I had decided to visit some of the lefty blogs listed below in recent days. Since Dan visits here often, willing to stand firmly for what he believes, as wrong as that is, I hit a post or two over there. Only Alan, charmless as ever, had given me any crap. That's OK. I can take it and actually relish even that back and forth. I'll spar with anyone, literally or rhetorically.
Then I went to Geoffrey's place, "What's Left in the Church". Apparently poor Geoffie doesn't want to play anymore. He made a comment in one of his posts regarding whether or not anyone even reads his stuff anymore. Indeed, as I went through about half a dozen, there were no comments on any of them. Of course there are now, because I made some, and since then, he's made mostly childish responses, as has his "sis" and ER. Sad. Geoffies has never really been much in the debate department. He'll make noise about conservatism, pointing to specific people, like Newt Gingrich for example, while never explaining why he trashes them. I've always found this odd considering Geoffie seems to be well read. You'd think he'd be able to make some sort of supporting argument. But he's devolved into a bitchy little trash talker and doesn't support any of his charges at all. Actually he never really did, but he'd at least fake it momentarily before pretending it's all so tiring to spend time explaining himself. What a fraud.
That kinda takes the wind outta my sails as far as visiting the other blogs. I'll give them a try later and I hope I find a better quality of lib when I do. Geoffie-boy's giving them a bad name right now.
In the meantime, I continue to welcome all comers to THIS happy blog, where even the likes of a Feodor can come and engage in debate (if he thinks he can without the usual tiresome arrogance and condescension). Geoffie is also welcome if he feels all jerked out back at his circle. I maintain that I can be persuaded should anyone be persuasive. In religion and politics, it does matter what one thinks and believes.
378 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 378 of 378Dan,
It looks like the folks where we go go off without much damage. They are trying to mobilize help and food to PaP as quickly as possible. If you are interested in helping the response on a much more local and direct level check out www.nwhcm.org and there will be some info. I am not sure if anyone know how this will effect out trip in Feb, but prayers are always good.
Oh Les! You are SO above the fray!
Pardon us for indulging in a little back and forth as a diversion from the drollery of everyday life. Maybe we should all just play "Risk". So we're not "acting" like anything other than people discussing topics about which we feel strongly. You're no longer up to it. Fine. I'll try to get over it. I'd prefer you re-join the fun, but you seem a bit too sensitive for it.
As for acknowledging "merit" in other opinions, well, what a typically liberal reaction to objective responses to opinion lacking merit. I don't see as that ANYONE is oblidged to pretend every opinion has merit. I also don't buy the notion that you find merit in MY opinions or else you'd be on the fence on the issues to which those opinions spoke. I don't see that that has ever been the case.
Even so, your critique isn't exactly true as I have often stated that an argument might have been a "nice try". One example was your color spectrum analogy to defend abortion rights. It was indeed a nice try though I saw it as actually supporting MY position better with the spectrum itself representing human life and the subtle changes from one color to the next to represent the passing of a person from one stage of development to the other. My use of your analogy was superior (Yeah, "superior"!) because it shows that those subtle changes mean nothing when it's all part of the same human life/color spectrum. (I use that analogy now in discussing abortion---Thanks! NOW the argument has merit!)
Go Bulls!
www.nwhcm.org/ - Northwest Haiti Christian Mission, where they engage in Education, Children's nutrition and homes, special needs care, elder care, disaster relief and appear to be a hardworking Christian organization doing the work of the church.
Haiti is the poorest nation in our hemisphere. Let's keep them in our prayers.
My prayers are with the people in Port-au-Prince.
"I was referring to why I think a debt to be paid for me was necessary."
Ya know...aside from a few hymns, I'd kinda like a Scripture reference for that whole Jesus paid a debt/penalty thing myself...
I'm totally with Dan on this.
"Again, this is one problem I have with Calvinism, I think it tends to misunderstand and caricaturize sin and forgiveness."
Thank you for your unsupported opinion, how can a theology that begins with total depravity and ends with eternal security minimize sin and forgiveness, the chariacture is yours.
Dan, I will also pass on the he said/she said and just suggest reading my comments. Nowhere did I suggest that an accidental act would be equated with an intentional act. If you are not sure, just ask. Also it would help if you respond to what i actually say, not what you want to think I said.
Re: your 9:08 asked and answered.
Re: your 9:16 please read more closely I said that you are making numerous assumptions to try to make your point. I have made no assertions regarding any of this. Again, read carefully, it helps.
Bubba Re: your 9:21 I completely agree that God's sovereignty is absolute, I think that is one of the bedrock points on which the disagreement hinges. Further I think that the PSA and to a lesser extent the CV theories take that aspect seriously while the ME does not. That is also one of the areas that Calvin was dead on about. So thanks.
Re: Dan's 9:33 and 9:35 since no one here is supporting the ransom theory I'll not waste my limited time discussing something irrelevant to the conversation, and about which I don't know enough to comment on.
Re: Dan's 9:41 I'm not sure I follow your point. Yes the Bible writers used different types of descriptive terms for the effects of sin, so what. Sin is obviously not a literal weight, but can you deny that sin does weigh on your soul? Beyond that what is the point sin is sin just because you don't understand that these are words that help us relate to what sin does and how it affects us, why assume that we have such a problem.
Re: Dan's 9:59 First you have to ignore Hebrews 8-9 to get where you are. And you have to ignore Jesus final word from the cross. tetelestai-it is finished-paid in full. Beyond that all you have done is point out that no analogy is perfect. Big news.
Re: 10:56 So what. You don't like that gospel presentation, I'm shocked. I'd love to hear yours. BTW read J. Edwards there is a guy who took sin seriously.
" but Jesus was the Perfect, Sinless sacrifice that God sent to pay my debt
Bible source for this?"
1 Cor 5:7 to start with.
Enough for now, off to more work, why don't my questions all get answered just the way I want them too?
Dan,
The more you explain the various theories of atonement, the better I feel about not having aligned myself with any of them. They are all insufficient, in my mind, and look at specific words too literally, as you appear to be doing yourself. The bottom line is that forgiveness of sins, hence salvation, hence God's grace is had only through the blood of Christ. It is indeed, in my opinion, and as clearly explained in Scripture, to be a little transaction. By this I don't mean that Christ's blood was bottled, boxed and delivered to God or anyone and for which a written receipt was provided, recorded and held as proof, but that He needed to die to satisfy the "debt", to pay the "ransom", to procure for us our salvation and forgiveness. To say that His life was given as a sacrifice makes no sense without His life being taken by death on the cross. To say that His existence provided our atonement in the same way makes no sense without the death to which His life lead. In the next comment I offer a lengthy passage that explains it all quite well and quite distinctly. Pay close attention to verse 22.
Sorry for the NWCHM link, I'm not sure how you feel about advertising for personal cause stuff, but they do great work and the earthquake is going to devastate the entire country due to the fact that everything comes through PaP. I know they are trying to mobilize help of all kinds to send down to PaP but whatever they send is going to strain the work in the Northwest. I would also suggest Feed My Starving Children who will be mobilizing additional resources to send to Haiti. There is no way to overestimate the havoc this will inflict on what had been an economy showing sighn of growth. the more I think about it the more I think we might not go in next month so as not to add to the burden. The downside is the people who have been waiting for a year for eye care and those who will lose their sight. Thanks for your prayers and any support you can.
Marshall...
The more you explain the various theories of atonement, the better I feel about not having aligned myself with any of them. They are all insufficient, in my mind, and look at specific words too literally
Hey, lookee! Me and Marshall agree!
That is why many of us anabaptists say that we tend to think of atonement in terms of at least THREE of the theories PS, Moral Example and Christus Victor. Taking these three together helps get a better understanding of atonement, we think. Not one of them are, in themselves, adequate full descriptions of atonement, but together, they're not too bad.
As that fella I quoted earlier said...
For nearly 300 years, these Christians were uninterested in developing theories of the atonement. They knew Jesus had died to save them, they preached ‘Christ crucified’ and they celebrated his resurrection triumph over the spiritual and political powers that oppressed them. They drew on various images the New Testament uses, but they did not insist on one formula or explanation. Certainly not penal substitution, of which there is little trace in the early centuries...
THAT is exactly where I am on this issue. Mostly, theories of atonement are simply not that big an issue with me in my daily Christian walk, nor something I have given much thought to in years, except outside of an occasional Bible study or, now, in these sorts of context.
How 'bout it, Marshall? We really agreeing?
Marshall...
To say that His life was given as a sacrifice makes no sense without His life being taken by death on the cross.
Why?
Hebrews 9:6-28 (New International Version)
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[b] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will,[c] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[d] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
You guys got stuff in between my last two.
But for Dan,
It appears we're in agreement to some extent and that's enough for now. But as to the rest of your quote of that "fella", I'm not so sure. Moral Example does nothing as it leads to a works based understanding that is counter to Biblical teaching. This is not to say that faith without works isn't empty or worthless, but that to say that it was how Christ lived that saves us is not accurate at all, and I don't think it can be supported. You have provided verses from Him that suggest this, but again, if He doesn't die on the cross, I don't think you can defend the notion that we ARE saved without His death. We can speculate all day long over what God can do if He wants, but we can only, at the end of that day, rest upon what He DID do according to Scripture.
Dan said...
"Again, this is one problem I have with Calvinism, I think it tends to misunderstand and caricaturize sin and forgiveness."
And Craig responded...
Thank you for your unsupported opinion, how can a theology that begins with total depravity and ends with eternal security minimize sin and forgiveness, the chariacture is yours.
I'll be glad to expound some more.
If Mr Calvinist says, "God can't JUST forgive! It would minimize the impact of sin."
I would respond, "We can't say 'God can't just forgive!' It minimizes God's amazing grace and the power of forgiveness."
We understand the horror of sin. I don't know of anyone who does not understand sin's destructive nature. We need look no further than 9/11, we need look no further than our inner city violence, we need look no further than how oxycontine is ravaging people in rural areas, we need look no further than our own black hearts when we've chosen deliberately to say a mean-spirited, unkindly remark.
We GET sin. We recognize its incendiary and insidious, invasive nature, how we get trapped in habits and mean-ness that we don't wish to be in, but feel helpless to get out of.
I don't know of anyone who doesn't "get" sin and its destructive power. BUT, we have an example of a better way!
We have an almighty God of the universe who can do anything who took it upon himself to humble himself and move in right next door to the druggies, the whores, the greedy and the hypocritical. He befriended us. When we went astray, he kindly corrected us, saying, "neither do I condemn you. go and sin no more." Oh, the great, great love of God! Grant me grace that I may walk in those ways!
How could that God love such a worm as I? I don't know, but I DO know that God loves us because God came right here and lived with us, loving us all the way. Still does!
Now, that WAS a supported opinion. I did not cite chapter and verse, but I assume you can see the Bible in those words. If not and it helps you, I'll be glad to cite them.
Do you see that as unsupported? If so, how so?
Craig,
Good luck with your trip to Haiti and I hope you find your friends there well. Prayers indeed go out and as money becomes available, it will go out as well.
Also, the whole "innocent" baby issue is part of a larger discussion of what Dan decides is worthy of taking literally and how that supports his claim to take the Bible seriously. CAN God or WOULD God allow "innocent" babies die as part of a mandate to destroy a wicked city or as part of a mission for an Angel of Death in Egypt. We say He would, could and did and that such stories are to be taken as literal retelling of actual events. Dan feels otherwise, but hasn't shown alternate understandings for those verses.
Bubba,
My meaning was that "ignore Bubba" mode means that Dan no longer wishes to deal with what I think is spot on critiques of his position and all it implies. He'll likely say you're just being mean so he'll decline to continue.
I think you both should remained engaged in the debate until a real resolution should emerge. What that might look like is anyone's guess, but I think any debate on such weighty issues should at least provide readers with total clarity over what each side believes about their own position and the problems of their opponents, if not a complete capitulation toward the superior position. Seems to me that if we're truly in search of the best understanding of God's Will, a readiness and eagerness to concede to the better undestanding should be a given. Not sure that's the case with all of us here. (You know who you are.)
Marshall said...
Moral Example does nothing as it leads to a works based understanding that is counter to Biblical teaching. This is not to say that faith without works isn't empty or worthless, but that to say that it was how Christ lived that saves us is not accurate at all, and I don't think it can be supported.
Paul said...
For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Romans 5:10
According to St Paul, we ARE saved by Jesus' life, we are only "reconciled" (Hebrew "ratsah," which means, "to be pleased with, accept favorably") by his death.
"The word "to reconcile" means literally to exchange, to bring into a changed relationship."
"The act of reconciling parties at variance; renewal of friendship after disagreement or enmity."
Which is part of why I say that forgiveness and sin are about breaking and restoring relationships, not about getting in and out of debt.
Anyway, Paul appears to think that Jesus' life saves us. Do you disagree with that take?
Dan,
Please direct me to the "Mr. Calvinist" who originated that quote.
Re: your other post, on one level I don't disagree with you, but on another Jesus' example doesn't save. Following Jesus' example doesn't save or lead to forgiveness of sin. Following Jesus' example can only come after we are saved. We can't do it alone, without God's power. So yes there is the example of Jesus life, but it's a part of a bigger picture. So we have at least partial agreement here. Still waiting for my questions to be answered.
MA,
Thanks for your thoughts and prayers. The mission director was/is in PaP when the quake happened which had his wife and kids worried. He is OK and right in the middle of it all. We're just in waiting mode right now.
Marshall said...
Moral Example does nothing as it leads to a works based understanding that is counter to Biblical teaching. This is not to say that faith without works isn't empty or worthless, but that to say that it was how Christ lived that saves us is not accurate at all, and I don't think it can be supported.
It does nothing? Says who?
Jesus came showing us a powerful, wonderful, godly way to live, in a way that surpasses any prophets or teachers. Jesus showed us by word and by deed that we CAN turn the other cheek, that we CAN overcome evil with good, that grace IS sufficient to save us. How powerful! How motivating! How regenerating!
At least for me. Do you not find yourself inspired and filled with grace by Jesus' life and words?
And yet, do I think we are saved by good works? Heavens, no! How could we possibly be? We are saved by God's sweet, sweet grace and mercy, poured out in our lives in Jesus' life, through the Spirit, through the church and in a million other ways. We are saved by grace to DO good works, right?
I don't know that the moral example in any way compels anyone to have a works-based salvation approach. Do you know many/any anabaptists? Mennonites? Amish? Rarely do I find any of them who are less than wonderful Christians and rarely if ever do I find any who believe we are saved by works (although I'm sure it's possible they exist).
The same is true for progressive Christians. They tend to strongly reject the notion of a works-based salvation and lean wholly on God's grace. And they tend to be ME theorists.
On what do you base your suggestion that ME would lead to a works-based salvation? I simply don't see that in the real world and I am surrounded by ME fans.
Although, in fairness, that's probably one reason we anabaptists also include PS and CV when we talk about atonement, to help balance things out.
1 Cor 5:7...
Doesn't say anything about paying a debt. It basically states get rid of the old and on with the new because Christ has made the sacrifice for us.
Which is what Dan has been saying all along.
None of the Scriptures that Marshall quoted address the debt issue either.
Craig asked me to source this quote:
If Mr Calvinist says, "God can't JUST forgive! It would minimize the impact of sin."
Of course, that is a made up quote, but one which I believe I can safely say I've heard in other words. For example...
Salvation by fiat is possible with God's power, but it's not compatible with His holy character: it doesn't account for the death we all deserve as the just penalty for sin, and a fiat declaration that sinners are justified is a capricious act that we would neither want nor expect from the Creator.
~Bubba
Or...
Salvation by fiat also doesn't explain the anguish in Gethsemane or the cry of dereliction on the cross,
~Bubba (and where he says, "by fiat," he is indicating God just choosing to forgive us. Period.)
I could be mistaken, but you can ask Bubba. I think he would agree with Mr Calvinist.
Let me look around and see if I can find others.
But does that mean that you disagree with "Mr. Calvinist?" That God COULD choose to "just forgive us" and doing so would not denigrate the "power of sin?" Or do you agree with Mr. Calvinist or would you express it in some other way?
Marty, as to where some people get the notion of a debt to be paid, there ARE scriptures out there that hint at this. Consider 1 Cor 7...
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
Of course, in that example, Paul is talking about actual slaves and it seems fairly clear that he is speaking metaphorically (ie, JUST AS some of you have been bought as slaves, WE ALL have been "bought" as slaves..., that kind of thing).
Also, 1 Cor 6, which is discussing sexual chastity...
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price.
But once again, it seems fairly clear to me that it is a metaphor being used. Paul is wanting to get across the idea that they ought not be sexually inappropriate in behavior, so he reminds them, "you were bought with a price..." to remind them of Jesus' sacrifice.
But this seems very much like someone chastising someone who didn't vote, saying, "Don't you know that our soldiers have fought and died for you to have the OPPORTUNITY to vote?!!" It's a metaphor to remind people of sacrifices made, not a purchase transacted.
Anyway, I know that there are passages that use words like "purchase" or "ransom," but in context, I don't see why they would take those anymore literally than they take sin-as-weight or sin-as-stain literally. It is obvious to them (us all), that these are metaphors, not literal. Why does the ONE expression, sin-as-debt, then cling so tightly to their imaginations? I expect it's due to cultural indoctrination, but that's just my hunch.
I CAN say for sure that back when I believed that way, it was because of cultural indoctrination moreso than biblical exegesis.
Did anyone answer the question: Why take the passages that show sin-as-weight metaphorically but ones that show sin-as-debt literal?
If nothing else, these conversations keep me in the Bible.
In using a concordance, I can find very little to nothing biblically speaking to this notion of a debt to be paid, a price to be paid,
Do a search on "debt," you get passages on literal debt or parables using debt as a metaphor.
Do a search on "owe" and you find passages talk about literally owing someone something.
Do a search on "price," other than the two passages I just quoted for Marty, you get the same thing.
Do a search on "paid," all the passages are about literal payments.
Same for "sin-debt." Same for "penalty."
Nothing. Nada.
I'm just not finding any of these expressions that many Calvinists and evangelicals like to use.
Although I was raised with this and have gone through several PSA-oriented evangelism studies, I am being surprised at how hard it is to find biblical support for the notion of sin-as-debt, or how sin requires a penalty be paid, or that sin requires a death to be paid, etc.
A little help?
Phew! And now, I reallllly have overstayed my welcome...
I will point out Craig asked...
Enough for now, off to more work, why don't my questions all get answered just the way I want them too?
This has been a rambling free for all kind of hootenanny. I have gone back and not noticed any questions that did not get answered. Sorry if I missed any...
Okay, looked a little further. I found the following questions that deal with "the age of accountability," which I DID address. However, I did not address each of his questions, so maybe Craig is looking for specific answers to each question.
So...
Where in scripture do you find the term "age of accountability"?
It's not in the scripture and I have not used it, at least any time lately. You brought it up, not me.
However, having said that, it is obvious that a one hour old infant has not committed a sin. You APPEAR to agree with this.
Further, I would state that it is self-evident that a one hour old infant CAN'T commit a sin.
As I already answered earlier, this is not rocket science. In order to commit a sin, one has to have the mental wherewithal to choose to do wrong and reject the right. I already gave the biblical support for this (he who knows to do good and does not do this, sins).
Is it your position that infants CAN in theory start choosing to sin within a day or something of being born? Do you think that the six month old child knows the difference between right and wrong? On what basis would you make such a decision?
For my part, I'm saying it is self-evident experientially in the real world that there is at least SOME range of age where infants don't know right/wrong and therefore can't choose to sin. There is nothing in the bible to challenge that except for a couple of statements that are obviously hyperbole.
Craig...
Where in scripture do you find the concept of some magic age where it all starts to count?
I just answered this, see above. It's not in the Bible. Nor is it in the Bible that one day old infants CAN choose to sin. In fact, I think the Bible is clear that you need to be able to know the good to do in order to choose to do it and I think the inverse is true, as well.
Do you disagree? Do you think that if you don't know something is a sin, that you can do that thing and be guilty, in a biblical, Godly, logical sort of way?
I mean, I fully understand that if you don't realize that shooting pistols into people's windows is wrong, that does not mean that you won't be charged with assault or murder under our legal system.
But I'm speaking of morally/biblically and right now, I'm speaking of specifically the instance of infants.
Those without the capability of understanding right/wrong can not be held guilty of sin.
Craig...
So when we see a 9 year old who has sexually molested a sibling, or killed a pet, or killed a younger sibling, are they off the hook because they haven't reached the magic age yet?
Nine year olds can understand right and wrong, as a general rule. However, if the nine year old had the brain of a six month old and truly did not understand what he was doing, they are not guilty of a sin or, in our legal system, a crime.
