atonement/justice and forgiveness

[Rippon]

Christ was the one sacrifice for the sins of His people --- not the children of the Devil .

In Hebrews 2:9 it is said that He tasted death for everyone . In verse 10 for many sons and daughters . In v. 11 for brothers and sisters . In verse 12 for brothers and sisters . In verse 13 for the children God has given me .

All of those folks are the same folks . It's like Romans 8:30 the very same people are featured --the predestined , called , righteous and glorified are of the same group -- no extras added .

 

[Helen]

In that case there are an awful lot of insults against God left standing for eternity. Is that really what you believe?

 

[Jarthur001]

Absolutely. And it was atoned for, but it will never be forgiven if it remains that person's choice.

Atonement is justice. Christ satisfied all justice eternally. No insult/sin is left before God for eternity.

However, there are sinners who will not be there. Some of us have accepted Christ's gift of salvation and truth.

Others have rejected. So while God's justice is satisfied nevertheless, their refusal to believe condemns them eternally.

Atonement means covered. Covered as in by the blood of Christ. kaphar is the hebrew word used. It is 1st used in Gen 6:14

Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

Pitch is the Hebrew word "kaphar". This showes its real meaning The idea in the atonement of the cross is that the sins are covered and it is it the sins are not there. After the blood was shead by Christ, this blood pleased God the Father, who then justifies the Saint.

Again..justify...Just- as - if - I - never - sinned. Why? For the sins were covered by the blood.

Though the word kaphar is not used in the garden, the same idea is seen there. God takes the life of a animal and covers the sin of Adam and Eve.

Atonement and forgiveness are not one and the same...you did get that right.

But forgiveness comes with all atonements.

Check it out...

Lev 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.


Lev 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.


Lev 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; 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.


Lev 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

 

[Helen]

Rippon, Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. Fulfilling the law means more than simply not disobeying it. ALL justice was served by His death. He fulfilled the law not merely by obeying it perfectly, but by finishing the requirement of justice for all men. That is the only possible way in which the law could truly have been fulfilled.

 

[Helen]

Atonement means covered. Covered as in by the blood of Christ. kaphar is the hebrew word used. It is 1st used in Gen 6:14



Pitch is the Hebrew word kaphar. This showes its real meaning The idea in the atonement of the cross is that the sins are covered and it is it they are not there. After the blood was shead by Christ, thise pleased God the Father, who then justifies the Saint. Again..justify...Just- as - if - I - never - sinned. Why? For the sins were covered by the blood.

Though the word kaphar is not used in the garden, the same idea is seen there. God takes the life of a animal and coves the Sin of Adam and Eve.

Atonement and forgiveness are not one and the same...you did get that right. But forgiveness comes with all atonements.

Check it out...

Lev 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.


Lev 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.


Lev 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; 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.


Lev 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Sir, in every instance in your OT quotes, the people themselves offered the sacrifices on their own behalf. This was, in effect, asking forgiveness as well as substitutionary atonement.

Jesus did not die for Himself, but for us. Therefore we MUST ask forgiveness via confession and repentance, as John tells us in his first letter. The atonement was done for all time for all in Christ Jesus. It was the fulfillment of the law.

But since we did not sacrifice ourselves, thereby personally asking forgiveness, forgiveness became a different thing -- a personal thing. If not, then John would have never needed to say that if we confess our sins [then] He is faithful to forgive them. That is indeed an if/then proposition and not an accomplished fact on the Cross.

 

[Jarthur001]

Sir, in every instance in your OT quotes, the people themselves offered the sacrifices on their own behalf. This was, in effect, asking forgiveness as well as substitutionary atonement.

Jesus did not die for Himself, but for us. Therefore we MUST ask forgiveness via confession and repentance, as John tells us in his first letter. The atonement was done for all time for all in Christ Jesus. It was the fulfillment of the law.

But since we did not sacrifice ourselves, thereby personally asking forgiveness, forgiveness became a different thing -- a personal thing. If not, then John would have never needed to say that if we confess our sins [then] He is faithful to forgive them. That is indeed an if/then proposition and not an accomplished fact on the Cross.

indeed....and this was what was told of them to do by God. Really it was the priest. Is Christ not our Priest? The real atonement was to come. With your views, the atonement of the OT had more power then that of Christ. In the OT forgiveness came with atonement. Now you have it as a two step plan. This means Christ work was only a picture, for it covered no sins. There are to many word changes in your plan. I think I'll stick to Gods plan.

The Blood of Christ covered my sins, not based on what I did, but based in Christ work on the cross. With this atonement comes forgiveness as it always has.

 

[Helen]

indeed....and this was what was told of them to do by God. Really it was the priest. Is Christ not our Priest? The real atonement was to come. With your views, the atonement of the OT had more power then that of Christ. In the OT forgiveness came with atonement. Now you have it as a two step plan. This means Christ work was only a picture, for it covered no sins. There are to many word changes in your plan. I think I'll stick to Gods plan.

Your sarcasm aside, you and I both know that the OT was a picture of what was to come. The forgiveness comes with repentance. That is clear in the Bible, always. Jesus could atone for our sins, but He could not repent for us. The folk in the OT were providing their own sacrifices for their OWN atonement and thus for their own forgiveness. When atonement was done for us, by Christ, how could He also repent and confess for us? That is something we are told to do in the Bible, or are you denying that?

The Blood of Christ covered my sins, not based on what I did, but based in Christ work on the cross. With this atonement comes forgiveness as it always has.

If forgiveness is automatic, then John wasted a whole letter.

 

[whatever]

Helen,

Is it proper to say that unbelievers are redeemed?

