brakelite

Making a sinner one with Christ... ATONEMENT... Or sanctification, is not the fruit of being saved. Righteousness is the fruit of being sanctified. I agree that sanctification is a life long process, but that is what the atonement is all about. Cleansing the soul temple of all defilement. If the High Priest in the OT had not bothered to take the blood into the sanctuary on the day of atonement what do you think would have been God's response? How could Israel have celebrated the feast of tabernacles without Yom Kippur? By suggesting sanctification as unnecessary to salvation, you are implying the ministry of the priest in the sanctuary as unnecessary, because all the work of the priests in the sanctuary are integral to the final work on the DoA. None is optional, neither the work in us that accrues as a result of it.

Okay, so how can you claim salvation without atonement?

For someone with so much experience on this forum, you seem to have great trouble reading. How can you possibly equate my points on Christ's ministry in heaven as our high priest with our works? Where in all my post did I mention works? Prove to me from the scriptures that the atonement was accomplished on the cross... or that the atonement that out high priest is now officiating on our behalf isn't necessary.

As if sanctification isn't a part of the good news., or isn't essential to our salvation. It isn't an optional extra. It isn't an "add-on" to the gospel app to enhance it and make it more attractive or easier to use. That Christ died for me, a sinner, and that on account of the precious blood offered in my stead, I am accounted righteous before a holy God, is indeed a wonderful marvelous thing. That such is at least part of the gospel is without doubt...but is it complete? Does that guarantee my eternal destiny to be in heaven or the new earth? All the condemnation and penalty for my sins or transgressions have been met at the cross. I am now justified. Praise God! But...and this is a very big BUT, such does NOT complete the atonement. Unless atonement is made, I may as well die in my sins, and/or live as a heathen. Because atonement was not made at the cross. Although it is taught, that atonement was made and finished at the cross when the Lamb of God died, and although much of the Christian world believes this is the case, and very likely including some contributing to this conversation, the acceptance and popularity of such a concept does not make it any more true, unless someone can find support for it in scripture. I see such support in none of those scriptures thus far offered. I think I have written of this previously, but nothing is lost if repeated. 1. If the atonement was made at the cross of Calvary, by whom was it made? I ask this because throughout scripture we are informed that atonement is the work of a priest...are we to assume that Caiaphas or some of his cronies officiated there as priests? No, they were not offering Christ as atonement...they were murdering him as were the Roman soldiers. 2. Further to the above, the slaying of the lamb did not make atonement, because at no time did the priest slay the victim...it was always the sinner. The sinner would confess his sins over the animal, transferring his sins to the animal, then cut its throat. See Leviticus 4:1-4; 13-15 etc. After this, the priest took the blood into the sanctuary to make atonement. Levit. 4:5-12;16-21. 3. Christ was/is even now the appointed High Priest to make atonement, but could not officiate in such a capacity until after His resurrection. Certainly there is no evidence that He did such a thing while on earth. 4. The atonement was made in the sanctuary....Calvary was not such a place....Calvary was "outside the gate". 5. According to Hebrews 8:4 Christ could not make the atonement while on earth, because He could not be a priest while on earth, not being born into the house of Levi. The Levitical priesthood was an earthly function, the heavenly priesthood like that of Melchizedek, a heavenly/divine function. 6. Thus whatever nature atonement was, could not be accomplished by Jesus until after His ascension and entry into the heavenly sanctuary described in Hebrews., where with His own blood He now ministers as our High Priest in making atonement for us. Thus the gospel we must share, teach, and preach on must be the full gospel in its entirety. No part or portion can be left out as if an optional extra. Only with the full gospel taught is the power of the gospel manifest in bearing fruits of righteousness in those who by nature are still sinners, but who being transformed by the renewing of their minds into the image of Christ. Only those who have been fully justified...fully sanctified...will be fully glorified. That is the full gospel.

I don't trust that arrangement any more than I trust the bogus reports of a chemical attack in Syria. If this world lasts a long as 100 years the historians of that day will be dumbfounded as to the number of lies and deceptions current international policies are being built on.

