Meaning of the Words "the Atonement"?

[Jerry Shugart]

The Aaronic Preisthood was the TYPE but the Melchezidek High Priesthood is the antitype!

Biblicist, let us see what the "type" reveals about the "atonement" mentioned in the following verse:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

In the book of Hebrews the following verse is showing the Lord Jesus' work as High Priest and we know that the "type" is in regard to the "day of atonement":

"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" (Heb.9:12).

Now let us look at the "type" and see exactly what is meant when it speaks of the Lord Jesus making atonement as High Priest at Hebrews 2:17. We can see that "atonement" was not made until AFTER the sin-offering was killed and the blood of that offering was brought within the holy place:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

The atonement was made in the holy place and it was not made until AFTER the goat of the sin offering was already killed.

So the "atonement" was not the "death of the sin offering" because that death happened BEFORE the atonement was accomplished in the holy place.

And the "atonement" happened AFTER redemption was secured for believers:

"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" (Heb.9:12).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: And the "atonement" happened AFTER redemption was secured for believers:

HP: I would disagree with your statement here as I understand you. The atonement, in and of itself, secured the redemption of no specific individual(s). It was a satisfaction made to the law of God that made it possible for every man and women to be saved that would obey the conditions set forth by God to be saved. The atonement was made for all men not simply the elect.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

HP: I would disagree with your statement here as I understand you. The atonement, in and of itself, secured the redemption of no specific individual(s). It was a satisfaction made to the law of God that made it possible for every man and women to be saved that would obey the conditions set forth by God to be saved. The atonement was made for all men not simply the elect.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Hi HP,

The word "propitiation" is translated from the Greek word hilasmos, and that word is from the family of Greek words that relate to the Day of Atonement. One of the meanings of that word is "the means of appeasing" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

In the Septuaigint (LXX), the Greek version of the Old Testament, hilasmos appears at Numbers 5:8 in the expression "ram of the atonement."

On the Day of Atonement the hilasmos was the one of the two goats which was sacrificed. The Greek word hilaskomai is the verb form of this word, and it means "to make propitiation for" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon) and hilasterion is "the mercy seat" where the blood of the atoning sacrifice was sprinkled. All these words have the same stem (hilas) and they all relate to the events of the Day of Atonement.

Let us look at another translation of 1 John 2:2:

"He is the atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn.2:2:; NIV).

Obviously the Apostle John took the rituals of the "day of atonement" that only applied to the children of Israel and expanded them to the whole world. Nonetheless, we can learn exactly what the following verse is making reference to in regard to "atonement" by a study of the "types" of the "day of atonement":

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

In the book of Hebrews the following verse is showing the Lord Jesus' work as High Priest and we know that the "type" is in regard to the "day of atonement":

"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" (Heb.9:12).

Now let us look at the "type" and see exactly what is meant when it speaks of the Lord Jesus making atonement as High Priest at Hebrews 2:17. We can see that "atonement" was not made until AFTER the sin-offering was killed and the blood of that offering was brought within the holy place:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

The atonement was made in the holy place and it was not made until AFTER the goat of the sin offering was already killed.

So the "atonement" was not the "death of the sin offering" because that death happened BEFORE the atonement was accomplished in the holy place.

And the "atonement" happened AFTER redemption was secured for believers:

"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" (Heb.9:12).

Sir Robert Anderson wrote that "the word 'atonement' has gradually changed its meaning. When our translation was made it signified, as innumerable examples prove, reconciliation, or the making up of a foregoing enmity; all its uses in our early literature justifying the etymology now sometimes called into question, that ‘atonement’ is ‘at-one-ment.’ But now the word has come to be accepted as equivalent to 'propitiatory sacrifice,' and this use is so established that no one may challenge it" (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], 185).

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok! You are then admitting that he acted as our High Preist in making the "redemption" on the cross, which was the offering of his body as a sacrifice where his blood was shed on the cross? You are simply distinguishing between the sacrificial offering on the cross versus bringing the blood into the holy of holies in heaven where it was presented as the atonement?

Ok! that is a more reasonable argument and a more reasonable distinction to discuss.

Biblicist, let us see what the "type" reveals about the "atonement" mentioned in the following verse:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

In the book of Hebrews the following verse is showing the Lord Jesus' work as High Priest and we know that the "type" is in regard to the "day of atonement":

"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" (Heb.9:12).

