Sentences with phrase «atonement so»

The theories of the Atonement so far mentioned are all sometimes called «objective», which is to say that Jesus» death on the cross made an objective factual difference to sin and to human beings» relationship to God.

(By the way, we believe in pre-mortal existence where we were born as spirit children, which we also believe in every living thing having a soul two but anyways thats not revelant...) Which was when they were at the «drawing board» of the plan of Earth and everything and how they were going to do everything i.e. who was going to be the savior (because every body needs an atonement so we can go back and repent).

Not exact matches

@ Concert: «I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despi.cable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened.»

Friday is the day of atonement for Muslims, so the joke goes, so they act extra depraved the day before.

So we can say — «I am saved by Christ's atonement» and now nothing else matters?

The person who wrote the piece totally left Penal Substituationary Atonement looking so weak in comparison to the Christus Victor view.

He loved men so much that, even knowing many would reject his offer, he freely provided the costly atonement for all sin, so that no man need fear punishment and death, but could repent of their wickedness and be restored to loving relationship with God.

But since Calvinists believe in limited atonement, that's not gonna work, so the NIV has, «For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.»

Biblical ideas of atonement root back in this basic soil and stem out from it; and while the development later carried them to branches far distant from the roots, there is no understanding the topmost twig — for example, «as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive» --(I Corinthians 15:22.)

«So the deity of Jesus and the atonement and the resurrection haven't been important to you?»

Among evangelicals, so much emphasis has been placed on the doctrine of substiutionary atonement that the focus has shifted away from FOLLOWING the life and teachings of Jesus (in order to be saved from sin) to simply BELIEVING in the death and resurrection of Jesus (in order to be saved from judgment).

I agree totally with you that our idea of substitutionary atonement has come from reading so much into God giving Adam and Eve coats of skin.

First they lose faith in the 6 - day creationist god, then in the bible - dictation god, then in the male - supremacy god, then in the european - supremacy / western - civilization / colonialist god, then in the anti-gay god, then in the pro-war god, then in the American - exceptionalism / manifest - destiny god, then in the anti-palestinian god, then in the controller - of - everything - that - happens god, then in the design - engineer god, then in the penal - substitutionary - atonement god, and so on.

Please share this post with others so they can sign up for my email newsletter and get a free copy of my next book on the atonement when it comes out.

To say it another way, the atonement of Jesus is so large and so powerful that it takes care of everyone who finally is saved.

Israel's God requires nothing; He creates, elects, and sanctifies without need — and so the Atonement offering can in no way contribute to any sort of economy.

As a Swiss theologian, Paul Wernle, wrote: «How miserably all those finely constructed theories of sacrifice and vicarious atonement crumble to pieces before this faith in the love of God our Father, who so gladly pardons.

So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin»» (Lev.

We will look at this verse in more detail when we discuss the Calvinistic idea of Limited Atonement, but for now, it is enough to note that even if the whole world lies under the control of the wicked one, Jesus has done what is necessary to liberate the whole world from the evil one so that they can respond to the gospel and believe in Jesus for eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:7 - 13).

Looks like it's going to be a good read I'm excited to be able to read this book I just recently read your book atonement of God and loved it I've also listen to your teachings on Genesis love that very much especially episode 43 when you talk about the voice of God in the garden that was so wonderful.

Yet, we are so corrupted that we consider Jesus» sacrifice as a mere atonement for our sins, and increase sinning instead of reducing it because we assume Jesus» had yet payed the bill.

The marvelous atonement of Jesus Christ and the truth of his Word is so simple and it is for everyone.

Same as He became a high priest, perfect and sinless so that He doesn't have to make an atonement for his sins and once again, he is forever alive so that there is no need for another priest.

Lately something has puzzled and astonished me consciously that had been festering in my mind for many years: How did it happen that one particular theory of the atonement, the so - called Latin or Anselmic or substitutionary or satisfaction theory, came to dominate the entire Christian religion in its Western expression?

Jesus our scapegoat, made atonement for the sins of His people, so that they may be righteous before the Father in Christ.

The reason the atonement is controversial and difficult is precisely because it matters so much

I have already discussed atonement, so I need not repeat what was said.

