Heresy Du Jour

With the exception of Paul, does God save those who do not believe?

While still Saul, Paul believed in Jesus. He believed so intently that he zealously set out to eradicate his followers. Jesus simply stopped Saul in his tracks and turned him around and made him the Paul we all know and love.

 

Actually, it is Jesus Who saves. </font>[/QUOTE]Not if you wave him off!

Jesus may be the vehicle that saves, but unless you the individual get into the vehicle, you ain't gonna get saved!

 

Yelsew,

I think you've made some good points about Atonement. Hopefully someone will respond to them.

Before I stopped to think about it, I probably would agree with the idea that The Atonement is what forgives sins. However, if this were true, then scriptures like I John 2:2 ("...and not for ours but for the sins of the whole world") would appear to mean all mankind should be saved. The problem is, this view disregards faith. If The Atonement forgives sins, then faith in the blood is a moot point. I suppose that's why we start seeing the terms "sufficient" and "effectual" being used. It's the only way to explain scriptures like I John 2:2.

What I'd like to see is someone talk about why they believe The Atonement forgives sins. But I see this has turned into a how-do-we-believe discussion. I'm not too interested since I know how it will progress.

 

What Calvinism contorts is the distinction that Atonement is not forgiveness!

 

Take time to study Propitiation, Redemption, Reconciliation, and Expiation comparatively.

In the O.T. Atonement is a covering provided in the blood of the innocent sacrifice to "cover" or in the Hebrew 'kaphar' the sin of the individual bringing the sacrifice.

In the N.T. the Atonement is a full complete reconciliation. This is what the cross accomplished. The fulfillment of the looking forward to the time when the Messiah would unite the Preistly office and the atonement, looked forward by all O.T. saints and a looking back to that moment in time (history) when this event occurred, thus it's completion.

All of history either looked forward to this, or now looks back on it for its definition.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman,

Actually, in my studies, the meaning of 'kaphar' (kippur) does not mean "to cover", but simply, "to purge". Regardless, however, the OT atonement is a picture of the heavenly one.

"Atonement" and "reconciliation" are two different terms. They are certainly related but your not distinguishing anything. How does "reconciliation" occur? By the atonment itself?

It also seems you're saying the OT atonement is different from the NT one. Actually, there is only one Atonement anyway.

 

In the OT, atonement was accomplished by the substitutionary death of animals regularly and often in the place of the human sinner.

In the NT, atonement is accomplished by substitutionary death of the Son of God, ONE time for all mankind.

The Wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. The Gift is Jesus who died in our stead. Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Does Jesus' atonement mean that the sins of the world are forgiven? No, but the wage for those sins is paid in our stead, that is, we are not held liable for the sins that Jesus death paid for. That is not forgiveness, it is atonement, expiation and the first stage of reconciliation. This happened approximately 2000 years ago.

The second stage of reconciliation is individual Belief in Jesus, the Lamb of God. This happens afresh for each human who comes to belief in the Christ.

After belief unto faith in Jesus, then comes the believer's obedience to the Christ. As one becomes familiar with the Word of God, the Holy Spirit then influences the human spirit by convicting one of the sins in the one's life thus compelling one to confess those sins. It is this confession of one's sins that initiates forgiveness from the one who atoned for the sins of all mankind.

 

The point is the atonement is just that, a picture of the heavenly. This being a picture it was not complete, the reconciliation though is full and complete.

God Bless.
Bro.Dallas

 

Sins that are atoned for are forgiven. Anyone for whom Jesus suffered as his substitute cannot be punished for the same sins. If he was, God would not be just and the Bible states that God is just.

 

If reconciliation is full and complete, for what reason does the church exist?

 

Sins that are atoned for are forgiven. Anyone for whom Jesus suffered as his substitute cannot be punished for the same sins. If he was, God would not be just and the Bible states that God is just. </font>[/QUOTE]You're failing to recognize the difference between atonement and forgiveness.

 

Read John 21...'feed my sheep' 'do you love me more than these' Lord thou knowest I love you more than these,...ringing a bell yet.

The church definitely does not exist in order to provide reconciliation.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Ring a bell?

 

Yeah, the commission of the church, this is not reconciliation. Christ had completed that work before He spoke these words.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Christ completed reconciliation only with those who believed in him, and he continues to complete reconciliation with each person that comes to belief in him. Those who do not believe or who refuse to believe in Jesus are not reconciled to God.

 

Then Christ did not complete reconciliation. He must wait until each believer gives merit to the finished work He has done.

I thought Christ offered himself through the eternal spirit. I thought His resurrection was surety that God accepted His sacrifice and through the Spirit of Holiness He was resurrected. Maybe the Bible is wrong when it says Christ said it is finished. Maybe what he really said is: 'it is finished, if they will belileve' Perhaps Augustine and Calvin conspired to edit this out of the Bible. Either way, your view teaches Christ did no special work, unless and until man believes it to be so. My view teaches that Christ's work glorifies God even if no man believes.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman,

The picture itself is not progressive so I'm not sure what you mean by "it was not complete". It's just an illustration of the true.

My point is I think you believe something about atonement that regards forgiveness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe atonement = forgiveness.

 

Ken H,

.

What sins are atoned for?

If the atonement itself forgives sins, why must one have faith in the blood?

 

NO, he completed all the work that enables reconciliation. Reconciliation is a relationship thing which takes place when each individual man who will, submits to the will of God.

 

The atonement was a covering, yet provided by the blood of an innocent substitutionary sacrifice. Sins were covered, but not really forgiven. The reconciliation is not just a covering, but is the fulfillment. The fact that sins can be forgiven is proof that these are put away by the reconciliation, if not, the atonement sacrifice would yet be valid. Reconciliation is that event at the cross which the sacrifices producing the atonement looked forward to, without the fulfillment of the reconciliation these would have no merit in themselves and all who brought them would be lost.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas