@Joagbaje, you need to take a deep breath and calm down. Apparently you have developed a dislike for Aletheia, so you don't even want to ponder some of what is presented to you. You need to stop making wild submissions with no scriptural basis. We are discussing from the bible not ROR. You are also quick to dish out insults, when called to question.

Joagbaje:

Altheia pls get off my back! You are the confused person.The word used for Atonement in Romans is not the same as OT in meaning. I don't want issues with you because you are not a discussant but a typical Nigerian street fighter without fruits of the spirit.

I will not get off your back, so long as you keep masquerading as a sheep, while your words reveal you to be one of those we were warned against. My Christian duty is to keep sounding the alarm any time I see something contrary to the free grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The word used for Atonement in Romans is not the same as OT in meaning. Your words, not mine. The standard against which this will be weighed is God's Truth as revealed in the scriptures. Let us therefore examine your assertion.

The word translated atonement in Romans 5:11 is G2643 καταλλαγή (katallagē):
Meaning-From G2644; exchange (figuratively adjustment), that is, restoration to (the divine) favor: - atonement, reconciliation (-ing).
It occurs specifically 4 times in the NT:
Twice in 2 Co 5:18-19; where it is translated reconciliation
Once in Rom 5:11; translated atonement
Once in Rom 11:15; translated reconciling.

In the OT; the word translated atonement is H3722 כּפר (kâphar)
A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).
It occurs specifically 102 times in the OT;
In 73 instances translated as atonement e.g.:

Exo 30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

In 9 instances as purge or purged e.g:

Isa 6:7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

In 6 instances as reconcile or reconciliation e.g:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

In other places the same word is translated as merciful, appeased, cleansed, dis-annulled, forgive, pardon.

How are the two words: καταλλαγή (katallagē) and כּפר (kâphar) different? Measured against the objective truth of the bible, your words fail.

Dan 5:27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

I would implore you to take some time off and study again. Perhaps you can begin with Hebrews.

Some doctor is arguing against 'decisionism' by wrapping it round a man he's condemned, hoping that we all condemn the two together. That method of arguement is sickening. I could on same lines say that 'the first man I know of to fly a plane is a drunk womanizer who beats his wife, therefore I'll never fly a plane.   I'll ride with Joel 3v14 echoing 'multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision'. I'll say there's an urgent need for increase in decisions in this day.
And even if we cannot see this things in scripture, don't we see it among People like aimee mcpherson, smith wigglesworth, george whitefield, billy graham, tl osborn, reinhard bonnke, kumuyi, adeboye and co? What makes us different from a man who says he has deeper revelation and understanding than James the apostle, John baptist and co?
Such revelation is only deep because it comes from the very pits of hell, possibly the bottomless parts.

InesQor:

@JeSoul / nuclearboy: LOL you guys are funny. I can recommend a really great Bible Software, and it's free.

It is actually illegal to sell e-sword copies, as legally declared by the programmer who released it

http://www.e-sword.net

"The sword of the Lord with an electronic edge". It comes with many tools that will facilitate such purposes as you indicated.

I was also going to recommend e-sword. Far, far better than most that you would pay money for.

If we think ourselves wiser than these, 2Peter says "and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement to be punished: chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities"

When someone sane is saying things like 'only a christian can commit sin'. The Word of God says 'he that commits sin is of the devil'. This is clear enough until we start listening to trash and bringing out greek dictionaries and men's commentaries. Surely, Ye must be born again.

Image123:

Some doctor is arguing against 'decisionism' by wrapping it round a man he's condemned, hoping that we all condemn the two together. That method of arguement is sickening. I could on same lines say that 'the first man I know of to fly a plane is a drunk womanizer who beats his wife, therefore I'll never fly a plane.   I'll ride with Joel 3v14 echoing 'multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision'. I'll say there's an urgent need for increase in decisions in this day.
And even if we cannot see this things in scripture, don't we see it among People like aimee mcpherson, smith wigglesworth, george whitefield, billy graham, tl osborn, reinhard bonnke, kumuyi, adeboye and co? What makes us different from a man who says he has deeper revelation and understanding than James the apostle, John baptist and co?
Such revelation is only deep because it comes from the very pits of hell, possibly the bottomless parts.

There is nothing wrong with asking people to respond to the message of salvation. What is wrong and condemnable is to use high-pressure sales tactics and psychological pressure to manipulate people. Who does the conviction? Is it the man on the pulpit or is it the Holy Spirit? Such methods imply that people can decide to get saved. No man or woman can decide to get saved, just as Lazarus could not decide on the fourth day: "I am tired of being dead, I think I will get up now."
Those who are truly born again are born from above:

John 1:13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Do you see how this is iterated in the verse above:
1. not of blood
2. nor of the will of the flesh

3. nor of the will of man

Image123:

When someone sane is saying things like 'only a christian can commit sin'. The Word of God says 'he that commits sin is of the devil'. This is clear enough until we start listening to trash and bringing out greek dictionaries and men's commentaries. Surely, Ye must be born again.

