|
[Apostasy] The Atonement Heresy In Its Emryo Stage
|
John Henry
|
Mar 17, 2005 07:35 PST
|
--=====================_4842182==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
THE ATONEMENT HERESY IN ITS EMRYO STAGE (Atone-ahtics)
After the sad arrival of shock radio and shock TV, they are
now confronting us with shock preaching. Most “new light” doctrine,
especially “Baptist new light,” is automatically suspicious, especially if
it claims antiquity. It seems that we no longer have to worry about the
cults, when renegade Baptists are so willing to take their places. “New
light” is usually a convoluted hodgepodge of non truths, half truths, and
truths all mixed together by those who sow MINGLED gospel SEED (works and
grace). We were sent a set of audio tapes from some type of Baptist
conference, dated November 4-8-02, at Midway Baptist Church, Pastor Richard
Owen, (P.O. Box 419, Fisherville, Virginia, 22939) in which Mike Miller,
Bob Boan, Richard Owen, John Tilley, and Steve Congdon preached some
radically different and divisive doctrine, linking anyone who disagrees
with them to Gnostics, Catholics, Calvinists, Augustine, and Origen.
Seemingly, this was a “We are right, and you are all wrong!” type meeting
that was recorded by the group, who had been served notice by Doug Sehorne
and others that they would not be back to their camp meetings due to their
doctrine.
This movement, with its new spin on the atonement
(atone-ahtics Heresy), is a radical group of extremist offshoots of the
more moderate “Lordship” folks. The excuse for their views and the
promotion of their new light was worst case “easy believism,” worldliness,
and false professions in the churches, to promote their new light, the
same excuses that Joey Faust uses to promote his Baptist Purgatory
heresy. We might add that they have similar rhetoric to the Joey Faust
“Overcomers’ Cult” but with a different outcome. They also use the same
type of combined, isolated quotes from antiquity, which Joey Faust uses to
promote his Baptist Purgatory heresy. We also lament such conditions in
the churches, but those conditions will not intimidate us into embracing
“either” heresy in order to throw the baby out with the bath water. Their
solutions are worse than the problems. We call it heresy, because they are
messing with the very doctrine of salvation and the cross of Calvary. These
men replace said “easy believism” with an extra-biblical HARD BELIEVISM,
which ignores the simplicity which is in Christ. Seemingly, they include
in their “living without ‘committing’ sin” scheme, all REAL
believers, seemingly all to the same degree, suggesting that all those,
who believe differently are false professors or easy believers for not
OVERCOMING (some kind of sinless perfection, which still allows them to sin
without “committing” sincorrected to “practicing” sin).
The Atonement Heresy
. . . Ye have SINNED a great SIN . . . I shall make an
ATONEMENT FOR your SIN . . . --Ex. 32:30
. . . DIED FOR OUR SINS . . . 1 Cor. 15:3
. . . GAVE HIMSELF FOR OUR SINS . . . Gal. 1:4
. . . he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means
of DEATH, for the REDEMPTION of the TRANSGRESSIONS that were under the
first testament . . . -- Heb. 9:15
Who his own self BARE OUR SINS in his on BODY on the tree . .
. --1 Peter 2:24
. . . he was wounded FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, he was bruised
FOR OUR INIQUITIES . . . All we like sheep have gone astray . . . and the
LORD hath LAID on HIM the INIQUITY of US ALL . . . he BARE the SIN of many
. . . -- Isa. 53:5, 6, 12
. . .Christ hath once suffered FOR SINS . . . -- 1 Peter 3:18
. . . For he hath made him to BE SIN FOR US, who knew no sin
. . . --2 Cor. 5:21
They do not believe that sin is a “debt” nor that Jesus
PAID for our sins on the cross nor that OUR SINS WERE LAID ON HIM. One
speaker on audio tape, Mike Miller, spoke on the atonement in three of the
audio tapes (admitting on a fourth taped message that an article which he
read had introduced him to this viewnot a good source of supposed internal
Bible doctrine). He denies that your sins were not paid for by Christ on
Calvary and claims that you were only forgiven at Calvary. His contention
is that Christ only died for the sinnernot for sinner’s sin. Atone-ahtics
do not like the idea of Christ taking our sins upon Him or being sin FOR
US. Unfortunately, Mike Miller’s denial of God’s demand of Christ’s death
and sacrifice FOR SINS contradicts God’s word. He died FOR our SINS. He
GAVE Himself FOR our SINS. Our INIQUITY WAS LAID on HIM. He BARE our SINS.
He became sin FOR US.
Propitiation and Ransom on the Cross
He shall see of the travail of his soul . . . he shall bare
their INIQUITIES . . . he bare the SINS of many . . . --Isa. 53:11, 12
. . . when he had by himself PURGED OUR SINS, sat down . . .
Heb. 1:3
. . . he might be a . . . high priest . . . to make
RECONCILLIATION FOR the SINS of the people . . . -- Heb. 2:17
Who [Jesus] needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer
up SACRIFICE, first for his own SINS, and then FOR the PEOPLE’s [SIN]: for
this he DID ONCE, when he offered up himself. --Heb. 7:27
But this man, after he had OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS for
ever . . .--Hebrews 10:12
. . . For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more SACRIFICE FOR SIN . .
. --Hebrew 10:26
And he is the PROPITIATION FOR our SINS . . . also FOR the
SINS of the whole world . . . --1 John 2:2
God . . . sent his Son to be the PROPITIATION FOR our SINS . .
. --1 John 4:10
Whom God hath set forth to be a PROPITIATION . . . to declare
his righteousness FOR the REMISSION of SINS that are past . .
. --Rom. 3:25
. . .Christ . . . hath given himself for us an OFFERING and a
SACRIFICE to God FOR A SWEET SMELLING SAVOUR. --Eph. 5:2
. . . the Son of man came . . . to give his LIFE a RANSOM for
many. -- Mark 10:45
Who gave his LIFE a RANSOM for all . . . 2 Tim. 2:6
The Lord’s propitiation, which is FOR SINS, means to ATONE or
conciliate in most English dictionaries. Both propitiation and sacrifice
are words that relate to the atonement, another word for
reconciliation. Atone-ahtics deny that our God must be “appeased” with a
sacrifice. Our Bible’s presentation of the propitiation and sacrifice says
otherwise. Christ not only died for us, but he also died for our sins.
Christ gave Himself for us, but He also gave Himself for our sins.
One truth does not negate the other. Our iniquities, sins,
transgressions, and trespasses were laid on Christ, and He BARE them.
Christ was our purgatory, for He PURGED OUR SINS on the cross. Christ’s
sacrifice/propitiation has its roots in the sin offerings of the Old
Testament FOR SIN. He PAID the RANSOM for us with a BLOOD PAYMENT. All
the O.T. redemption events, all the O.T. kinsman Redeemer events, all the
O.T. sacrifice and atonement events are types of the Lord’s death for us
and our sins. The different words are merely different perspectives of
that event. Atone-ahtics, who pit Bible truths against one another, are in
denial of them, making themselves atonement heretics.
The Sin Debt Must Be Paid
. . .forgive OUR SINS; for we also FORGIVE everyone that is
INDEBTED to us. -- Luke 11:4
Forgive us our DEBTS as we forgive our DEBTORS . . . FOR if
ye forgive men their TRESPASSES [hello!] . . . if ye forgive not men their
TRESPASSES [debts], neither will your heavenly Father forgive your
TRESPASSES [debts]. -- Matt. 6:12-15
. . . Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of
GRACE, but of DEBT . . . --Rom. 4:3
. . .For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a DEBTOR to do the whole law [unless you allow Christ to pay
your DEBT] . . . -- Gal. 5:3
The song that you never want to sing among these folks is
“Jesus PAID IT ALL, ALL to HIM I OWE . . .” Our text’s context establishes
that trespasses are debts, so our Atone-ahtics have a problem. That is . .
