Wow, just today, I read something* about this very topic. It said that atonement (as in Mark's gospel) and forgiveness (in Luke's gospel and Acts) are two very different things. The author likened atonement to when you owe me money and someone else pays the debt for you, and forgiveness to my telling you you don't have to pay it anymore. Hadn't really thought of that distinction before.
some people use that same illustration to describe the difference between forgiveness and remission of sin even though the same word is used in our Bible for both forgiveness and remission.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
some people use that same illustration to describe the difference between forgiveness and remission of sin even though the same word is used in our Bible for both forgiveness and remission.
Yeah, I've seen that on AFF. Never quite understood it. Even if there is some difference (and same question for atonement vs forgiveness, for that matter), is the end result the same? I.e., heaven instead of hell?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
Leviticus 5:11-13
"11)But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
12)Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.
13)And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering."
Can anyone reconcile how Hebrews says blood is always needed for remission, yet the in Leviticus there is an example of forgiveness without blood?
My view I have received from the scripture is that animal blood was simply not human blood, and therefore, incompetent to atone for man. But yet it had to occur for a reason.
We had to die because of our sins. An animal's death in our places was not perfectly satisfactory for that issue. But I believe they were allowed and counted for something in God's eyes based upon the fact that they depended upon Christ's sacrifice that was yet to come. What I mean is that God applied their faith towards animal sacrifice before Christ to the sacrifice of Christ when Christ actually came and died. He was a human being whose death perfectly suited our need for vicarious atonement. People before the cross believed in sacrifice for sins which was enough for God to apply that faith towards what Christ accomplished when Christ accomplished it.
ATONEMENT comes from the idea of being AT ONE (at-one) with the sacrifice so that its death counts as our own deaths. Seeing we are not any other species aside from human beings, it had to be the death of a human being to fully atone for us. Since every soul has sinned, neither you nor I could die for one another, since we each have need of our own sins to be atoned for. So, God manifested as that man we required to die as us, in order to have a sinless man die in our places, making it a successful atonement. IOW, human death for us had to occur with a sinless human, or else it was useless.
By man came death, and by man must come resurrection (1 Cor 15).
This means all that the sacrifices accomplished beforehand were dependent upon Christ's sacrifice to come in the sense that faith towards them would be applied by God as faith towards Christ's sacrifice. There was no other way souls who lived and died before Christ's death could be atoned for. Not until Christ actually died in time and space were those sins of the people who were dead and gone by this time dealt with fully through Christ. So, this means there was genuine atonement before the cross, but only because the cross was to actually occur later in time. Had not the cross occurred, no one before the cross could have been atoned for by anything. I think the New Testament refers to this thought when it says that the Old Testament folks could not be made perfect without us. IOW, our covenant of grace involved Christ's atonement on the cross, and that work perfected the Old Testament saints.
Something to consider.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Great topic.
ATONEMENT comes from the idea of being AT ONE (at-one) with the sacrifice so that its death counts as our own deaths. Seeing we are not any other species aside from human beings, it had to be the death of a human being to fully atone for us. Since every soul has sinned, neither you nor I could die for one another, since we each have need of our own sins to be atoned for. So, God manifested as that man we required to die as us, in order to have a sinless man die in our places, making it a successful atonement. IOW, human death for us had to occur with a sinless human, or else it was useless.
The sin-offering I mentioned from Leviticus 5:11-13 is of flour. The flour never died so it's death could not have counted as ours. Yet with this sacrifice of flour the priest made atonement for the man and the man was forgiven. This example of sacrifice shows that blood was not always needed to atone for sins. But, Hebrews 9:22 says that blood was always needed for remission. Can someone please explain this apparent contradiction?
You did come up with one possibility mfblume, that possibility being: Assuming that the only blood that could remit sins was Christ's and not the old testament sacrifices then the part of Hebrews 9:22 where it is speaking of forgiveness by the shedding of blood might only be referring to Christ's blood since his was the only blood that could truly bring remission.
The sin-offering I mentioned from Leviticus 5:11-13 is of flour. The flour never died so it's death could not have counted as ours. Yet with this sacrifice of flour the priest made atonement for the man and the man was forgiven. This example of sacrifice shows that blood was not always needed to atone for sins. But, Hebrews 9:22 says that blood was always needed for remission. Can someone please explain this apparent contradiction?
You did come up with one possibility mfblume, that possibility being: Assuming that the only blood that could remit sins was Christ's and not the old testament sacrifices then the part of Hebrews 9:22 where it is speaking of forgiveness by the shedding of blood might only be referring to Christ's blood since his was the only blood that could truly bring remission.
I think you are hitting something in your last line.
But atonement is mentioned in various ways. There was atonement MONEY, which was the temple tax, or tribute. Half a shekel had to be given for temple tax, and was also given whenever Israel was counted. All of it was a form of sacrifice. And that is the key. All sacrifices, not just those involving blood, pointed ahead to and depended upon Christ's sacrifice in order to be effective.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
I think you are hitting something in your last line.
But atonement is mentioned in various ways. There was atonement MONEY, which was the temple tax, or tribute. Half a shekel had to be given for temple tax, and was also given whenever Israel was counted. All of it was a form of sacrifice. And that is the key. All sacrifices, not just those involving blood, pointed ahead to and depended upon Christ's sacrifice in order to be effective.