Apparently you CE people are always in a haste to post. And you mostly post trash. And no wonder, when you are not encouraged to have in-depth bible study but rather inane stuff like ROR. Did you read what you wrote above.
1. When someone sane is saying things like 'only a christian can commit sin'.
2. The Word of God says 'he that commits sin is of the devil'.
3. Conclusion: Christians are of the devil.

I'd rather take the Word of God over your sane one anytime of the day. As for using Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, the Word was written in those languages and it would behoove you to go get some so that you can do some in-depth study,

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

then you would:

Eph 4:14. . . be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

aletheia
It's good to see your view clearer. John 1v13 says the sons of God are born of God i.e their new life, eternal life is of God, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man. Of course this sons still have blood in them, but they are not born again because of blood, just because they're related to abraham or someone. Not by power/might or will of the flesh. The flesh may be willing, the bloodline may be pure but these aren't enough criteria for sonship. It is God that must be present. Not the will of man, man will will. When you preach, your will is that sinners be saved, but your will cannot save souls. It is God. Yet, a balanced reading of scriptures shows that man has to come, believe, open the door, repent.
It's a two-way thing, God's part and your part. And the preacher should be persuasive. I do not disagree that there are excesses and abuses around us but truth needs to be told still. Peter was persuasive, he EXHORTED with many words. Paul was persuasive. Apollos was persuasive. Acts 18. Who helped them much which believed through grace for he MIGHTILY CONVINCED the jews, and that publicly. We're commanded to exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Aletheia
Obviously you weren't following the posts I made earlier in connection with the post you quoted. If you were, you'll have noticed that I'm condemning the words 'only a christian can commit sin'. Talk about rushing to post. You're harmfulessly funny. You're the one who talked the other day/thread about loopholes all over and then you began to create them se? God bless you many times

Joagbaje:

Altheia pls get off my back! You are the confused person.The word used for  Atonement in Romans is not the same as OT in meaning. I don't want issues with you because you are not a discussant but a typical Nigerian street fighter without fruits of the spirit.

JeSoul:

Pastor, can you please explain how this can be so? And can you also point out how many other words mean one thing in the OT and another in the NT . . . maybe "blood" or "spirit" or "die" or "God" have different meanings under the different dispensations?

Also Aletheia is not on your back now. He just wants you to explain biblically the things you are asserting here. Please do oblige him.

I fail to see the argument on this point. I think Joagbaje simply chose his words wrongly. What I think he means is that atonement by the death of goats does NOT carry the same weight as atonement by the death of Christ. The Bible appears to be clear on this. I think there are many knottier issues begging for attention here. . .

^ MyJoe, good point about what constituted atonement in the OT, is not the same as in the NT.

However, Joagbaje has a severe predilection, a frightening penchant for re-defining the meaning of words as we've seen a few times on this thread alone. I am certain he is again re-defining "atonement", but if he asserts otherwise, my apologies will be expressly delivered.

But you right self, there are far more pressing things begging his attention . . .

Image123:

Aletheia
Obviously you weren't following the posts I made earlier in connection with the post you quoted. If you were, you'll have noticed that I'm condemning the words 'only a christian can commit sin'. Talk about rushing to post. You're harmfulessly funny. You're the one who talked the other day/thread about loopholes all over and then you began to create them se? God bless you many times

Sorry about that, but you realize the conclusion follows from the words there. Perhaps a little more clarity. My apologies & God bless you too.

Born Again

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

The vital doctrine of regeneration has been applicable in all ages, for man by nature is a lost sinner and must be spiritually reborn through faith in God and His promises to be saved.  This truth appears in the Old Testament, for example, in David's prayer: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me" (Psalm 51:10).

It is emphasized more clearly and explicitly in the New Testament.  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (Titus 3:5-6).  "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (I Peter 1:23).

Note that this spiritual birth is produced only through the eternal Word of God.  "According to His abundant mercy," the Lord "hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you" (I Peter 1:3-4).

To be raised from spiritual death in sin to eternal life in Christ is a true miracle, as much so as the physical resurrection of Christ Himself, or even as the very creation of the world.  "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (II Corinthians 4:6).

"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new |creation|: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (II Corinthians 5:17). HMM

@topic

Am really learnin 4rm ds thread. . nice 1 

@ InesQor

InesQor:

@Joagbaje: Im sorry to burst your bubble but I was going to give the exact same reply as aletheia gave above. Please reply as you can.