One has to understand right/wrong to be held guilty.
Again, this was all answered earlier in brief. I didn't cover each question because the answer was already given and remained the same.
So I repeat to you: Is it your contention that a six week old who rolls over and smothers his sibling is guilty of a sin?
Craig...
Do we as parents not have to punish our (below the magic age) children for lying or being selfish?
Yes, we need to discipline our children. It's part of how they learn to differentiate right/wrong.
Craig...
Can your Amelikite infant actually follow God will all its heart mind soul and spirit?
No. That is because an infant DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE RIGHT OR WRONG.
Do you disagree?
"Marty, as to where some people get the notion of a debt to be paid, there ARE scriptures out there that hint at this"
I looked at those you mentioned. I don't know. To get even a "notion" seems a pretty big leap to me.
"Why does the ONE expression, sin-as-debt, then cling so tightly to their imaginations?"
I'm thinking it's from those hymns like "He Paid a Debt He did not Owe", "Nothing But the Blood", "What a Wonderful Savior He Is", etc. If you hear something over and over and over enough....
Dan,
Now YOU are getting hung up on literalism. I don't know what you're expecting to have produced for you. No matter what words are used, be it "ransom", "debt payment", or whatever, the lesson being taught is still the same. They are all speaking of the fact that Christ's death is what washes away our sins, a specific act of God with the express purpose of granting that which YOU say is done by grace alone, that is, grace alone as if the death wasn't necessary or isn't the key which opens the door to us to that grace. As YOU say, sin separates us from God. Jesus' blood washes that sin away as the perfect sacrifice that makes all previous sacrifices pale by comparison, and eliminates the need for any further sacrifices, since none are good enough.
"28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people"
How many different ways can it be said in Scripture? Ransom, sacrifice, giving of His life...it's all the same meaning, which is that we are saved by grace THROUGH Christ's death. I don't care which "theory" of atonement you think best matches it, but it's an essential, fundamental, BASIC, absolute doctrine of the Christian faith.
Even where Christ told the rich, young man to give away all he owned and follow Him, the question is: follow Him where? To the cross, where He will give His life for all. We can "follow His example", but we cannot wash away the sins of the world, or even ourselves. We can only accept Jesus as our Savior and He's our Savior because He died on the cross sacrificing Himself so that we don't have to die a spiritual death, He died as ransom for our sins, He paid the price so that we don't have to, He shed His blood to wash away our sins thereby granting us salvation, saving us from God's wrath and judgment for our sinful imperfect selves.
Therefor, there is a definite and distinct causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation that is not met in any other way. Period. THAT is what the Bible teaches us.
Marshall...
it's all the same meaning, which is that we are saved by grace THROUGH Christ's death.
Then let me ask you again: When Paul said we are saved by his Life, what did he mean? Do you disagree with Paul and think that we are NOT being saved by Jesus' life?
Marshall...
They are all speaking of the fact that Christ's death is what washes away our sins, a specific act of God with the express purpose of granting that which YOU say is done by grace alone, that is, grace alone as if the death wasn't necessary or isn't the key which opens the door to us to that grace.
Well, that IS what is at question, here. DID Jesus' death "wash away" our sins or is that a metaphor?
And are you saying that there was no other way that God in all of God's glory and wisdom COULD POSSIBLY have demonstrated God's grace - by the death of Jesus?
Do you disagree with Spurgeon said...
Charles Spurgeon said...
“I do not know whether what Adam Smith supposes is correct, that in the garden of Gethsemane Christ did pay more of a price (for our sins) than he did even on the cross; but I am quite convinced that they are very foolish who get to such refinement that they think the atonement was made on the cross and nowhere else at all...”
Yes, no or "can't answer yes/no" and why?
Marshall:
"I think you both should remained engaged in the debate until a real resolution should emerge. What that might look like is anyone's guess, but I think any debate on such weighty issues should at least provide readers with total clarity over what each side believes about their own position and the problems of their opponents, if not a complete capitulation toward the superior position. Seems to me that if we're truly in search of the best understanding of God's Will, a readiness and eagerness to concede to the better undestanding should be a given. Not sure that's the case with all of us here. (You know who you are.)"
The end of the paragraph is why I disagree with the premise of the beginning of the paragraph.
Because I don't believe Dan is willing to yield to better arguments -- or even to engage those arguments in good faith -- there's pretty much no chance for a "real resolution."
I see at least three things going on that suggest that Dan still isn't arguing in good faith.
1) Last week he went some distance (some, not all) toward admitting that that the process of forgiveness isn't always simple, that, in our own lives, "the obligation to pay for the damages may still exist apart from the forgiveness." Despite that, he returns to the claim that we are to forgive "simply" -- a word that he adds to the text -- implying that God forgives simply.
That forgiveness is a simple task, that we're commanded to forgive "simply", and that therefore God forgives "simply" isn't something that Dan has actually proven. I tried to get to the heart of that matter, but now he acts as if it's already proven, a point that he should argue rather than assume.
2) He has a history of misusing comments and taking them out of context, from the Psalms, from I Peter, and from Ben Franklin, and here he uses a quote from Spurgeon to argue that the atonement might not have been made solely on the cross, missing the point entirely that SPURGEON CLEARLY BELIEVED THAT THE ATONEMENT *WAS* MADE ON THE CROSS, which is completely contrary to the point Dan's trying to make.
Spurgeon believes that the atonement WAS made on the cross, and from that quote it seems he thinks it might have ALSO begun in Gethsemane. Dan focuses on the minor question of whether the atonement extends to the garden, ignoring the obvious and significant point that he disagrees entirely with Spurgeon that atonement was made on the cross.
[continued]
[continued]
3) Most importantly, he's making an argument about language that does not AND CANNOT prove what he suggests.
Christ bore our sins on the cross (I Pet 2:24), as if they were a weight .
Christ gave Himself as a ransom (Mk 10:45), as if His death was a payment for a debt.
And the saints' robes have been washed white by Christ's blood (Rev 7:14), as if sin were a stain.
All of these are figurative expressions that can have ONLY ONE POSSIBLE MEANING: Christ's death caused the forgiveness of our sins.
Neil is right that theological liberals don't hold to beliefs that are a little different: their beliefs are the opposite of what Christianity affirms.
And, here, Dan's position isn't to hold to the literal meaning behind the Bible's figurative expressions regarding Christ's death and our forgiveness, that Christ's death caused our forgiveness: he affirms THE EXACT OPPOSITE, that His death isn't what caused our forgiveness, that God forgives "simply" because of grace and nothing else.
All this figurative language about how Christ's death was responsible for our salvation leads to only one biblical conclusion: Christ's death was responsible for our salvation.
Dan believes just the opposite and harps on an irrelevant point about figurative language.
Unless he's genuinely incapable of thinking clearly, the typically true-but-irrelevant points about figurative language is a deliberate smokescreen.
I'm not going to continue wasting my time addressing Dan directly, because it's clear he doesn't argue in good faith. I must resign myself to the fact that our discussions have never and WILL NEVER be adequately resolved unless that changes.
To correct a few misunderstsandings:
Bubba...
missing the point entirely that SPURGEON CLEARLY BELIEVED THAT THE ATONEMENT *WAS* MADE ON THE CROSS, which is completely contrary to the point Dan's trying to make.
I believe the point that Spurgeon was making was quite clear. Those who claim that atonement was ONLY found on the cross and no where else at all are being foolish.
I believe the atonement was made on the cross. And in Jesus' teachings. And in Jesus life. And in Jesus' resurrection. But, to be sure, including the cross. It is all part of God's atoning, amazing grace.
Now you hopefully can understand your mistaken view of my position and that I was not speaking the opposite of what Spurgeon said. OR, do you STILL think that I'm incorrectly reading Spurgeon? I think Spurgeon is saying the atonement was not limited to the cross. Is that what you're getting?
Bubba also said...
All of these are figurative expressions that can have ONLY ONE POSSIBLE MEANING: Christ's death caused the forgiveness of our sins.
As I have said, Jesus' death IS part of what saves us. Just as Jesus' life is (according to St Paul). Do you disagree with St Paul or are you, he and I all in agreement that we are saved by Jesus' life and reconciled by his death?
The Bible does not use the language of causation (ie, Jesus' death CAUSED our forgiveness or is what saves us). I fully agree that we are saved by Jesus life and Jesus' death, that we find forgiveness and grace in Jesus' death (and in Jesus' life). Does that mean his death CAUSED our salvation and forgiveness, or that it DEMONSTRATES our salvation and forgiveness? I feel more comfortable with the language of demonstration than causality, but I'll not argue with you if you prefer to say "cause."
Do you mind terribly if it's not my preferred way of talking of God's grace? I find that the Bible clearly teaches that we are SAVED BY GRACE, through faith in Jesus. THAT language is what I am most comfortable with, because it is a direct quote.
The Bible says "how much more shall we be saved by Jesus' life" and so, I am NOT comfortable with those who would limit atonement to only Jesus' death. It is Jesus' death and death alone that saves us and "causes" God to forgive us is not language that I'm entirely comfortable with, because they are not biblical description of what happened.
Bubba, do you disagree with St. Paul?
Is anyone willing to address the "saved by Jesus' life" quote from the Bible?
Neil is right that theological liberals don't hold to beliefs that are a little different: their beliefs are the opposite of what Christianity affirms.
1. "theological liberals" are all over the board, not unlike anabaptists. It's hard and unfair to speak of them as a monolith.
2. So, speaking of just myself, my beliefs are most certainly NOT the opposite of what Christianity affirms.
3. I believe in God the almighty creator of heaven and earth.
4. I believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God, born of a virgin, who came, lived, taught, loved, died and rose again.
5. I believe that we are sinners in need of salvation.
6. I believe we can't be "good enough" to "earn" our way to salvation.
7. I believe that, instead, we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus, the Messiah, the son of God.
8. I believe that we are saved to follow in the steps of Christ, heeding his teachings, preaching in his words, "Good news to the poor, liberty for the captives, healing for the ill, the day of God's good favor!"
THIS I BELIEVE.
I challenge anyone to say that this is not standard orthodox Christianity. And CERTAINLY NOT the opposite of Christianity.
No, that would be more like saying, "yeah, it's okay to kill our enemies, and God sometimes might have us commit evil deeds like wiping out a people, even the infants and it would be okay," THAT would be closer to the opposite of Christianity.
Christianity, you know, the stuff that Jesus the Christ taught. That which I believe.
Dan, your list of beliefs that align with orthodoxy does not obscure or make up for the beliefs which deviate significantly from the Bible's clear teachings and Christianity's essential doctrines.
The Bible is clear that we are saved, not only by God's grace, but by Christ's death, and you deny this teaching.
Jesus Christ Himself taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, and you deny the clear meaning of that teaching to suggest that we are "simply" saved by God's grace but not Christ's death, which you treat as a mere manifestation of grace BUT NOT the grounds of our salvation.
In the Sermon on the Mount that you supposedly esteem so highly, Jesus Christ affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke, but you set Christ against Scripture by slandering the text, asserting that it teaches that "God sometimes might have us commit evil deeds."
(That's a claim the Bible doesn't make, and a claim that we don't make. Your denigrating as evil God's sovereign decision to end human life THAT HE CREATED, when and how He chooses, is a very serious act.)
On the authority of Scripture, on the reason that we were made male and female, on the clear physical nature of the Resurrection, on God's eternal judgment against sin, and most especially on the reason for His own death, you contradict Christ's teachings strongly, again and again.
The ONLY times you clearly affirm what Christ taught is when you think that a particular teaching can be used to advance your political agenda, as you routinely invoke (even just now) and distort Jesus' message of liberation.
(How many people did Jesus release from physical prisons? None -- not even John the Baptist -- unless you want to count Barrabas. What did Jesus do to secure a physical Jubilee? NOTHING that's recorded in the New Testament. But Jesus released ALL THE REDEEMED from the chains of sin, and He did so THROUGH HIS DEATH, as the New Testament makes clear, repeatedly and emphatically.)
It's simply not true that you follow Christ's teachings.
That's a transparent and damnable lie.
Instead, you trump the Bible's teachings and even Christ's teachings with what is probably blasphemous appeals to "God's word written on your heart."
You're a unrepentant liar, Dan, and I'm tired of extending you any courtesy beyond calling you exactly what your writing proves you to be.
Bubba...
The Bible is clear that we are saved, not only by God's grace, but by Christ's death, and you deny this teaching.
Have not.
Bubba...
Jesus Christ Himself taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, and you deny the clear meaning of that teaching to suggest that we are "simply" saved by God's grace but not Christ's death, which you treat as a mere manifestation of grace BUT NOT the grounds of our salvation.
1. I agree with Jesus that his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin. It is shed as part of God's grace, as a manifestation of God's grace, as you note.
2. Jesus does not differentiate "When I say 'shed for forgiveness of sin,' I mean as a manifestation of God's grace OR as the cause, apart from God's grace." Jesus did not clarify. I think clearly, it is a manifestation of God's grace, which the Bible is quite clear HOW we are saved ("IT IS BY GRACE YOU ARE SAVED...").
3. Since Jesus did not clarify, do you mind horribly if we have an in-house disagreement on HOW exactly Jesus meant for us to take that passage, or have you got some personal word from Jesus that means your hunch trumps mine?
4. I have NOT said that we are NOT saved by Jesus' death. Quite the opposite. I have said that we ARE saved by Jesus' death, and life, as manifestations of God's grace. That is not the same as saying we are NOT saved by Jesus' death.
5. Paul says quite clearly that we are saved by Jesus' life. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH PAUL AND REJECT THE BIBLE'S CLEAR TEACHING ON THIS POINT?
Bubba...
but you set Christ against Scripture by slandering the text, asserting that it teaches that "God sometimes might have us commit evil deeds."
(That's a claim the Bible doesn't make, and a claim that we don't make.
Nor is it a claim I make. So it would appear that you, I and the Bible are all in agreement on that point. God will NOT have us commit evil deeds. I have been quite clear on this point, I'm sorry you have misunderstood, but now you can see that we all agree, God does not command evil acts.
Got it?
On the authority of Scripture, on the reason that we were made male and female, on the clear physical nature of the Resurrection, on God's eternal judgment against sin, and most especially on the reason for His own death, you contradict Christ's teachings strongly, again and again.
Do not. As I've noted in the past, that I disagree with Bubba's or Marshall's hunch is not the same thing as saying that I disagree with God or the Bible.
I simply do not contradict Jesus' teachings. You have apparently been mistaken. Now you know better.
You're welcome.
Bubba...
You're a unrepentant liar, Dan, and I'm tired of extending you any courtesy beyond calling you exactly what your writing proves you to be.
And yet you can't point to a single lie that I have uttered.
Disagreeing with you or even making an error (which I sometimes do, believe it or not) is not the same as lying.
But you can feel free to be as rude and ugly as you like, man. I don't recommend it myself. Embrace grace, my friend. Life's too short to be angry all the time.
In the meantime, rude answer or not, I'd be interested in knowing if you disagree with Paul's teaching that we are saved by Jesus' life? Do you reject the Bible, Bubba?
"...I'd prefer you re-join the fun..."
It's not fun. It's boooooooring.
"NOW the argument has merit!"
This is precisely what I'm talking about. You changed the conditions of my analogy to fit your argument because you only see things the way you prefer to see them. Sorry. I have no interest in playing that game with you.
Yesterday, I created "Mr. Calvinist" to put out a quote that I thought summed up Calvinism. That quote was...
"God can't JUST forgive! It would minimize the impact of sin."
Craig asked me where I got that quote. I said that I thought it was a fair summary of the thoughts of many more Calvinist-ish types.
I offered some of Bubba's quotes as a reference. I'd like to add at least one more. Bubba said...
your view doesn't account for the punishment and penalty that our sins deserve; it's apparently enough for you that sinners "feel" that they've done wrong.
Two things:
1. I'd like a source for the notion of the "penalty that our sins deserve." I am aware that the wages (ie, what you get for services rendered) is said to be death. But wages does not equal penalty. It's what comes naturally from a job done (in this case, the metaphorical job is living sinfully). It goes hand in hand with it. But is it described anywhere in the bible as a penalty?
2. What sinners "feel" or don't feel is not the question. Repentance involves KNOWING that you have done wrong, agreeing that it IS wrong, apologizing FOR the wrong and turning around FROM the wrong.
[Does anyone doubt that definition of repentance is biblical or want to change it? If not...] Then THE BIBLE tells us that If we repent of our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them. To blot them out, to wipe them away. NOT to pay them off.
So, yes, it IS enough, biblically speaking, for the sinner to repent of their sins and follow Jesus. That is the biblical teaching of how we are saved by God's grace. Disagree?
And, as with the others, I think that is a fair comparison between Mr Calvin and the views of some.
Dan:
About Mt 26:28, you write:
"Jesus does not differentiate 'When I say "shed for forgiveness of sin," I mean as a manifestation of God's grace OR as the cause, apart from God's grace.'"
You present a false dilemma and a strawman of our position: our position is not that we are saved by Christ's death "apart from God's grace."
Our position is that we're saved by God's grace AND Christ's death AND our faith.
I made this clear by asking, on more than one occasion, whether you believe we're saved by God's grace AND Christ's death, or by God's grace BUT NOT Christ's death. I have never AND WILL NEVER assert salvation apart from God's grace.
To suggest otherwise is sloppy at best and dishonest at worst.
On the subject of this passage, it makes no sense for Christ to have taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, ONLY as a manifestation of saving grace rather than the actual cause of salvation.
You dissociate His death and our forgiveness by inserting an indirect connection -- His death is merely a manifestation of God's grace, and we are forgiven "simply" by God's grace -- which is not justified by this DIRECT CONNECTION that Jesus Christ Himself teaches, hours before His death, while instituting the only regular observance of the church He founded.
[more]
Dan:
"I have NOT said that we are NOT saved by Jesus' death. Quite the opposite. I have said that we ARE saved by Jesus' death, and life, as manifestations of God's grace. That is not the same as saying we are NOT saved by Jesus' death."
You have speculated that we would have been saved even if Jesus had died of old age, to hell with the content of (and His Father's response to) His prayers in Gethsemane. You reiterate that we're saved only by God's grace, implicitly to the exclusion of Christ's death, and what I quote above -- from the very same comment -- strongly suggests that you don't really think we're saved by Christ's death.
"Jesus does not differentiate 'When I say "shed for forgiveness of sin," I mean as a manifestation of God's grace OR as the cause, apart from God's grace.'"
Here, you present two alternatives: that Christ's death caused our forgiveness **OR** that it's a manifestation of God's saving grace. Since you clearly uphold the latter, you deny the former: you deny the causal connection between His death and our forgiveness.
About whether we or the Bible teaches that God commands evil acts, you now suggest some sort of consensus, writing, "it would appear that you, I and the Bible are all in agreement on that point. God will NOT have us commit evil deeds. I have been quite clear on this point, I'm sorry you have misunderstood, but now you can see that we all agree, God does not command evil acts."
You know the problem with this glib and fundamentally dishonest statement, Dan.
You routinely dismiss as atrocity the Bible's clear teaching that God commanded ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation.
You slander God as He is portrayed in the Bible, by insinuating that the command was to "slaughter" "children" specifically.
You don't even stop with the difficult commands, concluding that the Bible's record of THE PASSOVER, of all things, is not historically accurate.
Your contempt for these clear teachings of the Bible could not be more blatant.
And you write, "you can't point to a single lie that I have uttered."
I can, as I have done in the past.
That's only the most recent lie: "you can't point to a single lie that I have uttered" is itself a lie.
To dismiss as "hunches" what we affirm as the Bible's clear teachings is also a lie, built on the dishonest premise that the Bible is not clear on any subject.
The claim that you believe the "stuff that Jesus the Christ taught" is one of the more serious lies you repeat, without any apparent shame or remorse.
You believe some of it, but not all: and some of what you affirm, you distort beyond all recognition.
Dan,
I, for one, do not think Paul was wrong in saying what he said in Rom 5:10. I do, however, know you are misunderstanding what is being said. That verse is a restatement of the previous, where reconciled in verse 10 was "justified" in verse 9. "...through the death of His Son..." replaces "by His blood". and so forth.
But "saved through His life" is a reference to His life after the resurrection, that it is never ending, that Christ lives on to keep us. It's not about His life before the crucifixion. Look again at verse 9: "Since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through Him!" Not have been saved but shall be saved through His life. His life that proceeds on forever after His resurrection.
Regarding Spurgeon, I've looked at a few of his sermons and could not find what you've presented, but like Bubba, I think you are off base on what he believes as this sermon, one of a few I read over, indicates.
As for repenting and following Jesus, what does "follow Jesus" mean except to follow Him on His terms and by His teachings, which explicitly state that He will die for the forgiveness of sins. We know He had the power to forgive sins, and He did, but to specific people as each case is described in the Gospels. But He didn't save the rest of us until He sacrificed Himself on the cross. THAT is the means through which God's grace was poured out for all who believes in Jesus.
If one was to follow Jesus, but didn't believe that He was more than just a cool dude who performed a few miracles, but was just a guy who died, period, is he really following Christ even if his whole life seems to be more Christ-like than the holiest of homosexuals at Jeff St?
"1. I'd like a source for the notion of the "penalty that our sins deserve.""
This is illustrated by every reference for why Christ died on the cross. To insist on specific wording to satisfy your specific request won't change the facts should no exact wording be produced. If the wages of sin is death, then death is the penalty our sins deserve. Why play the word games over something you damned well know to be the case if not to support your preferred view of the world and how your progressive leanings suppose it should be?
Bubba...
To suggest otherwise is sloppy at best and dishonest at worst.
Just sloppy. My apologies.
Bubba...
On the subject of this passage, it makes no sense for Christ to have taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, ONLY as a manifestation of saving grace rather than the actual cause of salvation.
? Okay. I guess for you, it makes no sense. To me, it does make sense, given the context of the rest of the Bible and what we've learned (or NOT learned) about sin and forgiveness in the Bible.
IF we have learned that sin is rebellion against God, a choosing of the wrong way instead of the right, and as a result, we have a broken relationship - one which needs restoration; and
IF we have learned that restoration comes from repentance and turning away from the wrong (as the bible teaches repeatedly);
THEN the death of Jesus is the supreme example of our turning our hearts against God and the extreme example of how far wrong we've gone and the SUPREME example of how far God would go to meet us - even knowing it would lead to Jesus' death...
THEN it becomes obvious that Jesus life AND death are the SUPREME manifestations of God's grace.
You're free to disagree, but the text does not say what you're saying ("it makes no sense..."), that is your conclusion post scripture, as mine is my conclusion. It may make no sense TO YOU, but that does not mean that you get to decide for the rest of humanity what does and doesn't make sense.
Marshall...
Regarding Spurgeon, I've looked at a few of his sermons and could not find what you've presented, but like Bubba, I think you are off base on what he believes
Spurgeon's sermon.
It says what it says. He clearly did not limit the atonement to the death of Christ, at least at the time when he preached that sermon. How else can you take such an obvious quote?
Les,
I can understand your feeling such is booring. But then, those who cannot defend their positions often feel that way. In my case, however, I'm not bored by being enlightened and crave the opportunity to be so. Logic would dictate that it should be even more boring to continually correct poorly thought out opinions, indefensible positions and really stupid interpretations, but somehow I'm not really that bored by it. So I guess that's another distinction between us.
As to your analogy, I don't recall that I changed anything about it except to show that it worked better to support my position rather than to weaken it. It's not that I have any preference for seeing things except for how they actually are. The reality here is that you really have no interest in playing any game that you continually lose. Here's a hint: try getting on the winning side for a change.
Now, Dan, about Romans 5, you ask:
"DO YOU DISAGREE WITH PAUL AND REJECT THE BIBLE'S CLEAR TEACHING ON THIS POINT?"
You have a lot of nerve asking this question, since you have written that it is "doubtless" that some of Paul's teachings were the result of bigotry and/or homophobia.
(On the subject of Christ's teachings, which you supposedly follow, I'll remind you that, just a few weeks ago, here, you explained that you believe Christ's choosing of twelve men to be His closest followers was "clearly a nod to the sexist society in which he lived.")
To question others' adherence to Paul's teachings is galling.
But what should one expect from someone who so frequently and flagrantly lies about so many important subjects?
To answer your question, I do not deny any of the Bible's teachings, and so I do not deny any of Paul's teachings contained therein.
More to the point, I affirm all of what Paul wrote in the passage you cite.
"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.
"Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life." - Rom 5:6-10
I affirm all of this, including teachings that you dismiss, that Christ died for us, that we have been justified by His blood, and that we have been reconciled to God through His death.
I also affirm that we will be saved by His life, but I dispute the spin you're trying to give that claim.
It seems that you want to argue that we're saved by grace as made manifest through Christ's life before the Crucifixion, but I don't think that's what Paul is talking about.
I believe that Paul here is referencing Christ's PRESENT-DAY life, His RESURRECTED life, as Romans 8 seems to explain a bit of what Paul only briefly mentions here.
" If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you." - Rom 8:11
We will be given life by the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead.
Earlier in the letter (4:24-25), we see another reason to take this view, as Paul wrote that the righteousness will be reckoned "to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification."
We've been raised with Christ (Col 2:12, 3:1), and I Cor 12 teaches that, if Christ isn't raised, we're dead in our sins.
Paul's emphasize is on Christ's death and, secondarily, His resurrection.
There's nothing to justify your approach of "it's all one cloth," where everything Christ did was a mere manifestation of God's grace, and where none of it was an actual cause of our forgiveness.
Marshall...
This is illustrated by every reference for why Christ died on the cross. To insist on specific wording to satisfy your specific request won't change the facts should no exact wording be produced. If the wages of sin is death, then death is the penalty our sins deserve. Why play the word games over something you damned well know to be the case if not to support your preferred view of the world
You're begging the question. You're assuming your position is correct and saying, "Why play word games when our position is correct???" Well, whether or not your position is correct is what is in question here.
Hence the words are important.
Now, I will state once again that this simply is not THAT big a deal to me. If you want to prefer to think that our forgiveness was secured by Jesus' death alone, I don't really care. I'm not saying you're wholly wrong, just that I don't think you're wholly right.
But I would not break fellowship over someone who believes that.
I wouldn't even raise it as a question except for the fact that you all have been insistent upon MY defending my position, which is that we're saved by God's grace and that grace is made manifest in Jesus' life and death and resurrection and, thus, one can rightly say that Jesus' death "paid" (metaphorically) for the forgiveness of our sins and that this death served to "reconcile" us to God (as Paul says) and not be wrong. I just don't think the Bible supports that as the one and only way of viewing atonement.
In other words, it's not so much that I'm disagreeing with you all (I'm not, much), just to the extent and the direction that you are taking it and the fact that you reject those who differ even as slightly as I do with your position. But live and let live, I say. If that is what makes most sense to you and how you best understand God's grace, by which we are saved, then believe it. You'll get no grief from me.
I would just ask for the same grace towards those, like me and Marty and apparently Spurgeon, who hold these slight disagreements with you.
From the URL Dan cited, I cannot find the quote regarding Adam Smith, much less any mention of Smith, so I cannot find the context of that quote.
Bubba...
To question others' adherence to Paul's teachings is galling.
Yes, I know. I'm galling. You'll have to get over that, brother. That I think Paul was a sinful human and a product of his society is hardly surprising or unorthodox.
Again, relax a bit, pal.
Bubba...
There's nothing to justify your approach of "it's all one cloth," where everything Christ did was a mere manifestation of God's grace
Well, that IS an interesting hunch that you and Marshall have constructed. That when Paul said, "how much more shall we be saved by his life," that Paul MEANT "his life after resurrection."
I reckon it could even be true, hypothetically. But, it's not what it says.
continued...
The text and context of Romans 5...
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us....
We have PEACE with God through Jesus Christ
Through whom we have gained access to grace, in which we stand...
Not only that, but we have HOPE, which does not disappoint us. Why, because we know that even though we suffer these persecutions (as seen in their own lives but especially in the LIFE of Christ) that they lead to perseverance, character and hope!
This seems to me to be clearly talking about the life of Jesus, leading up to his crucifixion.
Carrying on...
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
IF, while we were God's enemies (ie, we had that broken relationship through sin we learn of throughout the Bible), we were reconciled to God through Jesus death - his sacrificial pouring out of his LIFE! - and thus we have been saved through his LIFE!
I just see no real justification to insert extra words (through his life... after the resurrection). I'm queasy about adding to the bible that way, you know?
It's a fine theory that you all have, but I don't think the text really demands that at all. I think, EVEN THOUGH BUBBA has another hunch - that it IS all of one cloth. Jesus life, death and resurrection are ALL a manifestation of God's grace.
I think that is the most biblical and logical position to take. You can disagree, but you can't say that it is not my opinion that it is the most biblical position to take, because, clearly, that is the case.
From the URL Dan cited, I cannot find the quote regarding Adam Smith, much less any mention of Smith, so I cannot find the context of that quote.
Apparently the first quote incorrectly said "smith." It's Adam Clarke, in this text.
Dan, you're being a hypocrite.
While you feel free to question whether we deny Paul's teachings, you ACTUALLY dismiss some of his teachings as what is "doubtless" the result of bigotry and/or homophobia, and you think people should relax about your blatant hypocrisy.
Evidently, you don't really hold to the principle of adherence to ALL OF the teachings of Paul, who was a hand-picked apostle of Jesus Christ and who taught with Christ's authority. You use the principle as a mere tactic to score rhetorical points when it suits you.
And, to denigrate our positions as "hunches" would be hilarious if it weren't so offensive: when we justify our interpretation of Paul's claim in Romans 5, at least we do so according to OTHER THINGS PAUL WROTE.
Your interpretation is pulled out of your ass -- oh, I'm sorry, it's from "God's word written on your heart," I'm sure. What isn't provided in support of your position is a reasonable appeal to other passages of Scripture.
Now, you say that your position is "that we're saved by God's grace and that grace is made manifest in Jesus' life and death and resurrection."
There's a world of difference between the position that Christ's death is merely a manifestation (one of many) of saving grace, and the position that Christ's death is **THE** expression of grace that is **ACTUALLY** causally responsible for our salvation.
We believe that Christ's death caused our forgiveness. So did Spurgeon, for what it's worth.
Most importantly, this is what the Bible clearly teaches.
It's dishonest to portray your position as a "slight" disagreement.
It's equally dishonest to ask for grace over our disagreement while you're quoting sources that inaccurately portray our beliefs as "focusing simply on God's wrath and appeasement" to the exclusion of His love, and that denigrate our beliefs as "fundamentally unjust."
Dan, Dan, Dan:
"IF, while we were God's enemies (ie, we had that broken relationship through sin we learn of throughout the Bible), we were reconciled to God through Jesus death - his sacrificial pouring out of his LIFE! - and thus we have been saved through his LIFE!
"I just see no real justification to insert extra words (through his life... after the resurrection). I'm queasy about adding to the bible that way, you know?"
Quesy, right.
Except, above, where you augment Christ's death by saying its "his sacrificial pouring out of his LIFE!" so you can do the song and dance about how it's all one cloth, though Scripture teaches that NOWHERE.
And except for where you write, earlier, that we're taught to forgive "simply", when the Bible doesn't ever teach whether the process of forgiveness is always simple or sometimes complex.
Or when you quote passages that commend marriage and apply them to behavior that the Bible consistently condemns, and behavior which contradicts Christ's stated reason for why we were created male and female.
You don't like our interpretation, fine, but it's asinine for you to act as if you are reluctant to extrapolate from Scripture when you do that, not only constantly, but in the PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY PRIOR.
Bubba...
We believe that Christ's death caused our forgiveness. So did Spurgeon, for what it's worth.
And, as I have said repeatedly, so do I. For what it's worth. It's just that neither I, nor Spurgeon, nor the Bible LIMIT God's atoning grace to the death of Jesus alone.
So, are we all in agreement, or are you among those that Spurgeon called "foolish?"
To leave on the most civil note I can, I appreciate the clarification about that URL.
Spurgeon preached, immediately after that quote, "We believe that [atonement] was made in the garden as well as on the cross; and it strikes me that in the garden one part of Christ’s work was finished, wholly finished, and that was his conflict with Satan."
One possibility is that Spurgeon believed that the atonement occurred through the entire Passion -- from Gethsemane to Calvary, either those two events atomically or with all the events between -- rather than Christ's entire life (from Bethlehem) or ministry (from His baptism).
The point is, I don't believe there's any real question that Spurgeon believed that Christ's death actually WAS causally responsible for the atonement, at least in part.
And, more importantly, the Bible is clear that Christ's death caused our forgiveness: that is the ONLY reasonable meaning behind the figurative language about how He gave His life as a ransom, how He bore our sins on the cross, and how His blood washed our garments white.
What you seem to mean, in saying that Christ's death saves us "in a sense" is that it doesn't really save us at all.
You seem to think that it's just a signifier of God's grace, which you believe saves us apart from Christ's death: Christ's death is a manifestation of God's saving grace, but it's only God's grace that saves.
That is a huge difference from what we believe, and from what we believe the Bible clearly teaches.
If you really believed that Christ's death directly caused our forgiveness, you would have said so long ago.
Setting aside which position is correct, I believe that honest, good-faith discussion simply isn't possible with you until you admit the chasm that separates our positions -- and until you are a bit more forthright about what your position is.
The difference in our beliefs is serious.
It's certainly serious enough for you to quote people who denigrate our position as fundamentally immoral.
It would be a good first step not to play games about how our disagreement is "slight," when it suits you do to so -- that is, when you ask for the grace in disagreement that you yourself are not willing to give.
But since I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with you until that first step is made -- really, until good-faith discussion is truly possible -- I take my leave again, truly sorry that I didn't stay away earlier.
Bubba...
And, to denigrate our positions as "hunches" would be hilarious if it weren't so offensive: when we justify our interpretation of Paul's claim in Romans 5, at least we do so according to OTHER THINGS PAUL WROTE.
Your interpretation is pulled out of your ass
Does that mean you think the Word of God is "my ass?" Because, I'm just reading the text, brother. The TEXT says that we are saved by Jesus' life. Period.
Funny how when I read the Bible literally, you find that reason to mock. And when I reasonably find texts that are best understood as metaphor, you mock.
I guess you can go with your strengths, friend. I'd just think you'd be happier if you were to relax a bit and embrace the grace. Show a bit of that which has been shown to you.
But if you want to call the Word of God an "ass," well, your call. It's on you.
I'd suggest that you'd be better to be cautious because the Bible DOES warn about calling that which is of God, NOT of God and calling the Word of God an "ass" seems to be close to that.
One man's opinion.
You're welcome.
Bubba...
The point is, I don't believe there's any real question that Spurgeon believed that Christ's death actually WAS causally responsible for the atonement, at least in part.
Then, Spurgeon and I agree. In part, Jesus' death led to our atonement - being made at one with God, by God's grace as acted out in the death of Christ.
As the Bible says.
Bubba...
And, more importantly, the Bible is clear that Christ's death caused our forgiveness: that is the ONLY reasonable meaning behind the figurative language about how He gave His life as a ransom
I fully understand that, while the Bible never SAYS that Jesus' death CAUSED our forgiveness, that is how you find it best described. And I'm okay with you holding that opinion about what the Bible might be suggesting.
I don't wholly disagree with you, as I have said. In a sense, truly it could be said that Jesus' death caused our forgiveness. If that is the language that makes you most comfortable, God bless you, go in peace.
As to that being the "only reasonable meaning behind" the language in the Bible that talks about atonement, I'm okay if that is your opinion on the matter, too. You're not alone in having that hunch about what the Bible is implying, what God would teach us.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I just agree with Spurgeon that it would be foolish to say that the atonement was made on the cross and nowhere else at all. Spurgeon apparently, and I definitely, do not think that a valid or wise biblical conclusion. We have a different hunch than those who Spurgeon would call "foolish."
Here's hoping that you won't feel the need to posthumously charge Spurgeon with heresy, or that you will feel no need to take me to the inquisitors, either.
And I hope that you can appreciate that that was said with a smile on my face, fully recognizing that in myself and others like me, we sometimes get so hot about "defending the Gospel" (as if!) that we get a little Crusade-y sometimes.
Here's praying for grace for all of us losers.
Bubba...
You seem to think that it's just a signifier of God's grace, which you believe saves us apart from Christ's death: Christ's death is a manifestation of God's saving grace, but it's only God's grace that saves.
As the Bible says, yes, I DO have the crazy notion that it is BY GRACE that we are saved, through faith in Jesus. That's how the Bible puts it and that's how I find it best described in the Bible.
Do you mind terribly if I find that the best way to talk about our salvation? It is my opinion, I'm sure you're okay with me holding my own opinion and, if not, I'm sure you'll get over it.
Setting aside which position is correct, I believe that honest, good-faith discussion simply isn't possible with you until you admit the chasm that separates our positions -- and until you are a bit more forthright about what your position is.
My position is as I have stated it. Why do you have such a hard time accepting that? Do you think I have time and find it fun to spend too much time on the computer saying something I don't even believe? When I say I think we are saved by grace, what I mean by that is, "I think we are saved by grace."
I am a sinner in many ways, to be sure, but generally speaking, when I write something, it is because I believe it.
Still, I'll have to admit that I don't mind you stepping away. You bring a vitriol and bitterness to discussions that makes it less enjoyable. I hope you find some peace in your day to day life, friend.
Bubba...
The difference in our beliefs is serious.
You are free to think so. If you don't mind, I'll disagree.
"Does that mean you think the Word of God is "my ass?" Because, I'm just reading the text, brother. The TEXT says that we are saved by Jesus' life. Period."
Just to clarify, you are saying the the text says that 9and only that) we are saved by Jesus life. Period". You are saying this is contradictory that we are saved by Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. So when the text says that we are saved by his death are you arguing that the text doesn't say that? Why don't you do one of your searches and look up the number of times the Bible says we are saved by His life period (full verses in context only) and where the Bible says we are saved by His death or resurrection. I'd be interested to see what you find.
Craig...
Just to clarify, you are saying the the text says that 9and only that) we are saved by Jesus life. Period". You are saying this is contradictory that we are saved by Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. So when the text says that we are saved by his death are you arguing that the text doesn't say that?
I'm very glad to clarify. You have got me way wrong. I have not said "by his life and ONLY by his life."
I'm saying that the text says that we are saved by his life and I think that IS TRUE. There are other passages that suggest (I don't think there are any places that outright say this, though) we are saved by his death. I think THOSE are true, too.
Also, the Bible tells us quite clearly that we are saved by God's grace. I think THAT's the best way of describing it, but I think the others are all true, too, in a sense.
As I have said repeatedly.
Craig asked...
Why don't you do one of your searches and look up the number of times the Bible says we are saved by His life period (full verses in context only) and where the Bible says we are saved by His death or resurrection. I'd be interested to see what you find.
"By his death" appears one time, as far as I can see...
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil
Hebrews 2
"give his life" appears...
the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Matt 20
and that same basic verse again appears in Mark 10
"lays down his life" appears
The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
John 10
"His life was taken" appears in a quote from Isaiah...
In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."
That is repeated in Acts 8
As we all now know...
we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
[by the way, Craig, do you think that means literally we are saved by Jesus' life or do you find some other meaning, like Bubba and Marshall?]
2 Cor 4 says...
For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body.
1 John 3 tells us...
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
Romans 4 says...
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
And, looking at the rest of Romans 5, we find...
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
And ultimately, THAT is what I believe: God's abundant grace and the gift of righteousness is THROUGH one man, Jesus.
Not "through his death," not even "through his life," but THROUGH THE ONE MAN, JESUS. THAT is what I believe.
We find grace THROUGH God, THROUGH Jesus. And that is why I say it is all of one cloth (even though Bubba does not think this is biblical, he doesn't get to decide for everyone else what we think). I think that is the most biblical, logical way of describing it.
Do you think otherwise?
Looking some more at Romans 5, I am even more convinced of the Saved through Jesus' life scenario.
Consider...
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
Paul's contrasting Adam's one sin which brought death with Jesus. But what is the corollary with Jesus?
If judgment followed one sin and thus condemnation, forgiveness followed WHAT and thus, salvation?
If Adam, in life, sinned and death followed, then did Jesus' perfect LIFE - without sin - lead to salvation? That seems reasonable, to me.
Or is it referring to simply God's grace as evidenced in Jesus. Period. - as being what brought life?
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
IF sin brought death, then DEATH BRINGS LIFE??? That would seem to be the conclusion that you all are suggesting (correct me if I'm mistaken). But that does not fit smoothly at all in this analogy.
Doesn't this make more sense: IF sin brought death, then GRACE via ONE MAN - Jesus the Christ - brings life! That does not sound like they're talking about Jesus' death there, but Jesus himself.
All of one cloth, seems to me.
I really should stop even glancing here, and will do so shortly.
The only way to correct a habitual liar satisfactorily is to do so continually, which I will no longer even attempt. But for the sake of God's written word, I must correct the last bit of idiocy from Dan.
"Looking some more at Romans 5, I am even more convinced of the Saved through Jesus' life scenario...
"Paul's contrasting Adam's one sin which brought death with Jesus. But what is the corollary with Jesus?
"If judgment followed one sin and thus condemnation, forgiveness followed WHAT and thus, salvation?
"If Adam, in life, sinned and death followed, then did Jesus' perfect LIFE - without sin - lead to salvation? That seems reasonable, to me...
"IF sin brought death, then DEATH BRINGS LIFE??? That would seem to be the conclusion that you all are suggesting (correct me if I'm mistaken). But that does not fit smoothly at all in this analogy."
This sort of question-begging reasoning works ONLY if one's supposedly closer look at Romans 5 ignores 5:6-10 and 5:18, and the larger context of the chapters immediately preceding and following what Dan quotes, 5:16-17.
Romans 5:18 is THE VERY NEXT VERSE, and it states that "one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" -- not an entire life that's all "of one cloth," but a single act WHICH DOES *PRECISELY* CORRESPOND in the analogy, as the solution to the transgression of the one man Adam.
What is this one act?
We can look backwards to Rom 3:24-25, which states that we're justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood.
We can look back to Rom 4:24-25, the verses leading up to chapter 5, where Paul writes that righteousness will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.
[continued]
[continued]
Within chapter 5, we can look to verses 6-10, where Paul focuses on the stunning love that is shown through Christ's death for us: that Christ died for the ungoldy while we were still weak (5:6), that Christ's dying for us while we were still sinners proves God's love (5:8), that we have been justified by his blood (5:9), and that we have been reconciled to God through his death (5:10).
From there, we can look forward to the very next passage after chapter 5, to Romans 6:1-11. We have been baptized into Christ's death (6:3), united with him in a death like his (6:5), and our old self was crucified with him so that we might not be enslaved to sin (6:6). We have died with Christ (6:8), and the death he died, he died to sin, once for all (6:10).
There is no earthly way that a reasonably honest and intelligent man can look at Romans 5 in context of chapters 3-6 and have ANY doubts about what saves us from Adam's one transgression.
And there is no earthly way that a person can wonder about Romands 5:16-17 in particular, and suspect that it's in reference to Christ's entire "one-cloth" life, when THE VERY NEXT VERSE references "one man's act of righteousness," which leads to justification, as the analogue to Adam's trespass that led to condemnation.
Dan is beyond any earthly help, either if he really thinks this, or if he thinks that speculation this asinine would be persuasive to anybody who's actually read Romans. He's "convinced" by ripping passages out of even their immediate context, in order to raise questions that that context clearly answers.
This is as bad as when he cited Psalm 106:37-38 to argue that God wouldn't command ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation when THE TWO VERSES **IMMEDIATELY** PRIOR make clear that the psalmist believed PRECISELY what Dan was arguing against.
If Dan Trabue really desires that I find peace, he shouldn't wage such a constant war against the Bible's clear teachings and even simple common sense. The "vitriol" his writing prompts is the direct result of his relentless assaults on the clear meaning of God's written word along with the transparent lies he employs to obscure his own position and slander ours, especially the lie that he loves the Bible and tries to follow Christ's teachings.
His writing elicits nausea because it's poison: it's vile and morally bankrupt, bereft of any real decency.
And I've stomached more than enough.
And yet, somehow, I can't help but think that ol' Bubba's a sweetheart, deep inside of his cranky exterior.
Perhaps he's Mr Wilson to my Dennis the [communist] Menace?
Peace to you. Seriously.
"The reality here is that you really have no interest in playing any game that you continually lose."
You know what's fun? Playing tennis. You know what's boring? Hitting a tennis ball against a brick wall that doesn't know it's a brick wall.
Goodbye.
"The TEXT says that we are saved by Jesus' life. Period."
So when I cut and pasted this from your comment, I somehow got it wrong.
Or should I randomly assign some figurative interpretation to it?
Or are you saying that Jesus death partly saves us?
Craig...
"The TEXT says that we are saved by Jesus' life. Period."
So when I cut and pasted this from your comment, I somehow got it wrong.
No, that IS what the text says literally. I did not say that I believed that was the end all and be all of reading that passage. IN FACT, I have repeatedly said that I think it is a false division, that Jesus' life, death and resurrection are all of one cloth.
I have repeatedly said that I think we are saved by Grace but that one could rightly say that we are saved by Jesus' death and that we are saved by Jesus' life.
Man, fellas, I go out of my way to agree with you (MY preferred way of talking about salvation is that we're saved by grace - I prefer not to get into the various theories of atonement, but you all keep pushing and bringing it up, not me) and you seem intent on finding ways that I disagree when I don't really disagree with you.
You're making shit up and fingerpainting on the wall with it.
My position is and has been that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
When pushed on the point, I allowed that it was acceptable to speak of being saved by Jesus' death or by Jesus' life, since in a sense, we are. If it makes you feel better to speak of it that way, go for it. I'm not objecting. It is not my preferred way of talking about it, but you can if you wish.
Do you mind if I speak of salvation in terms that make the most sense with me?
Look, Craig, what do you want?
1. I have identified my belief system and it is orthodox as anyone else here on the basics. (January 14, 2010 9:25 AM)
Agreed?
2. You and I agree that we are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, right?
3. You and I agree that we don't hold to the Ransom Theory of atonement, right?
4. I don't know, but perhaps you agree with Marshall and myself that we don't really think any of the theories of atonement fully describe the atonement as found in the bible, right?
5. You don't like appear to care much for the ME theory that I like in part, but I also like/find validity in the PS and the CV theories, which you DO like, right?
6. Does it trouble you horribly if I find the ME is ALSO a good consideration when thinking about atonement?
If so, well, I'm sorry, but me and pretty much the whole of the anabaptists, as well as progressives and scattered baptists, methodists and others find that it helps explain the notion of Atonement. Are you going to break faith with all the anabaptists and others who hold to it in at least part?
That would be your call, of course.
7. I think it is fairly obvious that Paul says that we are being saved by Jesus' life and that the text does not indicate it's talking about post-resurrection life. Do you have a problem with that?
8. Or, put another way, I take that passage literally. On what grounds are you suggesting I NOT take it literally, or are you okay with that?
9. There are plenty of folk (like the respected Spurgeon) who, like me, do not think that it's wise to say that the atonement was ONLY found in the cross. That Spurgeon and I think that does not mean that we reject the cross as part of the atonement, just that it would be "foolish" (in Spurgeon's words) to say that it was limited to that.
Is that okay with youor are you breaking faith with me and Spurgeon over that?
In short, I honestly don't see that we're disagreeing that radically - what is your beef with me? (Not that I care personally, but I'm wondering if you're casting out all/most anabaptists, all/most progressives and folk like our dear Marty who are striving to live lives of Christian love by God's grace and who feel attacked fairly often and I just don't get the animosity.)
What's the beef?
Les,
How can someone your age be such a tight ass? I'M not the brick wall here if I continue to return volley, which is all I've ever done. Worse than playing against a brick wall, however, is playing against someone who, when the returns are too solidly hit, will just drop the racket and quit like a wuss.
It seems to me that more important that respecting other opinions, granting those opinions merit they really don't deserve considering how not one ace has come screaming over the net, but respecting the other player is the key. Aside from particular visitors such as Feodor, I feel confident that I have extended such respect and continue to do so by considering the opinions of others no matter how lame they are and providing a thoughtful response if I indeed find them to be lame. YOU see it as some kind of assault or indication of blind stubborness when truly nothing can be produced to support such a thing.
I don't make shit up.
I hold fast to truth as I see it until such time as someone can PROVE me wrong or provide an insight that actually counters my position. None have occurred yet that weren't simply subjective opinion. Sorry to say that such is not proof, just an opinion. How should an honorable man respond when a sincere belief in the truth of his position is laid out? Should he just roll over and say "Yes, your opinion has merit." when the other guy's opinion is not the truth? I have never said that anyone isn't free to believe whatever they like. EVER! But I do have the right to express my opinion as well as my critique of the other opinion. It's what I offer every visitor to this blog and always have.
You apparently don't enjoy debate. Fine. Don't go suggesting or implying anything negative to the fact that I do it or how I do it.
Dan,
I'm not letting go of the Romans piece you brought up and plainly misinterpret.
"...how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life."
Bubba's version said "will be". Both words/expressions refer to the time from that point on. THAT'S not a hunch, but the grammatically correct understanding of the words. They are distinct from have been saved which, if stated in this manner could be used to support your position over ours. But you can't say that words that point in one direction can refer to anything in the opposite direction. Try talking to an English teacher about how the phrases "shall be", "will be" and "have been" are different and what they mean and then try to say that the verse supports your position. When has "shall be" ever been used to mean "have been"? They are not interchangable as they are polar opposites. So it is much more than any "hunch" that the verse you sought to use you use improperly.
continued---
Marshall...
Bubba's version said "will be". Both words/expressions refer to the time from that point on. THAT'S not a hunch, but the grammatically correct understanding of the words. They are distinct from have been saved which, if stated in this manner could be used to support your position over ours.
We SHALL BE saved/ARE BEING saved by God's grace which WAS reconciled in Jesus' death.
The point here is that it is talking about US - WE shall be saved (I could be wrong, but this might be one of those instances where the correct grammar is actually closer to "are being," fyi). We SHALL BE saved BY HIS LIFE. Period.
It does not say by Jesus' life from here on out. It does not imply that. You're grasping at straws, there, Marshall.
But let me ask you something (because at this point, all we have are MY hunch that you're way off and YOUR hunch that you're correct):
Let's suppose we got some input from someone with more linguistic knowledge on this point and they said that it is most likely referring to Jesus' life (ie, the life he lived, the life he GAVE UP in order to die - one can't hardly separate someone's death from their life, I don't see how that's possible - Jesus willingly laid down HIS LIFE, not his death). Will that undo your faith?
Now I'll step back and explain why all this is necessary. What all this has been is a review of what YOU think Scripture means to evaluate this "process" you claim to use that guides you to the conclusions your "prayerful study" has lead you. No conclusion is more laughably unBiblical, not to mention unChristian, than that which states that God would ever bless a homosexual union of any kind.
Though the conclusions are laughable, the implications are serious and very possibly spiritually fatal. I, for one, cannot just let such conclusions roam freely without some attempt to stifle them through a better interpretation of Scripture. I cannot force anyone to either change their mind or even defend their position. But I will counter such conclusions for the benefit of any who might be swayed by them for the sake of God as well as their immortal souls.
You, or anyone, are free to storm off in a huff, aghast at my petulance in calling an opinion crap. This only shows that you don't respect MY opinion regarding your opinion. Such a response rubs me as false posturing as well as a bit prideful. Get over it. If it isn't a bogus opinion you wouldn't take that posture. Should MY opinion be so labelled, I merely insist on proof of its crappiness. That's what this whole blog thing is about when used for the purpose of debate.
But getting back to Dan specifically, we of the more righteous conservative/traditional side of the issues continue to be concerned while we struggle to pry from you real defense of your positions. You continue to say you're views are orthodox, list those points you feel conform with orthodoxy, but througout several years of debate and discussion have demonstrated that you don't truly mean what we mean when we say the same things. This is typical. And as Bubba has said, you often say what sounds like orthodoxy on the surface, but a closer look always demonstrates that when you say 'XYZ', you mean something quite distinctly different than what we, and 2000 years of tradition have meant by the same 'XYZ'.
So the fact that you don't totally agree with us regarding the issue of the causal relationship of Christ's death and our salvation, may by itself be a small and isolated point upon which to spend so much time (time wasted by your inability to initially be more direct in your answers), it is an example of how your process has lead you astray on a host of other issues of the faith and justifies our incredulity regarding your claim to respect and revere the whole of Scripture.
My position can thus be more accurately represented by saying that for all the time and effort you claim to have put into studying Scripture, somehow you have screwed yourself and really need to "go back to the drawing board" as it were, as you are clearly quite far from the truth.
And by the way, though I haven't studied your Spurgeon link and feel once I do nothing will change (because you misunderstand so much so routinely), be it known that I don't form an opinion JUST BECAUSE another might be more schooled. That is, Spurgeon can be wrong, too.
Dan,
You can bring in anyone you want. They'd still need to prove their point, not just give an opinion to which you think I should just concede.
As to the verse, it is YOU who grasps at straws by supposing that words that speak to the future are the same as the present. "shall" does not equal "are". To imagine that perhaps it does in the verse would require some kind of support. Are we to now accept the notion that not only does the Bible use metaphor and imagery, it sometimes mixes tenses without any discernable pattern? That when it says "I will act" it might mean "I am acting" or "I have acted"? Are you really gonna try and pass that as a real argument and then say I'm the one grasping at straws? I'm reading the words. The words mean what they mean. YOU are the one applying a different meaning to the words.
But even if I concede that it might mean "are being saved by Christ's life", how can you say that is a reference to His life before His death as oppose to His current everlasting life after His resurrection? They are clearly not the same as he had borne all of our sins before death and after is now totally sanctified and is NOW our advocate before God. He wasn't before He ascended. THAT'S not suggested by Scripture at all.
Back to your last paragraph, one does not lay down one's life and live. To lay down one's life does nothing until that life is given up, until one is put to death. It wasn't His laying down of His life that saves if He wasn't put to death. If He wasn't put to death, what sacrifice is there? No animal in OT ritual did anything until it was killed and its blood was used to purify. There HAS to be death for the sacrifice to actually be a sacrifice. THAT is what a sacrifice means. Our current usage of the term, to say that we sacrificed our lives for our kids is not a literal usage of the word unless we died so that they could live.
Perhaps it would help if you'd explain why you don't want to believe that an actual death of an entity, in this case Christ, is necessary for a sacrifice.
Marshall...
You, or anyone, are free to storm off in a huff, aghast at my petulance in calling an opinion crap. This only shows that you don't respect MY opinion regarding your opinion.
So, you truly think that those who find abusive disagreement to be something they don't wish to participate in to be at fault?
What I'm telling you Marshall, is that it is my guess that most people don't mind disagreement, but only if it's respectful disagreement. Calling people (or even their ideas) stupid, crap, telling them they're not a Christian and worse, telling them they don't really believe what they're saying, presuming to know better than the person what they believe, these sorts of things turn off discussion.
If you're truly interested in discussion, then I'm telling you, for most people respect ought to be part of the conversation. If you want to speak abusively, then people will dig in to their positions, get defensive and then, finally, just tune you out. That is no way to win someone over.
Marshall...
Perhaps it would help if you'd explain why you don't want to believe that an actual death of an entity, in this case Christ, is necessary for a sacrifice.
What I want to believe - more than anything, more than my cultural upbringing, more than what my friends think, more than what the popular ideas might be - what I MOST want to believe is the Truth of God. Period.
It is my desire - although I certainly fail at times - to understand God's will first and foremost.
So when you ask why I "don't want to believe," you're asking a "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question. I want to believe the Truth. Period.
Understood?
I assume the same is true for you, am I mistaken?
So, with that starting point, I read the Bible - using my criteria and my God-given reasoning, same as you - and what I've told you is what makes most sense to me from a biblical point of view.
So my problem - to the extent that I have a problem, and as noted, I don't think I'm that far from what you believe on these points - is that I don't accept your biblical interpretation as being the most apt biblical interpretation.
And so, in an effort to discern and follow God's will, this is what I believe, what I've been telling you.
"The words mean what they mean."
Do they?
"YOU are the one applying a different meaning to the words."
Is he?
I don't know a thing about the original language that the Bible was written in. But I am fluent in another language besides English...American Sign Language. Sometimes it is difficult, impossible really, to translate some ASL concepts into the English language and structure. When it is done, it loses it's clarity and meaning and we can only come close to the original intent. So giving some leaway here for interpretation is essential, I think, if we are to understand one another.
Regarding disrespect in discussions:
Aside from perhaps Feodor, I don't know that I've ever gone out of my way to act disrespectfully in discussions with visitors here. But Feodor is a card carrying asshole and not only has been from the first visit, but has made no moves to improve his tone or attitude. Thus, as I like to mix it up on a variety of levels and in a variety of ways, I enjoy matching his arrogance and condescension with derision and mockery.
For everyone else, I maintain great patience, tolerance and respect for comments left here until an individual becomes Feodor-like OR has passed that intangible marker that moves one from stranger to familiarity. For all my over 54 years on earth, since the time I could carry on conversations, there has always been that point where the marker is passed by yet another individual. First, it is with family members, then those with whom we run as we grow up, until adulthood. Once that marker has been passed, and everyone feels it once it has passed though no one ever knows the exact moment it happened, formality is put aside and pretension dropped. We now know each other and no longer need stand on ceremony.
Never, in all those 54 years have I assumed I was lacking the respect of others, simply due to someone thinking an idea or opinion of mine was crap. Oh sure, the word "crap" might not be used. It might be said instead, "You're full of shit!" or words to that effect. My response, as I've indicated earlier, is always, "Why?" If their explanation is sound, convincing, logical, rings true, I then say, "Oh." and life goes on, but better for I have been enlightened. If their explanation is found lacking, I say, "YOU'RE full of shit" and my explanation as to why follows.
I do not whine about being shown disrespect. I don't expect bows and curtsies and formality with those with whom I've been long aquainted. I do expect that I do not have to maintain an incredibly high standard of formality in order to engage in conversation as I do not demand such unnecessarily stringent terms from my peers.
We go back a few years at least, Dan. Why the crap about saying "crap"? I'm supposed pretend I respect an opinion, idea or point of view for which I have little? How does that translate to you a disrespect for your person? Why do you insist on burdening me with such nonsense as if you're some old lady church secretary (my apologies to old lady church secretaries)? You speak of how I sound to you and perhaps others? To me this nonsense smacks of false piety. A diversion for some reason unknown to me, a burden to handcuff my honest feedback, a demand for something that is not of your choosing really. An opinion gets respect on its own merits. An opinion gets respect because the opinion itself, not the one who voices it, demands it and one cannot help but give it due to it's sensible nature, logic and truthfulness. If I lacked respect for YOU, I would not continue to engage with you. But none of us can demand what we do not deserve and to what extent we deserve it is not for us to judge but only to strive. At the risk of sounding prideful I feel I have enough self-respect that I don't need to spend time insisting others give it if they haven't already.
When it comes to the faith, the only such feelings that are important is that I have not strayed to the point that God turns from me and though I prefer it not happen, I am willing to lose all my visitors rather than allow poor doctrine, interpretations or understandings of His Will go unchallenged. And I will challenge them in the strongest terms necessary based on who is talking and what they're saying. Others may shake the dust from their sandals, but I have no problem and see no real effort or energy being put forth to continue the battle on a stinkin' blog. Jeez, it ain't like being a freakin' martyr.
more---(I bet you can't wait)
As to what you want to believe, this idea of Christ crucified is something on which I think we're miles apart. I believe you DON'T want to believe that an actual entity is put to death for a sacrifice, that Christ was that perfect entity put to death in order to wash away our sins, to free us from the bondage of sin, to be a ransom for us, to be our substitute in order to spare us God's Wrath, God's Judgement, HELL! or anyway you want to put it, and I believe this because of how poorly you have rebutted our rebuttals. It couldn't be more simple.
Take for example that Romans 5 verse. The difference between shall be and have been is stark and to suggest that one means the other is outrageous.
It just occurred to me, that over at Vinny's blog he has had a few posts discussing whether or not Paul had any knowledge of Christ and His ministry. His point is that Paul never mentions much, if anything, in the way of Christ's words, His miracles, and generally goes to OT Scripture for his authoritative verses and teachings. He speaks of Christ crucified only, but doesn't quote Christ to support anything he's trying to pass on. Now you come along and see this verse in Romans and think Paul's speaking of Christ's life before the crucifixion, rather than His current life after. Kind of ironic even if a digression.
But to suggest that it DOESN'T speak to Christ's current life (and really, it is a life separated from what He lived before His death BY His death wherein His body had no life in it for three days---that is, not one long life from birth of which His death was only a part of it) from His resurrection. He rose bodily and ascended bodily and lives now and it is through this life, because of His sacrifice on the cross that we are saved. This is the only reasonable explanation for Romans 5;9 & 10.
I just now took a quick Google trip and immediately found this which says what I'm saying about the verses. It aligns with how my study Bible explains it, though I have to say that I didn't go by my study Bible until after you first attempted to suggest that "shall be" could mean "have been".
This is pretty much incontrovertible, at least you've offered nothing to suggest otherwise. Why not concede the point? My suspicion is that you would then begin to see your whole belief system crumble to do so, or fear it shall (by which I mean in the future, not the past).
