Challenging statements about the atonement

[JonC]

I posted several short statements on the Atonement which were dismissed, but I did not see an explanation of how they were believed to be in error. Consider these statements and please correct my error:

1. Through Christ God was reconciling the world to himself

2. Jesus became flesh and being made in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, Jesus condemned sin in the flesh so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.

3. The Old Testament sacrifices foreshadowed a greater atonement.

4. The sacrifices of the Old Testament only covered sins (individual sins were forgiven, but man remained in sin). The Atonement is not merely for individual sins but for that inherited sin nature.

5. The Atonement is seen from the Incarnation to the Cross, culminating in the Resurrection (without Christ being raised, we are still in our sins).

6. We call on God as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s works. We should not sin, but when we do sin we have an Advocate in Jesus Christ who intercedes on our behalf with the Father.

wait.....OK.....I got my learn'in cap on....fire away

 

[TCassidy]

I believe #4 is incorrect. One of the errors of strict dispensationalism is the "many different plans of salvation" error. The OT sacrifices did nothing for the sinner. Hebrew 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

The OT sacrifices were all prophetic, pointing to the One True sacrifice, the Lord Jesus Christ. They were metaphorical. They were signs, and types, and shadows of things to come.

The OT saints were saved by faith in the promised sacrifice of the Messiah.

 

[TomLaPalm]

# 2 is wrong . Jesus does not condemn.
Jhn 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

But the Father does not condemn MAN


For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

# 4 Is also incorrect because there is no inherited sin nature.

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear theiniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquityof the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[JamesL]

I believe #4 is incorrect. One of the errors of strict dispensationalism is the "many different plans of salvation" error. The OT sacrifices did nothing for the sinner. Hebrew 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

The OT sacrifices were all prophetic, pointing to the One True sacrifice, the Lord Jesus Christ. They were metaphorical. They were signs, and types, and shadows of things to come.

The OT saints were saved by faith in the promised sacrifice of the Messiah.

It seems to me that I read somewhere that the OT "atonement" is the Hebrew "kaphar", which is to cover, appease, etc...and is the same word (or similar) to the wording where Noah covered the ark with pitch

But I could be wrong, just going from rote memory.

Interestingly enough, I have an issue with #4, but the second half. I'll respond to the OP to explain

 

[JonC]

I believe #4 is incorrect. One of the errors of strict dispensationalism is the "many different plans of salvation" error. The OT sacrifices did nothing for the sinner. Hebrew 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

The OT sacrifices were all prophetic, pointing to the One True sacrifice, the Lord Jesus Christ. They were metaphorical. They were signs, and types, and shadows of things to come.

The OT saints were saved by faith in the promised sacrifice of the Messiah.

I don't believe #4 to be another dispensation but rather the same Object of salvation. It was not the sacrifice itself that forgave sin, but I do believe their sins were forgiven on the basis of faith in God's promised Redeemer.

Where I believe we may disagree is that I view God as forgiving sins in the OT based on faith in Christ (foreshadowed by the sacrificial system). But I do not see that freedom from sin until the cross. OT saints were forgiven but not freed from the bondage of sin. So it's not a different dispensation of salvation but an anticipation and that anticipation realized.

 

[JonC]

# 2 is wrong . Jesus does not condemn.
Jhn 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

But the Father does not condemn MAN


For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

# 4 Is also incorrect because there is no inherited sin nature.

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear theiniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquityof the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

See Romans 8:3.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful cflesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[TCassidy]

OT saints were forgiven but not freed from the bondage of sin.

Why not?

 

[JonC]

Interestingly enough, I have an issue with #4, but the second half. I'll respond to the OP to explain

Now that I look at it, I may also (with the first part of the 2nd sentence).

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[JamesL]

4. The Atonement is not merely for individual sins but for that inherited sin nature.

I have issues with this statement.

The phrase "inherited sin nature" is not understood universally, so one might agree or disagree without even knowing what you mean:

I have met believers who believe "sin nature" is an inclination or bent, some invisible aspect of a person's mind (maybe, can't quite nail this one down with people). I've asked - where is this sin nature? In the spirit, the body, or the soul? the best answer I can get from people with this view is that the sin nature is the flesh. which they refuse to believe is the physical body. Just another way of spiritualizing (or trivializing) a philosophical position that has zero biblical support

Of these people, not everyone agrees that this invisible "flesh" nature is inherited from Adam, and they typically quote Ezekiel 18:20 - "the soul that sins shall die"

I've also met believers who believe "sin nature" amounts to nothing except the physical body. That it did come from Adam

 

[TCassidy]

It seems to me that I read somewhere that the OT "atonement" is the Hebrew "kaphar", which is to cover, appease, etc...and is the same word (or similar) to the wording where Noah covered the ark with pitch

The word כפר means "to cover with pitch" IE, bitumen. But metaphorically it means "to expiate" or "propitiate."

