The Issue of Limited Atonement
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
Doug Brents
Active Member
Jim, if a child who does not know better lies, that is a sin. But Scripture says that because he does not know the difference between right and wrong, the sin is not imputed to him (Rom 4:15).
You are right for the most part. It would be totally unjust to impute your sins to me unwillingly. But if I took your sin on myself willingly, that would not be unjust; it would be mercy and grace.
Jesus willingly took on the guilt of our sin, in order to exchange it for His righteousness (1 Pet 3:18, 2 Cor 5:21).
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
Where do you get such nonsense? Sin is lawlessness (1 John3:4). Where there is no law, there is no sin (Rom 5:13) . There is no law for the child too young or the one too intellectually deficient to know of the law.
Sin is the result of imputation. Guilt is not established (imputed) by the policeman; rather guilt is established (imputed) by the judge.
You cannot take my sin (crime) upon yourself. You can assume my debt and pay it. They are not the same.
No Jesus did not take on the guilt of our sin. He assumed the debt for the sin we committed upon Himself and paid it in full. Again they are not the same. If you child stole money from, say, a neighbor then you could assume that debt and pay your neighbor back the money your child stole, but that would not in any sense mean that you were guilty of stealing your neighbor's money.
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
You did.
Me thinks you don't know what you are talking about.
Doug Brents
Active Member
A lie is still a sin. But the sin is not imputed to the child because there is no law (no understanding of the law) for the child.
God is the judge. And He does not impute sin to the one who does evil but doesn't know what he does is evil.
You are right, I cannot take your sin onto myself, because I myself am sinful. But not so with Christ. He was sinless and infinite. So He was/is able to take my sin and my debt, and pay the debt and give me His righteousness as though I had never sinned.
I don't think you have even a clue to what that really means. It means that you are forgiven. It is not something that God does following each and every time you commit a sin so long as you confess each and every one of them. It is a state of being, it is your standing before God, once you have been saved. It is the spiritual standing of your existence as a child of God. And there are far too many people (Christians) that do not understand the magnitude of what it means to be forgiven.
Romans 5:13 does not say that sin is not imputed where there is no law. It says there is no sin where there is no law.
Jesus does not give you His righteousness. God does not impart righteousness; rather God imputes righteousness. You do not become righteous; you are simply declared righteous. Please understand the difference.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Actually, He does, as 2 Cor 5:21 says. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
There is not a single reputable, word-for-word translation that includes the word "offering" in this verse. Jesus certainly was our sin offering, but He wasn't just our offering, He became sin in the Father's eyes. He took on our sin, and was stained with our guilt so that He could then give us His purity in exchange. We are not only declared righteous, we are cleansed, made pure, spotless and without blemish (Eph 5:26-27).
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
Oh Really?
It means I will not be charged for my sins. Again, David ansswered the question in this very passage
rom 4:
7: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
To have your sins COVERED, is to have your sins NOT imputed to you.
Ahh. it took you how long to figure this out?
I never said it was. once again, your reading things I have not said. You seem to be a MASTER of this
Actually, it is the reason you are saved. Instead of having your sins imputed to you. You have The righteousness imputed to you.
If I remember right. You are one of these people are you not? Do not you believe salvation can be lost. it is not assured. your forgiveness is not set in stone?
other than that, I agree with you. Far to many people do not understand what it means.. Most likely because they do not understand what happened on that cross.
jeremiah1five
Active Member
Your heresies?
jeremiah1five
Active Member
You are correct. I was in error. Gracias.
I don't know about that, and I do not deny the veracity of the New Testament. I do not agree that the New Testament carries the same authoritarian status as the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures. I agree the individual letters and gospels of the New Testament were written under the anointing, and each letter by Jewish Christians are individual presentations and discussions of the New Testament era Israel found itself in with the advent of the Holy Spirit of Promise. They are only letters of the discussion and revelation of the New Covenant by authors who have understood some aspects of the Old Testament which point to these times upon which Israel has experienced as a people. They are only letters. None of them carry the weight of authority as do Leviticus or Deuteronomy, which have within itself the clear command of God to "speak to the children of Israel" and which describe specific command of God as "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up" Deuteronomy 6:5–7.
The Old Testament "books" were written specifically to the children of Israel for instruction and direction from God that guide them in their daily lives. It is instructional commands that describes God's way on worship, on social behaviors, on dealing with the various issues of life that directly impact Israel's existence individually and nationally. Although the letters which make up the New Testament do include instruction, these things are well and good, but to collect whatever existing texts/letters available at the time and to order their inclusion into a collectible "book" and to treat it alongside the authoritative writings of the Old Testament gives the impression of equality with the Old Testament itself. The letters are authored by one person "under the anointing" and addressed "to the church" [somewhere] while the Hebrew Scripture is written under direct command of God to the children and people of Israel. I believe the idea to "gather scrolls" and to give it the same authority as the Old Testament is misleading to born-again Christians, who I believe were the mixed-race Jews that did this thing.
When I see inconsistencies and errors in interpretation, I address it. I take Scripture as written and do not add to it things and theological positions held erroneously by others. My approach is "look at this" and I present my understandings that I believe are consistent with the text. One of the errors I run into most is the erroneous belief that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refer to 'fallen' angels who mate with human women and do things the Word of God says is 'impossible.' Another is the so-called "rapture" of the believing Church of the future. I see inconsistencies there and address it. I did at one time believe in a "rapture" but upon deeper and further study I have broken away from that textbook publication. I am always open to "meaningful conversation" but such conclusions are hampered by others that I recognize as giving a position because it was read in some theologians' bible study, a study that is recent and was never held by the first century Church.
I also question Saul's authorship of Hebrews but until discounted by historical facts that have solid foundation, I presume he is the author "until further notice." Knowing who wrote it is helpful, but it's the content that is more important. If you are talking about Peter's stating that Saul's writings are "Scripture" I will agree only that they are "writings/scripture" [lower case "s"] and that's all. Although the content of Hebrews is sound, it is only a 'discussion' of the Old Testament Hebrew Scripture written under the anointing, written with the same anointing that I can mimic myself. Does that statement astound you? That's my point. Everything written that make up the New Testament are mostly letters that discuss the acts of the Holy Spirit who began doing things in the presence of Israel that are attributed to Old Testament prophecy and can be found out by study under the anointing. That's what James did and Saul and Peter. In Galatians Saul says this:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11–12.
The "revelation of Jesus Christ" is only Saul doing what his position in the Sanhedrin allowed, and that is Saul had his "books" and scrolls, and other texts he asked Timothy to send to him: "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments" (2 Timothy 4:13), evidence to me that in understanding the New Covenant era Israel was in the midst of is and could be understood through study (with experience) of the 'ancient' texts (Old Testament) and the "revelation of Jesus Christ" is only "lights" going on in him as the Spirit makes the Old Testament understood in the traditional way through reading and studying, the same method every born-again Christian can achieve. I've read many theological books, been taught from the pulpit, read through other teachers like "Augustine, Edwards, Luther, Hodge, Grudem, Vos, Calvin (recently), MacArthur, Piper, etc., and am well rounded and aware of these varied theological positions, BUT I also know how to study, and I believe truly that God reveals His Word to every believing generation throughout the centuries and that God controls the amount of "light" of understanding every Christian receives to understand His Word. There are still truths to be understood in our generation before we move on providentially to the next generation as God reveals to that future generation of believer's things He would withhold from our generation because God's Word is still being revealed, and we learn new things and will continue to do so until the Lord returns. Our understanding is progressive. We proceed and go forward in knowledge that is meant for only our generation but that the next generation of believers are NOT going to just regurgitate what's already been written, but that God will reveal to the next generation things still available to access in ours but withheld by God for His own purpose. What Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers understood was limited to only that era of history and no more. God gives to the next generation truths of Scripture that they are meant to uncover until we get to the two witnesses in Revelation 11. These two will reveal more things of Biblical truth that God has hidden from us in our knowledge and understanding today.
I'm not sure the context having to do with Moses' wife.
The only thing applicable to "African ethnicity" were the Jews that travelled from Africa to the Feast of Harvest (Pentecost) who when the Holy Spirit arrived as given by God became born-again and took Jesus with them back to Africa to their synagogues and homes the testimony of Peter who gave an outline of an aspect of the life of a man they received as Messiah, King, and Lord, who was come to sit on David's throne at some future date.
