I don't see his article to contradict to what I wrote.Regarding the idea a ransom was paid to Satan, please see the Hick's article I provided
Did the torture of God's beloved Son satisfy Him?
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Homer,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Paidion,
Quote: " Christ died to do away with sin. God will not be satisfied until sin is entirely eradicated from the universe. Salvation FROM SIN is a process.
So what gives 'sin" its impetus ? Is it not the Law? And how did Jesus "do away" with sin? You sound a liitle like Wesley who believed 'entire sanctification' was possible in this age. I think we are talking about two aspects of our salvation and coming at it from those different angles. You seem to say that Christ's 'doing away with sin" by His death served no other function than to 'enable us to live righteous lives'. If this in your opinion is the whole of the Gospel, then I would have to ask, what did you do with the rest of it? With one sin, you gave up your right to live before a Holy God. How does Jesus 'take away' your sin and the penalty attached to it which demands your very soul?
Quote: " Christ died to do away with sin. God will not be satisfied until sin is entirely eradicated from the universe. Salvation FROM SIN is a process.
So what gives 'sin" its impetus ? Is it not the Law? And how did Jesus "do away" with sin? You sound a liitle like Wesley who believed 'entire sanctification' was possible in this age. I think we are talking about two aspects of our salvation and coming at it from those different angles. You seem to say that Christ's 'doing away with sin" by His death served no other function than to 'enable us to live righteous lives'. If this in your opinion is the whole of the Gospel, then I would have to ask, what did you do with the rest of it? With one sin, you gave up your right to live before a Holy God. How does Jesus 'take away' your sin and the penalty attached to it which demands your very soul?
Last edited by AVoice on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Homer,
Good article!
I think I've heard of John Mark Hicks before as I used to live in Memphis (in '94, when he passed away). I knew some Church of Christ people there and it seems I remember them talking about him. There was a "Karl Barth group" at a local Church of Christ seminary and we talked about Barth's theology some...(though I didn't get to know these folks well).
I found a link that sort of describes Barth's view of the:
"Trinity-Incarnation-Atonement":
McCormack on Barth on Atonement
Rick
P.S. Though Barth was Trinitarian, he did use the word "modes" to describe the "persons" of the Trinity (but he definitely was not a "modalist")!
Good article!
I think I've heard of John Mark Hicks before as I used to live in Memphis (in '94, when he passed away). I knew some Church of Christ people there and it seems I remember them talking about him. There was a "Karl Barth group" at a local Church of Christ seminary and we talked about Barth's theology some...(though I didn't get to know these folks well).
I found a link that sort of describes Barth's view of the:
"Trinity-Incarnation-Atonement":
McCormack on Barth on Atonement
In a nutshell, this article reiterates and reaffirms what was in Hicks' article. Good stuff, Homer!The problem is that death, however it is conceived, it a human experience. How then could the death of Jesus Christ be an event between God and God, between, that is, an eternal father and an eternal Son who is understood along the lines of a Logos simpliciter [that is, the Divine Logos apart from his identity as the human-incarnated Jesus - Ed.]? So the logic of penal substitution is not that the Father does something to his “eternal Son” (as the charge of “cosmic” child abuse would suggest). An action of the eternal Father upon the eternal Son (seen in abstraction from the assumed humanity) would require a degree of individuation between the two such that the “separation” needed for an action of the one upon the other becomes unthinkable.
Blogger's ("Darren's") comment:
This gets at the traditional trinitarian response to many criticisms of penal substitution. Understanding the cross event as the Father (one being) punishing the Son (another being) is tri-theistic; the properly Christian view understands it as something that God does in Christ, a humiliation and punishment that he takes upon himself.
from McCormack again:
This is a human experience of the Logos. Therefore, it is an event between the eternal Father and the Logos as human. The “object” of the action is, therefore, the Logos as human. What happens in the outpouring of the wrath of God by the Father upon Jesus Christ is that the human experience of the “penalty of death” that humans have merited through their sinfulness is taken into the very life of God himself.
But then we still have to consider the logic of the “subject.” The subject who delivers Jesus Christ up to death is not the Father alone. For the trinitarian axiom opera trinitas ad extra sunt indivisa means that if one does it, they all do it. So it is the triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) who gives himself over to this experience. And that also means, then, that the Father is not doing something to someone other than himself. The triune God pours his wrath out upon himself in and through the human nature that he has made his own in his second mode of his being — that is the ontological significance of penal substitution. The triune God takes this human experience into his own life; he “drinks it to the dregs.” And in doing so, he vanquishes its power over us. That, I would submit, is the meaning of penal substitution when seen against the background of a well-ordered Christology and a well-ordered doctrine of the Trinity.
Blogger comment:
In the time that I have been studying the historical doctrine of the atonement I have come upon just one observation that I think is especially valuable: that a proper “model” or “theory” of atonement must be fundamentally trinitarian in nature. That is, it must not merely pay lip service to the doctrine of the Trinity in order to excuse God from such charges as “divine child abuse;” it must treat God’s triune identity as a foundational part of what was accomplished in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (underline, mine).
Rick
P.S. Though Barth was Trinitarian, he did use the word "modes" to describe the "persons" of the Trinity (but he definitely was not a "modalist")!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Paidion,
I agree with you that salvation and becoming free from sin is a process; a process that will not be final till He returns (if I understand you right).
I'd still like to know what you think of Romans 5:8-11, how do you interpret it?
Rick
I agree with you that salvation and becoming free from sin is a process; a process that will not be final till He returns (if I understand you right).
I'd still like to know what you think of Romans 5:8-11, how do you interpret it?
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Paul,
Rick,
I think John Mark is the son of the Hick's you mention. John Mark is, I believe, in his 40s, something of a whiz kid - through college at 19. He mentioned his father's death, death of his first wife, the horrible disease, suffering, and death of his son in his book "Yet Will I Trust Him", an excellent book on suffering. At the website you might find his article on mediating the war between the Calvinists and Armenians of interest.
I understand your position after I reread what you said; I thought on first reading you said God had to pay Satan.I don't see his article to contradict to what I wrote.
Rick,
I think John Mark is the son of the Hick's you mention. John Mark is, I believe, in his 40s, something of a whiz kid - through college at 19. He mentioned his father's death, death of his first wife, the horrible disease, suffering, and death of his son in his book "Yet Will I Trust Him", an excellent book on suffering. At the website you might find his article on mediating the war between the Calvinists and Armenians of interest.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_Father_of_five
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:37 pm
- Location: Texas USA
2 Cor 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Are the "saved" exempt from receiving for the bad things done while in the body? Isn't that the logical conclusion of substitutionary attonement? This verse seems to indicate otherwise. Comments?
Todd
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Are the "saved" exempt from receiving for the bad things done while in the body? Isn't that the logical conclusion of substitutionary attonement? This verse seems to indicate otherwise. Comments?
Todd
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dear Friends,
I have received several requests to explain or give an exegesis of Rom 4:1-11. Rick has also asked me to explain Rom 5:8-11. I agree to do so. But there are some matters must be cleared up first.
It seems that throughout history, various people were struck with a new insight into certain passages of Scripture. For example, around 1830, certain persons from the Catholic Apostolic Church, and the so-called "Plymouth Brethren" [a name they did not accept for themselves] became very excited with their new interpretation of I Thessalonians 4:13-17, an interpretation that was entirely unknown previously, but is said to have been given in revelation to Margart MacDonald. The new revelation was that of the pre-tribulation rapture ---- and thus dispensationalism was born. The teaching became widely accepted, rapidly spreading among "the Plymouth Brethren" and throughout most fundamentalist churches.
A similar phenomenon occured in the 16th century, when a monk by the name of Martin Luther gained a new insight into salvation. He was deeply convicted of his sin, and no matter how many times he confessed to a priest or tried to atone for his sins by depriving himelf of comfort or lying on spikes or whatever other means of self-punishment were available, he could not overcome. So he received a new insight on the earlier chapter of Romans which was unknown until his day --- a new understanding of "justification by faith alone". He even added "alone" to his translation, and when questioned about it, verbally attacked the questioner, saying that this was what Paul meant, and so he had a perfect right to add it to his text. Some one wrote (was it you, Homer?) that he saw no contradiction between Paul, and James, who said:
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24
I don't think James contradicted Paul in Romans, either, but he clearly contradicted Luther's interpretation of Romans (which seems to be also Homer's interpretation). Luther understood the contradiction. He called the book of James "an epistle of straw" and placed it at the very end of his translation.