 

[TCassidy]

where is this sin nature? In the spirit, the body, or the soul?

Yes.

 

[JonC]

Why not?

I believe they were anticipating the more complete salvation of Christ. The Cross dealt with human sin (the curse, fallen human nature). God forgave sins prior to the Atonement, but men were freed from sin through the work of Christ. We are free in Christ.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[TomLaPalm]

See Romans 8:3.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful cflesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh

Sent from my TARDIS

The Law only condemned.

He condemned sin shown in the flesh or mankind, He finished , took care of ,the sin problem. He gave a remedy for sin, This is not the fall but redemption, The Law of God and even the laws of man show we are sinners. Christ gave us the remedy, Himself

 

[TomLaPalm]

I have issues with this statement.

The phrase "inherited sin nature" is not understood universally, so one might agree or disagree without even knowing what you mean:

I have met believers who believe "sin nature" is an inclination or bent, some invisible aspect of a person's mind (maybe, can't quite nail this one down with people). I've asked - where is this sin nature? In the spirit, the body, or the soul? the best answer I can get from people with this view is that the sin nature is the flesh. which they refuse to believe is the physical body. Just another way of spiritualizing (or trivializing) a philosophical position that has zero biblical support

Of these people, not everyone agrees that this invisible "flesh" nature is inherited from Adam, and they typically quote Ezekiel 18:20 - "the soul that sins shall die"

I've also met believers who believe "sin nature" amounts to nothing except the physical body. That it did come from Adam

The Soul sins, the body suffers. Jesus said those that lusted in their hearts sinned

 

[TCassidy]

I believe they were anticipating the more complete salvation of Christ. The Cross dealt with human sin (the curse, fallen human nature). God forgave sins prior to the Atonement, but men were freed from sin through the work of Christ. We are free in Christ.

So, is Christ's Atoning sacrifice limited by time? Is God incapable of applying the benefits of His Atoning sacrifice anywhere on the timeline from His place in Eternity?

 

[Iconoclast]

TomLaPalm,

Hello TLP, I think you might be off on a few things here.

# 2 is wrong . Jesus does not condemn.
Jhn 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

When we keep reading;
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

# 4 Is also incorrect because there is no inherited sin nature.

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear theiniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquityof the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

[/QUOTE]
The verses in Ezekiel do not negate romans 3:23 -romans 5:12-21

 

[JamesL]

So, is Christ's Atoning sacrifice limited by time? Is God incapable of applying the benefits of His Atoning sacrifice anywhere on the timeline from His place in Eternity?

I think if scripture doesn't explicitly state it, it's best not to speculate, then build an elaborate doctrine around it.

 

[JonC]

The Law only condemned.

He condemned sin shown in the flesh or mankind, He finished , took care of ,the sin problem. He gave a remedy for sin, This is not the fall but redemption, The Law of God and even the laws of man show we are sinners. Christ gave us the remedy, Himself

Yes, I didn't mean condemned men in the flesh but sin. God condemned sin in the flesh. I think we are saying the same thing.

 

[JamesL]

The Law only condemned.

He condemned sin shown in the flesh or mankind, He finished , took care of ,the sin problem. He gave a remedy for sin, This is not the fall but redemption, The Law of God and even the laws of man show we are sinners. Christ gave us the remedy, Himself

Can you clarify something?

John quoted scripture which says Jesus condemned sin in the flesh, and you balked, then quoted John 3 saying that Jesus does not condemn sinners. Here's where I'm asking for clarification.....

The phrase "sin in the flesh" means what to you?

I could be wrong, but it seems that you're looking at sin as a behavioral issue only, that "sin in the flesh" would mean sin (or sins) committed in the flesh.

But I believe what Jesus condemned was the influence our flesh is able to have over our thinking. That our sinful flesh has been rendered powerless.

Now, what is flesh?

 

[JonC]

So, is Christ's Atoning sacrifice limited by time? Is God incapable of applying the benefits of His Atoning sacrifice anywhere on the timeline from His place in Eternity?

Is God capable of saving men yet maintaining the benefits of salvation applied within time, still accomplishing his redemptive plan?

If you answer "yes" then neither of us question God's capability. We don't disagree on how God could have applied the benefits of the cross but maybe on how he did apply them.