Now let us look at the "type" and see exactly what is meant when it speaks of the Lord Jesus making atonement as High Priest at Hebrews 2:17. We can see that "atonement" was not made until AFTER the sin-offering was killed and the blood of that offering was brought within the holy place:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

The atonement was made in the holy place and it was not made until AFTER the goat of the sin offering was already killed.

So the "atonement" was not the "death of the sin offering" because that death happened BEFORE the atonement was accomplished in the holy place.

And the "atonement" happened AFTER redemption was secured for believers:

"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" (Heb.9:12).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: "And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

The atonement was made in the holy place and it was not made until AFTER the goat of the sin offering was already killed.

So the "atonement" was not the "death of the sin offering" because that death happened BEFORE the atonement was accomplished in the holy place.

And the "atonement" happened AFTER redemption was secured for believers:

"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" (Heb.9:12).

HP: Are shadows in the OT always in direct sync chronologically with the types in the NT?

I may still not be following you as I need to be. I do not see the import at this time, in your placing the atonement after' the 'death of the sin offering.' Can you expound on the significance of that for a moment?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry, please do not let my questions get you sidetracked from your discussion with Biblicist. Mine can wait if need be. :thumbs:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

HP: Are shadows in the OT always in direct sync chronologically with the types in the NT?

They are not exact in every single detail. But somethings cannot be ignored about the "type" in regard to priesthood.

The first is the fact that in both "type" and "antitype" the pristhood was only for those who had already been redeemed. That is why the Greek word translated "make atonement for" is in the 'present" tense:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17; NIV).

The second point is that the "function" of the priesthood is the same in both the 'type" and the "antitype," and in the type the "atonement" is to cleanse those who are already redeemed from their sins:

"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD" (Lev.16:30).

The following verse tells us exactly how that is being done at this time by the Lord Jesus:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

The sins which a Christian commits in his walk separates him being in fellowship with the Lord. But when we confess our sins we are cleansed from the defilement which those sins cause and are restored to fellowship. And thaty is exactly what the word means:

AT ONE MENT

I do not see the import at this time, in your placing the atonement after' the 'death of the sin offering.' Can you expound on the significance of that for a moment?

This demonstrates that the word "atonement" is not referring to the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus. Instead, it speaks of the blessings which comes as a result of that death to those who are already redeemd:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 Jn.1:7).

The Greek word translated "cleanseth" in this verse is in the "present" tense the verse is speaking about something that is happening now.

I believe that all of this is important because we honor Him by understanding what His present role as High Priest entails.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ok! You are then admitting that he acted as our High Preist in making the "redemption" on the cross, which was the offering of his body as a sacrifice where his blood was shed on the cross?

No, of course not. I demonstrated that in "type" the atonement did not happen until AFTER the sin-offering had been sacrificed.

The Lord Jesus did not officiate over His own death at the Cross. His death on the Cross is described in the following way:

"When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness" (Lk.22:53).

The Lord Jesus could play no part in His own death because in Him there is no darkness:

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn.1:5).

In prophecy we read the following about his death:

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth" (Isa.53:7).

Now let me attempt to clear up some misconceptions which you have about the priestly office in regard to the "offering" of an animal for sacrifice. It was the Isralite himself who did that and not the priest:

"If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD" (Lev.1:2-3).

When the Lord Jesus "offered" Himself it was not as High Priest and here is a verse which describes him offered Himself in regard to doing Hisather's will:

"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second" (Heb.10:12).

The second point is the fact that in the daily offerings it was the person who offered the animal who did the killing and not the priest:

"If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD" (Lev.1:3-5).

But I am sure that you will quote the following verse in order to support your ideas:

"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" (Heb.9:26; KJV).

Here is a translation which states what is said correctly:

"If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice" (Heb.9:26; NLT).

 

[The Biblicist]

No, of course not. I demonstrated that in "type" the atonement did not happen until AFTER the sin-offering had been sacrificed.

Christ as the sin offering was sacrified on calvary NOT IN HEAVEN!!!

The Lord Jesus did not officiate over His own death at the Cross. His death on the Cross is described in the following way

:

All the verses you provide merely refer to the HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY in bringing him to the cross but in no way denies he officiated over his own death.

Not only does the Writer of Hebrews repeatedly say he offered himself as a sacrifice but listen to his own words:

Jn. 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

Heb. 8:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.


Heb. 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?

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.


You are simply pitting scripture against scripture and when a person does that they are simply attempting to defend error.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Christ as the sin offering was sacrified on calvary NOT IN HEAVEN!!!

I never said that He was sacrificed in heaven. You are merely building a straw man so they you can knock it over. The subject is the "type" which applies to the "antitype" mentioned here:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

If you remember correctly then you know that the subject of this thread is to determine the meaning of "atonement" in that verse.In the same book of Hebrews the following verse is showing the Lord Jesus' work as High Priest and we know that the "type" is in regard to the "day of atonement":

"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" (Heb.9:12).

Now let us look at the "type" and see exactly what is meant when it speaks of the Lord Jesus making atonement as High Priest at Hebrews 2:17. We can see that "atonement" was not made until AFTER the sin-offering was killed and the blood of that offering was brought within the holy place:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

The atonement was made in the holy place and it was not made until AFTER the goat of the sin offering was already killed.

Can you see that in the "type" which refers to the priest and atonement that the "atonement" did not happen until AFTER the sin-offering had been killed.

Please answer me and we can go from there.

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said that He was sacrificed in heaven. You are merely building a straw man so they you can knock it over. The subject is the "type" which applies to the "antitype" mentioned here:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

If you remember correctly then you know that the subject of this thread is to determine the meaning of "atonement" in that verse.In the same book of Hebrews the following verse is showing the Lord Jesus' work as High Priest and we know that the "type" is in regard to the "day of atonement":

"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" (Heb.9:12).

Now let us look at the "type" and see exactly what is meant when it speaks of the Lord Jesus making atonement as High Priest at Hebrews 2:17. We can see that "atonement" was not made until AFTER the sin-offering was killed and the blood of that offering was brought within the holy place:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

The atonement was made in the holy place and it was not made until AFTER the goat of the sin offering was already killed.

Can you see that in the "type" which refers to the priest and atonement that the "atonement" did not happen until AFTER the sin-offering had been killed.

Please answer me and we can go from there.

Thanks!

There were two goats because it took two goats to teach two aspects found in the one person of Christ as our offering for sin. Our High Preist offered up the sacrifice of Himself on Calvary and said "it is finished" (lit. paid in full) or complete satisfaction of the law's demand of a penalty against sin by a qualified righteous sacificial life.

Whether he ascended into heaven immediately after telling Mary "touch me not"

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

and then immediately ascended to the Father whose throne is in the temple in heaven and presented himself as an undefiled sacrifice to make atonement acceptable unto God , and returned so he could tell Thomas eight days later

27 ...... Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

OR upon his ascension in Acts 1:10-11 he entered into the holies where God is enthroned and sat down being thus accepted as the atonement acceptable unto God, the fact that he sat down demonstrated the atonement had been accepted and finished:

Heb. 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

The facts are that he acted as a High Priest after the order of Melchezidec in offering himself up on the cross "having obtained redemption" ("it is finished" = paid in full) and then presented HIMSELF to God in the temple where the throne is located as it is in the temple on earth and was accepted as the atonement. When He sat down it indicated the atonement was accepted, completed and now he INTERCEDES for us or APPLIES it to His people (Heb. 2:17).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There were two goats because it took two goats to teach two aspects found in the one person of Christ as our offering for sin.

You not not say one word about the fact that in "type" the atonement took place AFTER the goat for sin-offering had been slain:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

 

[The Biblicist]

You not not say one word about the fact that in "type" the atonement took place AFTER the goat for sin-offering had been slain:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

Didn't read my post sufficiently I guess. I spelled it out as clear as I could in the order of events.

1. High Preist offering on Calvary - finished offering
2. Presentation in heaven and sat down - finished acceptance = complete satisfaction
3. Present application - Heb. 2:17

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Didn't read my post sufficiently I guess. I spelled it out as clear as I could in the order of events.

You evidently forgot what you said previously as to exactly "when" you believe that the "atonement" happened. Here are your words:

You are confusing when the atonement was made versus when the atonement is applied. It was made at Calvary.

When we look at the "type" which pictures the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus we can see that "atonement" did not happen until AFTER the sin-offering was killed:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry, maybe I am beginning to understand the import of your remark. The atonement was not in reality made until God, subsequent to the sacrifice being made, accepted the finished sacrifice as that was made as a substitution for, and in satisfaction of, the demands of the law. Am I getting closer to understanding the point you are making?

I have always said that the sacrifice in and of itself saved no one, but rather made the way possible, it built the bridge, whereby all may be saved and that God can governmentally treat the repentant sinner as if though he had never sinned.

 

[The Biblicist]

You evidently forgot what you said previously as to exactly "when" you believe that the "atonement" happened. Here are your words:

When we look at the "type" which pictures the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus we can see that "atonement" did not happen until AFTER the sin-offering was killed:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

I understand that you are attempting to deny that Jesus Christ acted as our High Priest on the cross by offering up Himself as the "propitiation" (satisfication of God's law against sin). However, you are wrong.

I understand that you are attempting to make a clear distinction between the offering made on the cross to be something distinctly different than what Christ presented in heaven. However, you are wrong. On the cross the atonement was "finished" in regard to an accepted payment "paid in full" and the resurrection of Christ by God manifested God had accepted it as paid in full (Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25). What Christ presented in heaven is what God approved by the resurrection. What Christ presented in heaven was HIMSELF and taking a seat on the right hand of God was declarative of that finished atonement.

In the ceremonial law it required several types and several steps to correctly portray the WHOLE UNIFIED truth accomplished in the one Person of Christ. What Christ "obtained" on the cross is what was accepted by the resurrection and then ascension of Christ into heaven.

Christ seated in heaven is simply declarative the atonement was accepted as completed. There is no continuing work by Christ to complete the atonement after being seated in heaven. His continuing work is altogether in regard to APPLICATION of the completed and accepted atonement.

 

[Rippon]

I have always said that the sacrifice in and of itself saved no one, but rather made the way possible, it built the bridge, whereby all may be saved and that God can governmentally treat the repentant sinner as if though he had never sinned.

The logical ramifications of believing that Christ only made a theoretical atonement:

It also follows necessarily,since Christ by his death actually procured nothing that guarantees the salvation of any man, and yet some men are saved,that the most one can claim for his work is that he in some way made all men savable. But the highest view of the atonement that one can reach by this path is the governmental view. This view holds that Christ by his death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. What his death did was to demonstrate what their sin deserves at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe,and permits God justly to forgive men if on other grounds such as their faith, their repentance, their perseverance, they meet his demands...But this is just to eviscerate the Savior's work of all its intrinsic saving worth and to replace the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the autosoteric vision of Pelagianism. ( Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith 1998 --page 479)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Old Reymond certainly missed her there, and misrepresented the views he tried to castigate. I know of no governmental view that makes the grounds of salvation anything other than the mercy and grace of God via the blood of Jesus Christ. Reymond obviously had or has the same problem of distinguishing the difference between grounds and conditions as so many on the list have exemplified. Could you send him a copy of my prison illustration for me? He certainly needs it. :thumbs:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I understand that you are attempting to make a clear distinction between the offering made on the cross to be something distinctly different than what Christ presented in heaven. However, you are wrong.

I understand that you are ducking your own words that you said here as to "when" the atonement occured:

You are confusing when the atonement was made versus when the atonement is applied. It was made at Calvary.

I understand that you want no part of the "types" that are in regard to priesthhod because those 'types" prove that the "atonement" was not MADE until AFTER the sin-offering was sacrificed:

"And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung" (Lev.16:27).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, maybe I am beginning to understand the import of your remark. The atonement was not in reality made until God, subsequent to the sacrifice being made, accepted the finished sacrifice as that was made as a substitution for, and in satisfaction of, the demands of the law. Am I getting closer to understanding the point you are making?

Heavenly Pilgrim, my point is that the "atonement" performed by the Lord Jesus spoken of at Hebrews 2:17 is in regard to "cleansing" those who are already redeemed by His blood.

I have always said that the sacrifice in and of itself saved no one, but rather made the way possible, it built the bridge, whereby all may be saved and that God can governmentally treat the repentant sinner as if though he had never sinned.

I believe that is saved believers who died prior to the Cross. But after the Cross no one receives the benefits of His death until they believe and then, at that time, they are baptized or identified with His death (Ro.6:3-4.

So in regard to those who believed after the Cross you are right. The Lord's Jesus' death upon the Cross in and of itself saved no one who believed after the Cross.

His death provided a reconciliation for the world but only those who are reconciled to God by faith come into that reconciliation.