@Patrick Miron hi. I would like to deal with just one point of Catholic faith (could be here all year discussing this one, let alone any more) and the one I thought most vital to Catholicism when a youngster being brought up in the Catholic faith. That one point is the very first to dealt with above... The so-called universalism attributed to Rome. Tell me, whether from your opinion or from what you have been taught, what do you suppose took place immediately after Pentecost? Did a Christian church all of a sudden appear in Rome by some miracle and upon which God placed authority over all Christian churches worldwide? Because the Bible says otherwise. The Bible says that the Christian faith grew first in Palestine, then after a few years through Paul in particular, spread elsewhere. Allow me to give you a little history lesson. It was in and around 35ad that Paul was converted. He then spent 3 years studying in the desert before returning to Jerusalem to preach to his fellow Jews. Having been rejected by them, he went to the gentiles. So did others, such as Peter and Philip. And Apollos. But most of the apostles started on and around Palestine. Jerusalem was where they held the first church council. A hearing to confirm Paul's ministry to the gentiles. The First churches to be established were in Asia minor. Ephesus, Corinth, etc. Then in 70ad, before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, all the Christians escaped to Perea and Antioch. It was in Antioch that they were first called Christians. Philip baptised that Ethiopian official remember? Well he went home and established an Ethiopian Christian church that survives to this day. Thomas went to India, and established the church in Goa. The"St Thomas Christians" as they are known, were renowned for mainly two things. Being persecuted by the inquisition because they refused to submit to papal authority, and for spreading the gospel into the far east. India, Assyria, Persia, Afghanistan, and China, all had large Christian communities without ANY reference or help from any Roman Bishop. The pope was not the head of those churches. Jesus was. The Celtic church in Britain was the same. Established before the end of the 2 ND century, and a couple of hundred years before Rome sent any missionaries anywhere. In fact Augustine was a very surprised little monk when He discovered a Christian church thriving in a place he thought was full of Pagans. All these, and more, were established through the missionary activities of churches that had no connection whatsoever with Rome. The only way Rome gained any supremacy at all within Christendom was through persecution of those who denied papal authority and through war. Jesus did not establish a Roman hierarchal system to lord it over everyone else... Satan did.

In like manner we are informed that religious extremists/fundamentalists should be eliminated. So what is it to be a religious fundamentalist? One who believes the Bible is the literal word of God...one who believes in the literal resurrection...one who is willing to preach the gospel...one who believes in the literal second coming. These are fanatics. Troublers of the nation. Even the Pope has declared that such do not have to be physically violent...their radically conservative faith in the Bible is akin to violent estremism.

I believe you need to do some more research, and discover what they truly believe. They may often speak the same words the Protestant speaks, but what they mean is quite different. Take the agreement between the Lutherans and the Catholics in 1999 as an example. The Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith. Do you really believe that Lutherans and Catholics now fully agree on Justification by Faith? BTW the so called immaculate conception is intimately linked to the Catholic view of justification and ultimate salvation. Take great care when attempting to claim that Catholics believe and teach the same as protestants. The council of Trent placed an Anathema on all who would believe that justification was by Faith alone. Rome still believes Trent is infallible papal dogma. Thus the agreement so called between Lutherans and Catholics is a capitulation that not all Protestantism is willing to surrender to. A capitulation by the Lutherans...A compromise to truth.

Actually, not quite. They teach his mother was sin -less... that such was essential so that Jesus could be born sinless.

You seem to manage to maintain such a concept with Israel. Despite rank apostasy and spiritual adultery you still believe them to be God's people right? Whose wedding garment are they wearing? Whose righteousness have they taken on. Christ's or their own? But i do get your drift, and I agree. Except one has the righteousness of Christ, despite professing to be saved, they are indeed lost. That bloke in the parable had accepted the invitation, and was as good as already sitting down waiting to be served. But like tares, or the 5 virgins without enough oil, or even the antideluvians who ignored Noah's message, he was eventually locked out.

KJV Matthew 22 11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Quite. After inspection the fella without the right wedding garment was tossed out on his ear.

Okay. Perhaps one day I may be motivated on starting a discussion on God's holiness.

God's people everywhere, of whatever denomination, are being prepared for the second coming. The invitations have been extended, some have refused, some undecided, some accepted. Those who have accepted are now being appropriately dressed, clothed in Christ's righteousness. Some reject the garment offered, some have hung it in the wardrobe until a later date, some have accepted it. Those who have accepted it need to change their lifestyles in order to fit it. Here is where the loving discipline you so correctly remind us of, comes in. Some reject it. Some are uncomfortable with some aspects of shedding the old addictions, traditions and habits, some refuse new light on old beliefs, some commit fully and surrender the bodies living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto their Saviour. When the bride is ready, fully dressed and without spot and blemish, the Bridegroom will come.

Can the perfect expression of one exist without the other?

