Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life

[Samie]

What argument can you present from Scripture that "ransom" should be understood the way you understand it?

I think it is your turn to present Scriptures that ransom should be understood the way you understand it.  What you have presented thus far are explanations devoid of Scriptural basis. I have ALREADY presented Scriptures on ransom and redemption that laid out the argument AGAINST your position. You may read them again and address each one, if you want to.

[pnattmbtc]

Slow down, Pnatt. You look confused. Here are your two statements that gave you out:

1.  "Given that two parties exist, then the idea you are suggesting cannot be correct, since one of the two parties doesn't exist."

2.  " If you look at the passages which deal with people being forgiven, you will see, in every case, that the forgiven person exists."

In #1 you say that one of the two parties doesn't exist, and in #2 you say the forgiven person exists. Which party doesn't exist when God always exists and you say the forgiven person exists?

Have you forgotten that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world?  Has your memory failed you that God calls those things which do not exist as though they did?  Forgiveness of mankind is God's work.  And Scriptures tell us there can be no forgiveness without shedding of blood (Heb 9:22), the Blood of our Savior Who is RANSOM for all (Matt 20:28; 1 Tim 2:6).  And RANSOM is payment, both then and now.

Sorry, brother. But I cannot exchange Scriptures for your wonderfully concocted explanations.

 Your idea is that God unilaterally forgives, which is what I was arguing against.  You specified that for forgiveness to occur, there must be two parties.  When I wrote, ""Given that two parties exist, then the idea you are suggesting cannot be correct, since one of the two parties doesn't exist." what this means is, "Given that two parties must exist, as per the answer to the question 'how many parties are there for forgiveness to happen' was given as two', then the idea you are suggesting cannot be correct, since one of the parties doesn't exist."  I'm sorry this wasn't clear.

In other words, you agree that for forgiveness to happen, there must be two parties involved.  But one of the parties doesn't exist.  Therefore your idea cannot be correct.  This was the point.

For forgiveness to occur, two things must happen.  One is the offended party must be willing to forgive the offending party, and extend the offer of forgiveness.  Secondly, the offending party must repent, and accept the offered forgiveness.  Then reconciliation can take place.  This is not something God can do unilaterally.

Regarding ransom, as I've pointed out, you are suggesting an interpretation which was unknown for centuries by Christians, yet they agreed that a price was paid by Christ, and that Christ was a ransom.  Given you have a new idea, why would you think I am the one with "concocted explanations?"  You don't need to "exchange Scriptures" for my explanations, just don't invent new ones.

[pnattmbtc]

What argument can you present from Scripture that "ransom" should be understood the way you understand it?

Samie: I think it is your turn to present Scriptures that ransom should be understood the way you understand it.  What you have presented thus far are explanations devoid of Scriptural basis. I have ALREADY presented Scriptures on ransom and redemption that laid out the argument AGAINST your position. You may read them again and address each one, if you want to.

I can provide Scriptures with explanations (am happy to do that, and will do so when I have time) but would like to correct this statement:

 I have ALREADY presented Scriptures on ransom and redemption that laid out the argument AGAINST your position. 

You absolutely have not done this.  All you have done is list some Scriptures, all one at a time and divorced of any context, and commented on what you think they mean.  But, as I've pointed out, what you think the mean was not the idea that any Christian had for centuries, so the burden of proof is on you to provide some sort of argument that these verses should be interpreted the way you think they should be.

You haven't provided any argument at all; just a list of texts.  I could list the same texts, and say the same exact thing you are; "See, these texts prove my position!"  This isn't an argument!

To clarify the point I would like you to establish, it is my position that Christ, as payment for sin, as ransom, as sacrifice, etc., was all entirely for our benefit, and not necessary on God's side.  So when I can, I will present an argument that this is the case (actually, this has been done eloquently by others, so I'll most likely just quote them).  What I'd like you to do is present some sort of argument as to why these texts should be understood not as something necessary for us, but as necessary for God.

