|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2007 2:47:25 GMT -5
I have attended two easter services where I have heard preaching on the atonement. Both times it was the Payment of a Debt view.
To my surprise, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is even more limited then I thought!
After listening to a good godly preacher today preach about the atonement I inquired from him regarding his thoughts on some issues. He holds to the penalty/punishment view of the cross and that those who believe that Christ paid their debt will be saved.
He believes that Christ died so that all might be saved, but that the benefit of salvation is only extended to those who repent and believe. To this, I agree.
But I ask him: "Given your view of the nature of the atonement, being our punishment or the payment of our debt, why must a person believe? Didn't Christ pay their debt whether they believe it or not?"
His response: "Yes, Christ suffered the penalty of all their sin, except for the sin of unbelief. Jesus did not die for the sin of unbelief."
In this view, sinners cannot go to hell for murdering, fornicating, lying, blaspheming, stealing, etc etc (Rev 21:8) because Christ already received he punishment for all these types of sins, but rather sinners can only go to hell for unbelief because Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief.
My immediate thought is regarding atheism or unbelief. If Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, can unbelief be forgiven? Can an atheist have his unbelief forgiven? If Christ did not die for unbelief, then unbelief cannot be forgiven, so unless you have always believed you cannot be saved. I find this to be very contrary to the scripture.
What do you guys think?
The scripture says that we must believe that Christ died for us, but for those of you who hold to the payment view, why must we believe that Christ died for us?
Have you guys heard this view before that Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief? Is there any scriptures that explicitly say Christ died for some, but not all sin?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Apr 9, 2007 7:03:35 GMT -5
Mark 16:14, "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."
Everyone has unbelif until the Spirit shows them otherwise. If this preacher is correct in his teaching then none of the origianl desciples (apostles) would have come to know Christ as Saviour.
This is the first I heard of this teaching, but it surely sounds like many of the false teachings around these days. Satan is hard at work, he knows his time is short.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 9, 2007 9:09:44 GMT -5
I posted the below on another thread. I didn't write it, I found it on another message board. ------------------------------- The red heifer [Num 19 & Heb 9:13] was a unique application of the Sin Offering found in Lev 4 & 6. In the sin offering, the sinner identified himself with an animal by laying his hands on its head, after which the sinner slaughtered the animal. The slaughtered animal was entrusted to the priest who divided it up into parts. The blood was sprinkled on the alter, the inwards were set apart for sacrifice, the remainder was burned outside the camp. Hebrews sees Christ's death as a permanent fulfilling of this sacrifice. The sacrifice was immediate, the atonement was immediate, the forgiveness was immediate. [Lev 4:26, 31, 35] But God made special provision in the sacrifice for those times when there was need but the apparatus of the sacrifice was not available. I presume this is why we have this sacrifice in Numbers, rather than in Leviticus. The scenario is everything packed up and ready to go and a sudden need for a sin offering. What do you do? You can't erect the tabernacle and rekindle the altar fire. The answer was a pre-fabricated sacrifice known as the red heifer. I am not being frivolous when I say it was an instant-coffee kind of a sacrifice. This is how it worked. At an earlier time a sin-offering had been sacrificed. Its blood sprinkled before the tabernalce. [Num 19:4] As the heifer was being burned, some extra ingredients were added to the flame. Finally someone would gather up the ashes of the red heifer and preserve them safe, outside the camp. This sacrifice was then 'on hold' until it was needed. When someone (seems most likely that priests were in mind) sinned the second part of the process kicked in. The ashes of the heifer were placed in a recepticle and running water was added. [the Hebrew idiom for this in Nu 19:17 is 'living water'.] The addition of the living water reconstituted the sacrifice. It was ready for instant use. The liquid of this reconstituted sacrifice, being the equivalent of the blood that was originally sprinked outside the tabernacle, was then sprinkled on the 'sinner'. The offering is now effectual. My understanding is that this is the pattern of Christ's sacrifice. The sacrifice is made, God is propitiated, but the blood must be sprinkled on the individual for the atonement (sin-covering) to become effectual. In the case of the red heifer we might have a time interval of several months in between the sacrifice made, God propititiated and the sinner receiving his cleansing. We can also envisage the scenario in which a sinner chose not to avail himself of the provision that was available for him. So with Christ, the sacrifice is made, God is propitiated but the sinner cannot come into the presence of God until he has been blood-sprinkled. Redemption was accomplished (I believe) for all, but is only applied to those who avail themselves of the provision. It may be significant that the Hebrews reference is linked with that phrase 'through the eternal Spirit' that I mentioned in my previous post. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? [Heb 9:13,14] The effect of Christ's sacrifice was 'captured' 'in the Spirit'. It is not the letter or the objective facts that save, but the addition of the 'Living Water' (which John says is the Spirit). So the Spirit comes to 'reconstitute' (just a metaphor) what Christ accomplished and to apply it to me personally. As a result of the sprinkling I am joined to the place of the original sacrifice and what He did becomes mine. One last comment. The word propitiation in the KJV translates two connected words. The word hilasmos is used in John's first letter 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. The second word, hilasterion, is more correctly the 'place of' propitiation. Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Hebrews 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat ; of which we cannot now speak particularly. God has provided the hilasmos, protitiatory sacrifice, that is done and can never be repeated or added to. But to avail ourselves of His great provision we must come to the hilasterion, place of propitiation (the cross), where faith in his blood will make all the benefits of that propitiation mine. Redemption is thus accomplished and applied, 'though the application may be hundreds of years after the accomplishing. And there is that remaining possibility that if we do not have 'faith in his blood' the redemption will never be applied. Oringinal Thread
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Apr 9, 2007 12:03:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean.