After Luther began to believe he was justified (which he interpreted as being counted righteous whether he was or not), he was able to relax, and not be concerned any longer about the sins which he could not overcome. For God saw him as righteous because his sins were "covered". He even advised one person to "sin a little bit to spite the devil".
I'm not sure why Luther didn't have the same problem with I John. For John said, "Little children, let no one deceive you! He who does right is righteous as [Christ] is righteous." That sounds a whole lot like a real righteousness, not the pretending righteousness which Luther called "imputed righteousness". We really can be righteous, when we are enabled by the grace which is available to us through the sacrifice of Christ. That is why Christ died. He died that we might no longer live for ourselves, but for Him.[2 Corinthians 5:15] He died that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. [I Peter 2:24]. Nowhere is it written that He died in order that our sins be taken away in some sort of legal fiction, so that we will be positionally righteous. God wants to take away our sins in reality so that we will be actually righteous.
The view of substitutionary atonement often results in people believing that it is impossible to be righteous, impossible not to sin. If that were the case, why would John say that we can be righteous as HE is righteous? With the view of substitutionary atonement, many people think it is useless to try to overcome wrongdoing, since we can't overcome it anyway, and trying to do so is "a work" which is filthy in the sight of God.
But the writer to the Hebrews said:
Strive for ... the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. [Hebrews 12:4]
First we are to strive for holiness. Make a genuine effort. Not that the effort alone will suffice. But we need to coöperate with the enabling grace of God. This is how we do so, by striving, and by coming to the throne of Grace to receive mercy and help in a time of need. But we must also trust that God will enable us. This is the faith through which we are being saved by the enabling grace of God. [Eph 2:8]. I know Paul says in Ephesians, "you have been saved". Since "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ", we may as well say we "have been saved from sin" now! It's an integral part of faith to believe we shall continue on the road of salvation until that salvation is compete.
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. Hebrews 10:26-27
Our being saved from sin is indeed based on what Jesus had done. For we couldn't overcome wrongdoing, and live in love and service to others by mere self-effort. We need the enabling grace of God made available by the sacrifice of Christ. The clauses on each side of "not" are in perfect harmony ---- not contrary to each other.
I have received several requests to explain or give an exegesis of Rom 4:1-11. Rick has also asked me to explain Rom 5:8-11. I agree to do so. But there are some matters must be cleared up first.
It seems that throughout history, various people were struck with a new insight into certain passages of Scripture. For example, around 1830, certain persons from the Catholic Apostolic Church, and the so-called "Plymouth Brethren" [a name they did not accept for themselves] became very excited with their new interpretation of I Thessalonians 4:13-17, an interpretation that was entirely unknown previously, but is said to have been given in revelation to Margart MacDonald. The new revelation was that of the pre-tribulation rapture ---- and thus dispensationalism was born. The teaching became widely accepted, rapidly spreading among "the Plymouth Brethren" and throughout most fundamentalist churches.
A similar phenomenon occured in the 16th century, when a monk by the name of Martin Luther gained a new insight into salvation. He was deeply convicted of his sin, and no matter how many times he confessed to a priest or tried to atone for his sins by depriving himelf of comfort or lying on spikes or whatever other means of self-punishment were available, he could not overcome. So he received a new insight on the earlier chapter of Romans which was unknown until his day --- a new understanding of "justification by faith alone". He even added "alone" to his translation, and when questioned about it, verbally attacked the questioner, saying that this was what Paul meant, and so he had a perfect right to add it to his text. Some one wrote (was it you, Homer?) that he saw no contradiction between Paul, and James, who said:
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24
I don't think James contradicted Paul in Romans, either, but he clearly contradicted Luther's interpretation of Romans (which seems to be also Homer's interpretation). Luther understood the contradiction. He called the book of James "an epistle of straw" and placed it at the very end of his translation.
After Luther began to believe he was justified (which he interpreted as being counted righteous whether he was or not), he was able to relax, and not be concerned any longer about the sins which he could not overcome. For God saw him as righteous because his sins were "covered". He even advised one person to "sin a little bit to spite the devil".
I'm not sure why Luther didn't have the same problem with I John. For John said, "Little children, let no one deceive you! He who does right is righteous as [Christ] is righteous." That sounds a whole lot like a real righteousness, not the pretending righteousness which Luther called "imputed righteousness". We really can be righteous, when we are enabled by the grace which is available to us through the sacrifice of Christ. That is why Christ died. He died that we might no longer live for ourselves, but for Him.[2 Corinthians 5:15] He died that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. [I Peter 2:24]. Nowhere is it written that He died in order that our sins be taken away in some sort of legal fiction, so that we will be positionally righteous. God wants to take away our sins in reality so that we will be actually righteous.
The view of substitutionary atonement often results in people believing that it is impossible to be righteous, impossible not to sin. If that were the case, why would John say that we can be righteous as HE is righteous? With the view of substitutionary atonement, many people think it is useless to try to overcome wrongdoing, since we can't overcome it anyway, and trying to do so is "a work" which is filthy in the sight of God.
But the writer to the Hebrews said:
Strive for ... the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. [Hebrews 12:4]
First we are to strive for holiness. Make a genuine effort. Not that the effort alone will suffice. But we need to coöperate with the enabling grace of God. This is how we do so, by striving, and by coming to the throne of Grace to receive mercy and help in a time of need. But we must also trust that God will enable us. This is the faith through which we are being saved by the enabling grace of God. [Eph 2:8]. I know Paul says in Ephesians, "you have been saved". Since "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ", we may as well say we "have been saved from sin" now! It's an integral part of faith to believe we shall continue on the road of salvation until that salvation is compete.
If he has repented and been baptized, and submitted his life to Christ, then he has been regenerated. He has entered the door of salvation. As a babe in Christ, he may have many things to overcome. But the salvation process has begun. And "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ." So this babe will as surely be perfected in Christ as the mature disciple who has been on the road for 60 years or more, and has overcome much more of his sinful behaviour.Homer wrote:Consider a sinful person who hears about Jesus as Lord and Savior, and the hope that is in Christ. He repents of his past and is baptized. Yet he is a "babe in Christ", and in his ignorance, continues in some of the sins of his past. He simply does not know yet that some of them are wrong. In this condition, he dies in an accident.
You understand me correctly.As I understand you, although the man was far from perfect, upon the return of Christ he will be made completely holy/righteous while some very moral unbeliever is condemned.
No. A true disciple of Christ is justified (shown to be righteous) because he has willingly left the self-life and submitted to Christ, and is on the road to becoming Christ-like. He will be perfected whether he dies in an early stage of the journey or in a later stage. In Christ's parable, the workman who worked only an hour received the same wages as those who had worked all day. However, if the disicple says to himself, "To heck with this stuff. I'm going to live the way I please," he has taken his life back into his own hands, and will have to endure the corrective fires of Gehenna just as those do who have never become disciples.Do you believe the man who is saved is justified because he believed God would give him the strength to improve himself?
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. Hebrews 10:26-27
Is not saving faith based on what Jesus has done, not what we will accomplish with God's help?
Our being saved from sin is indeed based on what Jesus had done. For we couldn't overcome wrongdoing, and live in love and service to others by mere self-effort. We need the enabling grace of God made available by the sacrifice of Christ. The clauses on each side of "not" are in perfect harmony ---- not contrary to each other.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hello Paidion,
So what did you do with the LAW in your construct? You have yet to answer from the LAW"S demand upon the sinner. What do you do with guilt under the LAW? I don't believe you are trying to present an antinomian view, or are you? BTW, IMO, you are taking Hebrews 10 completely out of context. Lets talk about it.
Peace in Him,
Bob
So what did you do with the LAW in your construct? You have yet to answer from the LAW"S demand upon the sinner. What do you do with guilt under the LAW? I don't believe you are trying to present an antinomian view, or are you? BTW, IMO, you are taking Hebrews 10 completely out of context. Lets talk about it.
Peace in Him,
Bob
Last edited by AVoice on Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion,
I know I am confusing you. As Joachim Jeremias commented, there is tension between faith and works in the writings of Paul. Paul wrote the words regarding imputed righteousness yet elsewhere gave lists of behaviors that would preclude one from enjoying life with God in the World to come. And Peter warned of those who misunderstood Paul - lawless people.
