The Irreducible Complex System (Psa. 77:13)

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
yes, total forgiveness is even promised and assured in the Old Testament

25 “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

26 Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together; state the case for your innocence.

Isaiah 43:25-26
 

FollowHisSteps

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2019
3,674
1,201
113
Sins (past) are forgiven (covered, remitted), not yet blotted out. That takes place at the end of the Day of Atonement.
Rom_3:25 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;
Psa_32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Psa_85:2 Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Selah.
"covered" sin = "forgiven" sin
Forgiven/covered sin can be unforgiven, uncovered, unremitted during the Day of Atonement, see Matthew 18 to begin with.
Forgiven sin does not equal blotted out sin. Many scriptures on this.
Hi Tuf,
I have never heard of this distinguishing between covered sin and blotted out sin.
It is an interesting definition.

The parable of the merciful King who forgives the debt of the servant, but late reinstates the debt.

24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
Eze 18

A righteous man is not found guilty of sins previously forgiven him to be made righteous.
Here the sins of wickedness are counted and the righteous things he has done forgotten.

This implies God counts righteous things as being important, but equally can be ignored.

As far as I understand the logic, confession of sin, and sacrifices they gain forgiveness.

2 "Say to the Israelites: 'When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands-
3 "'If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.
4 He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORD.....
20 In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.
Lev 4

There is no mention of covered or blotted out of sin, just forgiven.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
Without belittling your time of study, I simply asked God, as He told me to, and He gave me Wisdom and Truth, even of His Holy Spirit.
that's what they all say

post nonsense, somebody says 'that's nonsense'

and then I mean, come on! you can't argue with the Holy Spirit

it's like a formula...a template if you will

every single person in deception will tell you that the Holy Spirit told them and 'so there'

seducing and teaching spirits.

don't fall for them
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,402
2,473
113
Weird Thread.

The OP starts with a controversial (but sound) theory from the biological origins debate, and then uses that as a proof in a theological debate on a completely unrelated topic.


We could just circumvent his entire argument by saying he's making a category mistake: Biology is not Theology, nor is it analogous to Theology.

Therefore, because biology is not theology, you cannot take a principle from biology and just arbitrarily apply it to theology.



Conclusion:

1. We don't need to debate all the particulars of his argument if the whole foundation of the argument is flawed... we can just stop there, at the foundation.

2. And as far as Theology is concerned, this would be considered a textbook example of eisegesis... reading something foreign and external into the text in a completely ad hoc fashion.
..
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,402
2,473
113
More - Very Slippery:

I could also add this is all a bit slippery.

Most Christians DO believe in the principle of irreducible complexity, in the context of BIOLOGY.

So... the OP takes something Christians already believe, and then removes this thing ENTIRELY from it's proper context, and then uses this as a kind of bridge to slippery-slide everyone over to something COMPLETELY unrelated.

It's a pretty slippery tactic.

..
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
great psychological presentation

probably above most folks paygrade

I'm just happy most seem to recognize the spiritual psycho babble

oh I know. you are not here to argue etc etc :LOL:
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Weird Thread.

The OP starts with a controversial (but sound) theory from the biological origins debate, and then uses that as a proof in a theological debate on a completely unrelated topic.


We could just circumvent his entire argument by saying he's making a category mistake: Biology is not Theology, nor is it analogous to Theology.

Therefore, because biology is not theology, you cannot take a principle from biology and just arbitrarily apply it to theology.



Conclusion:

1. We don't need to debate all the particulars of his argument if the whole foundation of the argument is flawed... we can just stop there, at the foundation.

2. And as far as Theology is concerned, this would be considered a textbook example of eisegesis... reading something foreign and external into the text in a completely ad hoc fashion.
..
When we begin with a dead foundation we should remember it was not the first. It would seem that the glorious foundation was corrupted on day three. Perhaps when he saw evil in the heart of Lucifer. God does use three a word metptphor throughout the bible to establish the end of the matter. The fourth day. The Sun and the moon the two temporal times keepers would seem to signified corruption began.

Not that it gives a open check book to the first three days making them more than 24 hour days, 12 hours day and 12 hours of night but how those days and night where developed and for what gospel purpose in the end of the matter. ?.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,251
1,981
113
Just proved what I said. Holy, not Most Holy.
Heb_9:8 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:
Just proved again, what I said. The second compartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary was not yet functional until after the Holy place ministry was over.
Revelation 1-5 even shows where Jesus ascended to. Holy.
I'm trying to grasp what you are presenting.

Hebrews 9:8 (per the context) is referring to "the tabernacle" [in the wilderness] (just as Hebrews 3,4), based on that 9:1-4 is showing how it was furnished (unlike the later Temple)…


Wm Kelly on Hebrews 9:8-9 -

"for the tabernacle in the wilderness is before the writer, not the temple: so we saw in Heb. 3, 4, and so it is here and throughout. This is evident in the early verses of the chapter, summed up in "these things having been thus formed" or prepared, not only the tabernacle but its furniture; which differed in some essential respects from the temple, for it [the temple] was the figure of the millennial kingdom and rest, as the tabernacle is of the resources of grace in Christ for the wilderness and its pilgrimage [i.e. "the Church which is His body" in this present age]. Hence the ark when set in the temple had neither the golden pot with manna therein nor Aaron's rod that budded (2 Chronicles 5:10), which we find carefully named in verse 4. With such wisdom markedly divine was the scripture inspired in the O.T. as in the N.T."

--William Kelly, Commentary on Hebrews 9

[end quoting; source: Bible Hub; bold and underline mine; bracketed comments mine]


...and a study of the "golden pot that had manna" and "Aaron's rod that BUDDED" is very interesting as well...

but, is this what you are referring to, or to the later Temple? I haven't read through the entire thread just yet. I think this could help me to grasp your points better, maybe?? :unsure:
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,681
13,132
113
Heb_10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Sacrifice is no longer needful, since it was fulfilled in Christ Jesus, even as Daniel state:

Dan_9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
why are you equating Christ's work with the Antichrist's?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,681
13,132
113
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 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
looks like to me, the scripture is saying the 'holy of holies' of the tabernacle was not 'the holiest of all,' because Christ entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle -- the holy of holies which He entered wasn't the shadow that was Herod's temple, but the most holy: that which is in heaven, and this is "the holy place" He entered once and for all, the tearing of the physical veil in the physical shadow-temple signifying it.
it is taken for granted the reader is smart enough to realize the physical temple isn't the 'holiest of all' -- the passage is teaching us that the heavenly things are greater than the physical ones, specifically with regard to the inner sanctum of the temple/tabernacle. this is a theme in Hebrews.

@TulafonoESefulu appears to be nuts.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,681
13,132
113
Thank you again. That's what I said. Several times now. Holy place. Not Most Holy Place. And He "obtained" it. He has it.
you're nuts, IMHO.

'most holy of all' is a thing being clearly delineated from anything that existed in the physical tabernacle. He didn't sprinkle His blood in Herod's temple, and the language is very clearly describing Him in the role of High Priest: whose specific duty is to enter the most holy place of the temple in which He serves -- in Christ's case, one made without human hands. this is 'the most holy of all' - the sanctum of that which is made without hands. because the moment an human lays their tools on an altar, they defile it ((Exodus 20:25)).

i would hope that someone who names himself after a section of Exodus 20 knows at least a little but about the rest of the chapter . . ?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,681
13,132
113
that's what they all say

post nonsense, somebody says 'that's nonsense'

and then I mean, come on! you can't argue with the Holy Spirit

it's like a formula...a template if you will

every single person in deception will tell you that the Holy Spirit told them and 'so there'

seducing and teaching spirits.

don't fall for them

the '
carnal man can't understand the things of the Spirit' card should be trotted out soon, too

lol
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
looks like to me, the scripture is saying the 'holy of holies' of the tabernacle was not 'the holiest of all,' because Christ entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle -- the holy of holies which He entered wasn't the shadow that was Herod's temple, but the most holy: that which is in heaven, and this is "the holy place" He entered once and for all, the tearing of the physical veil in the physical shadow-temple signifying it.
it is taken for granted the reader is smart enough to realize the physical temple isn't the '
holiest of all' -- the passage is teaching us that the heavenly things are greater than the physical ones, specifically with regard to the inner sanctum of the temple/tabernacle. this is a theme in Hebrews.

@TulafonoESefulu appears to be nuts.
Fully agree.......a total devaluation of the work of Christ being peddled by this one.....
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
you're nuts, IMHO.

'most holy of all' is a thing being clearly delineated from anything that existed in the physical tabernacle. He didn't sprinkle His blood in Herod's temple, and the language is very clearly describing Him in the role of High Priest: whose specific duty is to enter the most holy place of the temple in which He serves -- in Christ's case, one made without human hands. this is 'the most holy of all' - the sanctum of that which is made without hands. because the moment an human lays their tools on an altar, they defile it ((Exodus 20:25)).

i would hope that someone who names himself after a section of Exodus 20 knows at least a little but about the rest of the chapter . . ?

'you're nuts'

I must remember to use this in future referrals to the mindless among us

disclaimer: there was no squirrel looking over my shoulder

 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,553
12,994
113
Most persons stop at the Courtyard in the Altar of Burnt Offering, and think Calvary finished everything. What they do not realize is that "It is finished." refers to the work of the atoning sacrifice, the laying the foundation of the final Temple in the corner stone, the perfect character of Christ Jesus, not the work of the Great High Priest, as per Hebrews and Revelation, etc. Passover is not Pentecost, neither Trumpets, Atonement or Tabernacles.
Actually *IT IS FINISHED* means exactly what it says. Passover, Pentecost, and the Day of Atonement were all fulfilled at Calvary and Pentecost (after 50 days). And since Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, and His blood is sprinkled on the heavenly Mercy Seat, the work of the Great High Priest has also been accomplished. There is no more redemptive work to be done. The SDA doctrine of an Investigative Judgment is FALSE.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
looks like to me, the scripture is saying the 'holy of holies' of the tabernacle was not 'the holiest of all,' because Christ entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle -- the holy of holies which He entered wasn't the shadow that was Herod's temple, but the most holy: that which is in heaven, and this is "the holy place" He entered once and for all, the tearing of the physical veil in the physical shadow-temple signifying it.
it is taken for granted the reader is smart enough to realize the physical temple isn't the '
holiest of all' -- the passage is teaching us that the heavenly things are greater than the physical ones, specifically with regard to the inner sanctum of the temple/tabernacle. this is a theme in Hebrews.

@TulafonoESefulu appears to be nuts.

Yes just the opposite as the holiest. The temple stood in the place of the abomination of desecration(the unseen place of God ) until the time of reformation came. The veil remains rent.
 
Aug 11, 2019
163
65
28
yes, total forgiveness is even promised and assured in the Old Testament

25 “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

26 Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together; state the case for your innocence.

Isaiah 43:25-26
Two things.

[1] Erasure from a book
[2] Forgetting from the Mind

If I erase the location of my house keys in my ledger, but I still remember them, can I then rewrite it in the book?
Contrarywise, If I forget where my house keys are, but have it written in a ledger, and read that ledger, can I remember?

Two things need to happen, not one, and the Day of Atonement is the second phase.
 
Aug 11, 2019
163
65
28
Actually *IT IS FINISHED* means exactly what it says. Passover, Pentecost, and the Day of Atonement were all fulfilled at Calvary and Pentecost (after 50 days).
That is a contradiction.

You say it "all" happened ("fulfilled") at Calvary, and then turn around and say Pentecost in reality happened 50 days later.

The issues, is that God is the God of order, not of confusion. The Last 3 feasts are Fall, not Spring feasts. God does things in Season, as He ordained them.

Unleavened didn't happen at Calvary either, that was the following Day, the 7th day.
Firstfruits didn't happen at Calvary either, that was the day after Unleavened began, the 1st day.

If Jesus does not fulfill the feasts in their proper order, He is not the Messiah.

There is no text in scripture which states Jesus fulfilled those Last three feasts at Calvary, which would be out of order, out of Season, and not in accordance with the Sanctuary pattern He Himself gave to Moses.
 
Aug 11, 2019
163
65
28
Jesus, went up, to a real location, that unfallen world from which He came, and in so doing passed the 1st Heaven (atmosphere where fowls fly), and 2nd Heaven (where Sun, Moon and local stars are), all the way to His home, from which He came, the center of the Universe, the 3rd Heaven, and entered into the City of God therein (Psalms 24).