I don't hold to a universal atonement, so the whole question is kind of moot for me. I believe Christ died for the sins of His chosen elect. He came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Unbelief is one of these sins.
We should believe that Christ died for the elect because that is what Scripture teaches, and if we are Christians then we are to believe that it applies to us. To disbelieve what Scripture teaches is sin.
|
|
|
Post by martinluther on Apr 9, 2007 13:03:48 GMT -5
Jesse,
I have heard that taught before, by "easy believism" independent Baptists who use that as a reason to not preach sin or the law to people--they tell people they won't go to hell for their sins of lying, adultery, etc., but only for unbelief. Therefore if you simply "believe" in Jesus you will be fine, and you don't need to repent of your sin to be saved. It's an easy believism thing, not held to by Christians, Arminian or Calvinist, who understand the need to preach sin, law, and repentance to bring the knowledge of sin before preaching grace.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Apr 9, 2007 18:02:40 GMT -5
I often thought that people went to hell because of murder, stealing, adultery etc.
The reason is because they rejected God's Son - this is the reason why people go to hell.
'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' (John 1:29)
Note 'sin' not sins
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Apr 9, 2007 18:08:21 GMT -5
I often thought that people went to hell because of murder, stealing, adultery etc. The reason is because they rejected God's Son - this is the reason why people go to hell. 'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' (John 1:29) Note 'sin' not sins How can one reject Christ if that one has never heard the Name of Christ? An aproximate 2 BILLION people have never heard His name, let alone anything about Him. Scripture says that we will be judged by the deeds done in the body, whether good or evil.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 11, 2007 19:53:24 GMT -5
I'd always understood that men will be cast into hell not primarily because they've sinned (lied, stolen, etc.) but because they're sinners in nature. The sinful acts are just evidence they're sinners in nature. Psalm 51, Romans 3, etc. Sins just prove the nature of the sinner. Fruit gives evidence to the kind of tree you have. Grapes aren't picked from thorns.
It's also silly to say that people will go to hell primarily because they didn't believe on Jesus. Just like someone who falls out a plane dies primarily because he hits the ground and only secondarily because he didn't put on a parachute, so someone will be sent to hell primarily because they're a sinner in nature which is evidenced by their breaking of God's Holy Law.
Jesse, these are good questions. I would ask someone where in the Bible does it say that Jesus died for all sins except for the sin of unbelief? My easy-believism boss once told me that. I asked him to show me where it's found, he never got back to me. He asked me to show him where Jesus died for all sins, and there are many verses that say so.
But... this doctrine is problematic for those who hold to universal atonement (Arminians, etc.). For if Jesus died for the unbelief of all, then why should anyone go to hell? Isn't it as if they actually believed in Jesus? But -- aha -- I don't disagree with universal atonement, IF! If all you mean is Jesus made salvation possible for all, and as far as I can tell, that's all Arminians are saying, then I don't disagree with that doctrine. I just ask, was that all He died for, to make it possible? Did He die for more? I think Scripture says He did.
I'm done with this thread, if you want to know what I mean by that last statement, send me an email: Chris (AT) deVidal (DOT) tv.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 11, 2007 19:59:36 GMT -5
Oops I had just one more thought.
To put it positively, if Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, is this therefore a sin for which I must atone for? BLASPHEMY!!!! May it never be so! May I NEVER lay ahold of any horn of any altar but the blood-stained cross of Christ!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 12, 2007 9:08:22 GMT -5
I would guess the pastor didn't have much time to really think his answer out. The reason being if unbelief wasn't atoned for, then no one could be saved! Who was born believing and never had unbelief?
|
|