That is much the way I was taught that all sacrifices only pushed the sin ahead a year till all that sin was pilled up so to speak, till Jesus became the ultimate offering for all sin.
One thing we miss I think in all of this salvation stuff. Is the fact that it was not so much to save us and gain forgivness for our sins, as much as it was to restore mans relationship with God. Jesus said I am the door no man commeth to the father but thru me. And Paul tells us God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. We can get all wrapped up in the samatics of all this and miss the blessing of a pesonal relationship with the God of the universe.
__________________
Study the word with and open heart For if you do, Truth Will Prevail
[/U]
That is much the way I was taught that all sacrifices only pushed the sin ahead a year till all that sin was pilled up so to speak, till Jesus became the ultimate offering for all sin.
If the sacrifices of old never really forgave sins then the sacrifices of old did not die in place of the sinner for the forgiveness of sin. I just had an excellent thought. Maybe God wasn't trying to teach us that he could only forgive us by a blood sacrifice. Maybe God was trying to teach us that the way we would be forgiven would be through a coming sacrifice, namely Christ. Does this mean Christ had to die so that we could be forgiven. I'm not sure. Nor am I sure if this means Christ died as a substitute for us. But it's very clear to me that Christ died so that he would live. It's very clear to me that by him living we can share in his life. It's very clear to me that his death was for us, that it was beneficial to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godsdrummer
[/U]
One thing we miss I think in all of this salvation stuff. Is the fact that it was not so much to save us and gain forgivness for our sins, as much as it was to restore mans relationship with God. Jesus said I am the door no man commeth to the father but thru me. And Paul tells us God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. We can get all wrapped up in the samatics of all this and miss the blessing of a pesonal relationship with the God of the universe.
I totally agree. The sacrifice of Christ was to restore our relationship with God.
Last edited by jfrog; 10-11-2009 at 11:37 AM.
Reason: that it was beneficial to us
If the sacrifices of old never really forgave sins then the sacrifices of old did not die in place of the sinner for the forgiveness of sin. I just had an excellent thought. Maybe God wasn't trying to teach us that he could only forgive us by a blood sacrifice. Maybe God was trying to teach us that the way we would be forgiven would be through a coming sacrifice, namely Christ. Does this mean Christ had to die so that we could be forgiven. I'm not sure. Nor am I sure if this means Christ died as a substitute for us. But it's very clear to me that Christ died so that he would live. It's very clear to me that by him living we can share in his life. It's very clear to me that his death was for us, that it was beneficial to us.
I totally agree. The sacrifice of Christ was to restore our relationship with God.
Just a thought, forgiveness is forgiveness, what we do know is that OT was for examples, types, of things to come. Maybe we make too much of what the sacrifices ment in OT. As to whether they did in fact give forgiveness or not. Maybe they were just what they were a type of Christ who would come and lay down his life as a show of the ultimit love of God to mankind.
What does the scripture truley say concering Christ? They that beleiveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Does scripture say? What are we to beleive? Abraham was counted as righteous because he had faith in God. But what exactly did he have faith of or in. The promise God made with him? Or just faith in God in general, for that matter what was it that make Enoch righteous we just know he walked with God and God took him.
In my humble opinion Jesus came to restore our relationship with God. God came in flesh in the person of Jesus to humanize himself so to speak so that we could without fear aproach him knowing that our sin would keep us from knowing God on a personal basis.
__________________
Study the word with and open heart For if you do, Truth Will Prevail
Just a thought, forgiveness is forgiveness, what we do know is that OT was for examples, types, of things to come. Maybe we make too much of what the sacrifices ment in OT. As to whether they did in fact give forgiveness or not. Maybe they were just what they were a type of Christ who would come and lay down his life as a show of the ultimit love of God to mankind.
What does the scripture truley say concering Christ? They that beleiveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Does scripture say? What are we to beleive? Abraham was counted as righteous because he had faith in God. But what exactly did he have faith of or in. The promise God made with him? Or just faith in God in general, for that matter what was it that make Enoch righteous we just know he walked with God and God took him.
In my humble opinion Jesus came to restore our relationship with God. God came in flesh in the person of Jesus to humanize himself so to speak so that we could without fear aproach him knowing that our sin would keep us from knowing God on a personal basis.
I agree! The reason I'm so interested in the atonement is that it's the single greatest revelation of who God is and what sin is that we have ever been given.
To be effective at restoring our relationship with God, Christ had to take away our sin. When I think of sin, I think of something that is inseparable from me. My sin by it's very nature is mine. I cannot give my sin to another man, though others may very well feel it's effects. I cannot remove that sin by any amount of righteousness that I have done before I committed it or that I do after it. That sin has become part of who I am. It is part of what defines me. Maybe I will do it over and over again until I die. Or maybe I will turn from it and never do it again. If I do it until I die then I will be the one who kept committing that sin. If I only do it once, I will be the one who committed that sin once. Either way it's still part of who I am. This is my conception of what sin is.
So what was the meaning of Christ's death with this conception of sin? I'll have to get back to you on that. It is getting late and I cannot think very clear at the moment.
Linear Mode