. unless trespasses are not sins. Sin, according to Miller, is not a debt
but a crime. Yet, criminals must pay their DEBT to society. Still, sin is
both a crime and a debt and both must be paid for and forgiven, according
to our proof texts. Miller does not believe that Christ PAID for our sins.
As with most heresies, anything that remotely suggests one’s theory to be
wrong in a certain area must get its hole plugged. Hence, sin as a debt is
so denied by these folks. We have proved that something must be paid for
and also be forgiven, and if trespasses are sins, they are debts, for
trespasses are debts. The lord forgave his servant in Matthew 18:32-34, but
the debt still had to be paid.
The moral debt must be paid. Consider with me a little boy
that orders an ice cream cone and is told that it will cost two dollars.
The little boy pulls out a one dollar bill and hands it to the clerk. He is
promptly told that he still owes one more dollar. Another customer seeing
the disheartened boy, offers to pay the boy’s debt, and the clerk must
accept the payment. Yet, suppose the boy came into the store and stole
something costing two dollars. The same customer offers to pay the same
financial debt but is refused because an additional moral debt has also
been incurred because of his transgression. The clerk doesn’t have to
accept the payment. Still, our God did accept Christ’s payment of our
moral debt. All to Him I OWE!
Imputed Righteousness
. . . for he will render unto man HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS . . .
Job 33:26
. . . Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was COUNTED to him FOR
righteousness . . . -- Rom. 4:3
. . . the father (Abraham) of all them that BELIEVE . . . that
RIGHTEOUSNESS MIGHT BE IMPUTED to them ALSO . . . -- Rom. 4:11
God IMPUTETH RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT WORKS . . . --Rom. 4:6
. . . being fully persuaded that, what he had promised he
was able to perform. And therefore it was IMPUTED to him FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was IMPUTED to him; BUT
FOR US ALSO, to whom it shall be IMPUTED, IF WE BELIEVE on him that raised
up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered FOR OUR OFFENSES, and
was raised again FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION. -- Rom. 4:21-25
For they being ignorant of God’s RIGHTEOUSNESS, and going
about to ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . For Christ is the END OF
RIGHTEOUSNESS to every one that BELIEVETH . . . for with the HEART man
BELIEVETH UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . --Rom. 10:3, 4, 10
. . . not having MINE OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . but that which
is . . . the RIGHTEOUSNESS which is OF GOD by faith . . . -- Phil. 3:9
NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which we have done . .
. --Titus 3:5
Abraham BELIEVED GOD and it was IMPUTED unto him FOR
RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . -- James 2:23
This Aton-ahtic group has a problem of some kind with imputed
righteousness, passing it off as Calvinism. The repeated charge of
Calvinism is made, regarding saying that lost men are unable to turn from
sinbefore salvation, before having the divine nature, and while a lost man
is still helpless, blinded, and even taken captive by the devil at his
willand is unfounded.
Atone-ahtics confuse repentance (which is a change of mind
about sin, self, and God) with turning from sin. Turning from sin is
CONVERSION. The sinner must both REPENT and BE CONVERTED (be turned to,
from, and around, see German Bible, umkehren - about face). Much of their
Atone-ahtics is murky and seems much like that they are going about to
establish their OWN righteousness (although they deny works for that
salvation).
Committing Sin?
Whosoever is born of God doth NOT COMMIT SIN . . . and he
CANNOT SIN, because he is BORN of GOD . . . -- 1 John 3:9
. . . the blood of Jesus Christ his Son CLEANSETH us from ALL
SIN. If we say that we have NO SIN, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
NOT IN US. If we say . . . If we CONFESS OUR SINS, he is faithful and just
to forgive us OUR SINS, and to CLEANSE us from all UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. If we
say that we have NOT SINNED, we make him a LIAR, and his word IS NOT IN
US. -- 1 John 1:7-10
My brethren . . . if ye have respect of persons, YE COMMIT
SIN . . . --James 2:1, 9
. . . the prayer of faith shall save the sick . . . and if he
have COMMITTED sins, they shall be forgiven him. --James 5:15
. . . I will bewail many which have SINNED already . .
. --2 Cor. 12:21
The Atone-ahtics’ modus operandi is to devilishly pit one
Bible doctrine and truth against another. If there are several ways or
words to say something, they nullify the one way or word, which they do not
like, by overemphasis of their choice word at the expense of the other
words and ways, which make their doctrine suspect.
Atone-ahtics do make the disclaimer that they do not teach
that they never sinonly that they do not commit sin (whatever difference
that makes). Yet they yield to the watered down perverted modern
translations and Bible Corrector notion that they do not PRACTICE SIN. Of
course, they do not tell us how many times you have to sin in order to
PRACTICE SIN nor how gross the sin must be nor how many sins nor how much
lack of overcoming keeps you out of heaven. They also retreat to the
proposition that they do not have sinful lifestyles. The truth is that
believers do sin, do “practice” sin, and they also do engage in sinful
lifestyles. Need we mention Lot, David, Solomon, Saul, Peter, Abraham,
Jacob, and the saved Corinthian fornicator (1 Cor. 5:2-5)? Need we remind
them that whatsoever is not of faith is sin or that sin is coming short of
God’s glory or that sin is missing the mark and that the plowing of the
wicked is sin?
You can jump over the moon if you bring the moon down low
enough. One thing for sure is that they have a very low esteem of what sin
really is, which also includes the deceit and thoughts of the heart. Still,
the second part of this verse must not be glossed over to establish the
first. Have you ever known anyone that CANNOT SIN? Are you able to SIN.
Atone-ahtics also teach the same escape here, which the bible perversions
teachyou CANNOT PRACTICE SIN. Why? Because they reject the dual nature of
a believer. Nevertheless, all we need now is for the Atone-ahtics to
explain how much sin is practicing sin and how much sin and what sins
constitute living a sinful lifestyle and how much sin keeps you from
overcoming.
This is sounding more and more like a works-to-get saved or a
works-to-keep saved salvation plan. t is clear from our texts that saying
that you have no sin is self deception and proves that you do not have the
truth in you. Or saying that you have not sinned, which charges you with
making God a liar and that His word is not in you. It is equally clear that
we have sins and unrighteousness that need to be both forgiven and
CLEANSED. It is also clear that Christians COMMIT SINS. Obviously, the
blood initially cleanses all of our sins as far as salvation is concerned.
Yet confession is employed by the Christian to get forgiveness and
cleansing in order to maintain proper fellowship and service for his Lord.
Still, the ideal is to sin not. If we are saved, all our sins are already
forgiven at the crosspast, present, and future. This is but half of the
truth in that in regard to salvation, ALL of our sins are indeed forgiven
in regard to salvation, when we receive Christ. Yet it is not the complete
truth in regard to our fellowship with him and our service with Him. If we
do not have sin, why be cleansed? If we do not commit sin, why confess it?
Why was Paul fearful of becoming a saved “CASTAWAY?”
There is a difference between sin not having dominion over the
believer and a believer being totally free from sin. There is also a
difference between “some” Christians living above sin (I did that when I
lived above a saloon) and “all” Christians having that victory or else they
are not true Christians. The constant mantra of “being freed from sin,”
“delivered from sin,” and having one’s sins taken away permeates
Atone-ahtic preaching, terms which were never intended destroy one’s
assurance of salvation but rather to strengthen it. But this
Johnny-come-lately uses it to mark anyone that disagrees with him as false
professors or easy believers. They never clearly define these terms but
rather bandy them about to send folks on a guilt trip. What do the terms
really mean? You’re lost if you commit sin? How much sin?
Put your money where your mouth is. One passage tells us that
you do not sin if you know the Lord and abide in Him. Who is that? Your new
nature? The divine nature? Your soul? Your body? Your flesh? The new
creature? The new man? The old man?