The modern Catholic church, despite her attempts to convince protestants otherwise still adheres to the council of Trent. That council affirmed that only through papal approval can anyone go to heaven. They hold the keys right? So if the pope says some atheist is in heaven, I guess it's because the pope used his authority to override the entire Bible and the government of God and sent that boy's father there cos that's the kind of good guy the pope is.

When God says He gave His only begotten Son, I believe He had a Son to give.

The pope is a Jesuit. They make up their own rules. If it advances the cause of the papacy they will convince anyone of anything.

The number of Protestant churches that have joined in signing various declarations of unity with Rome, such as the Joint Declaration of Justification by Faith between the Lutherans and Catholics in 1999....the "Declaration on the Way--Church, Ministry, and Eucharist", more recently, are two of many such documents being bandied about. This latest document is a further capitulation by Lutherans regarding the truth of the gospel. Here are some examples of the fallacious so-called unity that is supposedly being negotiated...what they are as you will notice, is a complete turn-around from Reformation theology, soteriology, and several other "ologies". Not all Lutherans have signed on, but other faiths have signed similar documents with Rome, such as the Anglicans and the modern church in Europe that descended from Jan Huss. In the first section, Agreements on the Church, it reads: 4. Lutherans and Catholics agree that the church is in every age apostolic because it is founded on the apostles' witness to the gospel, and it continuously professes the apostolic and evangelical faith while living by mandated practices handed on from the apostles. Thus we recognize both in our ecclesial communities the attribute of apostolicity grounded in their ongoing continuity in the apostolic faith, teaching, and practices. (p22). 9. Catholics and Lutherans agree that the church on earth is indefectible, because it is and will be preserved by the Holy Spirit in all aspects essential for salvation. (The definition of indefectible is flawless...free of fault or decay.) Seriously? Lutherans agreed to this? Luther will be having apoplexy in his grave. On Authority of Ministry it reads: 20. Catholics and Lutherans also agree that the office of ministry stands over against the community as well as within it and thus is called to exercise authority over the community. (This is medaeval Papacy confirmed. The dark ages and the council of Trent affirmed). On Agreements on the Eucharist it reads: Lutherans and Catholics agree that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, Jesus Christ Himself is present: He is present truly, substantially, as a person, and He is present in His entirety, as Son of God and as a human being. What can I say? Finally, after dealing with some of the more obvious compromises and capitulation of the Lutheran church, here is an outright lie, from section 4 under the heading of Church. Drawing on the writings of Luther on the means of grace and marks of the church and on VaticanII regarding tradition, the church, and ecumenism, Lutherans and Catholics today "mutually recognize, at a fundamental level, the presence of apostolicity in our traditions". Luther contributed to this insight "when he insisted that a manifold Christian substance must be recognized in the Roman Catholic Church", for he perceived there the true holy scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys for the frgiveness of sins, the true office of proclamation, AND THE TRUE CATECHISM". NOW LET ME QUOTE LUTHER. ..."nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinance increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God. All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled in the Papal tyranny. (Martin Luther 'First Principles' pp196-197). How can there be any harmony between what Luther actually wrote, and what is being promulgated in the fraudulent document above? How can any true Christian align himself with Antichrist and remain true to the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

