if Christ came to fulfill the law the old testament requirement...
    how can you claim it is not judiciary...
    
    Just show me and I mean just show me where it says Christ didn't come
    to fulfill the law.

      nancy,
    
        The reason I have chosen not to answer is because this is
        about the fifth or sixth time you have requested a specific
        question in the last week or so and after answering each
        one, there has been utter silence from you in return.  I don't
        care for such a dialogue.
    
        But, to answer...the law is equivalent to the righteoussness
        of Christ which is equivalent to agape.
    
        You guys are essentially calling my beliefs cultic and you 
        talk about what is "uncalled for."
    
        Again, I ask...
    
        Show me one single text that explicitly refers to the role of
        the blood being to pay a judicial penalty.  Show me ONE.
    
        If it is understood that death is inherent to sin, everything
        comes together.
    
        That is the critical piece of the puzzle and one that is NOT hard
        to understand.
    
        I reject all this accusation about this being too complicated.
        It is fully as complicated as this...
    
        "I am sick.  My illness is sin in my heart.  Jesus My Saviour
        has come to enter into my heart and heal me from my sin.  It is
        a work that takes time, but when I have consented for Him (by
        faith) to begin the work, He covers Me and accounts me righteouss."
    
        That is the sum total of the plan of redemption.  A Saviour who
        cleanses the heart from sin.  Adding anything to that (such as
        a judicial requirement adds to the complexity).
    
        I have felt the ire of the dragon in here.  I have felt in a very
        tiny measure, the persecution that can arise simply for adhering
        to the word of God.
    
        The time will come when Jeremiah's will give the word.
    
        And Christianity will flog these messenger's of the word and seek
        to kill them just as Israel flogged Jeremiah, put him in stocks,
        and sought to kill him.
    
        As far as I'm concerned...in a very small measure, I have
        identified with that.
    
                                                   Tony

>        the blood is used to satisfy a payment all the while I can give 
>        you at least 20 saying it is used to remove sin from the heart.
    
    Christ's atonement solved both - it wiped the slate clean and gave us a
    chance to start anew, as well as pay for the fall of man and our sinful
    nature so that we may be saved.  These messages are throughout God's
    Word.
    
    Mike

>        "I am sick.  My illness is sin in my heart.  Jesus My Saviour
>        has come to enter into my heart and heal me from my sin.  It is
>        a work that takes time, but when I have consented for Him (by
>        faith) to begin the work, He covers Me and accounts me righteouss."
    
    When you first accept Christ as Savior and ask Him into your heart, the
    cleansing and forgiveness is immediate.  It is not a process where the
    God who created the Universe in 6 days, has to take a lifetime to clean
    sin out of your heart.  When Christ said, "It is finished!" he wasn't
    talking about a lifetime process.  As soon as you ask Him into your
    heart, "It is finished!" 
    
    Sure you have to continue to grow in the Lord and bear fruit, but the
    cleansing has already been done.  At that point, you've accepted God's
    gift/sacrifice of love and grace, then you grow in the Lord and bask in
    His glorious presence in your life.
    
    By saying this cleansing takes time, and that no payment was required,
    you are stripping Christ of His Deity and minimizing what He has done
    for us.  *THAT* is why you are dangerously approaching cultism.
    
    Mike

      re: .131
    
      Mike, just show me ONE text that explicitly states that the
      role of the blood is to pay a judicial penalty.
    
      Show me ONE text that explicitly states that the atonement
      is the payment of a judicial penalty.
    
      I accept your accusation of cultism and I do so with no reservations
      because of your inability to do what I have asked.
    
                                                      Tony

    >the blood is used to satisfy a payment all the while I can give
    >you at least 20 saying it is used to remove sin from the heart.
    
    And I say to you that removing sin is judicially required..
    
    

      re: .121
    
      Nancy,
    
        Sin would need to be removed from the heart if it is a
        fact that one cannot live in the unveiled presence of God
        (with sin in the heart) and live.
    
      Mark L (last two)
    
        I appreciate your last two replies.  
    
        As to sinful flesh...yes I am content with the fact that this
        is a necessary plank of the position I hold and yes I can 
        understand how to not agree with this plank would imply that
        the whole position breaks down.
    
        As to the sword...
    
        The kind of things that cause me to believe it is a revelation
        of God's love are:
    
                1) The fiery furnace in Daniel - same fire, Daniel's
                   friends survive, Babylonian guards do not.
    
                2) Romans 7 - commandment coming is an integral part
                   of the death Paul speaks of.
    
                3) Death in Romans 7 is spiritual and not physical and
                   tied to punishment inherent to sin in some way.
    
                4) Christ's death was in the spiritual.
    
                5) Sword also is equated to God's word.
    
                6) Last generation is spoken of as inhabiting Mount Zion.
                   It is also said to be smitten by the sword in Zec.  It
                   makes no sense for it to be the sword you refer to, but
                   if it is a purifying, but painful process (see Zec), it
                   harmonizes better with Rom 7 of the veil being lifted
                   and eventually rent (in the experience of the remnant).
    
                7) Verse that states that the law gives sin its strength
                   (same concept).
    
      But, I appreciate your reply because it is rooted in the word.
    
      Would anyone care to answer this?
      If God's law is agape and 1 Corin 13 says it "seeks not her own",
      how can it demand to be satisfied with an infinite payment?
    
      Nobody has addressed this.  Use the word if possible.
    
      I'll repeat myself here.  If my daughter did something bad and
      if in seeing my love for her, if in response to my tears of
      concern and my hug...if in THAT revelation of love, her heart 
      was melted and she no longer wanted to do the bad thing anymore,
      should I still have to give her a beating because my love demands
      it judicially?
    
      Why?
    
      Like it or not, but the judicial model has an enormous contradiction.
      God's law is His love (agape).  You guys say it must be satisfied 
      with an infinite sacrifice.  And yet "it seeks not her own."
    
      How can it require nothing for itself and yet require an infinite
      price if its broken?
    
                                                       Tony

    > But, to answer...the law is equivalent to the righteoussness
    >        of Christ which is equivalent to agape.
    
    Tony if this was true Christ would not have been required.

    re: .134
    
      It is not judicially required, it is actually required.
    
      If I get a cancerous tumor, I don't go to a judge and
      have him judicially propnounce me well, I go to a surgeon
      and have him actually remove the tumor.
    
      Sin is actually rooted out because of spiritual reality
      (not judicial reality) which is that sin destroys in the
      presence of God.
    
      The whole wrench is this:
    
      Is the spiritual death in the scriptures inherent to sin?
    
      Or is the spiritual death not inherent to sin, but an external
      punishment by God because of sin?
    
      That is the wrench.  I say it is inherent only.  I believe Romans 7
      and several other texts agree.
    
                                                   Tony

      re: .136
    
      "Listen to me
    
                you _who know righteoussness_
    
       you people
    
                in whose heart is My law."
    
                                                 Tony

    You think LAW in this case refers to CHRIST?

      No Nance,
    
        I think the law refers to the righteoussness of Christ.
    
        To have the law written in the heart equates to knowing
        righteoussness equates to having agape in the heart.  Recall
        that the yet unfulfilled covenant spoken of in Hebrews is
        for Christ to write His law in our hearts.
    
        As in 423, I think its perhaps a good time to withdraw.
    
        I hope the silence of scripture regarding judicial satisfaction
        is something 'newly learned.'
    
        I hope the concept of inherent punishment (inherent to sin)
        is comprehensible.
    
                                               Peace,
    
                                               Tony

    I believe the law in this verse is referring to the commandments of
    God...
    
    "They word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee."

>                2) Romans 7 - commandment coming is an integral part
>                   of the death Paul speaks of.
    
    Are you referring to a commandment coming in the future?  If so, I see
    no such thing in that chapter.
    