Let’s go a step farther. Do you ever sin? What does the
sinning? Your new nature? The divine nature? Your body? Your flesh? The new
creature? The new man? The old man? How do you sin and not sin at the same
time?
The Inherited Sinful Nature
. . .by one man’s disobedience [Adam] many, were MADE
SINNERS . . . --Rom. 5:19
. . .VISITING the INIQUITY of the fathers upon the children,
and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth
generation. -- Ex. 34:7
I was SHAPEN IN INIQUITY and IN SIN did my mother CONCEIVE me
. . . --Psa. 51:5
. . . they GO ASTRAY as soon as they be born, SPEAKING LIES .
. . -- Psa. 58:3
. . . we . . . were BY NATURE the children of WRATH, even as
others. -- Eph. 2:3
. . . the wages of SIN is DEATH . . . --Rom. 6:23
. . . CANNOT CEASE FROM SIN . . . -- 2 Peter 2:14
. . . make not provision FOR THE FLESH, to fulfil the LUSTS
thereof . . . --Rom. 13:14
Atone-ahtics deny man’s sinful and carnal nature either before
or after salvation. They do not believe sin is inherited and they mock
folks that do so as believing Catholic doctrine in regard to original
sin. Still, death, the sin nature, and sin are all inherited. It is
genetic just like insanity and physical defects. That is why the NATURAL
man (in his sinful nature) cannot receive the things of God apart from
God’s intervention. He is blind and dead in trespasses and sins. Moreover,
that sin nature is in the natural man, and it does not leave upon salvation.
The comeback, of course, is that sin did not pass to every
man, only death did. Then why do men sin? And why do men die after being
saved and being “freed from sin” (as they love to emphasize). Moreover, why
do babies die, since Steve believes that babies do not sin or go astray,
speaking lies at birth and that Psalms 58:3 does not teach that they do. Of
course, he does not explain either Psalm 58:3 or 51:5, he only denies them.
Still, Psalm 51:5 tells us that we are shapen IN INIQUITY and conceived IN
SIN. This group seems to believe that we have some sort of pre-sin, Adamic
nature. The problem with such a theory is that Adam and Eve did not know
good and evil in that state. We do!
Atone-ahtics do not believe that the sin nature passes on to
us from Adam. Steve Cogdan offers a lame excuse from Ezekiel to prove that
the son does not bear the iniquity of the father. Still, it also states
that the father does not bear the iniquity of the son. The reasonable
interpretation is that each, the father and the son, is responsible for his
own sin and righteousness. However, in Exodus 34:7, the iniquity of the
fathers is visited on the children and grandchildren unto the third and
fourth generationthe principle is established. Still, neither of these
proof texts, neither theirs nor ours, specifically addresses inheriting
Adam’s sin. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear that Adam’s disobedience MADE
mankind SINNERS without any sin of their own.
Babies die because of Adam’s sin and their own sin, for the
wages of sin is death. The Atone-ahtics’ claim is that you do not have to
sin after you are saved, because you do not have a sin nature. If that is
true, you do not have to sin or practice sin before salvation, for they say
that we do not have a sin nature before salvation either. The next
conclusion is breath taking. Man must then sin on purpose before and after
salvation. Selah! Think of that! Nevertheless there are some that cannot
cease from sin (2 Pet. 2:14). We are children of wrath by NATURE!
The Sinful Flesh? The Sinful Body?
LET NOT SIN therefore REIGN in your MORTAL BODY . . . Rom. 6:12
. . .God sending his own Son in the likeness OF SINFUL FLESH,
and FOR SIN, condemned SIN IN THE FLESH . . . --Romans 8:3
. . . let us CLEANSE OURSELVES from all FILTHINESS OF THE
FLESH “AND” SPIRIT. -- 2 Cor. 7:1
The like figure doth now save us (not the putting away the
FILTH OF THE FLESH, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) . .
. --1 Pet. 3:21
Whosoever abideth in him SINNETH NOT: whosoever SINNETH hath
not SEEN HIM, neither KNOWN HIM . . . --1 John 3:6
. . . putting off the BODY OF SINS of the FLESH . . . --Col. 2:11
Who shall change our VILE BODY . . . --Phil. 3:19
. . .deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the
FLESH, that the SPIRIT may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. --1 Cor. 5:5
. . . hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he
was sanctified, an UNHOLY thing. -- Heb. 10:29
This group tells us that folks who believe that they have
sinful flesh believe like the Gnosticsthat Jesus did not come in the
flesh, according to Bob Boan. Moreover, we are charged with trying to
excuse our sin by saying that our body sins and not us. This is straw man.
I have never heard anyone say that. The other straw man is that we are
condemning Christ for coming in the flesh. Yet Jesus coming in the flesh is
qualified by Him coming in the LIKENESS of SINFUL flesh and not sinful
flesh, and He is said to have condemned sin in the flesh. Now, who has the
sinful flesh? The unsaved? The saved? No one? How does sin reign in a
MORTAL BODY? How are both the flesh and the spirit FILTHY? Did Gnostics
write or teach this in the Bible? With their influence being mainly in the
2nd to the 4th century?
Bob Boan does his best to make us Gnostics for our views. He
messes with the Greek to prove that VILE does not really mean VILE by going
to other places where the Greek word is translated more moderately. A VILE
person is the antichrist (Dan. 11:2; Isa. 32:6). Queers were given over to
VILE affections (Rom. 1:26). Obviously, Bob likes the “low estate”
passages better. Webster defines VILE as “Wretchedly bad . . . repulsive.
Despicable.” Dan Waite’s “Defined Bible” gives us more of the same. Well,
Bob, is this an attempt at Bible correcting? Is the English word “VILE”
(from which we get “villain” and “villainy”) a mistake here?
Certainly, the old man is CORRUPT according to its DECEITFUL
LUSTS. It is a corruptible body (1 Cor. 15:53) that is sown in corruption
and must put on incorruption (1 Cor. 15:42). This cannot be said about
Christ’s body or His flesh, for it was not a corruptible body, for it was
only a LIKENESS of SINFUL FLESH, a different flesh than ours. Atone-ahtics
admit that Christ had sinless blood and that man does not have sinful
blood. Does man also have the same kind of SINLESS blood as well? No worse
blood than Christ? Does both man and Christ have HOLY BLOOD? Why cannot
man’s FLESH and BLOOD inherit the Kingdom of God? Well, the comeback to all
this is that our body members are MEMBERS of Christ. So, how could they be
sinful? Oh? Are they the local church, representative body members or are
they invisible church members in the sky? I thought that you fellows were
Landmark Baptists?
Mike Miller does not like to believe that our old man sins,
for he claims that our old man is dead, dead to sin. Well, that is how we
are supposed to reckon it so, but tell me, Mike, if the old man is dead,
and the new man cannot sin, who in the world does the sinning that is very
obvious among us? If he that committeth sin is of the devil (and he is),
are all God’s people of the devil, when they sin? Or is it that you do not
understand the two natures, the old man and the new man, the inner man
versus the SINFUL flesh or nature? Still, this Atone-ahtics group does not
believe that the fleshly nature nor the body is sinful. If it is not
possible that sin can reign in our MORTAL BODY, why the admonition not to
let it reign in our mortal body?
The Christian and His Besetting nature
. . . lay aside . . . the SIN which DOTH EASILY beset us .
. . -- Heb. 12:1
. . . I am CARNAL, sold UNDER SIN. For that which I do I
allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I . .
