"Works Salvation"

[Red Baker]

@Studyman

Yes, The LAW that was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, that required a man who sinned "then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar."

"and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him".

This was the LAW Paul spoke to in Galatians that was ADDED "because" of Transgressions, "Till the SEED Should Come".

The definition of Sin was never changed, just the manner in which forgiveness was provided for, as it is written; "for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more".

So, if the law was added, till the true lamb of God came, did it truly have power to put away sins? Please consider and answer if you can:

The law and its sacrifices "were" types, shadows, and symbols of the future sacrifice of Christ. While they were means of expiation by which the patriarchs testified faith, only the blood of Christ had the actual efficacy to wash away sin.

• Weakness of the Jews' temporary religion: It is so clear that animal blood cannot cleanse consciences or remove the guilt of sin. If they could, they would have ceased to be offered.
• Symbolic Value: The sacrifices under the law were not worthless; they were valid "symbols" or "types" through which believers could "truly" (sacramentally) receive pardon.
• Retrospective Merit: The power of Christ's one sacrifice on the cross extends backward to the beginning of the world and forward to the end, making it the only true sacrifice. The Old Testament believers were by Christ faith and obedience justified as we are, not by the efficacy of animal blood itself.

Men of God from 1450-1800 (through the blessing of the printing press invention) all taught:

• Temporary and Typical: They explains that sacrifices under the law only took away sin typically (representing something else), not really (or literally). They served as a "figure" or "shadow" for the time being, pointing forward to the true, ultimate sacrifice of Christ.
• A "Remembrance" of Sin: Rather than removing sin, They all preached that the yearly repetition of these sacrifices actually served as a "remembrance of sins" afresh.
• The Inefficacy of Law: They all with one voice maintains that the legal sacrifices could not perfect the worshippers, nor could they cleanse or purge the conscience from the guilt of sin.
• Contrast with Christ's Sacrifice: In contrast, they all argues that by his one offering, Christ has actually put away sin, removed our sins from the sight of God, and secured a complete atonement that gives to of God's elect total peace in their conscience that their sin are removed from them as far as the east is from the west, never to be remember again, never.

 

[Red Baker]

@Doug Brents

Wrong. You have failed already.

Wishful thinking on your part Doug. Prove where I have failed ~ you saying that has zero value, you must prove it.

 

[FreeInChrist]

And once again we see the false doctrine of Total Depravity not the true doctrine of the Holy Scriptures as the basis for that analysis.

The idea that Jesus would make being born of the flesh a condition for being born again is ludicrous, if not side-splittingly stupid. Who would be precluded by such a requirement? Answer absolutely none.

Wrong. Jesus was contrasting two different kinds of birth, not giving two saving conditions.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Gospel of John Jesus Himself explains the meaning in the very next verse. Natural birth produces natural life. Spiritual birth produces spiritual life.

His point was that being physically born into Israel, having Abraham as ancestor, or possessing natural life is not enough. A person must also be born from above by the Spirit.

So the reference to water is not “inert” at all. It distinguishes physical birth from spiritual rebirth. Jesus was correcting Nicodemus’ earthly thinking with a heavenly truth.

The irrational view is not Christ’s words, but assuming every mention of water must mean baptism.

So why would Christ establish such an inert requirement? Answer, He wouldn't. The very idea makes Jesus out to be more than a little short on rational thinking.