>                3) Death in Romans 7 is spiritual and not physical and
>                   tied to punishment inherent to sin in some way.
    
    But why is punishment inherent to sin and what is the punishment?  I
    think that falls back to Romans 3:23, 6:23 again.  Then there's Isaiah
    53:5-6.
    
>                4) Christ's death was in the spiritual.
    
    How can God die spiritually?  While physically in the grave, He freed 
    those in Sheol, and took the keys to Hell and Death from Satan.  If He died 
    spiritually, how could he do all that?
    
>                7) Verse that states that the law gives sin its strength
>                   (same concept).
    
    That's true, we wouldn't know sin if it wasn't for the law.  However,
    the law is works and no man is perfect.  None of us could earn our
    salvation through works (Ephesians 2:4-9).  God in His agape love
    provided Himself the Lamb, just like Abraham said.  Abraham and his son
    found a *RAM* in the thicket so that was obviously prophetic.  Jesus
    Christ was the *LAMB*, God Himself paying the price!  Praise God!
    
>      Would anyone care to answer this?
>      If God's law is agape and 1 Corin 13 says it "seeks not her own",
>      how can it demand to be satisfied with an infinite payment?
    
    Because God loved us so much, but he also detests sin, that He paid the 
    price for us since there was no way we could pay it.  Your traditional
    John 3:16, as well as I John 5:11-13, II Corinthians 5:17, and Psalms
    103:12.
    
    Mike

    Tony, since you enjoy illustrations, here's a couple for you:
    
    Let's say your father is the judge in a small town and has been
    faithfully serving on the bench for 30 years.  He is known for his
    justice and fairness.  One day you are caught speeding and are brought
    before the judge - your father.  You are clearly guilty, the fine is
    $100 or 30 days in jail, but you have no money.  Your father loves you
    very much and doesn't want you spending any time in jail.  Yet, if he
    is to be fair and just, payment must be made for your crime.
    
    Q: What does your father do to reconcile his love for you with the need
    for justice?
    
    He gets up from his position as judge and comes around to your side of
    the bench, reaches into his wallet and places $100 on the table to pay
    your fine for breaking the law.
    
    Q: What would you do as a son in response to your father's
    demonstration of love?
    
    Receive his gift and thank him for what he did.  In the same way, we
    stand before God, our heavenly Father, clearly guilty of disobedience
    and rebellion (i.e., sin).  Yet, God loves us and sent His Son, Jesus
    Christ, to die on the cross as payments for our sins.  Christ on the
    cross was judged for our sin.  He endured God's righteous indignation
    against sin and was forsaken by the Father as He died in our place.
    
    Q: What do we do in response to what God, our Father, has done for us?
    
    Receive Christ as our Savior (payment for sins) and thank Him (Christ)
    for dying for us.

    In the early 1800's, a man was sentenced to death for killing a federal
    employee during a robbery.  At the last minute, he received a pardon
    fro the president of the United States.  To everyone's surprise,
    however, he rejected the pardon stating he preferred to die.  The
    prison warden was in a quandary.  Could a man reject a pardon?  The
    case went to the Supreme Court.  The decision - a pardon is only valid
    when it is received.  The man was hanged according to his desire.
    
    So it is in our relationship to Christ.  His death on the cross pardons
    us from our "death sentence."  But His pardon only becomes valid when
    we accept it.  We accept His pardon by an act of our will.  Unlike the
    condemned prisoner who willed to die, we can will to live by receiving
    Christ's pardon.

    Tony, take a trip down the Romans road and read these in sequence:

             3:10, 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, 5:8, 10:13, 10:9-10

    These verses may be interesting to you.

re: .133
    
Tony - you asked for one Scripture showing a judicial requirement of blood 
for payment of sin.

Consider the following:

	Genesis 9:4  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood 
	thereof, shall ye not eat.
	  5  And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand 
	of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand 
	of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
	  6  Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for 
	in the image of god made he man.

and	2 Kings 9:26a   'Yesterday I saw the blood of Naboth and the blood 
	of his sons, declares the L-rd, and I will surely *make you pay* for 
	it on this plot of ground' declares the L-rd. 

You may say that this is specifically in regard to killing; and you're 
right.  But I ask you - are not the wages of sin also a killing of sorts, 
i.e., death?  Is blood not required as payment for death?  Is the fact that 
sin exacts a *wage* (i.e., payment) sufficient?  Perhaps it's not clear enough 
from these passages.  Consider the following:

	Exodus 12:13  And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the 
	houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, 
	and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite 
	the land of Egypt.
 
Blood is required as protection from G-d's *judgement* (was Egypt not being 
judged by G-d via the plagues and was not Israel protected by trusting G-d 
and placing the blood on their dwellings as He said?)...

	Exodus 12:22  And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the 
	blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side 
	posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go 
	out at the door of his house until the morning.
	 23  For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when 
	he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the 
	Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to 
	come in unto your houses to smite you.

Without the blood, Israel too would have perished from G-d's *judgement*.  
Blood is required judicially.

But if that's not clear enough, consider the following:

	Leviticus 17:10  And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, 
	or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner 
	of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, 
	and will cut him off from among his people.

G-d will set His face against anyone who eats blood?  Why?  Does blood have 
some special significance?  Let's continue:

	 v.11   For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and 

	 *****  I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement 
	        for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement 
		for the soul.   ******

When a sacrifice was offered, the hands (either of the one bringing the 
sacrifice, or the priest on that one's behalf) were laid on the head of the 
animal and it was clearly understood that this animal was receiving the 
penalty that should have been executed upon the one who sinned.  The animal 
was *substitutionary payment* for the sins of the man (of course, it should 
go without saying that one could kill a million bulls and goats and still 
not be forgiven if he never actually trusted G-d at His word; exactly as 
one might intellecutally acknowledge that Yeshua shed his blood; but have no 
faith in him and therefore still be lost - but that's another very long topic).

Lastly, consider the Greek word used for "finished" when Yeshua said "it is 
finished" (John 19:30)

Gr.  Teleo

Strongs 5055 Greek

from 5056 to end, i.e. complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt): -
   accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform.

I was taught by a Jewish believer (who, BTW, earned his Masters in Divinity 
and is proficient in Koine Greek) that the actual Greek phrase for "it is 
finished" not only means the obvious (i.e., it is complete) but it was a 
legal phrase used to close a case when a financial transaction was 
completed.  For instance, if someone was sued for wronging another and had 
to pay a debt to the plantiff, upon payment, his records were marked with 
the Greek for "it is finished", meaning literally, "paid in full".

It is finished, Tony - it (the debt) is paid in full.

Personally, I don't want to debate these issues as I think the Scriptures 
are clear enough on their own (moreover, I'm on vacation next week).  You 
asked - here they are.

I love you, Tony and want to encourage you as you're a man of zeal.  
Unfortunately, friend - I believe you've displayed that you have a zeal 
without knowledge.  I think you would do well to read the replies you've 
said you won't read and pay attention to a stern, well-grounded warning, 
which (though you may feel otherwise) is based in love for G-d and you (the 
*greatest* commands) - love for G-d by wanting to protect the Truth, love 
for you by wanting to keep you from slipping.  This is serious stuff, Tony 
- you yourself make a distinction between what you teach and the way others 
teach.

You hold your doctrine dear (as we all should); but so much so, it must be 
very hard to distinguish other's disdain for your doctrine (which exists, 
and I share) from their disdain for you personally (which doesn't exist, 
and I would have no part of if it did).

Though that may not parse well in English - I hope you understand.

Steve

 "....Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world"





 Jim

      re -1
    
        Hi Steve,
    
          Just a quickie, gotta run.
    
          I also believe in judicial retribution in the case of
          civil law.  Let me ask you one thing...
    
