started out searching on the internet regarding the subject of heresy itself, but as a wanderer (which means that I start out on a subject, but somehow end up on another) I found myself focusing on the subject of atonement and reconciliation. And as usual, I am amazed by the amount of misunderstanding, if not down right heretical stuff floating around out there regarding this fundamental core doctrine. But first, I feel compelled to pose some questions....
Why do Christians try to put their own (or a new) "spin" on fundamental core teachings?
- Scripture is quoted word for word, but the meaning is taken out of context and even skewed to an extreme.
- Scriptures (God's own words) are misquoted or partially quoted in order to get you to doubt what you know, or to exploit a half truth, or lie you accepted as truth.
- Scripture is added to (or words will be removed) in order to introduce, or support a false teaching.
- Scripture is interpreted in such a way that the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, are expressed rather than God's meaning of the text; a process that is called eisegesis, and is not to be confused with exegesis, which is the proper way to interpret Scripture.
- Exegetical interpretation techniques are used incompletely and/or inconsistently.
Hear the word of the LORD [Yahovah], ye children of Israel: for the LORD [Yahovah] hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. Hosea 4:1 [emphasis mine]
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6 [emphasis mine]
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23 [emphasis mine]
Any point of view other than God's is wrong, and must be corrected. How? With Scripture! A true spiritually reborn person will have the mind of Christ in them, and they will only accept sound doctrine, or God's word, over and above the false teachings of men, but only when they search Scripture in a critical manner. When all of Scripture [2 Tim.3:16-17]refutes a few " key verses" of men's theology, then guess who's wrong -- the men are wrong! I have found time and time again that if a teaching isn't in the Old Testament, then it won't be in the New Testament!
Is There A Difference?
The only mention of the Word "atonement" in the New Testament is in Romans 5:11, and is a mistranslation. It should be the word "reconciliation."
Usually, the heretics will just take a few words out of this Scripture, failing to quote the entire Verse.
Reconciliation: Lev 8:15, Eze 45:15, Eze 45:17, Dan 9:24.
Kaphar [H3722] is also translated as meaning atonement in the next few Scriptures. I say few, because I didn't list them all, there are 60 to 70 more.
Atonement: Exo 29:33, Lev 1:4, Num 5:8, 2Sa 21:3, 1Ch 6:49, 2Ch 29:24, Neh 10:33.
Again, all of these Scriptures using reconciliation and atonement are in the Old Testament.
Now let's look at the New Testament. The English words reconciliation, and reconciling and atonement are used to define the Greek word katallage [kah-tahl-lah-gay] Strong's G2643.
Reconciliation: 2Co 5:18, 2Co 5:19, Reconciling: Rom 11:15
Atonement: Rom 5:11
Do I really need to give any dictionary proofs that these two words are synonyms? Surely you can look that up on your own. I mean, even the Strong's definition legend has the words as synonyms, see here?: καταλλαγή katallagḗ, kat-al-lag-ay'; from G2644; exchange (figuratively, adjustment), i.e. restoration to (the divine) favor:--atonement, reconciliation(-ing).
Furthermore, atonement is an Old Testament word. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (Hebrews 10:4); BUT, only cover (atone) for those sins. Look up the Greek word for "atonement" and you will see that it means "to cover." Interestingly, this is the same Hebrew word used for the "pitch" used to cover Noah's ark. Thus, the blood of the Old Testament animal sacrifices only temporarily atoned for the sins of the people. In contrast, Jesus' blood sacrifice didn't atone for our sins; BUT, rather, TOOK OUR SINS AWAY (Hebrews 9:12).
Also, see how he mentions the "pitch" definition in the quote? Well, according to www.blue
letterbible.org's lexicon, it was only used once, so by his own flaky translation criteria, it must be mistranslated.
He further asserts that Jesus' blood didn't atone for our sin; but rather, TOOK OUR SINS AWAY. Well, what does atone mean if not take them away, as in forgive them? Part of the Day of Atonement ceremony involved the scapegoat, which took away the sins of Israel on its head, out into the wilderness [Lev.16:22]. He singles out Hebrews 10:4 to make his point that the O.T. atonement wasn't enough to remove sin, therefore atonement is not in the N.T. This is not correct. The point the author wants to make is clear (when we read all of the chapter) is that the O.T. atonement offerings were not meant to cleans us from all sin forevermore. They were a shadow of the atonement to come, that of Jesus flesh (symbolized by the veil in the holy of hollies). If only David had read the entire chapter of Hebrews 10! And Hebrews 9:6-11, and 13 - 14 for that matter! Let's do that shall we?
6 Now when these things were thus ordained [first covenant ordinances v.1-5], the priests went always into the first [outer room of the]tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7 But into the second [inner room]went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the [inner]holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience [of the inner man];
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, [external regulations] imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [as opposed to daily and yearly redemption] for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the [outside of the] unclean, sanctifieth [make holy] to the purifying of the flesh [outer man]:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience [inner man]from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9:6-14 [emphasis mine] Hebrews 9:6-14
What Does Atonement/Reconciliation Mean For The Believer?
*(I would like to point out to David J. Stewart, that when a group of words are used in a definition, that means they are synonymous with one another.)
We cannot be saved from sin by doing good works anymore than the Israelites could be saved by the works of the law. The law condemned them every time they broke it, and any human "good works" are filthy rags compared to God's incredibly high moral standard. We are saved by our faith that Jesus' sinless blood is sufficient to wipe away our sin. What all this simply means is the imperfect blood atonement of the Old Testament was fulfilled by the perfect blood atonement of the New Testament.
all be it erroneous effort of refuting the SDA's false teaching of "Investigative Judgement," has thrown the baby out with the bath water. False prophetess Ellen G. White had to conjure up the lie of "Investigative Judgement" in order to save their cult from the false prophecy of Baptist minister William Miller, who dared to say that Jesus' return would be in 1844. Do you see how more lies are needed to cover up other lies? Dear reader, Satan's spin machine never changes.
Just because SDA's teach a falsehood about a New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament atonement, that doesn't mean we can completely remove Jesus' work of atonement form the New Testament altogether, and make up a dippy heretical teaching in order to distance true Christian atonement from heresy. "Has Jesus removed (i.e. atoned, covered/forgiving, propitiated, reconciled, remitted) our sin completely?" Yes! I'ts a done deal! "Are we now completely free from the act of sinning?" Yes and no. While the believer no longer has a hell bent will, or desire, to sin; nor do we long to enjoy its fleeting pleasures, we do however still have to deal with our sinful flesh in this fallen world; alas! we are still susceptible to sin. The only difference is that now we have God's will in us in order to help resist sin, and if we should succumb to sin, we have a faithful High Priest in Jesus, who personally knows our weaknesses, and continually inter-cedes on our behalf with the Father. Since he is the final propitiation (or atonement) to God for our sin, now we don't have to wait for a priest to slaughter an animal daily to purify our outer man, or a high priest to yearly cleans our outer man from all unrighteousness. We now confess them to Jesus, the one who cleanses the inner man of sin forever!
What a Savior he is! Amen!