. Now then it is no more I that do it, but SIN that DWELLETH IN ME. For I
know that IN ME (that is, IN MY FLESH,) DWELLETH NO GOOD THING . . . but
how to perform that which is good I find not . . . but the evil which I
would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do
it, but SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME . . . EVIL IS PRESENT WITH ME . . . For I
delight in the law of the INWARD MAN. I find then a law IN MY MEMBERS,
warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the
LAW OF SIN which IS IN MY MEMBERS. --Rom. 7:22, 23
. . .the FLESH lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit
against the FLESH: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye
CANNOT do the things that ye would.-- Gal. 5:17
. . . FLESHLY LUSTS which WAR AGAINST the SOUL . . . --1 Pet. 2:11
This group does not believe in CARNAL Christians, although
Paul does and says so in regard to the saved, carnal Corinthians. Steve
Cogdan, on an audio tape, denies that believers have a sin nature (and that
they never had one) and that the “I” of Paul’s passage does not really mean
Paul but that Paul was discussing an unsaved man. He does not prove it; he
merely pontificates it, as is the case with most of the rhetoric from this
atonement heresy. You might note that Paul uses the present and not the
past tense, when he discusses his problem with the flesh and old
nature. He claims that “SIN dwell-ETH IN ME.” He says “I know” and not “I
knew” that “in MY FLESH dwell-ETH no good thing.” He also says that “to
will IS PRESENT with me” and how to perform that which is good I FIND (not
found) NOT [naturally].
Steve must not only explain away the “I” but also why the “MY”
and the “ME” is not Paul. Yes, if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature, most definitely, but the old man is not eradicated with the
advent of the divine nature and new creation. Still, these fellows seem to
teach more of a “reformed” creature than a “new” creature. To be sure we
are to count the old man to be dead but he is not gone. The spin is that
easy believism uses this passage as an excuse for their sins, because they
do not want to say that it was I that sinned; they want to blame sin on
their sinful nature or body. Well, now, that is interesting. Shall we blame
sin on the only nature that is left in these folks’ claim, the divine
nature or the new nature or the new man? Our head is spinning trying to
figure out, whom they mean by the “I.” Does the divine nature do the
sinning? Huh?
Unwittingly, Steve has trapped himself, for if this is an
unsaved man, Steve is surrendering half of his doctrine. For Paul says that
sin is in the man’s MEMBERS (7:23) and that NO GOOD thing is in the man’s
FLESH (7:18). Whether a saved man or no, what meaneth the MEMBERS in this
passage? Members of the man’s body? What meaneth this evil law and sin in
the man’s members that could make Paul a castaway (1 Cor. 9:26, 27)? Huh?
What was wrong with Paul’s body that he had to keep it in subjection?
Subjection to what or who? How about you, Bob Boan?
Steve explains away the delight of the Romans 7 man in the law
of God as being that of an unsaved man, contending that lost people are
quite capable of that. However, lost people are deaddead in trespasses and
sins. None understandeth! None seeketh after God! None doeth good, NO, NOT
ONE. (Rom. 3). Nevertheless, the noteworthy thing about this passage is
that this man, whoever he is, delights after the INWARD MAN (7:23), the
HIDDEN MAN of the heart, in saved people (1 Peter 3:4). Now, the old heart
is deceitful and desparately wicked (Jer. 17:9), and some folks get ANOTHER
heart (1 Sam. 10:9)
Positional-ism
If we are said to be IN CHRIST, are we there positionally
or are we LITERALLY sitting in heavenly places? And what part of us is
sitting there? Our soul? Our body? Our spirit? All three? Is there such a
thing as positional sanctification and holiness, when we are sanctified by
His blood? Is there such a thing as positional perfection in Christ? Is
there such a thing as positional justification in that we are justified by
His blood? Is there such a thing as positional righteousness in that we do
not have our own righteousness for salvation but Christ’s righteousness? We
know that there is a practical side to all this, but can there also be a
positional side, centered around the cross?
The Conclusion
Mike Miller admits that in 26 years of salvation, he
finally came to the whole truth of the gospel about a decade ago. It is
interesting that he does not repudiate the old gospel and the salvation
that saved him. So, Mike, don’t be surprised if we go on believing the
gospel that saved us. Mike Miller paints a sorry picture of the easy
believism and worldliness in our churches today. We agree and also lament
this situation, but we did not fall off a cabbage truck. We realize that
this was not the case a few decades ago, under the same old-fashioned
gospel, which produced the Bible belt and countless revivals and saved
souls that did walk in holiness of life. We resent this being saved under
the old fashioned Gospel, then figuring out that was not all there was to
it, deciding that we now have a problem with the same Gospel that is
preached now even as then.
Mike Miller, the best we can figure, is the main author and
ringleader of this doctrine from the repeated disclaimers from most of
these speakers at the meeting that they did not embrace it at first but
gradually were convinced BY Miller and their own study. Since that time,
these men have been supplementing Miller’s doctrine with new corollaries.
We can remember another Baptist who was instrumental in founding the
Millerites, who later became the Seventh-Day Adventists that we know. After
this writing, after preaching to their own choir for so long, they no doubt
will try to plug up all the holes, which we have uncovered. When they do
that, they will go on to greater error if they follow the pattern of other
heresies and cults before them. Right now, they are in the embryo stages of
their
heresy.
--by Herb Evans (April 30, 2003)
--=====================_4842182==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<body>
<b> <br>
<div align="center">THE ATONEMENT HERESY IN ITS EMRYO STAGE
(Atone-ahtics)<br>
</div>
<br>
After
the sad arrival of shock radio and shock TV, they are now confronting us
with shock preaching. Most “new light” doctrine, especially “Baptist new
light,” is automatically suspicious, especially if it claims antiquity.
It seems that we no longer have to worry about the cults, when renegade
Baptists are so willing to take their places. “New light” is usually a
convoluted hodgepodge of non truths, half truths, and truths all mixed
together by those who sow <i>MINGLED gospel SEED (works and grace)</i>.
We were sent a set of audio tapes from some type of Baptist conference,
dated November 4-8-02, at Midway Baptist Church, Pastor Richard Owen,
(P.O. Box 419, Fisherville, Virginia, 22939) in which Mike Miller, Bob
Boan, Richard Owen, John Tilley, and Steve Congdon preached some
radically different and divisive doctrine, linking anyone who disagrees
with them to Gnostics, Catholics, Calvinists, Augustine, and Origen.
Seemingly, this was a “We are right, and you are all wrong!” type meeting
that was recorded by the group, who had been served notice by Doug
Sehorne and others that they would not be back to their camp meetings due
to their doctrine.<br>
This
movement, with its new spin on the atonement (atone-ahtics Heresy), is a
radical group of extremist offshoots of the more moderate “Lordship”
folks. The excuse for their views and the promotion of their new
light was worst case “easy believism,” worldliness, and false professions
in the churches, to promote their new light, the same excuses that
Joey Faust uses to promote his Baptist Purgatory heresy. We might
add that they have similar rhetoric to the Joey Faust “Overcomers’ Cult”
but with a different outcome. They also use the same type of combined,
isolated quotes from antiquity, which Joey Faust uses to promote his
Baptist Purgatory heresy. We also lament such conditions in the
churches, but those conditions will not intimidate us into embracing
“either” heresy in order to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Their solutions are worse than the problems. We call it heresy, because
they are messing with the very doctrine of salvation and the cross of
Calvary. These men replace said “easy believism” with an extra-biblical
<i>HARD BELIEVISM, </i>which ignores the simplicity which is in
Christ. Seemingly, they include in their “living without
‘committing’ sin” scheme, all <i>REAL</i> believers, seemingly all
to the same degree, suggesting that all those, who believe differently
are false professors or easy believers for not <i>OVERCOMING </i>(some
kind of sinless perfection, which still allows them to sin without
“committing” sincorrected to “practicing” sin).<br>
<br>
<div align="center"><u>The Atonement Heresy<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
. . . Ye have <i>SINNED a great SIN</i> . . . I shall
make an <i>ATONEMENT FOR your SIN</i> . . . --Ex. 32:30<br>
<br>
. . .