You are and always will be free to believe what you want to believe. This much has never been in dispute. But if you're "process" for understanding the Bible and interpreting what the words on the pages mean is constantly rebuffed, rebutted and shown to be poor to the extent that you can no longer offer anything other than, "I just don't see it that way.", I submit that such a response is akin to defeat. We've never said as much without some evidence for why we don't see it that way. You offered verse 10 and I've shown you why it doesn't work for your position and you say my explanation, based on the meaning of the words of the text is a "hunch"? Just in the context of a high school debate, I don't think you would be scoring any victories, even if my position is dead wrong (which, of course it isn't).
Marty,
There are surely better sources for insights into the original languages of the Bible. Until we get someone so well verse, all we have is various English language translations to go by. If Dan, or anyone else, can provide insight that would explain a more precise understanding, we can proceed accordingly. However, from everything I've read about those who HAVE dealt with the original languages, Dan's position on homosexuality becomes even (pardon the expression) crappier. In that research, I see the same dynamic between those scholars as I see between us: one side failing at some point to provide a counterpoint and basically trashing the opponent or taking his ball and going home. That side has always been the pro-homo side of the issue. For example, Rob't Gagnon is always dismissed by the psuedo-sophisticates of the pro-homo side, but they never say what's wrong with his work or explanations.
Dan,
I just checked Bible gateway and all English translations speak of future tense, "shall we be saved" or "will we be saved" with a few of them actually saying words like "saved by Christ's resurrected life". That's a lot of translations and it all strengthens our side of the argument concerning not only the purpose of Christ's existence but the causal effect of His death on our salvation.
"Until we get someone so well verse, all we have is various English language translations to go by"
And that's all you'll ever have Marshall. But that doesn't negate the fact that meaning is lost in translation.
You think your interpretation is right and the only valid one. Dan thinks he is right, but he sees other valid ways to interpret and concedes that he could be wrong. You just haven't been able to convince him that you are right and the one and only.
Marty,
"Dan thinks he is right, but he sees other valid ways to interpret and concedes that he could be wrong."
That Dan may think his position is correct is not at issue nor ever was. Whether his interpretation is valid is. And for one to concede that one might be wrong is also not saying much, particularly in the face of fairly overwhelming arguments against.
The whole point of debate, and the intent of persuasion through debate, is the matching of arguments until one side can no longer do so. That is, like deciding who picks first in sandlot baseball games, the bat is thrown (the issue is laid out), and the two sides one by one lay hands on the bat, one hand by one person above the hand last placed by the other, until there is no more bat. The guy who's hand is at the top wins. That's a loose analogy of the debate dynamic, and as long as real, honest and truthful arguments are offered, the debate proceeds until there is a conclusion.
More often than not, if not always, Dan offers verses that do not support his position. From that point, he of course says it does and we just see things differently. Then, we show why we don't see it his way with actual and substantive evidence, almost always Scriptural, and then we have to debate THAT verse.
Look at the last verse debated, Rom 5:10 and what do we see? We see a Clintonesque argument over the meaning of "shall be saved". Yeah, he concedes he might be wrong. But here it is clear he is and does not concede.
It is true that something might be lost in translations from ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. But let's not use that as an excuse. It's not as if the English "shall be saved" was really "cats poop in sand" in the original Greek, nor can we pretend it's possibly the exact opposite of what the English says. No. What we have instead is a firm denial of reality. The "life" to which the verses refer is Christ's current, post-resurrection life. THAT'S the life that saves because He is now our advocate, whereas pre-crucifixion, He was not. Though He forgave sins of particular people in specific circumstances during His ministry, He was not the Savior of mankind until after He was sacrificed. This isn't an opinion. This isn't a hunch. This isn't just one interpretation. This is what the Bible teaches and those on my side of the issue have done a far more exhaustive job of providing proofs as well as showing how Dan's proofs fall woefully short, without comparable opposition from him. Our hand is definitely at the end of the bat. Yet there is no concession.
And from you we have only a cheerleader for Dan. How deeply have YOU considered any of the arguments from our side? I'm well aware that you think we're being mean and nasty, defending Dan against imagined assaults. But I don't expect years of scholarly study by a visitor before they can weigh in. Indeed, those who think they have the heavy education are usually the least able to deal. WHY do you think Dan is right or that we are wrong? Where do YOU stand?
I think we HAVE been convincing. I think Dan REFUSES to be convinced. The one area where I can say there might be real agreement is in the claim that we all desire to know the Truth to the best of our ability to learn it. At least I USED to think there this was true. Not so sure now.
"This is what the Bible teaches and those on my side of the issue have done a far more exhaustive job of providing proofs as well as showing how Dan's proofs fall woefully short, without comparable opposition from him."
I suppose that would be up for debate as well.
I'm only an observer here, but I do enjoy chiming in once and awhile and thanks for letting me. And I figure I'll learn something along the way as well. And I already have.
"How deeply have YOU considered any of the arguments from our side?"
Quite deeply, as a matter of fact. Dan's arguments too. Perhaps I'm trying to figure out just where I do stand. The last several years I've been going through a lot of changes spiritually and where it will take me has yet to be determined.
"I'm well aware that you think we're being mean and nasty, defending Dan against imagined assaults."
I don't know if I would call you mean and nasty Marshall, Bubba maybe, but you all certainly don't allow much for differing opinions or interpretations. You have it all figured out in your minds and there is absolutely no leeway. I don't know how that makes for finding common ground. Perhaps you are not interested in finding common ground. Dan wants to though.
"WHY do you think Dan is right or that we are wrong?
I wouldn't necessarily say you were wrong Marshall. I really can't know that with any certainty. But Dan's witness and take on Scripture is certainly more appealing to me and makes me want to continue this thing called faith.
Where do YOU stand?
I haven't really said. Let's leave it at for now.
"I think we HAVE been convincing"
Not really Marshall. I find Dan more convincing than you guys, but you all have brought up a lot of food for thought. So has Feodor, btw. I'm chewing on it all.
"The one area where I can say there might be real agreement is in the claim that we all desire to know the Truth to the best of our ability to learn it. At least I USED to think there this was true. Not so sure now."
It's true Marshall. Never doubt that. But Dan, nor I, may never come to see things exactly the way you guys do. It's okay with me if we don't, but would that be okay with you?
Marty,
"The last several years I've been going through a lot of changes spiritually and where it will take me has yet to be determined."
Hopefully closer to Him and His Truth.
"...you all certainly don't allow much for differing opinions or interpretations."
We get that a lot. But as I said, some opinions and interpretations are anywhere from poor to crap and is it those that I'm not obliged to tolerate. As I also said, I don't just label a bad opinion as crap without a supporting argument. In reality, Dan does the same thing in reverse. To say "I don't agree" isn't that much different than saying an opinion is crap because the end result is the same. One opinion is held up and the other put down.
I'm not looking for common ground if the discussion revolves around religion or politics. I'm looking for the best possible understanding because in the end, being wrong on the latter can cost lives and being wrong on the former can cost souls. I find it cowardly to pretend a bad/weak/wrong opinion can be considered valid just to protect the sensitive nature of the one holding it. I also find it quite childish to cling to a bad/weak/wrong opinion rather than to risk being seen as wrong or stupid or ignorant. A true desire to know God as much as possible won't stand for either.
"...Dan's witness and take on Scripture is certainly more appealing to me and makes me want to continue this thing called faith."
Appeal is a poor basis for belief. Truth itself should be appealing enough, but what a truth is might not be. That is, to use an example from these debates, God and the destruction of towns and villages either by His hand or through His chosen people. That these towns also included babies seems logical. To Dan, the stories are figurative in some manner because he cannot accept that God might act in such a manner. The Passover event he also isn't prepared to accept because the firstborn of Egypt might also include "innocent" lives. Not very appealing to human sensibilities. But to accept God as sovereign over everything as well as to accept that we cannot know everything about Him beyond what Scripture reveals, we must accept that He knows what He's doing and doing things for His good and holy purpose. To dispense with faith because having it requires not getting all the answers to tough issues isn't logical if God exists, and doesn't require any regrets or anguish if He doesn't. But having faith must be on HIS terms and that's what we seek to understand to the best of our abilities.
I don't see how you can find Dan more convincing when he fails so often to return volley only to fall back on the safe "I don't agree".
"But Dan, nor I, may never come to see things exactly the way you guys do. It's okay with me if we don't, but would that be okay with you?"
I've said all are welcome to believe what they want. But when anyone believes something I see is wrong, then no, it's not OK. By that I mean that it's never OK with me that people want to cause themselves trouble or harm. I can't stop them from believing what they want and they are free to do so. But that's not the same as being OK with it. It's like watching someone slowly drink themselves to death. I can't stop them, and they are free to live as they choose, but I'm definitely NOT OK with it. How can I possibly be a caring individual if I'm "OK" with bad behaviors, bad beliefs, bad interpretations, etc, etc. As far as the faith, an interpretation can be so off as to be counter to the faith. Only God knows where that line in the sand is.
Marshall, I've had a busy weekend and haven't really had a chance to look at your support for your position, but let me say that Marty is correct in this:
You think your interpretation is right and the only valid one. Dan thinks he is right, but he sees other valid ways to interpret and concedes that he could be wrong. You just haven't been able to convince him that you are right and the one and only.
The truth is, I don't really have much of an opinion about Atonement, about the question, "are we saved by Jesus' life or by Jesus' death or by Jesus' resurrection (which appears to be your position, now?) or by it all?"
I simply don't have that much of an opinion. My opinion is back on the point on which we agree - are we saved by grace? THAT, to me, is the question that matters.
In my day to day life, it really doesn't matter much in my Christian walk if I believe in ME atonement, PSA or CV or some combination of several or none at all!
I just don't think it is that big of a deal. So, I have attempted to answer your all's questions about a matter that's not that critical to me and told you MY real opinion on the matter.
You disagree. Okay. I don't really care much that you disagree or that you hold a different position, it's okay with me. I don't find the support in your "evidence" that you do.
So, when you say...
But when anyone believes something I see is wrong, then no, it's not OK. By that I mean that it's never OK with me that people want to cause themselves trouble or harm.
Right, okay and IF I'm advocating killing the children of our enemies or that people can be saved by good works or that the Devil is the True Way, then there is some harm.
But what difference does it possibly make in what version(s) of the Atonement I believe?
You've talked about the importance (to you) of debate and defending your positions ruthlessly. Perhaps that's one difference. I and perhaps Marty and perhaps many others aren't really all that interested in proving points (even though we think we have plenty of evidence to support our position), but in having conversations. And if that's our different starting points, perhaps that's where you don't get that being civil and respectful in conversations is all that important and why people don't want to hang out and talk with you.
It's not a high school debate team, for us, it's adults having conversations.
And so, by your own criteria ("By that I mean that it's never OK with me that people want to cause themselves trouble or harm."), this is why I have problems with the more Calvinisty and literal-ish positions of saying that people are totally depraved, meaning even infants are sinners (or are they?? - we seem to remain going back and forth between "sinners = sinful nature" or do they actually commit sins), meaning that sometimes God might command us to do what otherwise would be an atrocity. Those ARE harmful (or potentially harmful) positions to hold, it seems to me.
My position on atonement or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin just don't seem that critical on a day to day Christian walk basis.
I don't know how this post devolved into a theological discussion.
But, I'll offer my perspective.
It is simplistic, but the way I see it, if it was complicated, simple people could never become Christians:
I was born in depravity. Meaning, I was born already sinful. The wages of sin is death. Someone has to pay those wages.
That means I deserve everlasting death for being a sinful creature.
Now, while I might not think I am so bad, I nevertheless do not measure up to God's image of perfection, thus, it matters not whether I see myself as a sinful creature, God does.
Therefore, I have condemned myself to death. And not simply a physical death, which happens in a twinkling of an eye and thus, could not, in and of itself, be a worthy punishment for my sin. It has to be a spiritual death which lasts for eternity, and, as Gramps would say, "is a right smart piece of time".
When Jesus laid down his life as a sacrifice for my sins, He took the punishment that was meant for me, so I would not have to go through that spiritual death. He paid for my sins with His death.
Now I have a choice. Either I accept the gift of life that Jesus gave me through his death on the cross, or I refuse it. If I accept it, God forgives my debt through His Grace. He casts my sin away as far as the east is from the west.
If I decline, my fate is sealed, not by anything God did, but by my own stubbornness and willful disobedience. And I deserve what I get as a result.
Likewise, if I accept, I still get what I deserve, but since my slate is now clean, due to Christ's sacrifice, I now deserve eternal life.
So Dan, in his simplistic way, has stated the question correctly and succinctly: "DID JESUS OR DID JESUS NOT DIE FOR OUR SINS?"
My answer is simply, YES.
Dan,
Please answer this question: Do you believe that God will allow some to suffer eternal punishment in Hell, OR some other eternal damnation? By this I'm referring to something for which we have no real description, but for most people means an eternal separation from God, which most people would suspect will be a great suffering.
As to the rest, what specific points of agreement exist between us is not at issue as much as what each of us means by our similar statements. It seems there is a gulf between us even when the exact same words are used due to the conclusions to which they lead each of us. This suggests a very different understanding and the differences in understanding on simple words such as "shall be", "atonement" and the importance of them, can truly result in two very different sets of beliefs that only compare superficially.
Other things are more stark, such as the seeming difference in God's capabilities. You seem to believe His are limited by laws He ordains for us. We believe He is NOT bound by those laws He laid down for us. The taking of life, for example, is limited to specific circumstances for us, but we believe God can take life for reasons we might not understand and do so in ways that some might find objectionable.
This all suggests two different gods. Which one is closer to the truth? The other will be a false god, or at least, MORE false than the other.
I think these conversations are important and I am happy to be a part of them. I don't find them boring in the least, though some parts do frustrate. I won't waste my time with anyone harshly critiquing my opinions, calling them crappy or stupid if they can provide a reason why they think so. There's no harm in it. I take no offense and won't as long as my intentions are pure and honorable, which they are. And if someone else's soul, life or well being are threatened by their crappy perspective, my position is that it is too important to sugar coat it.
1. Yes, I believe in a hell, that some people can be separated from God.
2. You said...
You seem to believe His are limited by laws He ordains for us. We believe He is NOT bound by those laws He laid down for us.
Then you misunderstand me. I believe that God is limited BY GOD'S NATURE. In that regard, I don't believe that I'm different than y'all. God won't do things against God's nature.
For instance, God won't command us to sin. The Bible is quite clear on that point (do I need to show you that passage?) Doing so would be against God's nature.
God won't command you to rape a child, for instance, or to hate Jewish people. That would be against God's nature.
God won't force anyone to do anything, that, too, would be against God's nature. God won't lie, either, since doing so would be against God's nature.
You agree with me, don't you, that God won't do things against God's nature?
3. This suggests a very different understanding and the differences in understanding on simple words such as "shall be", "atonement" and the importance of them, can truly result in two very different sets of beliefs that only compare superficially.
For instance? I'm not seeing anything that I disagree with you substantially on. You have said you don't have much use for the various theories of atonement, nor do I. It's just not critical in my Christian walk. Do I believe we can be made "at one" with God? Yes, I do. So do you.
HOW do you believe that happens? By God's grace? So do I.
We don't disagree with the meaning of the words "shall be," you're way off on a tangent there.
I see no great disagreement, there on anything critical. By all means, if you think you can point to some specific point on which we significantly disagree, show it to me.
If you're thinking the PS theory of Atonement (and you've already said you thought that none of the theories were perfect, or something like that), well, I've already allowed that it is true in a sense. Jesus DID live his life sacrifically for us. Jesus DID die for us. Where's the big disagreement?
I don't get the way you all are hung up on what seems to me to be the smallest of things.
I will say that I have learned something through this process: I don't really think discussing things like this with folk like you is especially profitable. You seem intent on disagreeing. I'll just agree with you since, in a sense, it may be true and since, in another sense, I just don't know the full answer and I really don't care.
What I KNOW is that we're saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
What I KNOW is that we have been saved to do good works, to follow in Jesus' steps and heed his teachings.
That is what matters on a day to day basis.
In the story of the sheep and the goats, Jesus did not say, "You see those guys on the left, they are banished into hell, for they got the wrong notion on the theory of atonement..."
Paul did not say, "If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and if you believe in the Penal Substitutionary Theory of atonement, you will be saved..."
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
I have come to think that it is, anyway.
How can one overlook attonement? God demonstrated His Grace through Jesus death on the Cross and His resurrection. mom2
Who's overlooking atonement?
For my part, I have said quite clearly that I believe we have been/are being made at one (atonement) with God through Jesus, the son of God.
Am I mistaken there or do we agree?
Marshall? You okay?
Why do you ask?
Here is Merriam-Webster's definitions for "atonement":
"1 obsolete : reconciliation
2 : the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ
3 : reparation for an offense or injury : satisfaction
4 Christian Science : the exemplifying of human oneness with God"
Even if we accept the fourth definition, we must still ask how we come to be reconciled with God. That is, of course, through the sacrificial death of Christ. We cannot say that grace alone does it without that sacrificial death being necessary. There is simply no justification for such a position. Thus, the causal relation between that death and our salvation is profound. What came before that death doesn't reconcile us to God, did not provide that "at-one-ness" with God.
Dan, for obvious reasons I gotta know. You seem to say on one hand that you are in favor of PSA (among others) and on the other that no price was paid. The basic premise of PSA is that the penalty (price) of sin was paid by Christ by His substitutionary death on our behalf. Is there a price or isn't there?
Oh, on texts ...
First:
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions ... receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27)
"... you shall bear the penalty for your sinful idolatry, and you shall know that I am the Lord GOD" (Ezek 43:29).
"For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality" (Col 3:25).
Thus we see that sin has a penalty.
Then:
"The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28)
"Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Rev 5:9).
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13).
"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses by canceling the certificate of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:13-14).
"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph 1:7)
"From Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood" (Rev 1:5).
"... knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Peter 1:18).
The typical words there "ransomed", "redeemed", and even a "purchased".
In case we're unclear on these terms:
Ransom: Either the release of property or a person in return for payment of a demanded price or the price or payment demanded or paid for such release.
Redeem: To recover ownership of by paying a specified sum.
So my question again. Given that you see "payment" as figurative and while no one is arguing that money changed hands, it is still the fundamental premise of PSA that the penalty was paid on our behalf. Do you or do you not agree with that? (I mean, if you agree that the penalty was paid but no penalty was paid, that's a bit schizophrenic, isn't it? So which is it?)
Marshall...
Why do you ask?
Just concern. You haven't gone several days without posting often, it seems and I was just checking on you.
Naught else.
Marshall...
Even if we accept the fourth definition, we must still ask how we come to be reconciled with God.
If you wish to ask, by all means. I'm just glad that we HAVE BEEN/CAN BE reconciled with God. And it is my understanding that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. I'll be honest and say that I don't know the exact process God goes through to forgive us and save us by God's grace.
I always have considered it fairly straightforwardly - that is, that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the son of God. I have always believed that God forgives us when we repent and ask for forgiveness because that is God's deep desire. I have always thought that we are then saved through God's grace, by which God forgives us. I have never really considered reconciliation as a different thing than salvation. Perhaps you're right, I don't know.
Perhaps I'm just too simple minded, but I simply believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus when we repent of our sins and turn to God's ways. Period.
If you want to believe that there is a process by which all of that happens, go ahead. I know there is language in the Bible that supports your hunch in that regards. It just seems more properly taken as figurative, to me, but I'm not all that wise so maybe I'm mistaken.
Fair enough?
We cannot say that grace alone does it without that sacrificial death being necessary.
Do you mind terribly in the meantime, if I continue to believe simply that we are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus (his sacrificial life and death being directly implied in that, to me) when we repent of our sins and turn to God?
Can we let it go at that or MUST I come to say with you, YES, Marshall/Bubba's interpretation is the One Way to understand that?
Does it make me a horrible person or a bad Christian if I'm not sure that your interpretation of the text is the best? If so, why?
Stan asked me (surprisingly, since you've asked me to not darken your blogsteps, but still, I'm glad to entertain the question)...
You seem to say on one hand that you are in favor of PSA (among others) and on the other that no price was paid. The basic premise of PSA is that the penalty (price) of sin was paid by Christ by His substitutionary death on our behalf. Is there a price or isn't there?
I think there is a sense in which PSA can be construed as true.
The 16th Century theory of PSA has been defined...
Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve.
Or...
The theory states that God's mercy replaces his wrath after the infinite sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
In the sense that Jesus poured out his life sacrificially, God becoming human living for us, dying FOR us, he has borne OUR SINS in his life and death.
In the sense that his life and death was all about bearing our sins, our illnesses, our weaknesses, upon himself, living and dying so that, in the greater sense, we would not have to die spiritually, I suppose one can say that the PSA has some validity.
I'd say at least the "Substitutionary" part of the theory, if not the "Penal" part. And the Substitutionary angle on Atonement has been with us since the early church, as opposed to the "Penal" angle which was theorized in the 16th century.