Muslims believe that when Allah says "I forgive you" it is all-sufficient. They see no requirement for redemption and a judicial price to be paid. On the other hand, what they see in Christianity is mostly the Catholic version of justification. That even though one is forgiven, a price is still to be paid by the sinner, aka penance/purgatory. The power of the Spirit comes only with truth. Muslims and all others are converted when they encounter truth if they are open and willing to learn and understand. That truth is found only in the gospel. Not the social gospel of Pope Francis...not the works/ sacramental gospel of traditional Catholicism...not the presumptuous gospel of some which declare a Christian cannot sin...nor the selfish prosperity gospel of the televangelists...but rather the gospel once delivered to the saints... That Christ died for me, a sinner, and that on account of the precious blood offered in my stead, I am accounted righteous before a holy God. All the condemnation and penalty for my transgressions have been met at the cross. I am now justified. But atonement was not made at the cross. Although it is thus taught, that atonement was made and finished at Calvary when the Lamb of God died, and though much of the Christian world so believes this to be, and the majority of churches teach this, the popularity of the concept does not make it any more true, if unsupported by divine authority. Perhaps many who attempt to share the gospel today are unaware of this, and wonder at why it seems the Spirit is so unsupportive of that concept. Allow me to make some points... 1. If the atonement was made at Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of atonement is the work of a priest, but who officiated at Calvary? Roman soldiers and wicked Jews. 2. The slaying of the lamb did not make atonement, because it was the sinner that slew the victim. See Levit. 4:1-4; 13-15 etc. After that, the priest took the blood into the sanctuary and made atonement. Levit. 4:5-12; 16-21. 3. Christ was the appointed High Priest to make atonement, and certainly could not have acted in that capacity until after His resurrection. There is no evidence He did anything of that sort while on earth after His resurrection. 4. The atonement was made in the sanctuary...Calvary was not such a place....it was 'outside the gate'. 5. According to Hebrews 8:4 Christ could not make the atonement while on earth, because He could not be a priest while on earth, not being born of Levi. The Levitical priesthood was an earthly function, the heavenly priesthood divine. 6. Therefore Jesus could not begin His work of atonement, whatever nature that work was, until after His ascension and entrance into the heavenly sanctuary as described in Hebrews, wherewith His own blood He now ministers as our High Priest in making atonement for us. Thus the gospel that we must teach others must be a gospel in its entirety. No compromises, no shortcuts, no excuses. The power of the full gospel is then made manifest in bearing fruits of righteousness in those who by nature are still sinners, but who are being transformed by the renewing of their mind after the character and similitude of their Savior. Being justified at the cross...sanctified by the work of truth and the word of God through the ministry of our High Priest in heaven...we then may offer hope to the sinner that glorification is then inevitable to all those who remain faithful and true to their Creator and Redeemer.

I am perplexed at how any Catholic can look at this without shame and embarrassment. Is this not the epitome of every essential meaning of the word 'Antichrist'? 'He who stands in the place of Christ'....'instead of Christ'. How can any Protestant look at this and not shake their head in astonishment at how far removed from the reformers they have come? The reformers looked at scenes and declarations such as this, and recognized fully the blasphemy and arrogance of this haughty power, and had this power dead to rights when they declared her the Antichrist of scripture. Today, Protestantism looks somewhere else, as if Rome has changed. No, it is Protestantism that has apostatized from the truth. And when the beast comes knocking at the door seeking submission to her authority, Protestantism bows, and surrenders. Protestants today will accept the mark of the beast as readily as eating tomorrows breakfast because they do not know, nor do they any longer believe in the Bible. Martin Luther wrote: ...nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? For all these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the Papal tyranny. Martin Luther, 'First Principles' p196-197 In the book of Revelation, we are presented with a beast coming up out of the sea, which is symbolic of peoples, nations, and tongues. This beast has upon its head a name. Blasphemy. In the Bible, we are shown clearly what constitutes blasphemy. Matt. 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Mark 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Are there any true Protestants left willing to uphold truth without compromise and fear? Protestantism is not just about the negative connotation of protesting against something. The true Protestant upholds something. He is pro...for...the testimony. He is an upholder of the truth as it is found in Christ. He is one who continues the fight against error by proclaiming the true gospel, that gospel once delivered to the saints, perverted by the Roman apostasy, brought back to life by the Reformation, and continued to be taught by "those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12:17 Who are these traitors against the truth who are now trampling upon the blood of the reformers and signing lying fraudulent documents that proclaim the protest over? To all who read this...do not join in the current fanaticism that is seeking unity with Antichrist...and if you are a part of that counterfeit system, God says to you, "come out of her that ye be not a partaker of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues". Revelation 18:4

2Thessalonians 2:4 ‭Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.‭ Revelation 20:11 ‭And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.‭ Numbers 7:89 ‭And when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with him, then he heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy seat that ‭was‭ upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubims: and he spake unto him.‭ Ezekiel 1:5 ‭Also out of the midst thereof ‭came‭ the likeness of four living creatures. And this ‭was‭ their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.‭

Happy travels!

Yep, that's me too...but learning to socialise more. I want to socialise more. But yeah, I can very easily walk into the bush, sit under atree and stay there all day alone. Or walk the streets or the local park. Praying and meditating.

Physical and mental persecution will drive us to Jesus. This will further develop character, but our characters are tested every day to stretch and mature us. In the end, we will be complete and entire, wanting nothing. The time we spend through the final plagues, protected and shielded from the dangers all around us, will not be a test, but a revealing of those characters already developed. By then it will be too late to grow...we will have already been judged as either a sheep or a goat, and the Lord dealing with all accordingly.