I will not want us to enter extreme in semantics. Atonmement primarily means to cover Sin. But the Usage of the word in the NT was not properly applied is reconciliation. We have to remember that the bible was not written in English. And some of the translators read thier own level of knowledge into tranlation, We may spare that for now because that is not my main point, I know cleansing was part of the usage for atonement. under OT. But it primarily means to cover sin .You have to judge this according to truth . The blood of bulls cant take sin away, if it could, there would be no need for Jesus blood. There is difference between Sin and Sins. "Sin" primarily refers to the adamic nature while "sins" primarily refers to conducts and trespasses ,though sometimes they are still used interchangably. The blood of bulls does not wash away sin it only appeased God for a period. The atonement did not take away sin.

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

It was like using mouthwash instead of brushing your teeth. even though your breath taste minty , the dirt is still there!

Now back to our main discussion. One of the controversial issues was the fact that i said An umbeliever cannot sin. This is a gospel truth. Sin is a nature inherited through Adam.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
this scripture is not talking about errors of individuals but the sin of Adam. So an umbeliever does not become sinner by wrong doing. he is a sinner by birth , even if he never do wrong. so he does not have a sin to confess.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So the umbeliever is dead in sin already before he was ever born.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

This is not heresy but the truth. If a n umbeliever does evil, it is natural for him, he is not comitting any sin. But if a Christian does evil, it is not his nature, he is sinning and need to repent and recieve firgiveness.

@Joagbaje

What the blood of Jesus did, is that "atonement" or not

the offerings and sacrifices in the old testament could only cleanse the body of people but their spirit and conscience could not be purged by the blood of bulls but only by the blood of Jesus can cleanse the heart of the sinful man.

hebrews 9: 13[i], for if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh 14.  for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away the sin.[/i]A christian has to be a new creation

Ezekiel 11:9 and i will give them one heart, and i will put a new spirirt within you, and i will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh.

What they did in the old testament was not satisfactory with God
jn 4:23 but the hour cometh, and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the father seeketh such to worship him

Enigma:

@Joagbaje

What the blood of Jesus did, is that "atonement" or not

YES/NO
The blood of Jesus did not cover our sins like the blood of bulls . The blood of Jesus took away Sin .That is not atonement . The atonement in the OT was a shaddow of what Christ did. But The word used for atonement in NT. was not same in meaning . It meant reconciliation and not "cover" and it didnt refere to sin.

[/quote]the controversial issues was the fact that i said An umbeliever cannot sin. This is a gospel truth. Sin is a nature inherited through Adam [quote]

Joagbaje,
You've repeatedly said the only person that can sin is a christian. Infact, you've said an unbeliever cannot be forgiven. Please the publican in Luke 18v13 who said 'God be merciful unto me a sinner' and went home justified, was he a christian? The woman Jesus told to go and sin NO MORE, was she a christian?
John 8v34 says whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. Are christians servants of sin?

[size=16pt]to have Christ in your heart.[/size] hence WOE to them that rejects christ!

@Joagbaje

Explain the word "atonement" in the passage below: Romans 5

6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Image123:

Joagbaje,
You've repeatedly said the only person that can sin is a christian. Infact, you've said an unbeliever cannot be forgiven. Please the publican in Luke 18v13 who said 'God be merciful unto me a sinner' and went home justified, was he a christian? The woman Jesus told to go and sin NO MORE, was she a christian?
John 8v34 says whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. Are christians servants of sin?

The publican in luke funtioned under the OT. There was provision for forgiveness under the law. But now that the ultimate price for Sin had been paid by Christ's death, the OT confession does not work again. their worship and contact with God was in the flesh. But now we contact God through our spirit.
John 4:23-24
   But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. [24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So, if a man that is unsaved is asking God for forgiveness, It does not make a difference. He's going to hell anyway, because what makes him a sinner is not the lie he lied or the abuses he rendered, he  is still a sinnner if he had never done anything bad. The only prayer that God will want to hear is for him to accept the lordship of Christ and receie eternal life. The sin nature is taken away by the new birth and he becomes the righteousness of God.
If he commits a sin ,he could ask God for forgiveness.

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

This does not relate to a christian.

@ Enigma

Enigma:

@Joagbaje

Explain the word "atonement" in the passage below:

Romans 5:10-11
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. [11] And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

litererarily it means reconciliation, the right english word to have been used is "reconciliation" It is not thesame as the atonement in the OT.

katallage, kat-al-lag-ay'; from Greek 2644 (katallasso); exchange (figurative adjustment), i.e. restoration to (the divine) favor :- atonement, reconciliation (-ing).