I most emphatically wish to have you understand that I am no proponent of "easy-believism", in fact, I abhor that doctrine. Jesus, as the scriptures repeatedly inform us, is both Lord and Savior. IMO you can not accept Him as only one and not the other.
We are saved by faith - faith that works. Faith working through love.
It seems to me we are substantially in agreement regarding the necessity of obedience and submission to Jesus as Lord. However, in this life, we are disciples, apprentices to Jesus, if you will. We never become journeymen, fully like Jesus.
In spite of our efforts, at best (and who but our Lord has done his best?) we still fall short of complete righteousness. As I understand you, God somehow makes us completely righteous when the Lord returns, and thus accepatable to be with Him. Whether you believe this is done by adding what is lacking, obliteration of all sinful desires, or a combination of both I do not know. Do you know of any scripture that informs us of how Jesus' death accomplishes this?
I know you are fond of saying God will put the finishing touches on you when He returns. I suspect I will need more than a little touching up.
In my view, we are fit to be with God because we are in Christ; He is the completely righteous, completely holy one. We can only be seen as completely righteous in Him.
The scriptures are replete with references to what He accomplished for us:
Romans 3:21-26 (New King James Version)
21. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22. even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25. whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Ephesians 1:7 (New King James Version)
7. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
Colossians 1:13-14 (New King James Version)
13. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14. in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
Hebrews 7:24-27 (New King James Version)
24. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27. who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
1 John 2:1-2 (New King James Version)
1. My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Revelation 1:4-5 (New King James Version)
4. John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:
Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5. and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
Revelation 5:9 (New King James Version)
9. And they sang a new song, saying:
“ You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
So many more scriptures could be cited, which seem overwhelmingly against your view. I think you have only a part of what was accomplished in the atonement.
I know I am confusing you. As Joachim Jeremias commented, there is tension between faith and works in the writings of Paul. Paul wrote the words regarding imputed righteousness yet elsewhere gave lists of behaviors that would preclude one from enjoying life with God in the World to come. And Peter warned of those who misunderstood Paul - lawless people.
I most emphatically wish to have you understand that I am no proponent of "easy-believism", in fact, I abhor that doctrine. Jesus, as the scriptures repeatedly inform us, is both Lord and Savior. IMO you can not accept Him as only one and not the other.
We are saved by faith - faith that works. Faith working through love.
It seems to me we are substantially in agreement regarding the necessity of obedience and submission to Jesus as Lord. However, in this life, we are disciples, apprentices to Jesus, if you will. We never become journeymen, fully like Jesus.
In spite of our efforts, at best (and who but our Lord has done his best?) we still fall short of complete righteousness. As I understand you, God somehow makes us completely righteous when the Lord returns, and thus accepatable to be with Him. Whether you believe this is done by adding what is lacking, obliteration of all sinful desires, or a combination of both I do not know. Do you know of any scripture that informs us of how Jesus' death accomplishes this?
I know you are fond of saying God will put the finishing touches on you when He returns. I suspect I will need more than a little touching up.
In my view, we are fit to be with God because we are in Christ; He is the completely righteous, completely holy one. We can only be seen as completely righteous in Him.
The scriptures are replete with references to what He accomplished for us:
Romans 3:21-26 (New King James Version)
21. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22. even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25. whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Ephesians 1:7 (New King James Version)
7. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
Colossians 1:13-14 (New King James Version)
13. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14. in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
Hebrews 7:24-27 (New King James Version)
24. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27. who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
1 John 2:1-2 (New King James Version)
1. My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Revelation 1:4-5 (New King James Version)
4. John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:
Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5. and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
Revelation 5:9 (New King James Version)
9. And they sang a new song, saying:
“ You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
So many more scriptures could be cited, which seem overwhelmingly against your view. I think you have only a part of what was accomplished in the atonement.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Bob,
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. Hebrews 10:26-27
When I grew up, this was the context:
Hebrews 10:24-25 (New King James Version)
24. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25. not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
And I almost never miss a Sunday morning service, even when travelling.
BTW, IMO, you are taking Hebrews 10 completely out of context. Lets talk about it.
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. Hebrews 10:26-27
When I grew up, this was the context:
Hebrews 10:24-25 (New King James Version)
24. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25. not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
And I almost never miss a Sunday morning service, even when travelling.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean