I know many like to lump all sin together and make them all as of one type. I also know that Christ died for ALL sins past, present and future. Christ's atonement or all sin is more than sufficient.
BUT. As I was studying the Old Testament referrals to sin and the requirements needed to get things back to "square". I started realizing there were basically 2 ways to make things right. The reason there were 2 ways was because there were basically 2 types of sin, those man committed against God and those he committed against his fellow man.
Rather than go through all the numrous laws, how about we go to where they originated, or at least where they can be easily summed up.....the 10 commandments. Again the 10 commandments can be divided into 2 basic categories, those concerning man's behavior towards God and those concerning man's behavior toward his neighbor.
But really, if we want to slip over to the New Testament for, lets say, greater authority or legitimacy or whatever argument one might want to use to "debunk" the 2 types argument, we can see that Christ condensed sin even further into 2 very basic categories. Sin against God and sin against our neighbor.
Why, you might ask, does this matter? Because, if you look at what the laws say about sins committed against others, it always inluded atonement by the aggressor to their victim. I feel that this atonement aspect still applies today when it comes to seeking forgiveness from others. I believe even civil law incorporates this atonement by the likes of restitution or what have you. American Law is loosely based on biblical principles.
OK. So where am I headed with this? I believe churches should be emphasizing the importance of atoning to others when we have sinned against them. All too often christians wrong others then just let their victim be burdened with unforgiveness. Placing all the burden on the victim to forgive is wrong in my humble opinion. Only if and when the perpetrator confesses, repents AND ATONES should the victim then have the ball in their court.
Before I end my little soapbox blathering, I do understand that to expect such a process of confession, repentence atonemet behavior from non-christians or fake christians is asking way too much. But to those of having actually accepted Christ, I feel what I just said should come naturally...errrrrr or spiritally.
Spelling Disclaimer: I never learned to type so I use a little program called Click-n-type...it misses a few clicks here and there. Tried my best to proof-read
BUT. As I was studying the Old Testament referrals to sin and the requirements needed to get things back to "square". I started realizing there were basically 2 ways to make things right. The reason there were 2 ways was because there were basically 2 types of sin, those man committed against God and those he committed against his fellow man.
Rather than go through all the numrous laws, how about we go to where they originated, or at least where they can be easily summed up.....the 10 commandments. Again the 10 commandments can be divided into 2 basic categories, those concerning man's behavior towards God and those concerning man's behavior toward his neighbor.
But really, if we want to slip over to the New Testament for, lets say, greater authority or legitimacy or whatever argument one might want to use to "debunk" the 2 types argument, we can see that Christ condensed sin even further into 2 very basic categories. Sin against God and sin against our neighbor.
Why, you might ask, does this matter? Because, if you look at what the laws say about sins committed against others, it always inluded atonement by the aggressor to their victim. I feel that this atonement aspect still applies today when it comes to seeking forgiveness from others. I believe even civil law incorporates this atonement by the likes of restitution or what have you. American Law is loosely based on biblical principles.
OK. So where am I headed with this? I believe churches should be emphasizing the importance of atoning to others when we have sinned against them. All too often christians wrong others then just let their victim be burdened with unforgiveness. Placing all the burden on the victim to forgive is wrong in my humble opinion. Only if and when the perpetrator confesses, repents AND ATONES should the victim then have the ball in their court.
Before I end my little soapbox blathering, I do understand that to expect such a process of confession, repentence atonemet behavior from non-christians or fake christians is asking way too much. But to those of having actually accepted Christ, I feel what I just said should come naturally...errrrrr or spiritally.
Spelling Disclaimer: I never learned to type so I use a little program called Click-n-type...it misses a few clicks here and there. Tried my best to proof-read