Does that make sense?
To be sure, I'm more comfortable with the ME angle of Atonement, it makes more sense to me biblically and logically, but I can see how one can get a Substitutionary position on atonement and MAYBE "penal," but that's even more of a stretch.
In short, if you want to hold to it as a valid theory of atonement, I'm not going to condemn you or your Christianity. I just don't think it's a biblically complete picture of atonement.
As Frances Hiebert notes...
In an Anabaptist model, the atonement is the work of God from beginning to end. God alone provides the means of salvation through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ; through the call of God for all to repent and accept the gospel; and through the God-given restoration of the individual’s ability to choose to respond to God’s grace. That makes sense to me.
Elmer Martens makes some good points on Substitutionary language here, where he says...
But Isaiah 53 does not have the feel of a courtroom. Is the text about penal substitution then?
Someone is described as acquainted with grief. The servant is bearing our “infirmities” and “carrying our diseases.” Such language is about illness. The setting is a hospital, not a courtroom. Is this not a picture of a willing substitute, giving a blood infusion in order that another might live? This blood donor, even if called to give all his blood and die, would do it for the well-being of that other person!
Again, in that sense, certainly I can see Substitutionary Atonement language making more sense.
I've got a more complete answer I'm working on to your question, Stan, fyi.
Stan asked...
Given that you see "payment" as figurative and while no one is arguing that money changed hands, it is still the fundamental premise of PSA that the penalty was paid on our behalf. Do you or do you not agree with that?
Yes, as I have said, in a sense.
We agree no money is exchanging hands, it's not a "paying" a penalty in that sense.
But consider this: We sometimes use "paid a price" to indicate that there were consequences.
Here's a news story, for instance, that talks of Tacomans who "paid a price" for their council's secrecy.
In that sense, Jesus DID pay a price for our sins.
You quote this passage...
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions ... receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error"
And yes, I think IN A SENSE, one could talk of the consequences of sin being a penalty. If a drinker over-imbibes he pays a penalty the next morning. Without a doubt, that is true, in that sense.
You quote...
"For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality"
Same thing, in the sense that sin has consequences and that ultimately, we pay for our wrongs done one way or the other, ABSOLUTELY true.
You quote...
"Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation"
and...
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"
Also absolutely true, I think. Christ IS redeeming us (redeem: "2 : to free from what distresses or harms." Merriam Webster), we ARE being figuratively purchased by Jesus' life and death. Again, we agree it isn't a literal purchase, no money is changing hands. "Purchase," paying a price for (which isn't always a literal price, but a figurative one - the soldier paying a price for our freedom, it's a way of saying that someone gave sacrificially for a cause).
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Is it the case that you don't think someone ever uses such language figuratively in the sense that I see it?
As I noted to Marshall, I honestly don't have a great strong opinion on these atonement questions. I take things fairly simply and straightforwardly. I think we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus. THAT is my opinion on how we are saved. That, if we repent, God is faithful and just to forgive.
That's how I think of the salvation process. Do you think I MUST form an opinion that comes fairly close to agreeing with yours on atonement in order to be a Christian in good standing, or is there no room for people who simply believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, who repent and make Jesus the Lord of their lives?
Now, I have a line of questions for you. You note:
Ransom: Either the release of property or a person in return for payment of a demanded price or the price or payment demanded or paid for such release.
Is it your opinion that God could not forgive us just as a matter of will, because doing so does not take sin seriously enough? And that, in order to forgive us, SOMEONE had to pay a penalty for sin? And that God demanded a ransom be paid and that God then paid that ransom that God demanded be paid?
In other words, I'm asking you if God demanded a ransom payment and then paid it to God's Self?
Is that like Bob saying to Ralph, "You owe me a million dollars! If you don't pay, I'm going to send you to jail! However, I'm going to pay myself the million dollars that you owe, so you don't have to go to jail."
Does that really make any sense? If Ralph owed Bob a million dollars and Bob paid that million dollars for Ralph, doesn't Ralph STILL owe Bob a million dollars?
What I think forgiveness is, in that analogy, is to forget the debt, not to pay it off. If the debt to Bob is paid off by Bob TO Bob, then isn't the debt still there UNTIL such time as Bob says, "You know what, forget the debt. It's forgiven!" Isn't that forgiveness and the former just a transfer of debt from Bob to Bob??
The whole ransom thing to God doesn't make much sense beyond than just as an allegory that God is freeing us from what distresses and harms.
Am I missing something?
Stan,
Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to join in anytime.
Dan,
I appreciate your concern. Thanks.
Regarding your analogy of Ralph owing Bob a million dollars, if Bob forgives the debt, simply says, "Ralph, don't worry about it. You no longer have to pay me back.", Bob suffers so that Ralph doesn't have to as regards paying back the debt. Bob's still suffering for lack of that million, but he's made it so that Ralph isn't.
The million dollars is akin to the debt we owe (death) for our sin. We owe that debt to God but God took it upon Himself, through His Son Jesus, who is God, to suffer that death on our behalf, so that we don't have to.
Our repentence isn't sufficient without accepting Christ BECAUSE He died for us. To accept Him as our Savior insists that we understand that His death was necessary to wash away our sin. That death is HOW He saves us, by dying in our place. If there's imagery here, it's that His actual death represents our eternal death we would have without Him as our Savior. But again, all words such as "ransom", "sacrifice", "Lamb of God", "substitute" are all figurative words perhaps, but they are words used to describe the relationship between His death and the forgiveness of our sins.
You quoted Frances Hiebert and then said it makes the most sense. Well, that's not surprising seeing as how it's just another voice saying the same thing you do, but doing so without Scriptural support to back it up. In other words, we already knew that stuff and are still waiting for that Scriptural support that justifies that way of thinking. All you've given us so far really is Rom 5:10, but I've shown how it actually supports my position (not because it's my "hunch", but because of what the words actually say).
I fail to see how one could say Christ's pre-crucifixion life as the sacrifice He was born to provide. His teachings weren't new, but instead were clarifications of what was already there, evidenced by His constant referencing Scripture. His miracles were to prove He had the authority to speak for God. He was born to be crucified to save us, not to live to save us, though He did rise and live after He died and THAT is the life Paul speaks of in Romans.
Can this one little disagreement condemn you to hell, deny your right to call yourself "Christian"? Of course not, even though your take is woefully misguided.
BUT!!! It's one small part of the larger view of the faith that you have that differs from us, from traditional understanding, and does NOT view Scripture as seriously. There is a line that separates disagreement with a total reinvention of who and what God is. I think you've crossed that line, creating a false God that resembles the real Deal superficially, but not upon closer inspection. Nowhere is this more obvious than your beliefs regarding homosexuality.
And this is why I pick nits if it comes to that. It's because I believe you no longer worship the God of Abraham, but someone different enough to be something else. It is why I continue to engage in these discussions because I believe you need to re-assess your position.
Okay. Thanks.
Dan Trabue: "Am I missing something?"
Well ... yes. There is that small matter of justice. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?
Dan Trabue: "Is it your opinion that God could not forgive us just as a matter of will, because doing so does not take sin seriously enough?"
Laying aside my preference to respond with a sarcastic line (you know, because it just sounds funnier), it's not a matter of not taking sin seriously enough. It's a matter of justice. It is abundantly clear from simple definitions that "mercy" and "grace" are not the same as "justice". Mercy does not give the punishment that justice demands. Grace gives good that justice would deny. Justice gives what is demanded. The requirement of a payment is not a simple "I'll pay myself a million bucks." Too trite. The requirements of justice is death for sin. According to Romans 3, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins. It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:23-25). The passage tells the problem -- all have sinned -- and the remedy -- redemption. The word "redemption" there is defined as "paying the price in full". Now note: This isn't my opinion. The passage says that God put forward His Son as the "payment in full". (Interestingly, when Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, He used the same kind of language -- "paid in full".) It says that it was Jesus's blood that provided "propitiation" (the word in the text, not mine). Propitiation is the appeasement of wrath. And, according to this passage, it is this payment in full in terms of Christ's blood providing appeasement of God's wrath that allowed God to be both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus". That is, without that payment in full, there is no justice and God is not free to justify.
No, God could not forgive as a matter of will. It would violate His own nature which includes being Just. It's not a matter of not taking sin seriously enough. It's a matter of not violating the nature of God.
God could not forgive as a matter of will. It would violate His own nature which includes being Just.
Do you have any scriptural support for this position or is it just your best understanding of things?
I fully understand that you don't think God can just forgive (as God expects US to just forgive), that doing so would not give proper respect to God's justice, which demands a death penalty.
I just don't think that the biblical case is as strong as you do to make holding that position valid.
I mean, I know that 1 Peter 3 says, "Christ ... died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God" but that isn't saying that God's justice demands a death penalty.
I know that John 3 says that ""For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." But that's not saying that God's justice demands death.
I know there are passages that associate not believing with God with the presumption of death or a consequence of death/hell/separation, but none of that is saying that God's justice demands death.
Do you have any biblical support for that notion? If not, perhaps you can understand why I'm not finding it biblically convincing.
Is that okay, if I don't find your argument biblically convincing or sound logically, don't you think the right thing for me to do is to pursue what I DO think is most biblically apt?
And so, I guess I'm still left wondering from you two fellas, "Do you think I MUST form an opinion that comes fairly close to agreeing with yours on atonement in order to be a Christian in good standing, or is there no room for people who simply believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, who repent and make Jesus the Lord of their lives?"
The closest I can find to a response is Marshall, who said...
BUT!!! It's one small part of the larger view of the faith that you have that differs from us, from traditional understanding, and does NOT view Scripture as seriously. There is a line that separates disagreement with a total reinvention of who and what God is.
1. I DO take the Bible seriously. I have changed my life, my attitudes, my beliefs, my desires to try to align with what I believe are God's ways described in the Bible. How seriously do you want me to take it?
2. Is it not the case that I DO take the Bible seriously, but I simply don't agree in lockstep with your take on atonement (whatever that may be) and with your view of homosexuality and with your view on war and peace, and with your understanding of how to read some other biblical passages? That I disagree with you is not the same as disagreeing with what the Bible says or what I think it is teaching, right?
3. IF it is the case that I am striving to understand the Bible and take its teachings seriously (and it is - ask anyone who knows me personally), it would seem the most you could legitimately say is that I disagree with you and that you think I'm way off in a big mistake on those four or five issues and you're concerned because the Bible TO YOU is so clear on those points that you find it hard to understand how someone could honestly disagree with you? And yet I do.
I just don't get the vehemence with which you all sometimes disagree. Yes, in my efforts to sincerely understand the Bible and to walk in my Lord, Jesus' steps by God's grace, sometimes I disagree with you, at least a little. But it's not out of anything but a desire to understand God's will.
So call me mistaken if you wish. But why would you assume that those who are honestly mistaken and yet still saved by God's grace are worshiping a different God (which sounds an awful lot like you don't think we're Christian)?
I know that Dan doesn't pay any attention to what I say, but, Dan asks (along with other comments),
"I know there are passages that associate not believing with God with the presumption of death or a consequence of death/hell/separation, but none of that is saying that God's justice demands death.
Do you have any biblical support for that notion?"
(with?)
In other comments he seems to indicate he doesn't believe God's punishment for sin could possibly be death.
You want scriptual reference for that notion, Dan? How about this one?
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." ~ Romans 6:23
Of course, I could cite a passage from the 2nd book of Mark, because it doesn't matter to Dan if a scripture refutes his beliefs or not, since if one does, he simply refuses to accept it as God's Word.
Y'all are just wasting your time responding to Dan. It's like pushing a rope.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." ~ Romans 6:23
We're talking about the difference between "penalty" of sins and "consequences" of sin. Clearly, Romans 6 is talking about what you get along with sin - death. That is, the consequence of sin is death. The result of sin is death.
Do you have any scriptural passages that support that it is an actual penalty or that it is a consequence? That is my question.
This passage does not support that view, do you have any others that do?
Isaiah 53 says...
Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
The consequences of our sin was sickness, infirmity, death. But Jesus took on our infirmities, our transgressions, bringing healing and life.
As the earlier theologian pointed out, this is the language of the caring doctor, not the condemning judge.
As I noted earlier, there is little or nothing in the Bible that speaks of sin's consequences in terms of penalty, instead, it seems more consequential.
Seems to me. But still, if I am mistaken, then is it a deal breaker? Can I study the Bible and come to a different conclusion and, in your mind, be mistaken and wrong, and still be your brother?
Dan Trabue: "Do you have any biblical support for that notion? If not, perhaps you can understand why I'm not finding it biblically convincing."
No, of course not, Dan. You know I just make stuff up.
I've offered biblical support. You find it unconvincing. I think, however, that this position ("God's justice does not require penalty for sin") demonstrates that you cannot concur with PSA, since Penal-Substitutionary Atonement is predicated on "penalty for sin".
Now, I'm still unclear. When I say "I am trusting in Christ for my salvation", I mean, "I am believing that Christ paid the penalty on my behalf and I can be declared righteous by God on that basis." When you say, "I am trusting Christ for my salvation", you mean something different. What?
Glancing in long enough to thank you, Stan, for weighing in a conversation which has proven to be the last straw with me.
The list of verses you cite on the 20th is very commendable, but I would suggest that you overlook one significant passage: Isaiah 53:5, WHICH DAN TRABUE HIMSELF QUOTED.
"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed."
The NRSV has a very similar translation:
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed."
The passage THAT DAN QUOTES does three things, one after the other, in rapid succession.
1) It mentions OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, and that the Suffering Servant was wounded because of them.
2) It mentions OUR INIQUITIES, and that He was crushed because of them.
3) It mentions PUNISHMENT, which He endured, and through which we are healed.
Dan wants to suggest that "there is little or nothing in the Bible that speaks of sin's consequences in terms of penalty"?
To do so he has to ignore EVEN the passages he himself quotes -- or suggest, absurdly, that there's no connection implied in Is 53:5 between our transgressions for which Christ was wounded, and the punishment which He took, for which we are healed.
Stan asked...
When you say, "I am trusting Christ for my salvation", you mean something different. What?
I mean that I believe if I confess my sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them, as the Bible directly and clearly says. Do you disagree?
I believe that I am saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, as the Bible directly and clearly says. Do you disagree?
On the other hand, when you say, "I am believing that Christ paid the penalty on my behalf and I can be declared righteous by God on that basis." you are saying that NOT based on any passage, because no where in the Bible does it say that. Do you agree?
In other words, NO WHERE in the Bible does it say, and I quasi-quote, "Jesus will pay the penalty on my behalf and I will be declared righteous by God on that basis."
No where in the Bible does it say that, we are clear on that point, right?
Now, I don't mind if you read some passages in the Bible and come to that extrabiblical conclusion. I won't call you a heretic or a non-believer, I won't say that you worship a different God. I will merely say I disagree with that conclusion as not persuasive biblically.
On the other hand (yet again) will you allow me to draw my conclusions which are direct quotes from the Bible as reasonable conclusions to draw without rejecting me (and anabaptists and progressive believers everywhere) as unbelievers, heretics or believers in some other God?
I would think that if you truly believe and honor the Bible's teachings, you would be okay with me holding to literal biblical truths. Yes?
Stan said...
"I am believing that Christ paid the penalty on my behalf and I can be declared righteous by God on that basis."
To be clear, NO WHERE in the Bible does it talk about being declared righteous based upon Jesus paying a penalty on our behalf. Right?
NO WHERE in the Bible does it talk about Christ paying the penalty on Stan's (or anyone's) behalf.
To help everyone know what the Bible DOES say on the topic, here are the two places that "declared righteous" appears in the Bible:
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
Romans 2, and then in Romans 3, it expounds...
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
What does the Bible actually say about God declaring people righteous? This and only this, as far as I can see: That no one will be declared righteous by their works, but rather, those who have faith in Jesus, ALL who believe.
THIS is what I believe. We are saved BY grace THROUGH faith in Jesus and that THROUGH that faith, God declares us righteous.
Now if you want to develop some extrabiblical theories on what that process looks like, I won't condemn you for it, I'll merely disagree if I don't find your position biblical or logical.
And I ask again: IF after studying the Bible, I don't find your position to be biblical or logical, and I DO find the position that we are saved simply by God's grace through faith in Jesus, saved to do good works and follow in the steps and teachings of Jesus (ALL as the Bible directly says) and that God DOES simply forgive us, as God expects us to forgive others... If THAT is what I believe to be the most biblical position to hold, then what do you suggest I do? Hold the position that I believe is most Godly and biblical, or cast that aside in favor of your extrabiblical beliefs, which I don't believe to be biblically sound?
Shall we take any bets on whether or not anyone will actually answer that question?
Bubba...
Dan wants to suggest that "there is little or nothing in the Bible that speaks of sin's consequences in terms of penalty"?
? No, Dan doesn't "want to suggest." It's reality. There IS little or nothing in the bible that speaks of sin's consequences in terms of penalty. That's just a fact that you can check yourself. Look in a concordance. Look up Penalty. Look up Punish. Look up your own claims and you will see they don't exist, at least as you claim they do.
Yes, the Bible DOES contain some phrases that sound a bit in the vein of what you're saying (as opposed to what I believe - "that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus," which is just a direct quote and quite clear, I think).
So what is happening here is that, as Stan himself said, "I've offered biblical support. You find it unconvincing." Yes, I find the theories that you advance to be lacking in Biblical consistency and so find them unconvincing. I'm not saying they are without merit, just that I don't find them convincing.
That being the case, should I believe what I find unconvincing on the basis that YOU find it convincing? That is one thing I'd like to know.
I would hope that all reasonable people could agree that, NO, any one person should not go along with what others believe simply because they believe it to be true.
Beyond that, what we have happening here is that we have a starting point on which we all agree: We all agree we are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus. The Bible directly says that and no one here disagrees with it.
But then, you all believe some church traditions that started in the 1600s to be a good explanation of how to further understand or have a deeper understanding of the points on which we all agree.
I, for my part, don't entirely disagree with these medieval theories, but I see no great reason to say that they are the one and only way of understanding atonement.
I would hope we could all agree that it's not necessary for us to believe beyond the basics: That God is faithful to forgive us as we confess our sins and that we ARE saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, and that we are thus saved to do good works and follow in the steps of Jesus, all as the Bible says.
IF you think it necessary to agree with this 16th century theory of atonement IN ADDITION to these historical basics, I would wonder on what grounds would you suggest that I HAVE to come to agree with you and ol' Calvin, et al, that your position is the one and only one way of viewing atonement?
Dan, you continue to bring up irrelevant points that can only intend to call into question the character of those who disagree with you.
"I would hope that all reasonable people could agree that, NO, any one person should not go along with what others believe simply because they believe it to be true."
No one has suggested otherwise, and it's slanderous to imply, as you do repeatedly, that by arguing against your idiocy we're trying to impose our will upon you and force you to follow man rather than God.
Instead of stating the obvious, with which no one here disagrees, maybe you could ACTUALLY address the points that are so thoroughly devastating to your position.
You wanted to speculate that, in Romans 5, Paul contrasted Adam's transgression with Jesus entire life: I pointed out that Paul referenced a single "act of righteousness" IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE (5:18) after the one you focused on, and I reminded you how often Paul focused specifically on Christ's death throughout this section of Romans, in 3:24-25, 4:24-25, 5:6-10, and 6:1-11. You've never responded to any of this, much less with actual substance.
You claim that Romans 5 teaches that we have been saved (past tense) by Christ's life, and Marshall points out that EVERY translation has that we will be saved (future tense), which points strongly to the conclusion that we will be saved by Christ's resurrected life rather than His ministry before the cross. You haven't addressed that either.
Indeed, one should follow God's will rather than man's will, but that doesn't bring us one step closer to evaluating our competing ideas about His will.
You should stop arguing for your right to follow God as you understand Him -- SINCE NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT RIGHT -- and focus on defending the details of your understanding, because it is your understanding of God's will that we question, not your right to your idiotic opinion.
Now, Dan, you will notice that our arguments don't hinge on writings from the 16th and 17th century: they hinge on the clear text of the Bible. That means that it's inaccurate and frankly dishonest for you to dismiss our position as fundamentally extrabiblical.
You say, "you all believe some church traditions that started in the 1600s," but what we assert is found, not in those more recent traditions, but in the text itself.
There's a serious problem with what you present as "the basics":
"That God is faithful to forgive us as we confess our sins and that we ARE saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, and that we are thus saved to do good works and follow in the steps of Jesus, all as the Bible says."
This summary not only omits quite a bit of what the Bible clearly teaches regarding salvation, it does so by ignoring the context of the passages to which you allude.