          In civil cases, is it ever ok for someone to pay the
          penalty for the transgressor?  If I kill someone and
          my mother is willing to hang for my sin, is it ok for
          any civil law to allow that?
    
          If your answer is no, on what rational basis do you 
          extend civil legislation to God's plan of redemption?
          They are two different things and I don't see that its
          correct to extend one to the other.
    
                                              Tony
                                                               

    re: civil law - I dunno (I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on TV).
    
    I will say this: if I steal $100 from someone, am taken to court and
    ordered to pay back the $100, the court certainly won't stop my mother
    from writing a check (on her own account) to me which I then cash to
    give to the plantiff.  And I doubt they'd say it was illegal for my
    mother to write the check *directly* to the plantiff.
    
    Hey - here's a heavy - the Plantiff is G-d; it is against Him and Him
    alone that we have sinned (Ps 51).  I owed Him an unspeakable, infinite
    debt for my transgressions against Him.  I *am* ordered to pay that
    debt.  But He, the Plantiff, writes the check from His own account and
    the Court says "paid in full".
    
    wow.
    
    I gotta roll.   See you all sometime after the 25th!
    
    
    
    Steve

  Hi Tony,

  There is one verse that I can think of which has a very strong tilt
  towards a "judicial payment" for sin :

  My little children these things I write to you so that you may not sin.
  And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
  the righteous.
  And He Himself is the *propitiation* for our sins and not only ours
  only but also for the whole world.         I John 2 1-2 NKJV

  to propitiate : To appease, conciliate, gain the favor of...  Webster's
  koine - hilasmos (I think thats how its transliterated)

  Somewhere in the fuzzy backrooms of my mind, I think I remember a book
  by John Bunyan "The Church of the Firstborn" (phrase is in Hebrews, 
  I believe) dealing with the allegory of the redemption money (silver) 
  which was paid to Jehovah to redeem a firstborn Hebrew male. The septuigint
  (I think i remember) uses hilasmos refering to the silver.

  Ill check it out over the weekend.

                  Hank

 "This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the
 remission [payment] of sins" Matthew 26:28

    re -1
    
      Hi hank,
    
        I believe that what is propitiated is our sinful hearts
        to God.  The cross is our propitiation.  It 'wins' our
        hearts over to Him.  Sorry, I don't see judicial in that.
        An analogy would be if my wife and I had an argument.  If
        she was real mad at me, to break the ice I might buy her
        a dozen roses.  If in the gift of those roses, my wife's
        heart was turned back to me, those roses would be a
        propitiation.  I believe the cross has that characteristic
        of 'winning' our hearts to Him and melting our enmity.
    
      re: Steve
    
        The part that I disagree with is that the Father required
        judicial payment and that that is what the purchase is for.
        That's where I need scripture.
    
        Nancy states that it is implied in the fact that deliverance
        from sin is required.  (I believe deliverance from sin is 
        required because sin is our condemnation and not any judicial
        penalty.)
    
     re: Andy
    
        I think Zechariah beautifully supports my contention.  Our redemp-
        tion is from sin and is represented by the changing of garments.
        Nothing in that seems to point to a judicial requirement.
    
     re: Jim
    
        I really believe that you are unable to understand that it is
        scriptural that the shed blood is necessary in order for our
        hearts to be cleansed from sin.  And thus you seem to be persistent
        in quoting texts which refer to 'price', 'gift', etc.  The
        intent being that they necessarily allude to a payment for a
        judicial price.  Your inability to understand that the view I
        hold requires a price as well leaves me no choice but to either
        be silent to what you think is support of your view or to
        repeatedly explain the simple truth that the price of the cross
        is necessary in order for God to remove sin from our hearts.  I
        realize I am being woefully unsuccesful in getting this point
        accross in a manner such that you can understand it.  (Sorry.)
    
     re: Mike
    
        I don't know if I have time to go over your replies and I don't
        know if its worth the effort.  Simply because I sincerely tried
        to be as honest to the scriptures as I could be and in response
        I was practically branded a cultist.  I'm being sincere and honest
        here.
    
        You did not discuss the merits of my threefold reply in anything
        I would consider a sincere exegetical study, but rather resorted
        to means that I choose not to contend with.  If you would like to
        go back to the word, i.e. reply line by line to my reply, I will
        gladly meet you in that manner of discussion.  But, I will not
        discuss in the type forum you chose after my reply to you.  For
        you to reply as you did to my reply and then follow it with the
        expectation of "back to scripture" is something I cannot condone.
    
     re: all
    
        Besides the "wages of sin is death" scripture which I honestly
        believe is neutral, i.e. could be inherent consequence of sin
        or a judicial price, I feel there has not been a single text
        even remotely suggesting the requirement of a judicial price.
    
        If I did believe there was a judicial requirement and if someone
        showed _me_ that while scripture points repeatedly to the role
        of the blood as cleansing from sin AND that not once is its role
        in terms of judicially satisfying anything, I would be SHAKEN.
        If atonement was never discussed in the word in terms of judicial
        satisfaction, but was mentioned in terms of actual heart-cleansing,
        I'd be really surprised.
    
        I still have not seen one text that I can honestly say is explicit
        description of requiring a judicial price or satisfying a judicial
        price.  This silence (to me) is deafening when it is considered 
        how foundational such a doctrine is.
    
        I would hope that if I believed in the judicial model and met with
        the scriptural observations stated above, I could not brand a
        person presenting them a cultist for I could not (in all fairness)
        insist that the scriptures are 'as clear as day' in defense of 
        showing a need for a judicial price or satisfaction of one.
    
        I need the word to explicitly show me and I expect it to clearly
        do so for (a foundational doctrine) to be truth.
    
        Finally, my understanding of agape including my belief that agape
        is God's law leads me to harmony with my position.  That is that
        God's only need is to conform the heart to His image.  He doesn't
        need for Himself (agape doesn't require death in order to satisfy
        itself).  God simply needs to restore the heart of man.  He needs
        to deliver from sin and that is repeatedly what the Bible says 
        the cross and the shed blood is for, what it accomplishes.
    
                                                  Tony

    re: .153
    
      Hi Jim,
    
        This reply is as good an example as there is for a nonexegetical
        and 'out of context' examination of the word.  I think it also
        demonstrates your inability to understand a foundation of the
        position I have tried to set forth.  That would be that the
        shedding of blood is required in order for sin to be remitted
        (removed) from the heart.
    
        I think I've done this about five times already, but I'll do so
        again.  Please read Hebrews 9, a text which provides ample context
        which gives the correct meaning of the verse you have just quoted.
    
        In short...the context of Hebrews 9 repeatedly refers to this
        verse in terms of actual cleansing of the heart from sin and is
        UTTERLY SILENT with regards the requirement of or satisfaction of
        a judicial price.
    
        It is replies like yours that encourage my stand for they amply
        demonstrate an inability to understand even the beginnings of what
        this topic is all about and even the basics of what it means to
        be contextual with scripture.
    
                                                     Tony

  Re 423.154

  > it wins our hearts over to Him

  Ok, I can accept that (for the moment) 

  lets reason it through a little further

 This doesn't seem to fit the part of the I John Verse 
 that says 

 ...and not for ours only but also for the whole world...
 Later John says ...the whole world lieth in the wicked one
 
 It seems to be saying that Our Fathers anger is assuaged even
 on behalf of the "lost" by Jesus Christ.

 In addition the word hilasmos is used in the direct context
 of "advocate" (lawyer-intercessor) used in the judicial systems
 of the Hellenes.

 I'll also do a word study of hilasmos this weekend.


 bye for now

                 Hank 

RE:                     <<< Note 423.154 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
                              -< Replies/Replies >-

   >        realize I am being woefully unsuccesful in getting this point
   >     accross in a manner such that you can understand it.  (Sorry.)
    