<i>DIED FOR OUR SINS</i> . . . 1 Cor. 15:3<br>
<br>
. . .
<i>GAVE HIMSELF FOR OUR SINS</i> . . . Gal. 1:4<br>
<br>
. . .
he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of<i> DEATH</i>,
for the <i>REDEMPTION</i> of the <i>TRANSGRESSIONS</i> that were under
the first testament . .
.
-- Heb. 9:15 <br>
<br>
Who
his own self <i>BARE OUR SINS</i> in his on <i>BODY</i> on the tree . .
. --1 Peter 2:24<br>
. . . he was wounded <i>FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS</i>, he was bruised<i> FOR
OUR INIQUITIES</i> . . . All we like sheep have gone astray . . . and the
LORD hath <i>LAID on HIM the INIQUITY of US ALL</i> . . . he <i>BARE the
SIN</i> of many . . . -- Isa. 53:5, 6, 12<br>
<br>
. .
.Christ hath once suffered <i>FOR SINS</i> . . . -- 1 Peter
3:18<br>
<br>
. . . For he hath made him to <i>BE SIN FOR US</i>, who knew no sin . .
. --2 Cor. 5:21<br>
<br>
They do not believe that sin is a “debt” nor that Jesus <i>PAID</i> for
our sins on the cross nor that <i>OUR SINS WERE LAID ON HIM.</i> One
speaker on audio tape, Mike Miller, spoke on the atonement in three
of the audio tapes (admitting on a fourth taped message that an article
which he read had introduced him to this viewnot a good source of
supposed internal Bible doctrine). He denies that your sins were not paid
for by Christ on Calvary and claims that you were only forgiven at
Calvary. His contention is that Christ only died for the sinnernot for
sinner’s sin. Atone-ahtics do not like the idea of Christ taking
our sins upon Him or being sin <i>FOR US.</i> Unfortunately, Mike
Miller’s denial of God’s demand of Christ’s death and sacrifice
<i>FOR</i> <i>SINS</i> contradicts God’s word. He died <i>FOR our
SINS</i>. He <i>GAVE</i> Himself <i>FOR our SINS</i>. Our<i> INIQUITY WAS
LAID on HIM</i>. He <i>BARE our SINS</i>. He became sin <i>FOR US.<br>
<br>
</i><div align="center"><u>Propitiation and Ransom on the Cross<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
He shall see of the travail of his soul . . . he shall bare their<i>
INIQUITIES </i>. . . he bare the <i>SINS</i> of many . . . --Isa.
53:11, 12<br>
<br>
. . .
when he had by himself <i>PURGED OUR SINS</i>, sat down . . . Heb.
1:3<br>
<br>
. . .
he might be a . . . high priest . . . to make <i>RECONCILLIATION
FOR</i> the <i>SINS</i> of the people . . . -- Heb. 2:17<br>
<br>
Who
[Jesus] needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up<i>
SACRIFICE</i>, first for his own<i> SINS</i>, and then <i>FOR the
PEOPLE’s [SIN]</i>: for this he <i>DID ONCE</i>, when he offered up
himself. --Heb. 7:27<br>
<br>
But this man, after he had <i>OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS</i> for ever
. . .--Hebrews 10:12<br>
<br>
. . . For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more <i>SACRIFICE FOR SIN</i>
. . .
--Hebrew 10:26<br>
<br>
And he
is the <i>PROPITIATION FOR our SINS </i>. . . also <i>FOR</i> the <i>SINS
</i>of the whole world . . . --1 John
2:2 <br>
<br>
God .
. . sent his Son to be the <i>PROPITIATION FOR our SINS</i> . . .
--1 John 4:10 <br>
<br>
Whom
God hath set forth to be a <i>PROPITIATION</i> . . . to declare his
righteousness <i>FOR the REMISSION of SINS</i> that are past . .
.
--Rom. 3:25<br>
<br>
. .
.Christ . . . hath given himself for us an <i>OFFERING </i>and a
<i>SACRIFICE to God FOR A SWEET SMELLING SAVOUR</i>. --Eph. 5:2<br>
<br>
. . .
the Son of man came . . . to give his <i>LIFE a RANSOM</i> for
many. -- Mark 10:45<br>
<br>
Who
gave his <i>LIFE a RANSOM</i> for all . . . 2 Tim. 2:6<br>
<br>
The
Lord’s propitiation, which is <i>FOR SINS</i>, means to <i>ATONE</i> or
conciliate in most English dictionaries. Both propitiation and
sacrifice are words that relate to the atonement, another word for
reconciliation. Atone-ahtics deny that our God must be “appeased”
with a sacrifice. Our Bible’s presentation of the propitiation and
sacrifice says otherwise. Christ not only died for us, but he also died
for our sins. Christ gave Himself for us, but He also gave Himself for
our sins. <br>
One
truth does not negate the other. Our iniquities, sins, transgressions,
and trespasses were laid on Christ, and He <i>BARE</i> them. Christ was
our purgatory, for He <i>PURGED OUR SINS</i> on the cross. Christ’s
sacrifice/propitiation has its roots in the sin offerings of the Old
Testament <i>FOR SIN</i>. He <i>PAID the RANSOM</i> for us with a
<i>BLOOD PAYMENT</i>. All the O.T. redemption events, all the O.T.
kinsman Redeemer events, all the O.T. sacrifice and atonement events are
types of the Lord’s death for us and our sins. The different words
are merely different perspectives of that event. Atone-ahtics, who pit
Bible truths against one another, are in denial of them, making
themselves atonement heretics. <br>
<br>
<div align="center"><u>The Sin Debt Must Be Paid<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
. . .forgive <i>OUR SINS</i>; for we also <i>FORGIVE</i> everyone that is
<i>INDEBTED</i> to
us. -- Luke
11:4<br>
<br>
Forgive us our <i>DEBTS</i> as we forgive our <i>DEBTORS</i> . .
.<i> FOR</i> if ye forgive men their <i>TRESPASSES </i>[hello!] . .
. if ye forgive not men their <i>TRESPASSES</i> [debts], neither will
your heavenly Father forgive your <i>TRESPASSES [debts].</i> --
Matt. 6:12-15<br>
<br>
. . .
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of<i> GRACE</i>, but
of <i>DEBT </i>. . . --Rom. 4:3<br>
<br>
. .
.For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a
<i>DEBTOR</i> to do the whole law [unless you allow Christ to pay your
<i>DEBT</i>] . . . -- Gal. 5:3<br>
<br>
The
song that you never want to sing among these folks is “Jesus <i>PAID IT
ALL, ALL to HIM I OWE</i> . . .” Our text’s context establishes that
trespasses are debts, so our Atone-ahtics have a problem. That is .
. . unless trespasses are not sins. Sin, according to Miller, is not a
debt but a crime. Yet, criminals must pay their <i>DEBT</i> to society.
Still, sin is both a crime and a debt and both must be paid for and
forgiven, according to our proof texts. Miller does not believe
that Christ <i>PAID</i> for our sins. As with most heresies, anything
that remotely suggests one’s theory to be wrong in a certain area must
get its hole plugged. Hence, sin as a debt is so denied by these folks.
We have proved that something must be paid for and also be forgiven, and
if trespasses are sins, they are debts, for trespasses are debts. The
lord forgave his servant in Matthew 18:32-34, but the debt still had to
be paid.<br>
<br>
<br>
The
moral debt must be paid. Consider with me a little boy that orders an ice
cream cone and is told that it will cost two dollars. The little boy
pulls out a one dollar bill and hands it to the clerk. He is promptly
told that he still owes one more dollar. Another customer seeing the
disheartened boy, offers to pay the boy’s debt, and the clerk must accept
the payment. Yet, suppose the boy came into the store and stole something
costing two dollars. The same customer offers to pay the same financial
debt but is refused because an additional moral debt has also been
incurred because of his transgression. The clerk doesn’t have to accept
the payment. Still, our God did accept Christ’s payment of our
moral debt. All to Him <i>I OWE!<br>
</i> <br>
<div align="center"><u>Imputed Righteousness<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
. . . for he will render unto man <i>HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS</i> . . . Job
33:26<br>
<br>
. . .