1) You allude to John's promise of forgiveness...
"If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." - I Jn 1:9
...but you ignore John's claims about the means of forgiveness from the verses almost IMMEDIATELY prior.
"If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." - I Jn 1:6-7
2) You allude to our being saved to do good works and follow in Christ's steps, as we are taught by Peter...
"For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps." - I Pet 2:21
...but as I pointed out before, this passage points to the saving work of Christ's death, in the VERY NEXT few verses.
"'He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.' When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." - I Pet 2:22-24
3) And, you allude to Paul's great teaching that we are saved by grace through faith, but with that teaching Paul frequently and clearly teaches that we are also saved by Christ's death.
In Ephesians 2:8, Paul teaches that "by grace you have been saved through faith," but in 1:7-8, Paul teaches that in Christ "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us."
In Romans 3:24-25, Paul draws all three together -- God's grace, Christ's death, and our faith -- teaching that we are "justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."
Are we saved by grace through faith? Absolutely. Is this a clear teaching from the Bible regarding our salvation? Certainly.
But we're also saved by Christ's death, and this is an equally clear teaching from the Bible, a teaching that can be ignored ONLY if you rip out of context the passages to which you allude.
Your list of "the basics" is clearly incomplete: it's the truth but clearly not the whole truth.
Dan, about the penalty and punishment of sin, you write:
"There IS little or nothing in the bible that speaks of sin's consequences in terms of penalty. That's just a fact that you can check yourself. Look in a concordance. Look up Penalty. Look up Punish. Look up your own claims and you will see they don't exist, at least as you claim they do."
Considering how frequently you seem to overlook both the immediate context of what you cite and EVEN inconvenient claims within the text you do cite, I don't think you have any authority whatsoever to tell anyone else what's in the Bible and to declare your beliefs about the Bible as fact.
Even in the passage YOU CHOSE TO CITE as supposed proof that sin doesn't carry a punishment, Isaiah 53 proves the exact opposite.
Looking up the word "penalty" or "punishment" and seeing how many times either comes up is a narrow method for justifying your claim.
About Isaiah 53, you write -- not entirely accurately -- that what we see "is the language of the caring doctor, not the condemning judge."
But we DO see language of the condemning judge throughout the Bible, and even in Christ's own teachings.
What happened to the tares in the parable of the wheat and the tares? According to John 15, what will happen to the unproductive vines?
The claim that God's judgment against sin isn't routinely taught in Scripture is so absurd that one need not appeal to individual passages: one can appeal to entire books.
It's just like your position that wealth is a greater temptation that poverty and calamity: to that I refer you to the underlying premise behind the entire book of Job.
Here, regarding God's judgment, I refer you to the Revelation.
Just a couple of points (maybe more, we'll see):
Looking up "penalty of sin" in BibleGateway.com:
-NIV shows 5 instances of "penalty
of sin.
-The Message-5 instances
-Amplified Bible-10 instances
-New Living Translation-7
-English Standard-1
-New Century-10
-Holman Christian Standard-2
-New Int'l Version/UK-5
-Today's New Int'l Version-5
The point here is that "consequence of sin" vs "penalty of sin" is more a matter of which version of the Bible one chooses to read. The terms are synonymous, interchangable, and are used to express the same thing. Indeed, Google definitions shows "penalty" to be a consequence of a behavior. Merriam-Webster does not define either with the other, but that only means neither is required to define either, not that they are distintively different.
"On the other hand (yet again) will you allow me to draw my conclusions which are direct quotes from the Bible as reasonable conclusions to draw without rejecting me (and anabaptists and progressive believers everywhere) as unbelievers, heretics or believers in some other God?"
Hard to say. You are free to believe what you want. We are free to reject your conclusions as based on the partial, incomplete and out of context interpretations that they are. As Bubba said, we are dealing with only the text, not some "extra-Biblical" sources or teachings. We are dealing with what the words mean and don't settle for assuming figurative language is being used for those verses that don't fit our personal biases. Where we see figurative language, we have (99% of the time) a ready explanation for that language that fits with the over-arching theme of the context in which it exists, if not the entire Book. And as far as taking things directly from Scripture, you have yet to show how Scripture directly leads to a conclusion that God would ever bless a union based on behaviors He's already condemned as detestable or an abomination punishable by death.
Our position doesn't just "have merit". Our position is a far more accurate depiction of what the Book is saying based on the words used. So-called "progressive" interpretations are not only less accurate, they consciously seek to allow for that which Biblical teaching, when truly taken seriously, clearly won't allow.
more---
"That being the case, should I believe what I find unconvincing on the basis that YOU find it convincing? That is one thing I'd like to know"
No. On the basis that what we believe is what the Book is saying as we have proven again and again. You say you find it unconvincing, but we have countered every argument you've laid out, using the Book itself to do so. It's not that our arguments are unconvincing, it's that you refuse to be convinced and instead cling to interpretations that appeal to you personally, rather than those that reveal to you distinctly and definitively what the Book's true message is. You WANT certain things to be true rather than want to face what IS true about Scripture and what it reveals to us about God's will and other details. This isn't necessarily a bad thing unless it leads you to support unBiblical ideas, which in your case is absolutely the case.
Alright. Piffle to you, fellas.
Suffice to say that this is why people don't like to talk with you, why your sort of Christianity is marginalizing and making irrelevant the church. You speak as if your opinions are the only ones that matter. Other intelligent people sometimes will draw conclusions different than yours and that's just the way it goes.
Happy trails.
Who is more marginalizing than God Himself?
"Matthew 25:32
All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."
"Matthew 7:21-23
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
"Matthew 3:12
“ Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
And of course, we know of God's chosen people, and later, who will or won't be called "children of God". God is very marginalizing, very much discriminating. Should we be any less? Should we simply say, "Yeah, your ideas and beliefs are different and that's just peachy!"? or should we seek to englighten others where their beliefs fall short in order to help bring them closer to Him?
We have been going 'round and 'round on this business for several years. We have supported our positions and responded to all questions and rebuttals. We have done this on topics of politics as well as religion and as my original post suggests, the opposition runs from the battle to defend a position when they find no more arguments to counter ours. We're still standing. They fall away insisting they're position has merit after being shown how little it really has.
The title of this post is appropriate.
God is very marginalizing, very much discriminating. Should we be any less?
The difference is that God is not obnoxious, arrogant and off-putting. And to the degree that God might SOUND arrogant, that's only because, well, you know, God's God.
Should we simply say, "Yeah, your ideas and beliefs are different and that's just peachy!"?
If you're interested in conversations, yeah, something like that. I'm not saying don't disagree, just do so like an adult, as you would with your own brother or wife or children.
If you just want to denigrate, demonize and denounce those who disagree with you, even slightly, then you're doing fine just the way you are.
...or should we seek to englighten others where their beliefs fall short in order to help bring them closer to Him?
When I disagree with others on these sorts of matters, I don't presume I'm in a position to "enlighten" anyone else on anything beyond my opinion.
Thus, I don't say, "No one can possibly take that passage in that manner unless they're lying or they hate scripture..." instead I say, "That's not how I take that passage. Feel free to disagree, but I don't think your interpretation of that passage is reasonable..."
It's not my role to bring others closer to God. That's between God and the others. It's my role to be faithful by God's grace, to speak the truth in love and with respect. Or, as Micah puts it, "God has showed you what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
Nothing in there about "enlightening" others with my great wisdom and insight.
One man's opinion.
So, to me, all of this comes down to this:
I and my spiritual kin (from Methodist, Baptist, Mennonite, Brethren, Catholic, some Charismatic, Quakers, Progressive Christianity, amongst others) believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and that when we repent of our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them.
As indeed, you do, too.
But for us, that is enough. We feel no strong need to define it more thoroughly than that. God's grace is sufficient for us and needs no further explanation.
For you all, it seems very important that you define God's saving grace as having a method - that God's grace saves us because and only because Jesus died for us and that others MUST agree with that or they are not family in Good Standing with you.
We don't necessarily disagree that God's grace is there in Jesus' death and resurrection - not at all - but we still most comfortable answering the question, "How are you saved?" with the simple answer, "By God's grace." We don't feel the need to define it further than that. You do.
And that's fine with us (at least many of us) if that's important to you. The problem is, you all don't like that we don't want to agree with you and appear to insist that we agree with you 100% and state it just the way you do. It's not enough for you that we believe we are saved by grace and that's all we know about that for sure, you want us to say with you "and Jesus' death paid the penalty for our sins," even though the Bible doesn't state it that way.
It seems to me that the "poor babies" are the ones who keep insisting on getting their way. For our part, we're fine with you thinking as you do, we just ask for a bit of adult mutual respect. If you aren't prepared to offer it, then we will just tune your complaints out, as I did when my children were toddlers and saying "Daddy, I want this MY way! Daddy! Daddy!! MY WAY!"
Except, of course, my children were never THAT bad about it.
Dan, your behavior is clearly passive aggressive, to insist on "adult mutual respect" while comparing us negatively to petulant infants.
And your attacks on us is completely beside the point that you cannot actually defend your position with an appeal to Scripture that doesn't mangle the clear meaning of the text and rip the text out even its immediate context.
It seems that what you think this all "comes down to" involves little more than what one feels and what one likes.
"We feel no strong need to define it more thoroughly than that. God's grace is sufficient for us and needs no further explanation."
"We don't feel the need to define it further than that. You do."
"The problem is, you all don't like that we don't want to agree with you and appear to insist that we agree with you 100% and state it just the way you do."
No, Dan, the issue isn't about your feelings and ours, and about what we like and don't like.
The issue is simply THE CLEAR TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE.
The Bible is clear that we are saved, not only by God's grace and our faith, but also by Christ's death. In the IMMEDIATE context of the passages to which you allude in your summary of the "basics" of salvation, we find the saving power of Christ's blood over and over, and yet you do not hesitate to dismiss the Bible's clear teaching because, well, how did you put it?
You wrote, "we still most comfortable answering the question, 'How are you saved?' with the simple answer, 'By God's grace.'"
You put a higher priority on your comfort than you do on the Bible's clear teachings.
Marshall, Bubba, Edwin, Stan...and whoever else tried to talk sense to the senseless.
See what I mean?
Like pushing a rope.
"There's a serious problem with what you present as "the basics":
"That God is faithful to forgive us as we confess our sins and that we ARE saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, and that we are thus saved to do good works and follow in the steps of Jesus, all as the Bible says."
This summary not only omits quite a bit of what the Bible clearly teaches regarding salvation, it does so by ignoring the context of the passages to which you allude."
Well, golly, Gee. Pity the poor fool who can't read or write and lives so far out in the boonies there's not a preacher anywhere to be found. He's up a creek without a paddle. Dan's simple "basic" confession of faith wouldn't be enough to save his sorry soul, now would it.
Bubba, I'm beginning to think you've got yourself just enough education to make an idiot out of yourself.
I'm an idiot for daring to believe in the importance of the claim that Christ died for our sins? That we are made clean by His blood, and that His blood was shed for our forgiveness?
Well, I was told that preaching Christ crucified would come across as foolishness to some.
I'm just tired of attacks against Christianity's most important teachings coming from people who claim so implausibly to be Christians themselves.
"I and my spiritual kin (from Methodist, Baptist, Mennonite, Brethren, Catholic, some Charismatic, Quakers, Progressive Christianity, amongst others) believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and that when we repent of our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them.
As indeed, you do, too.
But for us, that is enough. We feel no strong need to define it more thoroughly than that. God's grace is sufficient for us and needs no further explanation."
AMEN BROTHER! AMEN.
Speaking truth to power.
"I'm an idiot for daring to believe in the importance of the claim that Christ died for our sins? That we are made clean by His blood, and that His blood was shed for our forgiveness?"
No.
You're an idiot for thinking Dan's simple "basic" confession of faith isn't enough to save your sorry soul.
You might notice, Marty, that I didn't write that belief in the saving power of Christ's death is necessary for salvation.
What I wrote -- and what I've been arguing -- is that the saving power of Christ's death is a clear teaching of the Bible: it is clear that we are saved by Christ's death, just as it is clear that we are saved by God's grace.
I'm not arguing about what is the absolute bare minimum of beliefs that are necessary for salvation: I've never argued about that, and I've frequently gone into great detail to make that clear.
What is being argued is what the Bible clearly teaches. It is true that the Bible clear teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, but it is equally true that the Bible clearly teaches that we are saved by Christ's death.
Whitewashing that isn't "speaking truth to power," it's lying through one's teeth.
And whether or not salvation "needs" no further explanation, the Bible does give it. It's no great act of humility to pick and choose what clear teachings to uphold: it is, in fact, an act of blasphemous hubris to presume to speak for God.
Let me try to take this bag of snakes and lay them out straight:
Christ died on the cross as a living sacrifice in our place. Just as the high priests in Moses' day sacrificed, according to God's law, the most unblemished lamb in the flock. In OT law, a lamb was a required blood sacrifice to cleanse God's people of their sins. This is God's idea, not mans. Jesus represents the most unblemished lamb.
In the New Testament, Jesus came to save us, once and for all, from our sins, so we don't need to continue to sacrifice lambs over and over ad infinitum.
To do that, Jesus had to be sacrificed. He shed His precious blood for the remission of our sins. Everlasting death, or spiritual death is the punishment we deserve for our sins.
Jesus Christ suffered the death we deserve in our place. That is Love.
Once we understand Jesus' ultimate sacrifice for us, we are called upon by God to accept this gift of life God has offered to us through the death of His Son upon the cross.
In order to be saved by grace, we first must believe that Jesus died for our sins, and that if we truly believe that, that is called faith.
When we truly believe, God extends His grace toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
This is how we are saved. By Christs sacrifice, which includes the shedding of His life's blood, He became the sacrificial lamb that cleanses us of all sin.
Then we must believe, through faith, that God will save us from our sin. Then, upon petitioning God to save us, God then extends His grace to accept us into His kingdom.
So, in a sense, Dan is right, but so is everyone else. The problem is, Dan doesn't see the necessity of Christ's sacrifice.
The shedding of blood.
Recognizing that the shedding of Christ's blood cleanses us of all unrighteousness (in God's eyes)and accepting that on faith.
Once those two prerequisites are fulfilled, God extends His grace (which means he freely offers, through love, to save us even though we don't deserve it, from everlasting spiritual death) to us to complete the process of saving us from our sins.
Is that about right?
In a nutshell, all three concepts are necessary for salvation.
Shedding of blood.
Faith.
Grace.
How about forgiveness?
What of repentance?
What of following in Jesus' steps?
What of them, Dan? Is this more digression?
What's been going on here is two topics:
1) The first is the sad attitude of most of the lefty bloggers with whom I've engaged over the years.
2) The second is an example of why they leave, with Dan providing the proof, doing so specifically through an ongoing debate regarding proper interpretations of Scripture, understanding Biblical teaching and how one comes to one's conclusions about Christianity.
Admittedly, most of the discussion has been about the topic of the causal relationship between Christ's death on the cross and our salvation, the forgiveness of our sins, however you want to put it.
No matter how many times it has been stated that one is free to believe what one chooses to believe, Dan apparently insists that we must at the same time give equal credence to his beliefs, even after we've shown repeatedly why we find his positions wanting. Somehow, he is offended that we won't give his opinions the respect HE apparently demands of us.
He doesn't see things our way. No kidding. Not at issue and never was. In fact it was a given. There would not be truly thousands of comments posted between us in these discussions here and at other blogs if he saw things our way.
But of course we maintain that it truly isn't our way, but His way. If we've shown anything in all these debates, it's that Dan's positions are not traditional, nor are they based on Scripture as firmly as he likes to claim.
I find it extraodinarily queer, to say the least, that Dan refuses to concede this basic, essential truth of the faith, that Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. The Bible could not be more emphatic on this point and how it was the purpose of His existence. It is absolutely elemental. If Christ had not died on the cross, there would be no atonement for our sins. This isn't my impression (I don't do impressions). This isn't my hunch. This isn't even my interpretation. This is what the Bible teaches. It's kinda what makes Easter weekend the big deal it is in the church. Well, in most churches. Not so sure about Jeff St.
At Jeff St, we worship the God of the Bible and heed the teachings of Jesus, the son of God, our Lord. Therefore, Easter is quite the big deal with us.
Feel free to stop in next time you're in Louisville on Easter.
Dan Trabue said...
How about forgiveness?
What of repentance?
What of following in Jesus' steps?
Yes, Dan, those, too.
All of these things are part of the process which happen almost simultaneously. Once we understand that Christ's shedding of blood is payment for our sins, and there is no other way to forgiveness, we have the option of repenting of our sins or not.
When we repent, God offers us His grace, and when we accept His grace, He forgives us. Then, if we are truly repentent, we want to walk in Jesus' steps. Even if we often fail, we still try because we want to live a perfect, blameless life for our Lord.
So let us refine the steps:
Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins.
Once we understand that fact, we must believe it.
If we truly believe it, and want to change, we repent.
Once we repent, God is faithful and just, through His Grace, to forgive us.
(Remember, God doesn't have to forgive us. He could refuse. He forgives us because He is gracious.
Once we are forgiven, we want to live as perfect a life as Jesus lived in appreciation for His sacrifice.
For me, personally, the process took place almost instantly. I suspect it happened as fast for the other commentators here.
Dan, my main point was this: You deny a penalty for sin that is demanded by God's justice and, therefore, necessarily deny that Christ paid that penalty on my behalf. You deny Penal-Substitutionary Atonement. I'm simply pointing it out because elsewhere you claimed precisely the opposite ... that you agree with it. I wasn't asking you to believe anything. I was simply pointing out the inconsistency. It's the same inconsistency that says, "I agree with Isa 53:5 which says He was given our punishment ... except, of course, that I don't believe that sin deserves punishment." (A loose paraphrase.) I really only stuck my nose in here because what you said to me elsewhere and what you said here seemed to be in direct contradiction. That's clear now. Thanks. (I mean, it's not like I'm thinking, "If I provide Dan enough Scripture he'll see the light.")
Mark...
Once we understand that Christ's shedding of blood is payment for our sins, and there is no other way to forgiveness, we have the option of repenting of our sins or not.
Are you saying that once we understand the shedding of blood is the payment for our sins and there is no other way for forgiveness, THEN we can repent? That is, we have to agree with you and others that it is the UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR VIEW that is important, not the repenting and not the grace, as lived out in Christ's life and death?
If that is your position, I disagree. What is necessary for us to accept God's grace is simply the realization that we are sinners in need of God's forgiveness and grace. Once we understand THAT, and repent, THAT is what leads to salvation.
As the Bible says. There is no language in the Bible that talks about the need to agree with your particular take on Jesus' death.
Stan...
You deny a penalty for sin that is demanded by God's justice and, therefore, necessarily deny that Christ paid that penalty on my behalf. You deny Penal-Substitutionary Atonement. I'm simply pointing it out because elsewhere you claimed precisely the opposite ... that you agree with it.
No. YOU have misunderstood my position and YOU THINK that I deny a penalty for sin. As I have said, sin clearly has consequences, which one might call a penalty. I think consequences is the better, more biblically apt way of understanding it, but if you feel more comfortable with the language of penalty, I won't beat you up over it.
I have clearly pointed out that I think the 16th century view of PSA has SOME merit (although, I think the much older view of simply SUBSTITUTIONARY atonement - without the "penal" component - is the more biblically correct view).
Just because you don't think I agree with it or just because I don't take it exactly as you do is not to say that you're right. You don't get to decide for me what I think. I'll speak for myself, thanks.
Sometimes, as we all know, Stan (and Dan, and Marshall, etc, etc) are mistaken.
In this case, clearly DAN is the one best suited for speaking for what Dan does and doesn't think and, therefore, in this case, Stan has made a mistake.
And that's fine, it happens.
"If that is your position, I disagree"
Of course you do, Dan. As I said, talking sense to you is like pushing a rope.
Be sure you explain to God in what ways He is wrong when you meet Him face to face at your judgment.
(I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting)
Speaking for God now, Mark?
I'm 100% down with whatever God says.
I just doubt that you speak for God.
I AM sorry, but I just see little of God or Jesus in you and your hateful little ways.
Please don't confuse my disagreeing with you as my disagreeing with God. I have met God, I know God, and Mark, you ain't God.
I will go so far as to agree with the Quakers who would insist that you have that of God within you.
May we all let that part of us show a bit more.
God speaks for God, Dan.
All I do is repeat what he said, even when what God says conflicts with your beliefs.
At least I don't claim God doesn't really mean what He says if I don't happen to agree with Him.
"Therefore, Easter is quite the big deal with us."
Why would that be, Dan? Of what importance is it that is should be such a big deal at Jeff St? Do you celebrate His resurrection apart from His suffering and death on the cross?
