Lukewarm believers and faith

[RBDERRICK]

I don't know why you argue that Christ's death must conform to the rules of the Law,

I'm learning why someone would argue any atonement made by God, but not according to the pattern of God for all His blood sacrifices: Shedding and sprinkling of blood, and not shedding alone.

The same goes for why someone would argue the NT atonement was made under the OT. As well as not being made according to law of the OT.

I am learning that most all such confusion and corruption of the things of God by Scripture, can be traced directly or windingly back to faith alone justification.

which was under an entirely different covenant?

Not according to them that preach the NT atonement of the Lamb of God was made under the OT, but not according to law.

Confusing yes, but that's the winding course necessary to keep faith alone alive to justify the soul that sinneth, that it not die.

 

[RBDERRICK]

You've given me Scriptures on this matter of the resurrection providing for an atonement for sin, but none of them make the argument you are making. A reference to a "sprinkling of Christ's blood" does not prove what you claim it does, that it took place *at the resurrection.*

The Scriptures speaking of being sprinkled and washed with the precious blood of the Lamb of God is in the NT, not in the OT. Since we are now in the NT and not under the OT, and Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, then the Scriptures cannot be speaking of His blood being sprinkled and washing the people under the OT, and thus before His resurrection.

And of course the simple record of Scripture is that Jesus' blood was shed under the OT at the cross. There is no record of Scripture at the cross, where His blood with sprinkled by any priest, nor by Jesus Christ Himself, nor by the Father at the time. (Notwithstanding the suggestion of some unlawful OT shed-sprinkling of blood at the same time.)

Very simplistic yes, but taking the literal record and meaning of God's words, is always the best cure for confusion and corruption of Scripture.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[RandyK]

I'm learning why someone would argue any atonement made by God, but not according to the pattern of God for all His blood sacrifices: Shedding and sprinkling of blood, and not shedding alone.

I did not suggest "shedding alone," and not "sprinkling of blood," was necessary with Christ. Christ fulfilled this OT ritual in a spiritual, and not literal, OT way. Christ fulfilled it under a New Covenant, and not under the literal terms of the Old Covenant.

Christ literally spilled his blood, and not animal blood, on the cross. That's when the blood was "sprinkled" spiritually before God in heaven. Christ did not have to fly a jet to heaven to sprinkle his blood there, before his Father. He just had to die, with angels and men being witnesses.

The same goes for why someone would argue the NT atonement was made under the OT. As well as not being made according to law of the OT.

A New Testament atonement obviously is not made under another, different Testament! The NT atonement was *not* made under the OT Law!

I am learning that most all such confusion and corruption of the things of God by Scripture, can be traced directly or windingly back to faith alone justification.

You've never shown any real understanding of "Faith Alone." So it isn't worth arguing "Faith Alone" with you.

You've been told that "Fatih Alone" was designed to dismiss any claim that our Works in themselves obtain our Salvation. Faith in "Christ alone" bought our Salvation, and provides us with the Works we do as Christians.

So unless you believe your Works, apart from Christ, can get you to heaven, then you must also be "Faith Alone?" Or, you just wish to maliciously mischaracterize what "Faith Alone" means by those who use the term?

"Faith Alone" does not mean that a person can have Faith and ignore the need to do good works, or live in righteousness. That is not "Faith Alone." And yet, you continue to assert that that is the meaning of the term, or imply that it is so.

I would agree that it is wrong when people attempt to wrest this meaning, falsely, from the term, by declaring that Faith is all that matters, and that nothing we do has any value with God.

Those people are Antinomians, as I've told you. But you wish to tie Antinomianism to "Faith Alone," and as I've told you, that is not what "Faith Alone" people largely believe.

Go ahead and denounce Antinomianism or "False Grace." But don't tie it to "Faith Alone." Luther did not justify lawlessness--ever! What he did justify is the reality that we are sinners in constant need of mercy. Unless you think you're sinless, you should get behind Luther.

 

[RandyK]

True. Our present good works cannot atone for past sinful deeds. Catholic penitence is unto men, not to God.

That is a judgmental statement, meaning that you cannot make a divine proclamation about what is in the heart of all Catholics when they perform penitence in front of a priest, or Confession.

Whether repentance is done in the presence of other Christians or not is not determinative as to whether it is truly being done before God. Making judgments like that is "over the top" from my perspective, even if I can say *many* are performing perfunctory religious rituals.