Abraham <i>BELIEVED</i> God, and it was <i>COUNTED</i> to him <i>FOR
righteousness </i>. . . -- Rom. 4:3<br>
<br>
. . . the
father (Abraham) of all them that <i>BELIEVE</i> . . . that
<i>RIGHTEOUSNESS MIGHT BE IMPUTED</i> to them <i>ALSO</i> . . . -- Rom.
4:11 <br>
<br>
God
<i>IMPUTETH RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT WORKS</i> . . . --Rom. 4:6<br>
<br>
. . . being fully persuaded that, what he had promised he was able to
perform. And therefore it was <i>IMPUTED</i> to him <i>FOR
RIGHTEOUSNESS</i>. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it
was<i> IMPUTED</i> to him; <i>BUT FOR US ALSO</i>, to whom it shall be<i>
IMPUTED</i>, <i>IF WE BELIEVE</i> on him that raised up Jesus our Lord
from the dead; Who was delivered <i>FOR OUR OFFENSES</i>, and was raised
again <i>FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION.</i> -- Rom. 4:21-25<br>
<br>
For they being ignorant of God’s <i>RIGHTEOUSNESS,</i> and going about to
<i>ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS</i> . . . For Christ is the <i>END
OF RIGHTEOUSNESS</i> to every one that <i>BELIEVETH</i> . . . for with
the <i>HEART</i> man<i> BELIEVETH UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS</i> . . .
--Rom. 10:3, 4, 10<br>
<br>
. . . not having <i>MINE OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS</i> . . . but that which is .
. . the <i>RIGHTEOUSNESS which is OF GOD</i> by faith . . . -- Phil.
3:9<br>
<br>
<i>NOT
BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS</i> which we have done . . . --Titus
3:5<br>
<br>
Abraham <i>BELIEVED GOD</i> and it was<i> IMPUTED</i> unto him <i>FOR
RIGHTEOUSNESS</i> . . . -- James 2:23<br>
<br>
This Aton-ahtic group has a problem of some kind with imputed
righteousness, passing it off as Calvinism. The repeated charge of
Calvinism is made, regarding saying that lost men are unable to turn from
sinbefore salvation, before having the divine nature, and while a lost
man is still helpless, blinded, and even taken captive by the devil at
his willand is unfounded. <br>
Atone-ahtics confuse repentance (which is a change of mind about sin,
self, and God) with turning from sin. Turning from sin is
<i>CONVERSION.</i> The sinner must both <i>REPENT</i> and <i>BE
CONVERTED</i> (be turned to, from, and around, see German Bible, umkehren
- about face). Much of their Atone-ahtics is murky and seems much like
that they are going about to establish their<i> OWN</i> righteousness
(although they deny works for that salvation).<br>
<div align="center"><u>Committing Sin?<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
Whosoever is born of God doth <i>NOT COMMIT SIN</i> . . . and he
<i>CANNOT SIN</i>, because he is <i>BORN of GOD</i> . . . -- 1 John
3:9<br>
<br>
. . .
the blood of Jesus Christ his Son <i>CLEANSETH</i> us from <i>ALL
SIN</i>. If we say that we have <i>NO SIN</i>, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is <i>NOT IN US.</i> If we say . . . If we <i>CONFESS</i>
<i>OUR SINS</i>, he is faithful and just to forgive us <i>OUR SINS</i>,
and to <i>CLEANSE</i> us from all <i>UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.</i> If we say that
we have <i>NOT SINNED</i>, we make him a <i>LIAR</i>, and his word <i>IS
NOT IN US.</i> -- 1 John 1:7-10
<br>
<br>
My
brethren . . . if ye have respect of persons, <i>YE COMMIT SIN
</i>. . . --James 2:1, 9<br>
<br>
. . .
the prayer of faith shall save the sick . . . and if he have
<i>COMMITTED</i> sins, they shall be forgiven him. --James
5:15<br>
<br>
. . . I will bewail many which have <i>SINNED</i> already . . . --2
Cor. 12:21<br>
<br>
The Atone-ahtics’ modus operandi is to devilishly pit one Bible doctrine
and truth against another. If there are several ways or words to say
something, they nullify the one way or word, which they do not like, by
overemphasis of their choice word at the expense of the other words and
ways, which make their doctrine suspect.<br>
Atone-ahtics do make the disclaimer that they do not teach that they
never sinonly that they do not commit sin (whatever difference
that makes). Yet they yield to the watered down perverted modern
translations and Bible Corrector notion that they do not <i>PRACTICE
SIN</i>. Of course, they do not tell us how many times you have to sin in
order to <i>PRACTICE SIN</i> nor how gross the sin must be nor how many
sins nor how much lack of overcoming keeps you out of heaven. They also
retreat to the proposition that they do not have sinful lifestyles. The
truth is that believers do sin, do “practice” sin, and they also do
engage in sinful lifestyles. Need we mention Lot, David, Solomon, Saul,
Peter, Abraham, Jacob, and the saved Corinthian fornicator (1 Cor.
5:2-5)? Need we remind them that whatsoever is not of faith is sin or
that sin is coming short of God’s glory or that sin is missing the mark
and that the plowing of the wicked is sin?<br>
You
can jump over the moon if you bring the moon down low enough. One thing
for sure is that they have a very low esteem of what sin really is, which
also includes the deceit and thoughts of the heart. Still, the second
part of this verse must not be glossed over to establish the first. Have
you ever known anyone that <i>CANNOT SIN</i>? Are you able to <i>SIN</i>.
Atone-ahtics also teach the same escape here, which the bible perversions
teachyou <i>CANNOT</i> <i>PRACTICE SIN</i>. Why? Because they
reject the dual nature of a believer. Nevertheless, all we need now is
for the Atone-ahtics to explain how much sin is practicing sin and how
much sin and what sins constitute living a sinful lifestyle and how much
sin keeps you from overcoming. <br>
This
is sounding more and more like a works-to-get saved or a works-to-keep
saved salvation plan. t is clear from our texts that saying that you have
no sin is self deception and proves that you do not have the truth in
you. Or saying that you have not sinned, which charges you with making
God a liar and that His word is not in you. It is equally clear that we
have sins and unrighteousness that need to be both forgiven and
<i>CLEANSED</i>. It is also clear that Christians <i>COMMIT SINS</i>.
Obviously, the blood initially cleanses all of our sins as far as
salvation is concerned. Yet confession is employed by the Christian to
get forgiveness and cleansing in order to maintain proper
fellowship and service for his Lord. Still, the ideal is to sin not.
If we are saved, all our sins are already forgiven at the
crosspast, present, and future. This is but half of the truth in that in
regard to salvation<i>, ALL</i> of our sins are indeed forgiven in regard
to salvation, when we receive Christ. Yet it is not the complete truth in
regard to our fellowship with him and our service with Him. If we do not
have sin, why be cleansed? If we do not commit sin, why confess it? Why
was Paul fearful of becoming a <i>saved “CASTAWAY?”<br>
</i>
There is a difference between sin not having dominion over the believer
and a believer being totally free from sin. There is also a difference
between “some” Christians living above sin (I did that when I lived above
a saloon) and “all” Christians having that victory or else they are not
true Christians. The constant mantra of “being freed from sin,”
“delivered from sin,” and having one’s sins taken away permeates
Atone-ahtic preaching, terms which were never intended destroy one’s
assurance of salvation but rather to strengthen it. But this
Johnny-come-lately uses it to mark anyone that disagrees with him as
false professors or easy believers. They never clearly define these terms
but rather bandy them about to send folks on a guilt trip. What do the
terms really mean? You’re lost if you commit sin? How much sin? <br>
Put
your money where your mouth is. One passage tells us that you do
not sin if you know the Lord and abide in Him. Who is that? Your new
nature? The divine nature? Your soul? Your body? Your flesh? The new
creature? The new man? The old man? <br>
Let’s
go a step farther. Do you ever sin? What does the sinning? Your new
nature? The divine nature? Your body? Your flesh? The new creature? The
new man? The old man? How do you sin and not sin at the same time?<br>
<br>
<div align="center"><u>The Inherited Sinful Nature<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
. . .by one man’s disobedience [Adam] many, were <i>MADE SINNERS</i> . .