When I write in my book The Atonement of God that God was not angry about sin, and did not need Jesus to die so that we could be forgiven, people get upset that I am presenting a God who looks and acts just like Jesus Christ instead of like a Hitlerian Zeus.

There are four affirmations about Jesus Christ that historically have been stressed in Christian faith: (1) Jesus is truly human, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, living a human life under the same human conditions any one of us faces — thus Christology, statement of the significance of Jesus, must start «from below,» as many contemporary theologians are insisting; (2) Jesus is that one in whom God energizes in a supreme degree, with a decisive intensity; in traditional language he has been styled «the Incarnate Word of God»; (3) for our sake, to secure human wholeness of life as it moves onward toward fulfillment, Jesus not only lived among us but also was crucified for us — this is the point of talk about atonement wrought in and by him; (4) death was not the end for him, so it is not as if he never existed at all; in some way he triumphed over death, or was given victory over it, so that now and forever he is a reality in the life of God and effective among humankind.

In my case I have undergone a life changing shift in my view of what Christ achieved for us (thanks to you) and so I agree with what you have proposed as a more accurate view of the atonement coming from scripture.

For Kierkegaard there is no «solution» to this paradox, other than the greater paradox of the God - man, who, without ever making the leap into sin, became sin for us, i.e., accepted his human solidarity with us, so that in him we might be reconciled with God through the Atonement.

But Christianity, which is the first discoverer of the paradoxes, is in this case also as paradoxical as possible; it works directly against itself when it establishes sin so securely as a position that it seems a perfect impossibility to do away with it again — and then it is precisely Christianity which, by the atonement, would do away with it so completely that it is as though drowned in the sea.

Despite this variety, and the common avoidance of the word «atonement,» all these translations agree with the New Revised Standard Version in suggesting that God sacrificed Jesus so that people could be reconciled to God through faith.

Unless one bleaches the debate of its living doctrinal substance — and the Rav explicitly states that requiring men of faith to bracket their deepest experiences constitutes unacceptable censorship — it inevitably raises questions about atonement, justification, faith and works, and so on.

The doctrinal foundations of the Christian faith — the Trinity, the incarnation and the atonement — become so many knickknacks gathering dust on the shelf, perhaps needing to be put out in a yard sale.

Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

So I got your book the Atonement of God.

The rationale of sacrifice in general may of course throw some light on the theory of the atonement, but even so, what a primitive mythology it is, that a divine Being should become incarnate, and atone for the sins of men through his own blood!

Finally, Anselm's thought about the atonement, so centered in an awe - full sense of human sin, always left unanswered the question: If the human creature is subject to eternal damnation for having eaten of one miserable apple, how much more unforgivable is the murder of God's son?

The saving work of Christ is so rich and multifaceted a work that all the great «theories» of the atonement contain vital insights into what Christ's death accomplished: The ransom theory, so widely held in the patristic period, and the satisfaction theory most commonly associated with Anselm both contain indispensable motifs.

I am a proponent of a nonviolent atonement and have written much on the topic, and so was excited to read this book.

He defines the Gospel as «a great movement from lower to higher, going through estrangement and crises, but also through atonement and salvation, and so directed towards its ultimate goal, a Glorified Humanity in full communion with God, of which goal the Risen Christ is the guarantee and first fruits».

So you believe in atonement for all?

The church, The Father, The Kingdom, the Gospel, the bible, the atonement and so on.

In order to accomplish this salvation of those whom He had previously chosen, God sent Jesus to die specifically and only for the sins of those whom He had chosen so that they might have eternal life (Limited Atonement).

The mystery of atonement can be approached with new understanding if theology and psychology will look together at the same reality, however difficult it may be to do so.

So we speak of his action in Jesus Christ as the atonement for our sin.

You could tell someone to believe in Jesus for everlasting life without ever mentioning sin, spiritual death, a substitutionary atonement since these are just fluff or evidences yet they might be a stumbling block so if you just harp on eternal life isn't that neglecting the death and resurrection.

Dare we discern anything so outrageous as the idea that here God is making an atonement toward man for all that his desired creation costs man in the making: that he was making love's amends to all those who feel, and have felt, that they can not forgive God for all the pains which life has foisted, unwanted, upon them?

Unfortunately, he also seems to have believed that the atonement was limited, but so much so that no one was able to access it.