 

[Samie]

 Your idea is that God unilaterally forgives, which is what I was arguing against.  You specified that for forgiveness to occur, there must be two parties.  When I wrote, ""Given that two parties exist, then the idea you are suggesting cannot be correct, since one of the two parties doesn't exist." what this means is, "Given that two parties must exist, as per the answer to the question 'how many parties are there for forgiveness to happen' was given as two', then the idea you are suggesting cannot be correct, since one of the parties doesn't exist."  I'm sorry this wasn't clear.

It's clear. God - the Forgiver - unilaterally forgives the sinner - the Forgiven.  The act of forgiving involves the two parties, the Forgiver and the Forgiven.  When the Forgiver acted, the Forgiven benefits.  The act of Forgiving was done without the consent of the Forgiven, and therefore, unilateral.  God's act of forgiveness is 100% God's credit ALONE.

[Samie]

For forgiveness to occur, two things must happen.  One is the offended party must be willing to forgive the offending party, and extend the offer of forgiveness.  Secondly, the offending party must repent, and accept the offered forgiveness.  Then reconciliation can take place.  This is not something God can do unilaterally.

Sorry, but you are not God.  You may want Him to forgive us the way you explained, but it's His will that will be done, not yours.  Despite your "very good" suggestion, our God had already done it unilaterally. You were late in suggesting. He has already reconciled us to Himself through the death of His Son. So Scriptures say.

[pnattmbtc]

It's clear. God - the Forgiver - unilaterally forgives the sinner - the Forgiven.  The act of forgiving involves the two parties, the Forgiver and the Forgiven.  When the Forgiver acted, the Forgiven benefits.  The act of Forgiving was done without the consent of the Forgiven, and therefore, unilateral.  God's act of forgiveness is 100% God's credit ALONE.

I think you didn't understand what I was asking about when I asked if forgiveness involves one party or two.  Of course there are two parties involved in terms of the forgiving party has to forgive someone, but what I was getting at is one can view forgiveness as taking place when the offended party chooses to forgive, or when the offending party accepts the forgiveness proffered, at which point reconciliation takes place.  If you are going to view forgiveness as from the point of view of the offended party only, then we have the example of Jesus Christ freely forgiving, with no need of payment.  Since Jesus was the perfect representation of His Father ("When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father"), we know that God forgives as Jesus forgave.

[pnattmbtc]

Sorry, but you are not God.  You may want Him to forgive us the way you explained, but it's His will that will be done, not yours.  Despite your "very good" suggestion, our God had already done it unilaterally. You were late in suggesting. He has already reconciled us to Himself through the death of His Son. So Scriptures say.

You're confusing two different things here.  Actually three.

1.God's forgiving us (God's attitude and choice to forgive, before we respond).

2.Our accepting that forgiveness.

3.Our being reconciled to God.

 

Only 1 can be unilateral.  God can choose to forgive us, and this is the only one of the three things which is only dependent upon His will.  Now God did choose to forgive us, and because He forgave us, He gave us His Son.

God is not willing that any should perish, but come to a knowledge of the truth, so if only God's will were concerned, then all would be saved.  But not all choose to accept the forgiveness God has freely given (free for us, but at infinite cost to Himself).

"Reconcile" means "restore friendly relations between", which cannot happen as long as one of the parties is at odds with the other.

[Samie]

You're confusing two different things here.  Actually three.

1.God's forgiving us (God's attitude and choice to forgive, before we respond).

2.Our accepting that forgiveness.

3.Our being reconciled to God.

 

Only 1 can be unilateral.  God can choose to forgive us, and this is the only one of the three things which is only dependent upon His will.  Now God did choose to forgive us, and because He forgave us, He gave us His Son.

God is not willing that any should perish, but come to a knowledge of the truth, so if only God's will were concerned, then all would be saved.  But not all choose to accept the forgiveness God has freely given (free for us, but at infinite cost to Himself).

"Reconcile" means "restore friendly relations between", which cannot happen as long as one of the parties is at odds with the other.

It's you who are confused with what Scriptures say, I guess. God loves us, so He send His Son. When His Son died, we were forgiven. For there can be no forgiveness without shedding of blood, the Blood of Christ Who is RANSOM for all. So Scriptures say.

[pnattmbtc]

It's you who are confused with what Scriptures say, I guess. God loves us, so He send His Son. When His Son died, we were forgiven. For there can be no forgiveness without shedding of blood, the Blood of Christ Who is RANSOM for all. So Scriptures say.

What good does it do to write, "It's you who are confused with what Scriptures say, I guess"? Obviously if I disagree with you I'm going to think you are confused, but there is no need to point this out, right?  This is one of those things one can think without speaking.

Regarding the cart before the horse, the horse (thing that goes first is) "God so loved the world".  The cart is "He gave His Son."  The purpose for the gift is that we might be reconciled.

God did not need Christ to forgive us (proffer forgiveness), but *we* needed Christ in order to receive forgiveness.  I'll post something, next post, from Waggoner.  It's called "The Power of Forgiveness".  I put in paragraph breaks at arbitrary spots to make it easier to read.

Edited September 9, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

The Power of Forgiveness E. J. Waggoner

 

"And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed; and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men." Matt. 9:3-8.

 

One of the most common expressions to be heard among professed Christians when speaking of religious things, is this, "I can understand and believe that God will forgive sin, but it is hard for me to believe that he can keep me from sin." Such a person has yet to learn very much of what is meant by God's forgiving sins. It is true that 2 persons who talk that way do often have a measure of peace in believing that God has forgiven or does forgive their sins, but through failure to grasp the power of forgiveness, they deprive themselves of much blessing that they might enjoy. Bearing in mind the statement concerning the matters that "these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name," not as simply the miracle before us.

 

The scribes did not believe that Jesus could forgive sin. In order to show that he had power to forgive sins, he healed the palsied man. This miracle was wrought for the express purpose of illustrating the work of forgiving sin, and demonstrating its power. Jesus said to the palsied man, "Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house," that they and we might know his power to forgive sin. Therefore the power exhibited in the healing of that man is the power bestowed in the forgiveness of sin. Note particularly that the effect of the words of Jesus continued after they were spoken. They made a change in the man, and that change was permanent. Even so it must be in the forgiveness of sin. The common idea is that when God forgives sin the change is in himself, and not in the man. It is thought that God finally ceases to hold anything against the one who has sinned. But this 3 is to imply that God had a hardness against the man, which is not the case. God is not a man; he does not cherish enmity, nor harbor a feeling of revenge. It is not because he has a hard feeling in his heart against a sinner that he forgives him, but we cause the sinner has something in his heart. God is all right, the man is all wrong, therefore God forgive the man, that he also may be all right. When Jesus, illustrating the forgiveness of sin, said to the man, "Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house," the man arose obedient to his voice.

 

The power that was in the words of Jesus, raised him up, and made him well. That power remained in him, and it was in the strength that was given him on removing the palsy that he walked in all the time to come, provided, of course, that he kept the faith. This is illustrated by the Psalmist, when he says: "I waited patiently for the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry. He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings." Ps. 40:1, 2. There is life in the words of God. Jesus said, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63. The word received in faith brings the Spirit and the life of God to the soul. So when the penitent soul hears the words, "Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven 4 thee," and receives those words as for living words of the living God, he is a different man, because a new life has begun in him. It is the power of God's forgiveness, and that alone, that keeps him from sin. If he continues in sin after receiving pardon, it is because he has not grasped the fullness of the blessing that was given him in the forgiveness of his sins. In the case before us, the man received new life. His palsied condition was simply the wasting away of the natural life. He was partially dead.