. --Rom. 5:19<br>
<br>
. .
.V<i>ISITING</i> the <i>INIQUITY</i> of the fathers upon the children,
and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth
generation.
-- Ex. 34:7<br>
<br>
I was
<i>SHAPEN IN INIQUITY</i> and<i> IN SIN did my mother CONCEIVE me </i>. .
. --Psa. 51:5<br>
<br>
. . .
they <i>GO ASTRAY</i> as soon as they be born, <i>SPEAKING LIES</i> . . .
-- Psa. 58:3<br>
<br>
. . .
we . . . were <i>BY NATURE</i> the children of <i>WRATH,</i> even as
others. -- Eph. 2:3<br>
<br>
. . .
the wages of <i>SIN is DEATH</i> . . . --Rom. 6:23<br>
<br>
. . .
<i>CANNOT CEASE FROM SIN</i> . . . -- 2 Peter 2:14<br>
<br>
. . .
make not provision<i> FOR</i> <i>THE FLESH</i>, to fulfil the
<i>LUSTS</i> thereof . . . --Rom. 13:14<br>
<br>
Atone-ahtics deny man’s sinful and carnal nature either before or after
salvation. They do not believe sin is inherited and they mock folks that
do so as believing Catholic doctrine in regard to original sin.
Still, death, the sin nature, and sin are all inherited. It is genetic
just like insanity and physical defects. That is why the <i>NATURAL</i>
man (in his sinful nature) cannot receive the things of God apart from
God’s intervention. He is blind and dead in trespasses and sins.
Moreover, that sin nature is in the natural man, and it does not leave
upon salvation.<br>
The comeback, of course, is that sin did not pass to every man,
only death did. Then why do men sin? And why do men die after being saved
and being “freed from sin” (as they love to emphasize). Moreover, why do
babies die, since Steve believes that babies do not sin or go astray,
speaking lies at birth and that Psalms 58:3 does not teach that they do.
Of course, he does not explain either Psalm 58:3 or 51:5, he only denies
them. Still, Psalm 51:5 tells us that we are shapen <i>IN INIQUITY</i>
and conceived <i>IN SIN. </i>This group seems to believe that we have
some sort of pre-sin, Adamic nature. The problem with such a theory is
that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil in that state. We do!<br>
Atone-ahtics do not believe that the sin nature passes on to us from
Adam. Steve Cogdan offers a lame excuse from Ezekiel to prove that the
son does not bear the iniquity of the father. Still, it also states that
the father does not bear the iniquity of the son. The reasonable
interpretation is that each, the father and the son, is responsible for
his own sin and righteousness. However, in Exodus 34:7, the
iniquity of the fathers is visited on the children and grandchildren unto
the third and fourth generationthe principle is established. Still,
neither of these proof texts, neither theirs nor ours, specifically
addresses inheriting Adam’s sin. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear that
Adam’s disobedience <i>MADE</i> mankind <i>SINNERS</i> without any sin of
their own.<br>
<i> </i>
Babies die because of Adam’s sin and their own sin, for the wages of sin
is death. The Atone-ahtics’ claim is that you do not have to sin after
you are saved, because you do not have a sin nature. If that is true, you
do not have to sin or practice sin before salvation, for they say that we
do not have a sin nature before salvation either. The next
conclusion is breath taking. Man must then sin on purpose before and
after salvation. Selah! Think of that! Nevertheless there are some that
cannot cease from sin (2 Pet. 2:14). We are children of wrath by
<i>NATURE!<br>
<br>
</i><div align="center"><u>The Sinful Flesh? The Sinful Body?<br>
</u></div>
<br>
<i>LET NOT SIN</i> therefore <i>REIGN</i> in your <i>MORTAL BODY</i> . .
. Rom. 6:12<br>
<br>
. .
.God sending his own Son in the likeness <i>OF SINFUL FLESH</i>, and
<i>FOR SIN</i>, condemned <i>SIN IN THE FLESH</i> . . . --Romans 8:3<br>
<br>
. . . let us <i>CLEANSE OURSELVES</i> from all <i>FILTHINESS</i> <i>OF
THE</i> <i>FLESH “AND” SPIRIT</i>. -- 2 Cor. 7:1<br>
<br>
The like figure doth now save us (not the putting away the <i>FILTH OF
THE FLESH</i>, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) . .
. --1 Pet. 3:21<br>
<br>
Whosoever abideth in him <i>SINNETH NOT</i>: whosoever <i>SINNETH
</i>hath not <i>SEEN HIM,</i> neither <i>KNOWN HIM</i> . . . --1 John
3:6<br>
<br>
. . .
putting off the <i>BODY OF SINS of the FLESH</i> . . . --Col.
2:11<br>
<br>
Who
shall change our <i>VILE BODY</i> . . . --Phil. 3:19<br>
<br>
. .
.deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the<i> FLESH</i>,
that the <i>SPIRIT</i> may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. --1
Cor. 5:5 <br>
<br>
. . . hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was
sanctified, an <i>UNHOLY </i>thing. -- Heb. 10:29<br>
<br>
This
group tells us that folks who believe that they have sinful flesh believe
like the Gnosticsthat Jesus did not come in the flesh, according to Bob
Boan. Moreover, we are charged with trying to excuse our sin by saying
that our body sins and not us. This is straw man. I have never heard
anyone say that. The other straw man is that we are condemning Christ for
coming in the flesh. Yet Jesus coming in the flesh is qualified by Him
coming in the<i> LIKENESS of SINFUL</i> flesh and not sinful flesh, and
He is said to have condemned sin in the flesh. Now, who has the sinful
flesh? The unsaved? The saved? No one? How does sin reign in a <i>MORTAL
BODY</i>? How are both the flesh and the spirit <i>FILTHY</i>? Did
Gnostics write or teach this in the Bible? With their influence being
mainly in the 2nd to the 4th century?<br>
Bob
Boan does his best to make us Gnostics for our views. He messes
with the Greek to prove that <i>VILE</i> does not really mean <i>VILE</i>
by going to other places where the Greek word is translated more
moderately. A <i>VILE</i> person is the antichrist (Dan. 11:2; Isa.
32:6). Queers were given over to <i>VILE</i> affections (Rom.
1:26). Obviously, Bob likes the “low estate” passages better.
Webster defines <i>VILE</i> as “Wretchedly bad . . . repulsive.
Despicable.” Dan Waite’s “Defined Bible” gives us more of the
same. Well, Bob, is this an attempt at Bible correcting? Is the
English word “<i>VILE</i>” (from which we get “villain” and “villainy”) a
mistake here? <br>
Certainly, the old man is <i>CORRUPT</i> according to its <i>DECEITFUL
LUSTS</i>. It is a corruptible body (1 Cor. 15:53) that is sown in
corruption and must put on incorruption (1 Cor. 15:42). This cannot be
said about Christ’s body or His flesh, for it was not a corruptible body,
for it was only a <i>LIKENESS of SINFUL FLESH, </i>a different flesh than
ours. Atone-ahtics admit that Christ had sinless blood and that man does
not have sinful blood. Does man also have the same kind of <i>SINLESS</i>
blood as well? No worse blood than Christ? Does both man and Christ have
<i>HOLY</i> <i>BLOOD</i>? Why cannot man’s <i>FLESH and BLOOD</i> inherit
the Kingdom of God? Well, the comeback to all this is that our body
members are <i>MEMBERS </i>of Christ. So, how could they be sinful? Oh?
Are they the local church, representative body members or are they
invisible church members in the sky? I thought that you fellows were
Landmark Baptists?<br>
Mike Miller does not like to believe that our old man sins, for he claims
that our old man is dead, dead to sin. Well, that is how we are supposed
to reckon it so, but tell me, Mike, if the old man is dead, and the new
man cannot sin, who in the world does the sinning that is very obvious
among us? If he that committeth sin is of the devil (and he is), are all
God’s people of the devil, when they sin? Or is it that you do not
understand the two natures, the old man and the new man, the inner man
versus the <i>SINFUL</i> flesh or nature? Still, this Atone-ahtics group
does not believe that the fleshly nature nor the body is sinful. If it is
not possible that sin can reign in our <i>MORTAL BODY</i>, why the
admonition not to let it reign in our mortal body? <br>
<div align="center"><u>The Christian and His Besetting nature<br>
</u></div>
<br>
<i>
</i> . . .
lay aside . . . the <i>SIN</i> which <i>DOTH EASILY</i> beset us .
. . -- Heb. 12:1<br>
<br>
. . .
I am <i>CARNAL</i>, sold <i>UNDER SIN</i>. For that which I do I
allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do
I . . . Now then it is no more I that do it, but SIN that
<i>DWELLETH IN ME.</i> For I know that<i> IN ME</i> (that is, <i>IN MY
FLESH</i>,) <i>DWELLETH</i> <i>NO GOOD THING</i> . . . but how to perform
that which is good I find not . . . but the evil which I would not, that
I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but SIN
THAT <i>DWELLETH IN ME</i> . . .<i> EVIL IS PRESENT WITH ME</i> . . . For
I delight in the law of the <i>INWARD MAN</i>. I find then a law<i> IN MY
MEMBERS</i>, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into
captivity to the <i>LAW OF SIN</i> which <i>IS IN MY MEMBERS</i>.
--Rom. 7:22, 23<br>
<br>
. .
.the <i>FLESH</i> lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the
<i>FLESH</i>: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye
<i>CANNOT</i> do the things that ye would.-- Gal. 5:17<br>
<br>
. . .
<i>FLESHLY LUSTS</i> which <i>WAR AGAINST the SOUL</i> . . . --1 Pet.
2:11<br>
<br>
This
group does not believe in <i>CARNAL </i>Christians, although Paul does
and says so in regard to the saved, carnal Corinthians. Steve Cogdan, on
an audio tape, denies that believers have a sin nature (and that they
never had one) and that the “I” of Paul’s passage does not really mean
Paul but that Paul was discussing an unsaved man. He does not prove it;
he merely pontificates it, as is the case with most of the rhetoric from
this atonement heresy. You might note that Paul uses the present and not
the past tense, when he discusses his problem with the flesh and old
nature. He claims that “<i>SIN</i> dwell-<i>ETH IN ME</i>.” He says
“I know” and not “I knew” that “in <i>MY FLESH</i> dwell-<i>ETH</i> no
good thing.” He also says that “to will <i>IS PRESENT</i> with me” and
how to perform that which is good<i> I FIND</i> (not found) <i>NOT
</i>[naturally]. <br>
Steve
must not only explain away the “<i>I</i>” but also why the “<i>MY</i>”
and the “<i>ME</i>” is not Paul. Yes, if any man be in Christ, he is a
new creature, most definitely, but the old man is not eradicated with the
advent of the divine nature and new creation. Still, these fellows seem
to teach more of a “reformed” creature than a “new” creature. To be sure
we are to count the old man to be dead but he is not gone. The spin is
that easy believism uses this passage as an excuse for their sins,
because they do not want to say that it was I that sinned; they want to
blame sin on their sinful nature or body. Well, now, that is interesting.
Shall we blame sin on the only nature that is left in these folks’
claim, the divine nature or the new nature or the new man? Our head is
spinning trying to figure out, whom they mean by the “I.” Does the divine
nature do the sinning? Huh?<br>
Unwittingly, Steve has trapped himself, for if this is an unsaved man,
Steve is surrendering half of his doctrine. For Paul says that sin is in
the man’s <i>MEMBERS </i>(7:23) and that <i>NO GOOD</i> thing is in the
man’s <i>FLESH </i>(7:18). Whether a saved man or no, what meaneth the
<i>MEMBERS</i> in this passage? Members of the man’s body? What meaneth
this evil law and sin in the man’s members that could make Paul a
castaway (1 Cor. 9:26, 27)? Huh? What was wrong with Paul’s body that he
had to keep it in subjection? Subjection to what or who? How about you,
Bob Boan?<br>
Steve
explains away the delight of the Romans 7 man in the law of God as being
that of an unsaved man, contending that lost people are quite capable of
that. However, lost people are deaddead in trespasses and sins. None
understandeth! None seeketh after God! None doeth good, <i>NO, NOT
ONE</i>. (Rom. 3). Nevertheless, the noteworthy thing about this passage
is that this man, whoever he is, delights <i>after the INWARD MAN</i>
(7:23), the <i>HIDDEN MAN</i> of the heart, in saved people (1 Peter
3:4). Now, the old heart is deceitful and desparately wicked (Jer. 17:9),
and some folks get <i>ANOTHER</i> heart (1 Sam. 10:9)<br>
<div align="center"><u>Positional-ism<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
If we are said to be <i>IN CHRIST</i>, are we there positionally or are
we <i>LITERALLY</i> sitting in heavenly places? And what part of us is
sitting there? Our soul? Our body? Our spirit? All three? Is there
such a thing as positional sanctification and holiness, when we are
sanctified by His blood? Is there such a thing as positional perfection
in Christ? Is there such a thing as positional justification in that we
are justified by His blood? Is there such a thing as positional
righteousness in that we do not have our own righteousness for salvation
but Christ’s righteousness? We know that there is a practical side to all
this, but can there also be a positional side, centered around the cross?
<br>
<br>
<div align="center"><u>The Conclusion<br>
</u> <br>
</div>
Mike Miller admits that in 26 years of salvation, he finally came to the
whole truth of the gospel about a decade ago. It is interesting that he
does not repudiate the old gospel and the salvation that saved him. So,
Mike, don’t be surprised if we go on believing the gospel that saved us.
Mike Miller paints a sorry picture of the easy believism and worldliness
in our churches today. We agree and also lament this situation, but we
did not fall off a cabbage truck. We realize that this was not the
case a few decades ago, under the same old-fashioned gospel, which
produced the Bible belt and countless revivals and saved souls that did
walk in holiness of life. We resent this being saved under the old
fashioned Gospel, then figuring out that was not all there was to it,
deciding that we now have a problem with the same Gospel that is preached
now even as then.<br>
Mike
Miller, the best we can figure, is the main author and ringleader of this
doctrine from the repeated disclaimers from most of these speakers at the
meeting that they did not embrace it at first but gradually were
convinced <i>BY</i> Miller and their own study. Since that time, these
men have been supplementing Miller’s doctrine with new corollaries. We
can remember another Baptist who was instrumental in founding the
Millerites, who later became the Seventh-Day Adventists that we know.
After this writing, after preaching to their own choir for so long, they
no doubt will try to plug up all the holes, which we have uncovered. When
they do that, they will go on to greater error if they follow the pattern
of other heresies and cults before them. Right now, they are in the
embryo stages of their
heresy.
<br><br>
--by Herb Evans (April 30, 2003)<br>
<br>
</b></body>
</html>
--=====================_4842182==.ALT--
|
|
 |
|