The only people at the foot of Mount Sinai were Hebrews whom the LORD delivered from Egypt. Whoever these "Gentiles" were Adamite descendants from Ham and Japheth. What they learned was copied and corrupted by the arrogant belief among them that they didn't need God and they could do things on their own without having to obey the God who "created" them (Adam and the woman were created, everyone else was born.) From Adam and Eve there have always been a person or group of persons who were obedient followers of God. Everyone who rejected God still had knowledge of God's commands except they wanted to "do it" their way without answering to God.
As above. these that were "a law unto themselves" were the descendants of Ham and Japheth who knew God's commands but still opted to implement them their way and without God. The Noahic Covenant was known to these "Gentiles." Commands like: "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6) were known to them and they copied God's commands their way and without God. They were a law unto themselves.Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Lies from you. That is all you have.
Making two into one was God "breaking down the middle wall partition" that kept Jews and mixed-race Jews separated. The New Testament identifies the offspring of the ten northern kingdom tribes mixed in with non-Hebrew Gentiles called "Samaritans," and it also identifies the two southern kingdom tribe's offspring with non-Hebrew Gentiles by calling them "Gentile" and not "Jew." Jesus interacts with a Samaritan woman who was mixed-race and yet still a daughter of Jacob because she was of the seed of Abraham and heir to the promises. Jews knew who the mixed-race Samaritans were. But because there was a Gentile in her past and in the pasts of others they were seen as "second class" Jews and believed their own religious connection to Abraham through Jacob and because they were the offspring of Joseph and an Egyptian woman/wife. After what happened in Goshen in Egypt and their bondage to Egyptians they did not care too much that Joseph had two sons (Ephraim and Manasses), both from an Egyptian wife.
Founded by Jews and mixed-race Jews who went to the Feast of Harvest and were part of the three thousand that were born-again by the Holy Spirit of Promise in Acts 2. They went home to their synagogues and their homes telling about a "prophet like unto Moses" who was received as Israel's Messiah, Lord, and King, who died on a cross and was resurrected to life again, who couldn't explain Jesus' tomb found empty and the body of this Jesus missing from His grave/tomb. They were the founders of the home church at all the places letters by the apostles were written to.
Abraham was up in a mountain. Maybe it was his sheep. There's nothing "miraculous" about finding a ram caught in a thicket. It's all about God's timing.
It's not really about faith. It's about knowledge of His Word and experience in God. Faith follows automatically.
-----
I wonder if there are any "real" Abrahamic-DNA Jews existing today.
If I am a "mutt" to them I am not concerned with what they think of me. Jesus broke down the middle wall partition and very soon now He's going to make two into one. In the meantime, I know who I am, I know my call and my place in the body of Christ and knowledge of my spiritual gifts to accomplish that call. I am content with this knowledge.
I know I come from the wilderness but I'm no longer a "wild" man. Since that day God through the Holy Spirit put a bridle in my mouth and a harness on my tongue, He's been able to turn this horses' *** of a man this way and that way. One day this will all be over and I will receive my inheritance. And maybe a few crowns. What the heck! I'll also have my own mansion! I'll be fitted with the nicest clothes and all the stray dogs will follow me. Not because I have meat, but because I have the purest heart and I will see God.
jeremiah1five
Active Member
The religious leaders called Saul's teaching "heresy", but he didn't see it that way. It's what they said about him.
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:13–14.
But the thing is that Saul after meeting the Lord on the road to Damascus and became a born-again Christ-follower he remained obedient to the Law of Moses and continued to practice it until the day he died. For some weird reason when Christians come to the last part of what Luke records Saul said: "so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" a mental block goes up in their brain, like neurons that can't reach the synapses they're traveling on to get to the next thought. The statement by Saul, "believing all things that are written in the Law (of Moses) and in the prophets" can't get past the stargate in order to inform fully their next thought. But that's not all, they vehemently reject what Saul said because they've been taught the Law was abolished and made obsolete and has no place in Christianity. These are the same people that turn around and accept "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels, spirits of fire that have creative powers and engaged in HOLY matrimony with material girls and birthed offspring in violation of the decree of God's "after their kind."
Similar threads