      True, and apology accepted.


      Jim


         
     >   Besides the "wages of sin is death" scripture which I honestly
     >   believe is neutral, i.e. could be inherent consequence of sin
     


          I also don't understand how "wages of sin is death" can be 
          construed as neutral.



      Jim

      Hi Jim,
    
        Well, I'll try again with an analogy.
    
        Let's say there is a certain illness.  It is a scourge and
        people are dying left and right.  Let's say a doctor commits
        his life to finding a cure.  He sacrifices his entire life
        in this cause and comes up with a cure.
    
        That sacrifice is the purchase of the cure.  There was a cost
        and that person met the price.
    
        In the case of Christ, only the love demonstrated on the cross
        could heal my heart from sin.  That is the only way.  The only
        way He could actually cleanse my heart from sin was to demonstrate
        His love and then incorporate that love into my heart.  That love
        He demonstrated is (in part) what I believe to be part of the
        symbolic meaning of the blood.
    
        So in other words, we are delivered from sin.  The cost of our
        deliverance is the death of Christ.  And this is what the Bible
        says.  The only way cleansing occurs is when the High Priest 
        sprinkles the blood.
    
        Obviously, the High Priest cannot sprinkle the blood unless it is
        first shed.  
    
        So, it follows, that in order for cleansing to take place, a price
        is required.  Jesus must die on the cross in order to make
        available His shed blood in order to sprinkle it in order to
        cleanse our hearts.
    
        So, if deliverance is from sin (which I believe it is), the cross
        is necessary.
    
        Thus, any mention made of payment, of penalty, of purchase, of
        ransom, can apply to salvation of sin for salvation of sin 
        requires the payment of the cross, the penalty of death of Christ,
        the purchase made by His sacrifice, His ransom for our sin.
    
        The Bible clearly says that the purpose of the blood is to cleanse
        the heart from sin.  Obviously then, it implies that the ransom
        gift was necessary in order to deliver from sin.
    
        And if salvation is from sin and sin alone, still the purchase
        was necessary.
    
    
        As far as the wages of sin is death.
        If you cannot understand the meaning of the phrase, "The wages
        of a cancer tumor is death", I don't know much what else I can
        do.  It just refers to something inherent other than judicially
        consequential.
    
                                            Tony
    

  In the case of sin, the doctor *is* the cure, and in order for us to 
 be able to receive that cure, the DOCTOR had to die.




Jim

>        I have felt the ire of the dragon in here.  I have felt in a very
>        tiny measure, the persecution that can arise simply for adhering
>        to the word of God.
>    
>        The time will come when Jeremiah's will give the word.
>    
>        And Christianity will flog these messenger's of the word and seek
>        to kill them just as Israel flogged Jeremiah, put him in stocks,
>        and sought to kill him.
>    
>        As far as I'm concerned...in a very small measure, I have
>        identified with that.
 
Tony,
  You've begun to sound like another person in the not too distant past
came in and set upon a sole campaign for a cause.  He, too, felt persecuted
because his doctrine was challenged.  He, too, claimed against all others
to be the enlightened one.  I'm said to see it come to this.

MM

>        So in other words, we are delivered from sin.  The cost of our
>        deliverance is the death of Christ.  And this is what the Bible
>        says.  The only way cleansing occurs is when the High Priest 
>        sprinkles the blood.
 
"The cost" for our deliverance is a payment for or deliverance.
Further, any "redemption" verse will also show how we are bought 
with a price and redeemed (just as you get your nickel for your
coke can) by God.

Not that this will clinch it, since so MANY other verses have been supplied 
only to hear "you have not shown me anything."  

A sad situation and I am again sorry to see it (again).

MM

  Hi Tony,

  After giving this string more thought and the base note question
  what are we delivered from?, I'm wondering if the perceived problem
  is real or imagined.

  We have used the word "model" and what I'de like to propose is that
  you are seeing is that many of us confuse the "model of salvation" with
  the "model of sanctification".

  We wont find judgment in "sanctification model" verses because (and
  in this case you are correct) its not there we have passed from
  death unto life and will not come into "the great judgment"

   For as the Father raises the dead and gives life unto them
   even so the Son gives life to whom He will...

   He who hears my word and believes on Him who sent me has everlasting life
   and *shall not come into judgment* but has past from death unto life.
                                                     John 5:21; 5;24 NKJV

  in the model of salvation we are delivered from death, the judicial (The 
  soul that sinneth it shall die) end product of sin, not sin itself.

  When we believe, we are delivered from "the model of judgment" and its
  basis DEATH and placed into the Body Of Christ, The Church, which He 
  purchased with His Blood.

   Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit
   has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God wich He has purchased
   with His own blood.   Act 20:28

  His Blood purchased "the City of Refuge" where we flee from "the wrath to
  come".

  ...he who does not believe the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath
  of God abides on him. John 3:36.
  
  Then, in the model of sanctification we are delivered from abiding sin (sin
  in our hearts-as you say) by that same precious Blood.

  Tony, I think Our Father is sending a message through you: it is 
  the last days and as we see that day approaching we should be about Our
  Father's business, preparing ourselves for His Appearing.

  And who shall abide His appearing...

  He that hath this hope purifieth himself even as He is pure

  The blood of His son, Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.

  Dear Bro Tony , ask Our Father for wisdom to deal with our human flesh
  and your own , that we will hear the voice of Our Saviour and not so
  much Tony's. 

  There is no doubt in my mind (and many others) that He wants to use you.

              Hank  

    Tony,
    
    Just a few things to start off your Monday.
    
    First, compare and contrast sarx and soma.
    
    	Is there a difference?
    
    	Are they the same (in substance, form, physical and spiritual
    property)?
    
    	Can sarx exist without soma?
    
    	Can soma exist without sarx?
    
    	Are they mutually exclusive?
    
    Second, your "wages of death" theory does not wash in the Greek.  The
    word refers literally to an amount paid to a soldier.  In the three
    other times it is used in scripture (A.V. twice translated wages, once
    translated charges) it always refers to payment.  To draw, then, your
    analogy, your paycheck is inherent to your job.  This is clearly not
    true.  They are two separate and distinct events.  Proof: Can you work
    and not get paid?  Yes.  Can you get paid and not work? Happens all the
    time.  There may be a causal relationship but in no way is there an
    inherent relationship.
    
    Next, your casual dismissal of direct references to judgment do not
    stand.  When presented with a text refering to God as judge you have
    consistently retreated behind a misconception of the OT judges strictly
    as deliverers.  The Greek word for judge and judgment always carry the
    connotation of a legal separation of right and wrong by the judge and a
    sentence passed or judgment rendered (most often the word here is
    translated condemnation, as in a judge condeming a person to prison or
    death).  I'm not going to bother to reiterate all the judgment texts
    that you have dismissed but a serious student would search it out.
    
    Finally, you "love" analogy of the fire, particularly regarding the
    Daniel text has two basic flaws.  One, if you were to scripturally
    equate fire to some portion of God then it would be more accurate to
    equate it to His glory rather than His love.  There are many more
    direct references drawing that parallel.  Second, your spritual
    interpretation of the events in Daniel are predicated on what you
    already believe.  In other words, "I believe that the fire represents
    God's love", therefore, "the fire that consumed the Babylonians but
    left the Israelites unharmed supports my belief that the fire is God's
    love."  It doesn't track.
    
    Kent
    

    >        Well, I'll try again with an analogy.
    
    This is what I mean by the "maze."  You refuse to converse with someone
    unless they answer your 100-line replies line-by-line with Scripture. 
    Then you answer a blatant verse like Romans 6:23 with another story.
    Sorry Tony, but this doesn't mesh with me.

      re: last few
    
        Kent, you brought up some valid points.  I'll have to study
        Rom 6:23 further.
    
        I still tend to hold to the fire explanation.  Song of Solomon
        (is it 8:6,7?) refers to God's love as an unquenching fire and
        I truly believe that the sum total of what God is is love.  I
        believe His glory is His love.  I believe His justice is 100%
        synonymous with His love as is His judgment.  It is foolish to
        say "God is love, BUT He is also nice" for being nice does not
        CONTRAST with being love.  But, to say "God is love, BUT He is
        also Judge" is then to assert that when being Judge, He cannot
        be love.  God's character is indeed on the line here.
    
        I can appreciate your judgment thoughts.  The problem I have
        is that I could list perhaps 30 verses that speak of judgment
        as deliverance.  Also the great controversy themes are given no
        credibility (that's ok) and they mean very much to me.  As far
        as I'm concerned, most of Christianity fails in presenting any
        adequate explanation for why its been 2000 years. If He just 
        sits back and sets a watch...there's a tremendous amount of pain
        to explain away...
    
        Mike, I hear what you're saying, but disagree.  I believe the
        'present model' is more complicated simply because it says we
        need to be delivered from two things.  I believe we only need to
        be delivered from one thing.  The Bible oftentimes equates
        deliverance to "from sin" and I don't think this has been 
        adequately addressed.   Although my replies were long (hey, you
        provided a lot of scripture!), the intellectual content was very
        simple.  Perhaps 90% of it was repeatedly explaining how only
        one type of deliverance was explicitly mentioned...that being from
        sin itself.  I invite you to recheck the actual content of my long
        replies so as to see how 'complicated' it really is.
    
        Back to judgment...I believe God's unveiled love separates sheep
        from goats.  Just that will do it.
    
        The kind of thing that leads me to believe as I do is the simple
        notion that if the blood of Christ satisfies a judicial payment,
        some scripture including the word 'blood' ought to explicitly 
        mention this role of the blood.  And I'll bet most of you would
        have thought "Of course the Bible does!"
    
        And to see the Bible mention the role of blood explicitly 
        perhaps 30 or 40 times AND NOT ONCE in the sense of a judicial
        payment satisfied.  And when one considers how foundational this
        is.  And for Christianity to somehow be unaware that the Bible
        never explicitly attributes such a role to the blood...
    
        I see only one possibility...
    
        That being the blood has no such role.  If its gonna simply give
        a role 30 + times (actual heart-cleansing from sin) and give a
        judicial role ZERO times...
    
        I conclude that the blood has no such role.
    
        Call me out of it, whatever, that's cool.
    
        Yes, we have the "wages for sin is death" verse and I'll study
        it BUT I'd have a hard time believing one text has so much weight.
        Could it mean something else?
    
        Its things like the Bible never once giving the role of blood as
        I mentioned above AND Christianity seeming to be blind to that
        fact that raise my eyebrows.
    
        Another example is the "remission of sin" verse.  People have
        repeatedly brought that up and I had no reply.  Then I see its
        CONTEXT in the midst of Hebrews 9 and its all _deliverance from
        sin_ and I ask myself "What is the validity of a 'model' when so
        often people are not supporting it correctly from the word of God
        anyway?"  (Here referring to what the Bible says about blood and
        the context of "remission of sin" as well as context of purchase
        verse.)
    
        Finally, fear motivation doesn't cut it for me.  Faith works by 
        love.  Ultimately, when I see someone just DRIP the love of God...
        when I see someone just loaded with the fruits of righteoussness,
        that will have a far more effective convicting power than any
        fear-based things.
    
                                                        Tony

    What is Godly fear then Tony?  It's talked about in the Bible.  Do we
    just dismiss that the "beginning of wisdom is fear" ????

    Tony,
    
    I know you're in a time crunch but before we get too far away from it I
    wanted to remind you about the sarx/soma part of my reply.  You didn't
    address it so I assume that means that you are searching it out.  I
    would be very interested in hearing your response on this.
    
    Kent
    

RE.165

	Brother Tony,

	Your dedication to your beliefs is without question.

	And you are repeating yourself. 

	Where do you hope this discussion will go at this point? No one is going
to change anyone else's mind. The only possibility is to answer the questions
and counterpoints presented by others point by point, line by line and then
assuming that someone is really open to change their mind about the matter
perhaps some mental agreement would be reached. It's a long shot! But what
profit would that really be? Because of the exchange, I understand what you and
others believe about this matter. Everyone has been more than clear. Is there
something more that should happen?

	I mean, it appears this discussion is caught in an infinite loop.
Continue on as you please but remember amigo at the end of the day this is still
just a notesfile. 

Laters,
Ace

    >The Lord will return before this note is resolved... 
    
    I can think of a few other topics to this would be appropos.
    
    :-)

Reverence or Godly fear is part of the seven-fold gift of the Holy Spirit,
which are not seven gifts but one gift which has seven main parts, as
enumerated by the prophet Isaiah:

  Reverence (or godly fear), Adoration (or true godliness), Personal
  Acquaintance (or wisdom), Enlightenment (or understanding), A Sense
  of Proportion (or Knowledge), Counsel (by which we know that the only
  Christian principle of conduct is obedience to the will of God), and
  Divine Strength (infusing into us the very life and strength of God).

This is not the same as the fruit of the Spirit, which Paul discussed in
Galatians 5:22.  Isaiah lists six of these in Chapter 11, and I guess
Adoration comes along somewhere else.

/john

      re: last few
    
      Hi Kent,
    
        Boy, I'll reread it and reply via E-Mail.  The only reason I
        didn't reply is because in my spirit the conviction was pretty
        strong to let the sarx discussion drop (which was 447 by the
        way).
    
      Hi Nancy,
    
        I think the reason for fear in the 'afraid' sense stems from 
        beginning to have some awareness of spiritual reality.  To begin
        to fathom the cause and effect reality of God's consuming love
        exposing a revelation of the sinfulness of sin in anyone who has
        sinful flesh.  Yeah, to be confronted with that awareness is truly
        scary, BUT I see that as a spiritual reality God cannot circumvent
        and one whose basis is creating us with the capacity to discern
        right and wrong and thus a basis borne out of God's character of
        love.
    
        But, as far as fear as part of a faith-relationship...well, as
        Bob Poland stated, perfect love casts out all fear.  I believe
        that fear-motivation appeals to self and what good is it if Christ
        is trying to make us willing to crucify self?  I would hope that
        as we all grow in Christ, fear motivation will wane and give way
        to "The love of Christ constraineth me" (2 Corin 5:14).
    
     Hi Ace,
    
        I hear ya amigo.  ;-)
    
     Hi Hank,
    
        (From awhile back.)  Thanks a lot brother.  Pearls of wisdom I 
        think regarding the notion to allow ourselves to be prepared for
        His coming.
    
     Hi Bob,
    
        As far as I'm concerned...you got the fundamental part of it.  With
        a judicial model, to some extent we are delivered from God, God 
        needs to be appeased (satisfied), God needs to be propitiated, God
        needs some reconciliation to man, agape which seeks not its own
        requires an infinite sacrifice before man could be forgiven.
    
        Praise the Lord!
    
                                                     Tony

    Well, pardon me for asking, but have you read the Jack Hyles topic?
    
    :-)

    re: .171
    
    I don't think the issue is between being delivered from sin or God but
    between being delivered from the power of sin *only* or is there an 
    impending judgment which awaits the wicked, unregenerate from which we,
    as believers, have been delivered.  That judgment being meted out in
    the form of death (physical and spiritual).  Is God love?  Yes, to deny
    so would be to deny Scripture.  But, is this same God also just and as
    such compelled to judge sin.  The answer is also yes.  This is the crux
    of the disagreement and it is not a small or insignificant
    disagreement.  Consider the extrapolation of Tony's argument.  God is love
    and therefore will not punish the believer.  He can not because God is
    governed by His own law which is love and love *never* seeks it's own. 
    The unspoken end of this is that we know by scripture that God
    commended his love toward ALL men (the being that while we were yet
    sinners Christ died for us) but if God's loves all men then he would
    logically be compelled to allow ALL men entrance to eternal life. 
    There can be no hell or outer darkness and nobody can be denied because
    God CAN NOT seek His own.  Now, Tony does not say this and I don't even
    know if Tony believes this but that is the logical end of the argument. 
    Tony also asserts that sin, or rather the "pull" toward sin, is
    resident within the physical flesh, that is it is genetic.  This
    argument has been around for a long time.  In the early church the
    Helenists tried to incorporate that same teaching from Plato.  The
    conclusion that they came to, in order to reconcile the fact that the
    sacrifice (Jesus) had to be without spot or wrinkle, was that Jesus did
    not actually come in the flesh but was an apparition.  I can say, I
    think with confidence, that this is not Tony's position but he goes
    through a lot of twists to keep from it.  Many scholars believe that
    the Gospel of John was written to refute this very teaching.  Within
    this 'sarx theory' is the idea of limited atonement.  That is that the
    crucifixion is a kind of patch until we can mortify sin in our own
    body which leads to essentially a faith/works salvation.  It's a very
    long road and I don't know if I've made it clearer or muddier.  James
    1:12-14 sums up my position on the sarx theory.  The promise is a crown
    of life but when temptation comes (external stimulus) we have the choice 
    to allow our lust to rule (carnal nature).  If we concede then it
    begets sin.  Sin follows the act of the will.  The ultimate end of sin
    is death (everlasting separation from God).
    
    Kent
     

    Tony,
    
    Time and time again, you've based much of your argument on your
    understanding of the phrase "agape seeks not its own" .  How do you
    reconcile the following with that phrase?
    
         Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of
         children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good
         pleasure of his will, 

         Ephesians 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will,
         according to  his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 

         Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and
         honour  and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy
         pleasure they are and were created. 
    
    Those passages certainly seem to imply that God is doing something
    toward His own ends and purposes.  To say that "agape seeks not its
    own" means that God cannot require a judicial payment for sin seems to
    be a pretty weak argument, in my opinion.
    
    It seems to me that you put the character of "agape" above all other
    characteristics of God.  Now, I don't want to in any way diminish God's
    love, yet there are many other characteristics of God which cannot be
    ignored:  God is jealous, God has hatred, God is a God of judgment, God
    is sovereign.  On many occasions, I have seen someone (i.e., a school
    of thought) get into trouble when they say that one characteristic of
    God is to be considered the greatest one, and *everything* must be
    interpreted and reconciled according to that one characteristic.  I
    don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where we are permitted to say that
    one of God's characteristics is to be used as the key by which
    everything else about Him is to be interpreted.  To do so is likely to
    lead to a distorted view of God and the Scriptures.
    
    Mark L.

    A bit of notes collision here -- Kent entered his as I was entering my
    last reply.
    
    Mark L.

    Please keep the sinful flesh discussion in topic 80.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy
    Co-Mod

      Hi,
    
        I think this is my last reply!
    
        Bob, we see things much the same way (but not completely...and
        thats ok!).
    
        I think I just want to say this one thing.  I am not preaching
        universalism nor any absence of condemnation for the unsaved.
    
        How can God be love and yet how can the unsaved 'be' unsaved?
    
        There indeed are two fundamental different postures I see here.
        One is that God is not love when He 'judges' the unsaved.  The
        other is that God is love all the while He judges the unsaved.
    
        Again, I would hearken back to my personal understanding of
        spiritual reality and how it works.  It is God's love itself
        which will revive sin and allow SIN to perform its destructive
        work.
    
        Romans says (and the brackets are my understanding):
    
        The commandment [deeper revelation of God's love] came [made
        known to the person], sin revived [deeper revelation of awfulness
        of sin] and I died [experiencing the ensuing alienation that 
        results].
    
        This is the judgment of the unsaved.  When God removes the veil
        (removes that which conceals His love), those who are delivered
        from sin will bask in that fire.  Those who refused to allow God
        to at least begin the work of deliverance from sin will experience
        the above-mentioned spiritual reality and will suffer a psychic
        experience so overwhelming that they will perish.
    
        I believe the removal of the veil is God's "strange act."  Yes,
        it makes for the destruction of the unsaved.  But, the alternative
        is far worse.  To keep a veil intact for the unsaved whose
        rebellion against God is irreversible is to allow sin to perpetuate
        forever.  It also lessens in the minds of the saved intelligent
        creation of the entire universe an understanding that inherent to
        righteoussness is life and inherent to sin is death.
    
        The destruction of the unsaved (via the dynamics of spiritual
        reality and a reality whose existence is based on God's love)
        aids in securing in the minds of God's creation the goodness of
        His way and the awfulness of sin.  It 'justifies' the sanctuary;
        confirms in the minds/hearts of God's followers the perfection
        of His way.
    
        The destruction of the unsaved is based on spiritual reality; an
        organic connection between sin and its punishment.  A judicial
        condemnation and punishment is unnecessary and arbitrary.  It could
        never be a greater terror than the revelation of one's own
        sinfulness and ensuing black hole like despair.  A judicial type
        condemnation would not settle in the minds the natural outworkings
        of sin and righteoussness like an inherent cause and effect
        spiritual reality would.
    
        God's judgment will clarify issues and settle them forever.  It
        will defeat Satan/little horn/etc. in the forum of issues.  It will
        separate sheep and goats.  It will condemn the lost.  
    
        And it will do all this when God simply removes the veil, when
        He shows His unveiled love to the entire universe.
    
        This cannot happen until the generation called Jacob sees God's
        face (Psalm 24:3-6) and survives the dark hour as Christ did and
        thus dmeonstrate to the world that perfect righteoussness is life
        even in the midst of the exact same experience which will destroy
        the unsaved.  (When faith is perfect, despair is not the result.
        They will hold on and be victorious just as Christ was.)
    
                                                     Tony
    

    .179
    
    First off I see judgement all over your note. :-)
    
    Second off, I saw a great resemblance to Indiana Jones and the Ark of the
    Covenant in your description of unleashing/unveiling God's love.
    
    and Thirdly,
    
    How do you do away with the description of Hell and the story of
    Lazarus and rich man who died and went into Abraham's bosom?
    
    Those who are lost, unsaved will feel the fire of God, not the saved. 
    If we look at the Corinthians verses we see that those who know Christ
    as Savior will have their works tried by fire, and even though works
    will burn, theirselves will be saved.
    
    The fire only effects those who are not saved... and they do not
    perish, but feel everlasting fire.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

    

Re: 423.179 (Tony Barbieri)

We do not have a fundamental misunderstanding with Tony.  What we have is a
fundamental misunderstanding of definition.  When God removes the veil,
in Tony's scenario, it CAUSES destruction and even Tony sees this as 
just destruction.  He just cannot come to grips with the idea that God
causes the destruction because God is love.  It's like a person
saying that I didn't cause the nail to be driven into the wood; that
happened as a result of propelling the hammer in the direction of the 
nail head.  When the HAMMER hit the nail head, the nail was driven
into the wood, therefore it is the hammer that drives the nail into the
wood and not me, though I did cause the hammer to move.  (In other words,
the veil being removed is an indirect cause, just as the hammer is an
indirect cause to the nail.  It doesn't make sense to us because we
understand the swinging of the hammer and the hitting of the nail to
be one action causing the nail to be driven into the wood.  By separating
these two pieces of the action, it insulates and segments the concept,
which protects the view.)

This is how I see that Tony reconciles his view of God being love at all 
times because love cannot possibly be the cause of destruction (at least
this is how I understand Tony's position).

The problem with the veil concept is that God removing the veil from
his face, or purity, or love, is not the scriptural basis for judgment.
To be sure, there is certainly a whole lot LESS "removing of the veil for
the purpose of judgment" in scripture than finding scriptural support for
"payment" and the "judicial model.".

We sort of agree on the ultimate fate of the unbeliever (even though this 
also differs between Tony and oursleves as to what this means), which 
is destruction (annihilation versus eternal torment).

How we arrive at agreement in essence while vigorously wrangling terminology
has been a significant issue, as the number of replies about this testifies.

Mark

>        Again, I would hearken back to my personal understanding of
>        spiritual reality and how it works.  It is God's love itself
>        which will revive sin and allow SIN to perform its destructive
>        work.
    
    To be blunt, this is blasphemy.  Man's sin is not the result of the
    plan of God (James 1:13-17).

    Tony,
    
    Let me make sure I follow your logic here.  You're saying:
    
    -  God is, by nature, love and by constraint of the law of love (agape 
    seeks not it's own) there is no judgment.
    
    -  There is a judgment/condemnation for the unsaved.  (Judgment and 
    condemnation are translated from the same Greek word.)
    
    -  This judgment/condemnation will be executed when God, as an act of 
    His love to expose sin, removes the veil thus destroying the unsaved.  
    (Here I am concluding that by *destroying* you imply that they will 
    cease to exist physically or spiritually, but that may be another whole 
    string in itself.)
    
    -  Sin is the arbiter of this destruction.
    
    -  God sent His Son Jesus Christ as an act of love and an example of a 
    life victorious over the temptation of sin (which is resident in the 
    physical flesh).
    
    -  When we are drawn to God in response to this act of love we are 
    positionally translated from 'unsaved' to 'saved' and begin a 
    progressive walk toward perfection in emulation of Christ thus 
    functionally working out our salvation in the flesh.
    
    -  God's plan is that those who 'overcome' are functionally 'saved'.
    
    -  The blood of atonement acts as a *temporary* covering as we progress 
    from sinful to perfection in emulation of Christ.  (This is going back 
    a few replies)
    
    
    Conclusions drawn from the logic stream above:
    
    -  If we are positionally translated from 'unsaved' to 'saved' then by 
    definition we are also translated from judgement/condemnation, wherein 
    is death, to God's kingdom, wherein is life.
    
    -  If God is constrained by agape to not seek His own then He MUST let 
    sin be resident in the earth perpetually.  Given that God knows that by 
    removing the veil His love will cause sin to destroy the unsaved then 
    any act to remove the veil becomes an act of judgment/condemnation.
    
    -  If salvation is initiated by our response to God's act of love 
    (Jesus' life and death) but is concluded in our walk in/toward 
    perfection then our salvation is no more of faith but of faith and 
    works.
    
    
    Tony, is this what you are saying?
    
    Does anyone else have any other conclusions?
    
    Kent
    

      Hi,
    
        Well, I am compelled to continue!
    
        One person seeks to engage in the 'rathole of ratholes'
        (punishment of unsaved/conditional vs unconditional 
        immortality of man), one person accuses me of (I'd have
        to go back...something about writing about the mind of
        God or something), one person says something I said is
        blasphemy, and another writes what I consider to be a
        really excellent (not to imply the others weren't) thoughtful
        reply.  
    
        Anyway, I am replying as time permits.
    
                                                  Tony

    >        Again, I would hearken back to my personal understanding of
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >        spiritual reality and how it works.  It is God's love itself
    
    just be warned that many people have a problem with this...
    (that you are relying on your personal understanding)
    I thought we were working with the Bible as base here?
    
    (not trying to pick on you, but remind you, as you've reminded us, "get
    into the Word":-)

      re: -1
    
      Thanks!
    
      Terminology disconnect?  By personal, I meant "what I as a person
      presently understand."  I dod not mean, "a believed to be
      understanding whose basis is personal 'philosophizing' or whatever
      but rather is the word of God."
    
                                                    Tony

  Hi Mark,

    I really appreciate your reply!  I think we are agreed on much
    and I do agree that God is partially responsible for the destruction
    of the unsaved and that in doing what He does to destroy the 
    unsaved, it is an act of love.

    Perhaps I have been wrong in my perception of your understanding.
    I perceived God needing to punish simply because His law is 
    transgressed.  I think a major point is to look less at the actual
    work of God and more at His heart while that work is being carried
    out.  I believe there will be tears in His eyes.  I believe it will
    ache His heart.  But, it is an act of love to not allow sin, sinners,
    and pain perpetual existence.  This act will also serve to sear the
    conviction that sin is just not worth it.  Reconciliation of the
    hearts of all of God's followers will be infinitely cemented.  They
    will NEVER touch sin again though free choice is not denied them.

    This is what I see and I have no problem with God showering the
    universe with His unveiled Presence (and "God IS love" as Bob P put
    it and I agree) which will activate the lethal force of sin.

    In all honesty, I just don't see the judicial model as in God requiring
    that payment judicially or satisfying it judicially.  I really don't.

                                                  God Bless,

                                                  Tony

re.185
	Tony,

	You are clearly the leading candidate for the highly sought after "SDA
of the month" award. 8*) In spite of weeks of refutation of SDA doctrine from
Bible believing christians all over the world you are unmoved and unwavering. 

	1st place is a free meatless 8*) meal in Clinton, Ma and then a cruise
of Lancaster, Ma (a known "hot bed" of SDA's).

	You got my vote!  8*)

ace 

>	1st place is a free meatless 8*) meal in Clinton, Ma and then a cruise
>of Lancaster, Ma (a known "hot bed" of SDA's).

      re .194
    
      Hi Ace,
    
        I really would have let it drop, but the magnitude of replies
        to me (such as "this is blasphemy", etc.) was such that I felt
        compelled to reply.
    
        For what its worth, I do believe that almost all SDA's also 
        believe in a judicial payment for sin.  I guess I shouldn;t 
        say judicial...let me say a punishment not inherent to sin
        itself.  In fact, come to think of it, I don't mind the term
        judicial so long as the meaning is _inherent to sin_ and not
        some punishment external to it.
    
        Anyway, Ace, I am not trying to be a proponent of SDA, I am
        trying to be a proponent of the gospel. 
    
        And I believe that if I ever came to give the pure and complete
        word of God, I would be flogged and put in stocks for my efforts
        just as Jeremiah was.  My life would be sought just as Jeremiah's
        and Elijah's was.  (I believe they are types for "all these things
        were given as examples...")
    
        And SDA will do plenty of the flogging!!!
    
        One other thing amigo...there will be a unity of the truth as
        Ephesians points to.  Much of this will be known by God's remnant
        _before_ Christ comes...and not after.  Its the truth that perfects
        and that provides true unity.
    
                                                 God Bless Ya Ace,
    
                                                 Tony

    Tony,
    
    Perhaps you'll be the next Ellen White of the SDA movement.
    
    

      Nancy,
    
        I've never had a dream.  I've never had a vision.  I am
        no prophet.  And I do not have the humility of heart to
        be so used by God; I am far too spiritually immature.  He
        could never use me in that way as I am now.  I'm too
        rebellious.
    
        But, I do study the scriptures and I do believe the gospel
        as popularly understood is going to give way dramatically 
        when the latter rain (teaching) comes.
    
        And scripture says (I believe) that when the word of Elijah
        comes, it is rejected vigorously by the status quo.
    
        I'm trying not to take your reply as an intended barb, but
        its hard!    ;-)
    
                                                   God Bless,
    
                                                   Tony

    Tony,
    
    Thank you (I think) for the encouraging words.  But just because I may 
    be 'getting close' to understanding does not mean that I agree.  I was 
    merely trying to isolate the root of the doctrine so that I could stop 
    feeling like I'm fighting a hydra.  Unlike yourself, I am not tired of 
    the discussion because the basis of it may mean the difference in 
    someone's salvation.  I am frustrated by the fact that many people have 
    entered well thought out, valid arguments contradictory to your opinion 
    only to be met with an elitist attitude and response.  A number of 
    years ago, I had a college campus ministry, the function of which was 
    openly confronting the myriad of cultic and occultic groups on campus.  
    Now, I am not saying that your views are cultic or occultic but I am 
    saying that your reponses remind me of some that I've heard before, 
    pleading to a higher level of illumination.  There was one young man, 
    Richard, who was a practicing witch and part of an organization called 
    Eckankar.  He was probably the most vocal on campus.  One day when we 
    were talking in one of the student lounges he told me of how he had 
    seen Jesus.  In a time of meditation, a figure of light had appeared to 
    him and identified himself as Jesus.  This figure affirmed Richard's 
    beliefs but contradicted Scripture.  "If only you had seen him.  You 
    would know that he was Jesus."  This attitude of higher illumination 
    caused him to explain away or discount all rational arguments in much 
    the same way as I have seen of you here.  I would encourage you, Tony, 
    to deductively study the Scripture.  I would also encourage you to 
    extract this string and keep it for future reference.  There is a lot 
    of good in here, from both sides of the question.
    
    I will give one more attempt to explain God's holy, just and loving 
    nature.  In Exodus 5-12, we read where the Lord sent plagues upon the 
    Egyptians.  There were basically two reasons, in order to convince 
    pharaoh to free the children of Israel and in response to pharaoh's 
    hardness of heart.  If pharaoh had obeyed the words of God through 
    Moses and Aaron then there would have been no plagues.  It was, in 
    short, a judgment against Egypt for their choice of self-exaltation 
    above God (ultimately, all sin is exalting self-will above God-will).  
    There was no inherent relationship between the sin and the judgment, 
    not even a causal relationship.  This was a conscious act of God in 
    response to sin.  The final plague was the coming of the death angel 
    and the slaying of the first-born male.  The angel was sent by God as a 
    judgment for sin.  God was the arbiter, God was the executor.  In order 
    to protect Israel from His wrath God, in his love, provided a means 
    through the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb and the application of the 
    blood on the two side-posts and upon the upper doorpost.  This provided 
    a covering, an atonement, and when the death angel saw the blood he 
    would not enter into that home, sparing all who were inside.  The 
    sacrifice and the blood had no direct relationship with the purging of 
    leaven, which is a type of the removal of sin.  They were concurrent 
    but, again, there was not an inherent or a causal relationship.  If the 
    Israelites chose to not obey the word of the Lord regarding the blood 
    then the purging of leaven would have been useless.  They would have 
    been partakers of the Egyptians sin and subject to the same result, 
    death.
    
    God is holy and just.  Those two attributes are just as 
    indistinguishable from Him as is love.  He can not even look upon sin 
    (Hab 1:13).  God's determination to judge sin in Egypt is a foreshadow 
    of His determination to judge sin in the world.  The ultimate judgment 
    is death (Rev 20:13-15; 21:7,8).  But, in His love, He has provided a 
    means of deliverance, the application of the blood of the Lamb.  1 
    Corinthians 5:7b says "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for 
    us:".  Jesus Christ has become the Passover Lamb whose blood forever 
    provides atonement and thus deliverance from the penalty of sin.  Your 
    understanding of the application of blood to the articles of the 
    tabernacle is good but remember that the tabernacle and all the 
    utensils were already set apart for God's service.  Without the 
    Passover, there is no tabernacle.
    
    Kent
                                                                     

    nice reply kent...
    
    (I don't want to take away from it by saying
    
    
    
    SNARF!
    

    re: .200
    
    You could have at least said thank you. :-)
    

      Hi Kent,
    
        I know you don't agree...I was just really happy that someone
        understood what I was trying to say.  And I don't mean to try
        to sound like one has to be superman to understand, I am mainly
        concerned about my own lack of writing well and about the strong
        effects of tradition that I believe can make simply ideas seem
        confusing and hard to understand.
    
        I will be the first person to acknowledge that I do not know my
        own heart.  If I have been elitist in the sense of thinking I'm
        "better than anyone else" or thinking I'm some kind of a "smart,
        gifted this or that" than God forgive me.
    
        This is kind of tough.  I really believe what I have expressed
        and because it does diverge in some very basic ways, I feel caught
        in a corner.  Am I charged an elitist in this sense?  If I share
        something divergent and believe it to be true, it must follow that
        some way or another it is 'new' light when contrasted with the
        contrasting belief.  What then can I do Kent?  Do I reject it on
        that basis?  Sort of like..."Well, I believe such and such, but to
        do so implies a posture of 'illumination' and is elitist and that's
        bad so I better stop believing such and such!"
    
        Can you appreciate the rock and hard place this puts me in?
        I cannot reject on that basis.
    
        I perceive that you meant elitist at least in part in terms of
        my tone, my attitude and if so and if you are accurate even a
        smidgeon...may God forgive me.
    
        As to your passover discussion...there is no way God could use
        a type and apply inherent retribution.  I am not denying that we
        need to be covered by the blood either by the way.   But, as to
        what it means to be covered...we probably see things differently!
    
        But (so help me God) I presently have a deep conviction that God's
        judgment and justice are entirely consistent with His love and
        that His loving Presence itself will activate sin and cause the
        destruction of the lost.
    
        I've undergone some trial in here.  Been cautioned with being a
        cultist, with speaking blasphemy, with perhaps being the next Ellen
        White of the SDA Church (perhaps the most direct line of discussion
        crossing from belief to personal attack).  And I am sure I have
        replied in a manner that can only be considered sin (in my
        weakness).
    
        I really appreciate your efforts to admonish in love and to leave
        out sarcasm, etc.  And because you have done so in that spirit, I
        am much more capable of accepting the chastening and taking my sin
        to the Lord.
    
        Thanks for chastening on a plate that I am able to receive.  By
        God's grace I'll allow Him to show me my 'elitist spirit.'
    
        That I may repent.                                               
    
                                                     God Bless,
    
                                                     Tony

      Hi Kent,
    
        I reread your reply and it is clear that you do mean elitist
        in attitude.  Can you reference a couple examples so that I
        can see my error and better understand my shortcomings?
    
                                                 Thanks!,
    
                                                 Tony

    >    Perhaps you'll be the next Ellen White of the SDA movement.

    >I'm trying not to take your reply as an intended barb, but
    its hard!    ;-)
    
    The only barb, I know is *Barb*ieri! :-)
    
    -1
    
    Mike... shame-shame [imagine me rubbing my index finger over the other
    pointing at you.

    Nancy, why is what I said about the false prophetess a shame?

      Man, Mike, that's not nice!

    Sorry Tony, but the truth and God's Word comes first.

    Tony,
    
    Rather than going back through 200 replies and going here and here and
    here, there are a couple of trigger phrases which have come across with
    the tone which I mentioned previously.  I didn't want to make it a
    'beat up Tony' reply and I still don't.  If I can offer some advice
    that was given to me once.  Speak as if your audience has never seen a
    Bible but respect them as if they are the most learned scholars.
    
    Please reconsider and readdress .199.  Your response concerning the
    Passover Lamb simply said to me, "I reject that because it doesn't fit 
    what I already believe to be true".
    
    Kent
      

Steve's suggestion n the former 423.210  ... 212 has been moved to it's own 
note string, under 460.*

						Andrew Yuille
						co-moderator