beloved57
Well-known member
Are you ready to review back with me post 798 ?
The Atonement: What did it REALLY Accomplish?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
Are you ready to review back with me post 798 ?
I'm ALWAYS ready to defend my faith...not just post links. Keep it CURRENT and relevant B57. Don't live in the past.
beloved57
Well-known member
That's what my threads are for, to defend the Faith once delivered to the Saints! You evade the defending of my Faith! And post 798 is waiting on you!
beloved57
Well-known member
Post 798 is waiting on you!
Guess you don't understand common English aye? I said make it CURRENT and IN context.
beloved57
Well-known member
Read my threads and post 798 is waiting for you, are you scared? That's what I want to debate you on, Those points!
beloved57
Well-known member
You are afraid!
The theological doctrine of Jesus dying for the sins of humankind was first worked out over 900 years after Jesus' death by Anselm of Canterbury, an early Christian theologian.
The atonement theology has effectively taken away believers' focus on the teachings of Jesus to what those teachings meant.
In other words, Christianity has become a "belief-based" faith and not an "action-based" faith. People have been taught to worship Jesus rather than follow him.
The idea of being a blood sacrifice to God would have no doubt disgusted Jesus. Both he and John preached a doctrine of repentance, not sacrifice. It was Paul, the gospel writer John and later additions to the synoptic accounts that believed in spilling blood on the altar to redeem us from sin.
The atonement theology has effectively taken away believers' focus on the teachings of Jesus to what those teachings meant.
In other words, Christianity has become a "belief-based" faith and not an "action-based" faith. People have been taught to worship Jesus rather than follow him.
The idea of being a blood sacrifice to God would have no doubt disgusted Jesus. Both he and John preached a doctrine of repentance, not sacrifice. It was Paul, the gospel writer John and later additions to the synoptic accounts that believed in spilling blood on the altar to redeem us from sin.
That may be ONE perspective, but the Bible does teach that Jesus died for ALL sin. What the people had in 900 AD for studying is not apparent to me but I'm more concerned with TODAY and not history, good or bad.
The atonement hasn't damaged anything about the New Covenant, only how people perceive of deceive about it.
I'm pretty sure most people of faith believe and follow James 2:17 (NIV), in context.
Hebrews 9 (NIV) teaches exactly how to view the sacrifice of Jesus.
beloved57
Well-known member
Then why do some people die in their sins in unbelief Jn 8:24 if Christ has died for them already? That is double jeopardy!
Yes, die IN their sins, because they never confessed Jesus and accepted His redemption/reconciliation. It doesn't say they died BECAUSE of their sins. They died because they did NOT accept Jesus, just as John 8:24 (NIV) clearly states.
beloved57
Well-known member
Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies and unbelievers, they didn't confess any sins and still they were saved from the penalty of their sins!
beloved57
Well-known member
You teach that salvation is based on man's doing something, so that is salvation by works!
Not in ANY scripture you have presented so far. Typical equivocation though. Show me a scripture that says EXACTLY what you said here.
Well if you call man accepting and confessing Jesus as His savior, then yes, but knowing you, you will find some way to twist this.
Rom 10:9-11 (NIV)
beloved57
Well-known member
Those Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies and unbelievers Rom 5:10 so they hated God when that were reconciled!
beloved57
Well-known member
Yes that is salvation by works, by what the person does! That's a false witness!