 

The words of Christ gave him fresh life. But this new life that was given to his body, and which enabled him to walk was but an illustration, both to him and to the scribes, of the unseen life of God which he had received in the words, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," and which had made him a new creature in Christ. With this simple and clear illustration before us, we may understand some of the words of the apostle Paul, which otherwise are "hard to be understood." First read Col. 1:12-14: "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son; in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." See the same statement concerning redemption through Christ's blood, in 1 Peter 1:18, 19; Rev. 5:9. 5 Mark two points,-we have redemption through Christ's blood, and this redemption is the forgiveness of sins. But the blood is the life. See Gen. 9:4; Rev. 17:13, 14. Therefore Col. 1:14 really tells us that we have redemption through Christ's life. But does not the Scripture say that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son? It does, and that is just what is here taught.

 

Christ "gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." Titus 2:14. He "gave himself for our sins." Gal. 1:4. In giving Himself, He gives his life. In shedding His blood, He pours out His life. But in giving up His life, He gives it to us. That life is righteousness, even the perfect righteousness of God, so that when we receive it we are "made the righteousness of God in Him." It is the receiving of Christ's life, as we are baptized into His death, that reconciles us to God. It is thus that we "put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness," after the image of Him that created him." Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. Now we may read Rom. 3:23-25, and find that it is not so very difficult: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified [that is, made righteous, or doers of the law] freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare 6 his righteousness for the remission [sending away] of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." All have sinned.

 

The whole life has been sin. Even the thoughts have been evil. Mark 7:21. And to be carnally minded is death. Therefore the life of sin is a living death. If the soul is not freed from this, it will end in eternal death. There is no power in man to get righteousness out of the holy law of God, therefore God in His mercy puts His own righteousness upon all that believe. He makes us righteous as a free gift out of the riches of His grace. He does this by His words, for He declares-speaks-His righteousness into and upon all who have faith in the blood of Christ, in Him is God's righteousness, "for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." And this declaring or speaking the righteousness of God upon us, is the remission or taking away of sin. Thus God takes away the sinful life by putting His own righteous life in its place. And this is the power of the forgiveness of sin. It is "the power of an endless life." This is the beginning of the Christian life. It is receiving the life of God by faith. How is it continued?-Just as it is begun. "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." Col. 2:6. For "the just shall live by faith."

 

The secret of living the Christian life is 7 simply that of holding fast the life which, received at the beginning, forgives the sin. God forgives sin by taking it away. He justifies the ungodly by making him godly. He reconciles the rebel sinner to himself by taking away his rebellion, and making him a loyal and law-abiding subject. It is sometimes said, "But it is difficult to understand how we can have the life of God as an actual fact; it can't be real, for it is by faith that we have it." So it was by faith that the poor palsied man received new life and strength; but was his strength any the less real? Was it not an actual fact that he received strength? "Cannot understand it"? Of course not, for it is a manifestation of "the love of God that passeth knowledge." But we may believe it, and realize the fact, and then we shall have an eternal life in which to study the wonder of it. Read again and again the story of the healing of the palsied man, and meditate upon it until it is a living reality to you, and then remember that "these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name."  

Edited September 9, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

You're confusing two different things here.  Actually three.

It's you who are confused with what Scriptures say, I guess.

What good does it do to write, "It's you who are confused with what Scriptures say, I guess"? Obviously if I disagree with you I'm going to think you are confused, but there is no need to point this out, right?  This is one of those things one can think without speaking.

Sorry for that, brother.

But if I want others to try my medicine, should I not be the one to try it first?  The inverse is also true, I think.

 

[Samie]

God did not need Christ to forgive us (proffer forgiveness)

How would you reconcile your statement with this verse:

^ESV Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

[8thdaypriest]

How would you reconcile your statement with this verse:

^ESV Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

The key words to explain, are "under the law".  Under the law - almost everything is purified with blood.  Under the law, blood must be shed or there is no forgiveness. 

But we are NOT "under the law".  We are "under grace". (Rom 6:14). 

Therefore we do NOT NEED to present animal sacrifices. 

[Samie]

God did not need Christ to forgive us (proffer forgiveness)

How would you reconcile your statement with this verse:

^ESV Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

The key words to explain, are "under the law".  Under the law - almost everything is purified with blood.  Under the law, blood must be shed or there is no forgiveness. 

But we are NOT "under the law".  We are "under grace". (Rom 6:14). 

Therefore we do NOT NEED to present animal sacrifices. 

Because Christ already shed His precious Blood, as the succeeding verses say:

Hebrews 9:25-26   ²⁵ not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another --  ²⁶ 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.

Therefore, for there to be forgiveness, His Blood MUST be shed, and He did just that FOR us.

[8thdaypriest]

 

 

Because Christ already shed His precious Blood, as the succeeding verses say:

Hebrews 9:25-26   ²⁵ not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another --  ²⁶ 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.

Therefore, for there to be forgiveness, His Blood MUST be shed, and He did just that FOR us.

 

To follow your own logic, there could BE no forgiveness BEFORE His "blood was shed", therefore no one was forgiven BEFORE the foundation of the world. 

As opposed to my view, that God forgave all sin - as soon as Adam sinned.  He sent Jesus to TELL US just that.  His death was a message - to us - from God our Father. 

[pnattmbtc]

God did not need Christ to forgive us (proffer forgiveness)

Samie: How would you reconcile your statement with this verse:

ESV Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

 

From my perspective, there's nothing to reconcile.  I think you're reading something into the text that it doesn't say, or, perhaps it would be better if I put it this way: you're understanding the text to say something different than what I'm understanding it to say.

What I understand the text to say is that we cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood.  I think you are understanding the text to say that God cannot forgive us without the shedding of blood.  So you are understanding that God has a need for the blood in order to forgive us, whereas I understand that we need the shedding of blood in order to be forgiven.

[Samie]

From my perspective, there's nothing to reconcile.  I think you're reading something into the text that it doesn't say, or, perhaps it would be better if I put it this way: you're understanding the text to say something different than what I'm understanding it to say.

What I understand the text to say is that we cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood.  I think you are understanding the text to say that God cannot forgive us without the shedding of blood.  So you are understanding that God has a need for the blood in order to forgive us, whereas I understand that we need the shedding of blood in order to be forgiven.

Here's that text again:

ESV Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Only God can grant forgiveness. But without the shed blood of Christ, forgiveness cannot exist and there is no forgiveness to grant. For forgiveness to exist and be granted, Christ’s blood must first be shed. So it is written in His Word.

If, as you say, God did not need Christ in order to forgive us, then, He did not need Christ's blood for forgiveness to exist. So, according to your view, forgiveness can exist even without the shed blood of Christ. But I think, this goes against what is written.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's that text again:

ESV Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Only God can grant forgiveness. But without the shed blood of Christ, forgiveness cannot exist and there is no forgiveness to grant. For forgiveness to exist and be granted, Christ’s blood must first be shed. So it is written in His Word.

This isn't true at all!  You are adding your own ideas and calling that "written in His Word."  That's not fair!  It does NOT say, "for forgiveness to exist and be granted, "Christ blood must first be shed."  It DOES say "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

If, as you say, God did not need Christ in order to forgive us, then, He did not need Christ's blood for forgiveness to exist.

Not quite.  God did not need Christ's blood in order to enable Him to forgive us.  Since forgiveness involves two parties, both parties involvement must be taken into account.  *We* needed the blood for forgiveness, not God.

So, according to your view, forgiveness can exist even without the shed blood of Christ. 

No.  I disagree with this.

But I think, this goes against what is written.

What's written is this: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins," and I agree with this.  But why is the blood needed?  What problem does it solve?  That's the question.

I don't know if you read what I posted by Waggoner, but that post addresses this question.  This is really the fundamental question to ask: What is the problem that needs to be solved, and how does the shedding of Christ's blood solve that problem?

[Samie]

Here's that text again:

ESV Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Only God can grant forgiveness. But without the shed blood of Christ, forgiveness cannot exist and there is no forgiveness to grant. For forgiveness to exist and be granted, Christ’s blood must first be shed. So it is written in His Word.

If, as you say, God did not need Christ in order to forgive us, then, He did not need Christ's blood for forgiveness to exist. So, according to your view, forgiveness can exist even without the shed blood of Christ. But I think, this goes against what is written.

This isn't true at all!  You are adding your own ideas and calling that "written in His Word."  That's not fair!  It does NOT say, "for forgiveness to exist and be granted, "Christ blood must first be shed."  It DOES say "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

If a caption to a zoo says, "No orangutans here", I simply take it to mean there are no orangutans in there, no orangutans exist there.  Similarly, when Scriptures say "no forgiveness", I simply take it to mean forgiveness does not exist.  Hence "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins", for me, forgiveness cannot exist UNLESS His Blood is first shed. And if there is no forgiveness to grant, what forgiveness can be granted?

[pnattmbtc]

If a caption to a zoo says, "No orangutans here", I simply take it to mean there are no orangutans in there, no orangutans exist there.  Similarly, when Scriptures say "no forgiveness", I simply take it to mean forgiveness does not exist.  Hence "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins", for me, forgiveness cannot exist UNLESS His Blood is first shed. And if there is no forgiveness to grant, what forgiveness can be granted?

The Scripture says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.  You have agreed that there are two parties involved in forgiveness, so either party could be the party that needs the blood.  You are saying it's God (I'm not sure why), which I think is illogical, since why would God need blood to forgive?  I've asked you this several times, and you haven't provided an answer, as far I remember.  We see the Jesus freely forgave sin, and Jesus sais, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

I am saying that *we* need the blood in order to be forgiven, and there is ample evidence for this.  I've already written out quite a lot.  Here's something from someone else (Waggoner)

If instead of the long word, “propitiation,” we read “sacrifice,” we shall simplify matters a great deal, because the shorter word is more common. Then let it be remembered that God Himself has provided the sacrifice, or the propitiation. Thus we read, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” Romans 3:23-25.PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 500.14

Notice that it is God who has set forth Christ as the propitiation or sacrifice. Then since God provides the sacrifice for sin, it surely cannot be that He has enmity against sinners. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. “God is love” (1 John 4:16); but “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Romans 8:7. The enmity that is to be appeased is all on the part of men, and God, who is sinned against, provides the means of reconciliation. Of Christ we read:-PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 501.1

“For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight.” Colossians 1:19-22.PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 501.2

Now remember that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,” and you will see that God Himself has made the sacrifice for us. It is by the death of Christ that we are reconciled, and God was in Christ reconciling the world. The Word that was made flesh, and that was offered upon the cross, was God.PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 501.3

[Samie]

The Scripture says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.  You have agreed that there are two parties involved in forgiveness, so either party could be the party that needs the blood.  You are saying it's God (I'm not sure why), which I think is illogical, since why would God need blood to forgive?

I was responding to your statement that God does not need Christ in order to forgive.  You seem to be twisting my posts by making it appear I'm saying it is God who needs the blood.  Period. 

But what I'm saying is God needs the blood of Christ so forgiveness can exist, because Scriptures say there is no forgiveness without shedding of blood, the Blood of Christ.

Again, the one who needs forgiveness that only God can grant is man. But forgiveness cannot exist without the shedding of His Blood. It follows that in order for there to have forgiveness that God alone can grant, Jesus must die.  Therefore God needed Christ in order for forgiveness to exist, and then God can grant us that forgiveness which only existed when Christ died.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: I was responding to your statement that God does not need Christ in order to forgive.  You seem to be twisting my posts by making it appear I'm saying it is God who needs the blood.  Period. 

But what I'm saying is God needs the blood of Christ so forgiveness can exist, because Scriptures say there is no forgiveness without shedding of blood, the Blood of Christ.

Which is it?  You say in one breath, "You seem to be twisting my posts by making it appear I'm saying it is God who needs the blood." which looks to be saying that God does not need the blood, and then in the next you say, "God needs the blood of Christ so forgiveness can exist."  So does God need the blood or not?  And if so, why?

Again, the one who needs forgiveness that only God can grant is man. But forgiveness cannot exist without the shedding of His Blood. It follows that in order for there to have forgiveness that God alone can grant, Jesus must die.  Therefore God needed Christ in order for forgiveness to exist, and then God can grant us that forgiveness which only existed when Christ died.