 

[Helen]

Helen,

Is it proper to say that unbelievers are redeemed?

I know this sounds like I am fudging, but I am not. It depends on what you are referring to when you say 'redeemed.' The word itself means to 'buy back,' which I think you know.

Look at Hosea 13:14 -- "I will ransom them from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?"

Look at Galatians 3:11-14 -- Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because 'The righteous will live by faith.' The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them.'
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

In the Hosea verse, death and grave lose their power completely, for Christ holds the keys (Revelation). This applies to all men, for all men come under Christ's judgment.

In the Galatians verse, it is shown that redemption from the curse of the law (the curse applies to all people) is only the first half of the process; for Paul writes that this was "so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Without that faith we cannot receive the promise. So the redemption from death was for all men for all time, but that is not the whole story. We were bought back from death, yes -- all of us. As it says in Hebrews 9:12, "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption."

So in that redemption means to have bought back from death -- the wages of sin -- then yes, all men were redeemed. But, again, that is certainly not the whole story, or all men would go to heaven, and they certainly don't! Paul gives the second half of the story when he says, even more clearly in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast."

Christ paved the way with atonement for all, buying us all back from the power of the grave. We certainly cannot travel that road to Him on our own, however, which I know you agree with. We have to open the way, however, through faith, and it is through our faith that God has chosen to allow His mercy to work in our lives. The mercy is His, the work is His, the provision is His -- but the working out of all that in the life of a person is THROUGH the person's faith. Not because of it, actually, but simply through it.

As it is written, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

If, however, when you use the term 'redeem' you are referring to redemption unto life with the Lord forever, then no, not all are redeemed in that sense. However, that is not how the Bible uses the word.

------------

edit: it's after ten here on the west coast now and that's time for bed. See ya'll in the morning and God bless.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Paul tells us in Romans that the wages of sin is death. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that Christ Jesus tasted death for every man. That satisfies those wages.

If the wages of sin is death and Christ paid those wages for every man, why do men still die?

 

[Allan]

Yet there is ONE sin that is UNPARDONABLE - Rejection of the Son - UNBELIEF.


Drive by posting - sorry

 

[Helen]

If the wages of sin is death and Christ paid those wages for every man, why do men still die?

You answer that. Both the saved and the unsaved die physically still. So what do YOU think it means?

Or is Hebrews wrong?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Yet there is ONE sin that is UNPARDONABLE - Rejection of the Son - UNBELIEF.


Drive by posting - sorry

So Christ died for almost all the sins of the whole world?

 

[webdog]

dwmoeller1, I would like to hear your response to Helen.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You answer that. Both the saved and the unsaved die physically still. So what do YOU think it means?

Or is Hebrews wrong?

a. all men inhabit a body which will die physically
b. the wages of sin is death
c. if death here is physical death, then all men pay the wages of sin
d. you say that Christ has satisfied those wages. Yet if all men still die physically, then either Christ hasn't, in fact, satisfied those wages, or else something other than physical death is in view. Or both are true.

 

[russell55]

That's not a terrific example, but it should serve. It's not a matter of MERITING death. It's a matter of choosing it.

Meritting was a bad word choice on my part. Demeritting would have been better.

Here's the point: In order to be just, God must have just grounds for condemning someone. There must be something by which that condemnation is earned.

You've said previously that the grounds for condemnation is unbelief. By definition, then, their unbelief is the thing that merits (or earns) their condemnation.

Now we come to this particular quote, which confuses me, because you seem to deny that unbelief is the grounds for condemnation. If the grounds isn't unbelief, then what is it?

 

[Blammo]

Meritting was a bad word choice on my part. Demeritting would have been better.

Here's the point: In order to be just, God must have just grounds for condemning someone. There must be something by which that condemnation is earned.

You've said previously that the grounds for condemnation is unbelief. By definition, then, their unbelief is the thing that merits (or earns) their condemnation.

Now we come to this particular quote, which confuses me, because you seem to deny that unbelief is the grounds for condemnation. If the grounds isn't unbelief, then what is it?

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Romans 4:20-25 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

 

[russell55]

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Romans 4:20-25 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

I agree with the point you're making--that condemnation is on the grounds of sin. But I don't think Helen does. From what I understand of what she's saying, no one, whether they believe or not, remains in their sin; and no one, whether they believe or not, has sin imputed to them.

And I'm having difficulty understanding what the grounds for condemnation is, then, if it is not sin. I thought she said the grounds was unbelief, but given this latest statement, I'm not sure.

 

[dwmoeller1]

And I'm having difficulty understanding what the grounds for condemnation is, then, if it is not sin.

From what I can tell, the true issue is going to center around the meaning of 'condemn' and 'condemnation'. Helen is not using it as in a 'legal' sense (she seems to be equating it with 'damned'). You seem to be. Thus the confusion.

 

[johnp.]

Helen.

If you owed a man a million dollars, and I paid it for you, the debt is paid. However if you refused that gift and chose to try to repay that money, that's up to you.

Your analogy is false.

The debt is owed. Another paid the debt owed. The debtor is released from prison. The payment cannot be refused as it was owed to another and paid by another. It has nothing to do with you whatsoever. Who do you think you are not to let Jesus give back to God what is owed to Him? Does He need our permission to accept what is owed?
A debtor was not able to refuse and not able stay in prison.

If the wages of sin is death and Christ paid those wages for every man, why do men still die?

Is a good question and bears repeating.

I thought she said the grounds was unbelief, but given this latest statement, I'm not sure. (russell.)

Maybe Helen believes "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad..."

john.