Protestant View on Atonement Dies Hard
Updated July 14, 2017
Most Facebook discussions aren’t pretty. Oh, they start out innocent enough, but they have a tendency to turn ugly in a hurry, especially when you challenge pet doctrines. It doesn’t take long for the name-calling and other ad hominem attacks to ensue. But every once in a while you encounter a group of individuals who express a modicum of politeness and respect even if you don’t manage to persuade them with your argument.
I hold out some hope for the folks involved in the following discussion. As you can see for yourself, their overall tone of civility leads me to believe that some of them just might be persuaded one day (perhaps as the lingering words of the argument echo in their minds and they have time to reflect on them and the Holy Spirit uses them to bring about conviction).
The roots of Protestant orthodoxy run deep, as the many well-documented examples here at Paul’s Passing Thoughts affirm. Therefore it doesn’t really come as any surprise that so many Christians demonstrate such a woeful misunderstanding of a doctrine such as “The Atonement” or hold on to that same misunderstanding so vehemently. Yet when so many Christians begin with the assumption that believers still sin, it only stands to reason that the obvious conclusion is that some need for perpetual “covering” of that sin is required.
Therein lies the error. Believers don’t sin because sin is ENDED. Sin is ended because they are born again. And if sin is ended, then there is no more need for a covering!
~ Andy
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” ~ Galatians 3:24-26
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” ~ Hebrews 10:26
New comments were added to this discussion this afternoon:
New comments added as of 7/13/2017
New comments added July 14, 2017
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Andy and Paul, How have I never known this? Seriously, every single church I have ever attended has taught that the Church is Christ’s bride. You probably know that. I understand that the bridesmaids and the wedding guests are not the bride. Not now and not then. And I understand your explanation for Ephesians 5. What about the remainder of the scripture references you cite; what is the explanation for those? How can a city (the New Jerusalem) be Christ’s bride? Yes, that is what John is shown in Revelation. How can it be? And where does the bride in a Jewish wedding reside? I made the assumption that the bride would be with her bridesmaids. Apparently not. Where is part 3 of your series? If it isn’t written, I would be happy with a simple answer. Thank you for indulging me. Susan
LikeLike
You know what, part three was one of those things that started out with good intentions but then life got in the way so it shoved to the back burner and forgotten about. My mistake, and so after almost 3 years since I originally posted that, I still forget that it’s one of those things I never completed. That is one of those things I need to make it a point to complete here in the near future. Perhaps that will be on my list of things to do this week.
Very quickly, one of the references that immediately comes to mind is this:
“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” ~ Romans 7:1-4
The context of the passage is about how when someone dies he is no longer bound to the law (which is the point of the new birth), and so Paul uses the example of a marriage. When the husband dies, the woman is no longer bound to that law. Unfortunately, the King James continues on with the “marriage” language (the greek does not support this) and give the impression that the one who is born again enters a marriage contract. NO! The point is that the old man who was under law is dead and the new man is no longer under law and he belongs to (not married to!) another, that is, he belongs to God as His child. There is also the comparison of two masters. The one under law belonged to the Sin master. But then the old man dies and the new creature is born again, he belongs to a new master. As usual, context is everything.
That’s a quick and dirty answer. When I get around to writing part three I’ll flesh that out more. Hope that helps!
Andy
LikeLike