Samie, think of what forgiveness means and what it is.  For example, say you do something wrong against me, and then it's up to me to fogive you or not.  This is not such a concept of forgiveness not existing in any other sense than I choose not to forgive you.  That's it.  Forgiveness is not something like a building that is created that needs wood to be built.

Either God chooses to forgive us or He doesn't.  If He does, either He needs blood in order to do so or He doesn't.  If He does, why?

What I'm saying is that *we* need the blood in order to be forgiven because it is the life of Christ (which the blood represents) which manifests the love and character of God which is what leads us to repentance so that we are willing to accept the forgiveness which God proffers us, as demonstrated by Christ's death on the cross.  So God's attidute never changed; He is forgiveness personified, but *our* attitude needs to change, and the cross is the mechanism by which that happens.

I've provided you my explanation, now please provide your point of view as to how the blood of Christ accomplishes whatever it is you think it does.

[Samie]

Which is it?  You say in one breath, "You seem to be twisting my posts by making it appear I'm saying it is God who needs the blood." which looks to be saying that God does not need the blood, and then in the next you say, "God needs the blood of Christ so forgiveness can exist."  So does God need the blood or not?  And if so, why?

Samie, think of what forgiveness means and what it is.  For example, say you do something wrong against me, and then it's up to me to fogive you or not.  This is not such a concept of forgiveness not existing in any other sense than I choose not to forgive you.  That's it.  Forgiveness is not something like a building that is created that needs wood to be built.

Either God chooses to forgive us or He doesn't.  If He does, either He needs blood in order to do so or He doesn't.  If He does, why?

What I'm saying is that *we* need the blood in order to be forgiven because it is the life of Christ (which the blood represents) which manifests the love and character of God which is what leads us to repentance so that we are willing to accept the forgiveness which God proffers us, as demonstrated by Christ's death on the cross.  So God's attidute never changed; He is forgiveness personified, but *our* attitude needs to change, and the cross is the mechanism by which that happens.

I've provided you my explanation, now please provide your point of view as to how the blood of Christ accomplishes whatever it is you think it does.

I already have in previous posts. Reposting them is waste of time and space. Just read my posts again.  And they are full of Scriptures your wonderful explanations are devoid of.

[pnattmbtc]

I already have in previous posts. Reposting them is waste of time and space. Just read my posts again.  And they are full of Scriptures your wonderful explanations are devoid of.

I don't believe you have.  Specifically, why do you think blood is necessary?  I apologize if you've explained this, but I really have no idea why you think blood is necessary, and I don't recall you're having explained why.  All I recall is you're citing Hebrews 10:25, and stating you think this means that there must be blood so forgiveness exist.  But what connection is there between the shedding of blood and forgiveness existing?  I have no idea what you think the connection is.

Also, I would appreciate your responding to what I wrote regarding forgiveness.  I'll repost the part I'm interested in:

Samie, think of what forgiveness means and what it is.  For example, say you do something wrong against me, and then it's up to me to fogive you or not.  This is not such a concept of forgiveness not existing in any other sense than I choose not to forgive you.  That's it.  Forgiveness is not something like a building that is created that needs wood to be built.

Either God chooses to forgive us or He doesn't.  If He does, either He needs blood in order to do so or He doesn't.  If He does, why?

Do you see forgiveness from God operating differently than forgiveness between us?  If so, why?

Regarding Scripture, I have quoted texts, and posted articles with many texts.  Here's one:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18)

[Samie]

I don't believe you have.  Specifically, why do you think blood is necessary?  I apologize if you've explained this, but I really have no idea why you think blood is necessary, and I don't recall you're having explained why.

Not just blood per se, but shedding of blood (death). Iam offering you Jesus' explanation:

^ESV Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

^KJV John 10:10-11   ¹⁰ . . . I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.  ¹¹ I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep

He gave His Life that we might have life. By His stripes we were healed. Isa 53:5; 1 Pet 2:24