2 Cor. 5:18-19
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled (KATALASO) us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of[b] reconciliation([/b]Katallage); [19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling( Katallaso) the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (Katallage)

So the english word used "atonement" is not used in the sense of the OT atonement. Which has to do with the sacrifice of blood shedding.But the use here is rather talking about the result and not the process itself.

If I say" God has given me the ministry of atonement", I will definately be termed heretic, but if we have to go by the use of that word "Katallage" for atonement instead of reconciliation, thats what it will suggest in 2cor 5
2 Cor. 5:18-19
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled (KATALASO) us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of[b] reconciliation([/b]Katallage); [19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling( Katallaso) the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (Katallage)

OK

What does reconciliation do for a Christian?

^^^
Word games. Notice how this conversation has moved from the meaning of remission to atonement.

Both kaphar and katallage are translated as reconciliation.

aletheia:

The word translated atonement in Romans 5:11 is G2643 καταλλαγή (katallagē):
Meaning-From G2644; exchange (figuratively adjustment), that is, restoration to (the divine) favor: - atonement, reconciliation (-ing).
It occurs specifically 4 times in the NT:
Twice in 2 Co 5:18-19; where it is translated reconciliation
Once in Rom 5:11; translated atonement
Once in Rom 11:15; translated reconciling.

In the OT; the word translated atonement is H3722 כּפר (kâphar)
A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).
It occurs specifically 102 times in the OT;
In 73 instances translated as atonement; In 9 instances as purge or purged; In 6 instances as reconcile or reconciliation. In other places the same word is translated as merciful, appeased, cleansed, dis-annulled, forgive, pardon.

How are the two words: καταλλαγή (katallagē) and כּפר (kâphar) different?

I know, aletheia; I want to treat this as a lesson for him. He just cannot see; that is the nature of error, sometimes it blinds you to the obvious. Let me quote his own very post!!!:

Joagbaje:

@ Enigma
litererarily it means reconciliation, the right english word to have been used is "reconciliation" It is not thesame as the atonement in the OT.

katallage,   kat-al-lag-ay'; from Greek 2644 (katallasso); exchange (figurative adjustment), i.e. restoration to (the divine) favor :- [size=14pt]atonement[/size], [size=14pt]reconciliation[/size] (-ing).

And he cannot see that!!!!!

It also shows that he only knows CEC doctrine; if anything he has not even heard of the historical debates on how to understand the "atonement", e.g. penal substitutionary atonement, Christus Victor etc etc etc


[b]EDITED[/B] Joagbaje, I know it is not ROR but go and have a look at the link below and learn some basics before you continue to make a fool out of yourself l'oju gbogbo aiye!!!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm

So, if a man that is unsaved is asking God for forgiveness, It does not make a difference. He's going to hell anyway

Joagbaje
This is another gospel which you preach. You're playing with being accursed.
You've said that an unbeliever cannot be forgiven and the only person that can sin is a christian. Bible verses have been brought to you and now you're saying there's provision for forgiveness under the law. Are you dribbling us or the thing is dribbling from your mouth?
John 8v34 does not relate to a christian se? You'll still shift the goalpost out of the stadium, never mind.
Seeing genesis to john doesn't apply to you, lets try Acts 26v18 that the gentiles may receive forgiveness of sins. Do you still maintain that an unbeliever cannot be forgiven?
FYI, 1John 1v9 may also assist your plight.

@ Image123

If a man that is not bor again could ask for forgiveness and be cleansed. Of what use is salvation? or being born again. Of what use is the blood of Christ?. Why did Jesus need to come. Man could have just continually ask for forgiveness each time he does something wrong. Pls explain to me

@Jo agbaje

You don't want to address my last posts and questions to you?

Anyway, in relation to your question to Image123, how did David obtain God's forgiveness after the Bathsheba affair (pun intended)?

What about Psalm 51? What does that do?

Enigma:

OK

What does reconciliation do for a Christian?

Reconciliatin is not for Christians. It was for man.I guess your question ought to have been what did reconciliation do? and not what does reconciliation do?.

OK

What did reconciliation do for man?

@ enigma
Reconciliation brought us into union with God.
it wont be fair if all you do is try to push me into some corners on certain things that may not have absolute definitions in the bible.  I dont want to get into unnecessary semantics. It would be missunderstood, greek and hebrew words have several meanings , it depends on the context we are looking at them. There is different between fornication and adultery according to truth but there are times "fornication " has been used in to denote all sexual impurities in the bible.if you begin to pick on such without judging according to the whole body of truth, you may killl the truth.

OK, I will ask a few questions together to keep things brief.

1. What did Jesus' sacrifice do?

2. What is propitiation and what did it do?

3. What is remission and what did it do?

4. What is forgiveness of sin and what does/did it do?