BTW, that "speaking for God" ploy is wearing quite thin. It is perfectly OK to speak for God if one is repeating what He has said. That's what I've been doing and will continue to do. The debate is whether or not YOU have, and we aren't convinced by your arguments that you have been repeating what He says as accurately.
Since we're on the same topic, if you don't mind horribly, I'll address this on your latest post...
Dan, one reason I'm simultaneously exhausted by these discussions and drawn to respond is your fairly flagrant dishonesty.
You're a poseur, and not a particularly good one.
You write, "I'm 100% down with whatever God says," but in a recent discussion here, a November 25th comment belies this bold claim.
"Now, I would ask you a question that I believe remains unanswered: IF God commanded you to kill a baby, would you? IF God commanded you to rape a child, would you?
"OR, would you defer to what you know - by God's Law written upon your heart and seared in your conscience - that such actions are inherently contrary to the notion of a good and just God, even if it meant contradicting god? Yes, we are ALL God's creation and God is God and can do what God will without asking our permission or without us understanding it.
"I'm suggesting that the notion of a being asking us to kill babies or rape children would be wrong and should be rejected out of hand as wrong. Where do you stand on these questions?"
You soon changed the terms of your question to introduce the possibility of delusion, but your original point seems to be that you would let your conscience -- blasphemously described as "God's word written on your heart" -- to trump divine revelation.
You're 100 percent behind what God says... except that you would reject any command from God if you do not fully understand the morality of that command -- you would apparently lean on your own understanding "even if it meant contradicting god," and you are eager to portray as unhinged those of us who would actually defer to God's sovereignty.
[continued]
[continued]
An even more obvious lie is this.
"At Jeff St, we worship the God of the Bible and heed the teachings of Jesus, the son of God, our Lord."
First of all, it's evidently not true that you personally worship the God of the Bible: the Bible attributes to God commands and actions that you reject as atrocity, so there is a fundamental disconnect between God as the Bible describes Him and God as you conceive of Him. At best, you worship a deity that somewhat resembles the God of the Bible.
Whether Jeff Street trusts the Bible's description of God more than you do is an open question with an entirely obvious answer, given your admiration for Jeff Street.
Second, it's obviously not true that you do not heed all of what Jesus taught, as recorded in the Bible you claim to esteem so highly.
(Again, what Jeff Street believes is an open question, but not a difficult one.)
Some teachings, you implausibly twist to fit your political philosophy.
1) You seem eager to conclude that His sermon in Luke 4 alludes to some physical or political liberation, even though Jesus freed literally no one from such bondage (unless you count Barrabas), instead giving His life to save us quite explicitly from the bondage of sin.
2) You also insist that the beatitudes in Luke 6 somehow refer to physical wealth, when I believe Stan has correctly pointed out that even you don't really believe salvation is dependent on physical poverty.
And what you don't distort, you often simply ignore: many of Christ's teachings don't seem to affect your beliefs in the slightest.
3) In Matthew 5, Jesus affirmed the lasting authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and yet you do not hesitate to denigrate as ahistorical and untrustworthy the Bible's historical claims about God, INCLUDING the crucial account of Passover.
4) In Matthew 19, Jesus taught that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife, but you believe God blesses "gay marriage."
5) In John 20, Jesus told Thomas to examine His wounds in order to believe that He had been raised, but you seem to believe that the physical nature of the Resurrection is a matter of interpretation. You've written that God could theoretically tell you that the Resurrection was purely spiritual and that you misinterpreted the Bible, when Jesus' own words rules out all possibilities except for a bodily return from the dead.
[continued]
[continued]
6) Jesus warns of judgment in numerous passages, including the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13, His teaching in John 15 about how He is the true vine, and His warning in John 5 about last things...
" Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Mt 13:40-42
"The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
"Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.
"Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out -- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." - Jn 5:22-29
...but you apparently don't think God judges sin, that sin comes with a penalty or punishment. You think the Bible emphasizes "the language of the caring doctor, not the condemning judge."
[continued]
[continued]
7) And, most importantly, in Mark 10 Jesus claimed that He came to give His life as a ransom for many, and in Matthew 26 He taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, but you apparently reject the claim of a causal connection between His death and our salvation.
"I and my spiritual kin (from Methodist, Baptist, Mennonite, Brethren, Catholic, some Charismatic, Quakers, Progressive Christianity, amongst others) believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and that when we repent of our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them.
"As indeed, you do, too.
"But for us, that is enough. We feel no strong need to define it more thoroughly than that. God's grace is sufficient for us and needs no further explanation."
Humble as it may sound to say that you need no further explanation, JESUS HIMSELF explained that He died for our forgiveness (to say nothing of the more thorough explanations found in the epistles), and you seem to reject His explanation, not only as superfluous but as altogether false -- on the basis of the belief we are saved by God's grace APART FROM Christ's death, which you view merely as a demonstration of grace rather than the cause of salvation.
For His church, Christ commanded one -- ONE AND ONLY ONE -- regular observance: the Lord's Supper, instituted on the eve of His death in order to commemorate His death. In the eucharist we proclaim Christ's death specifically (I Cor 11:26), not a broad umbrella of His life and teachings, and we do so because CHRIST HIMSELF taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins. But when you partake, you do unworthily, attaching to His death some meaning that is altogether different than what His teachings and all of Scripture require.
Indeed, none of us adhere perfectly to Christ's teachings in our beliefs and behavior, but your consistent effort to stand against what Jesus taught is outrageous.
You affirm all of what God says? You worship God as the Bible describes Him? You heed all that Jesus Christ taught?
These are transparent lies, Dan. You're clearly not trying to be accurate about what you believe: you're trying to make yourself look more orthodox than you really are, en route to smearing us.
("I AM sorry, [Mark,] but I just see little of God or Jesus in you and your hateful little ways.")
Your self-aggrandizing claims simply don't hold up to any sort of scrutiny of the details of what you really believe.
You're a flagrant and unrepentant liar about your faith.
It is terrible to think of the consequences of that.
You're a flagrant and unrepentant liar about your faith.
And you really ought to relax a bit, brother. Embrace the grace.
Your comment wouldn't be worth a substantive reply even if I thought you were serious.
I don't. Here, Marshall asked a perfectly legitimate question about why your church celebrates Easter given your unorthodox beliefs about Christ's death, and elsewhere you're going apeshit about that question, accusing him of hatred and disrespect.
Either that outrage or this flippancy is a pose -- or they both are.
I think you're willing to say whatever you think will score a cheap rhetorical point in the service of your political philosophy and your own ego, honesty and clarity and consistency be damned.
And you are welcome to your opinion, brother Bubba. Even when it is misguided and mistaken and lacking in grace.
In lieu of something more serious than your irrelevant platitudes and empty accusations, I stand by my conclusions, including my belief that you aren't my brother: you're a fraud who shamelessly lies about what he believes.
I reiterate that it's a very serious thing, to be a flagrant liar about one's own faith.
And I reiterate that you don't know me and, in your ignorance, you have made a false accusation. Bearing false witness, which is easily proven in this case, is a much more serious thing than your hunch that I'm lying, in spite of any evidence to support the false accusation.
I'll write it off in your case to an overzealous fundamentalism of a negative sort that leads you to presume that you know things you don't know about people you don't know. Ignorance, in other words.
Again, I encourage you to embrace a more graceful Christianity and that, for your own sake, you'd choose to demonstrate some of the grace that God has shown to you.
Calling "unholy" that which God has called holy is a serious thing. And the Church of God IS a good, holy, blessed thing, this church which you, in your zealous ignorance, misrepresent.
For your own sake, Bubba, relax.
Dan, my word to you would be not to relax, but be on guard. The deceiver roams about seeking whom he may devour and it seems like you have been on his menu. mom2
Thanks, Mom2. I'm doing my best to watch out for the deceivers.
If I misunderstand you, Dan, explain yourself and clarify what you believe.
If it's "easily proven" that I'm guilty of bearing false witness, prove it.
You write, "Calling 'unholy' that which God has called holy is a serious thing."
Indeed, but I'm not the one who rejects God's holy wrath. I'm not the one who tries to wipe away the Bible's clear warnings of God's judgment against sin. I'm not the one who believes that the Bible's account of THE PASSOVER is ahistorical. I'm not the one who believes it's a literal atrocity for God to take human life at any time through any means -- and who denigrates the Bible's accounts of God's holy wrath with slurs about "slaughter."
And you say, "the Church of God IS a good, holy, blessed thing," but I'm not denigrating God's church by concluding that there are people outside the church who falsely claim to belong within it -- and by numbering you among them.
If the belief that there are false Christians is a sign of "zealous ignorance" that calls unholy what God deems holy, then your problem is not with me alone. It's with Peter, John, Paul, and even Christ Himself (II Pet 2:1, I Jn 2:22, Gal 1:6-9, Mt 7:15-20).
Dan, I've given you every possible benefit of the doubt in our discussions. I've urged you to explain and to justify what you believe, and I've tried to find any good reason to conclude that our disagreements are rooted either in a misunderstanding on my part, in a plausible disagreement over interpretation, or simply muddled thinking on your part.
If a man has given a friend every benefit of the doubt to conclude otherwise but the evidence points decisively and irrefutably toward his cheating on his wife, he doesn't refuse his friend grace by concluding he's an adulterer.
If a man has given his grown son every benefit of the doubt to conclude that he didn't kill somebody but the evidence proves his guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, he doesn't refuse his son grace by concluding he's a murderer.
I have given you every benefit of the doubt. Even in this comment, I urge you to clarify what you believe to support your claim that I misunderstand you and bear false witness against you.
Barring the truly unexpected in your reply, I now have no rational choice but to conclude that you are guilty of a sustained effort to be willfully deceitful. It's no affront to grace to look at your lies and conclude that you're a liar.
There's no conflict between grace and truth, even if the truth is hard to bear.
Barring the truly unexpected in your reply, I now have no rational choice but to conclude that you are guilty of a sustained effort to be willfully deceitful.
By all means, let's deal with this again, Bubba. Name ONE THING about which I've been willfully deceitful.
Name it and provide support.
Keep in mind if you merely point to someplace where you disagree with my opinion is not evidence of deceit.
So, provide ONE THING (let's keep it easy and simple) and make your charge with evidence. Otherwise, you can apologize for the misrepresentation and we can move on.
I already named three lies and provided substantial in my multi-part comment from this morning.
1) I believe you lie when you say that you are "100% down with whatever God says."
My evidence is that you have argued that your conscience would trump EVEN a direct revelation from God, that if God gave you command whose morality you didn't understand, you would go with your conscience "even if it meant contradicting god" -- and I linked to where you argued this.
2) I believe you lie when you say that you worship the God of the Bible.
My evidence is your clear contempt for the Bible's description of God's actions and commands: the Bible attributes to God the taking of human life through miracles and human agency, and you dismiss these accounts as ahistorical and untrustworthy.
3) I believe you lie when you say that you "heed the teachings of Jesus."
My evidence is your implausible interpretations of Luke 4 and Luke 6, and the sheer difference between your beliefs as I understand them and Christ's teachings on the authority of Scripture; why we were created male and female; God and Christ's judgment against sin; Christ's bodily resurrection; and the meaning behind His death.
JUST TODAY, I wrote some 1,500 words to substantiate my conclusion that you're a liar on three different counts.
You wrote nothing in response other than some bullshit about how I ought to relax and "embrace the grace," and NOW you want to suggest that I have not substantiated my charge?
That's ridiculous.
I will not overlook your own accusation, Dan.
You accused me of bearing false witness and wrote ABSOLUTELY nothing in support of this accusation.
You need to provide support for that accusation, keeping in mind that you need to do more than merely point to some place where we disagree about the plausibility, clarity, consistency, and honesty about a particular position.
The standards that you will doubtlessly invoke for my accusation that you lie, you cannot possibly meet YOURSELF to prove that I bear false witness against you.
Okay, one accusation right here:
I already named three lies and provided substantial in my multi-part comment from this morning.
1) I believe you lie when you say that you are "100% down with whatever God says."
And, in truth, I am. My heart's desire is to do God's will. I'm telling you from my lips to God's ears, this is what I want in my life, as best I can.
So, that is MY evidence, what I know in my heart. Your "evidence?"
My evidence is that you have argued that your conscience would trump EVEN a direct revelation from God, that if God gave you command whose morality you didn't understand, you would go with your conscience "even if it meant contradicting god" -- and I linked to where you argued this.
What you have done is fail to understand my position. Your failure to understand my position is not an indication of a lie on my part. Perhaps a failure to adequately express myself, but that is no sin and that is not a lie.
My point in the above conversation is that we CAN'T go by just our feelings and emotions. If I'm angry at Muslims, for instance, and feeling like God wants me to wipe out a city of men, women and children, well that does not mean that it would be a good thing. AND EVEN if I thought I heard "god" talking to me, telling me directly to kill babies, I would not because I believe some things to be true.
The bible tells us that God does not tempt us to do evil. Killing babies is evil.
So, my affirmation that I would not obey a voice telling me to kill babies is NOT "evidence" that I don't desire God's will. IN CONTEXT, the point was that I WANT to do God's will and that I know God won't tempt me to do evil - AS THE BIBLE SAYS.
So, I AM sorry that you misunderstood me, but on this point, as on all others, your failure to understand me is not evidence that I have lied. It is only evidence that you have failed to understand me.
And that happens. Don't sweat it. No hard feelings.
But don't get stuck on stupid and keep insisting that I believe something I don't and have not said.
Bubba..
I will not overlook your own accusation, Dan.
You accused me of bearing false witness and wrote ABSOLUTELY nothing in support of this accusation.
Seriously man, take up drinking, drugs, something. You need to relax or your heart's going to have a hernia.
You accused me of lying. I have not lied and you have no evidence that I have lied.
THAT is false witness. You are suggesting that I have lied but your "evidence" is simply you misunderstanding my position. That is a false witness. Now, I have more than once offered the grace that you are likely committing this false witness in ignorance - you just don't know any better. You are pretty sure in your own head and feelings that I am lying and thus, you think you are NOT bearing false witness.
But you THINKING or FEELING that you have not borne false witness is not to say you haven't.
If you're accusing me of something, you have to provide evidence. I can't "prove" a negative. I can't go out and show you every statement I have ever made or written and demonstrate that they are all true. You have to say, "IN THIS INSTANCE, Dan lied..." and provide support.
And that support needs to be something other than your own misunderstanding.
Tequila? Beer? Something, pal. You're wired to explode. God's grace and peace to you.
Dan, look again at what you asked:
"Now, I would ask you a question that I believe remains unanswered: IF God commanded you to kill a baby, would you? IF God commanded you to rape a child, would you?"
There was nothing here about merely "thinking" you heard God, there was nothing about hearing a "voice" that may or may not be God, and there was nothing here about "angry feelings."
(About "feelings", which of us focuses on "God's word written in my heart" as the final arbiter of revelation, huh?)
More to the point, you're still arguing the position that proves my point.
We both agree that God wouldn't command us to commit evil acts, but you presume to have perfect knowledge of the moral law, and you presume that God would never act against YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the law.
"The bible tells us that God does not tempt us to do evil. Killing babies is evil."
I reiterate what, so far as I've seen, you have NEVER, EVER addressed: because God created and sustains human life, He is COMPLETELY within His rights to end human life whenever He wants, however He wants.
You stand behind your claim that you're "100% down with whatever God says," but there's an obvious asterisk hidden in that comment.
You listen to whatever God says, SO LONG AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
Bubba...
JUST TODAY, I wrote some 1,500 words to substantiate my conclusion that you're a liar on three different counts.
You wrote nothing in response other than some bullshit about how I ought to relax and "embrace the grace," and NOW you want to suggest that I have not substantiated my charge?
I have mostly quit responding to your outlandish and emotion-based "evidence" and "proof" and accusations. It is quite clear to any objective reader that I have spoken nothing discernible as a lie. Perhaps some disagree with my opinions and think I'm not being reasonable or don't have enough support to reasonably hold my positions, but my being mistaken (in your view) is not equal to my being a liar.
All of your charges against me amount to nothing more than you not understanding my positions. No lies. You could offer 10 million words about why you guess that when I say, "I love the bible," I actually mean "I disrespect the Bible" or whatever and it wouldn't mean anything if there's nothing to it.
Bubba, there's nothing to your charges but misunderstandings. There are no lies, no falsehoods in what I say my positions are. I can always be wrong, but I would not waste my time writing stuff that isn't what I actually think. Why would I?
When I say I love the bible, what I mean by that is simply that I love the Bible. When I say that I want to follow in the steps of Jesus, what I mean by that is that I want to follow in the steps of Jesus.
I can always be wrong, but there is simply no falsehood in those comments.
So, even though you have nothing to hold up as "evidence" except your misunderstanding of my positions, I suppose no apology is forthcoming? Ah, well, I was not really expecting one.
You might consider it for your own sake, though. That bitterness must be hard on your soul.
And, Dan, I'm not guilty of bearing false witness.
"You accused me of lying. I have not lied and you have no evidence that I have lied."
I do have evidence, and I wrote 1500 words presenting that evidence.
"You are suggesting that I have lied but your 'evidence' is simply you misunderstanding my position."
Since I seem to understand your beliefs quite well, your claim is inaccurate.
I stand by my conclusion that you've lied. If you can't do better in demonstrating that I bear false witness with this conclusion -- you can't prove a negative, etc. -- you shouldn't make the accusation.
Bubba said...
Since I seem to understand your beliefs quite well, your claim is inaccurate.
Examine the evidence. You THINK...
I believe you lie when you say that you are "100% down with whatever God says."
And your evidence:
My evidence is that you have argued that your conscience would trump EVEN a direct revelation from God, that if God gave you command whose morality you didn't understand, you would go with your conscience "even if it meant contradicting god" -- and I linked to where you argued this.
I have done this once already. Here it is again, perhaps you missed why YOU MISUNDERSTAND my position...
My point in the above conversation is that we CAN'T go by just our feelings and emotions. If I'm angry at Muslims, for instance, and feeling like God wants me to wipe out a city of men, women and children, well that does not mean that it would be a good thing. AND EVEN if I thought I heard "god" talking to me, telling me directly to kill babies, I would not because I believe some things to be true.
The bible tells us that God does not tempt us to do evil. Killing babies is evil.
So, my affirmation that I would not obey a voice telling me to kill babies is NOT "evidence" that I don't desire God's will. IN CONTEXT, the point was that I WANT to do God's will and that I know God won't tempt me to do evil - AS THE BIBLE SAYS.
You respond to this by saying...
There was nothing here about merely "thinking" you heard God, there was nothing about hearing a "voice" that may or may not be God, and there was nothing here about "angry feelings."
Nonetheless, that was my point. You know how I know it was my point? Because it was MY point and I generally have a pretty good handle on MY OWN positions.
My point was NOT that I would disobey God if God told me to do something, my point was that if someone hears a voice and they are sure it is God telling them to do something wrong, they can be sure that it is not God.
If you look at the conversation in context, I think it is quite clear. I am sorry it was not clear to you, but I have made it clear now.
So, now you can know what my point with that comment was and now you know that my stated desire to follow God is not a lie.
Nonetheless, you appear to be stuck on bitterness and bile and I doubt that you'll believe that I know better what I'm thinking than you know.
So, may God's peace be with you.
Seriously.
Dan, one problem is that your supposed explanation doesn't match the text. Not for the first time, you're putting forward an explanation that doesn't make any sense. In another thread, you wrote, "I am not willing to make a claim about the Bible that neither God nor the Bible make" and then -- when caught in a blatant act of hypocrisy -- you argued that you meant something by the text that CANNOT BE PLAUSIBLY SUPPORTED by the context.
Here, the original comment isn't in a context about "feelings," so it's implausible that your original point had anything to do with that.
Second, it's clear that your willingness to listen to God really is limited to revelation that you understand. If God were to reveal something that you don't like, you would deny His deity rather than submit in humility.
Let me push the rope further:
Dan defends abortion and yet he says, "Killing babies is evil".
He is a liar and a hypocrite.
Besides that, Dan has never said, "I believe God blesses Gay marriage"
He has, however, on multiple occasions, said, "God blesses Gay marriage".
But he doesn't speak for God.
Now, when God said "do not lay with a man as you would with a woman", God was speaking for God.
But Dan says God didn't really mean those words. He meant, instead, that it's ok to be a homo as long as you aren't a homo in church.
So, apparently, Dan knows better what God means than God.
But wait. There are homos in Dan's church, and Dan thinks that's just peachy.
But...
Dan doesn't speak for God.
(for the record, I believe homos should be in church, so that they can know and understand they are in sin, and repent)
Seriously, Bubba, and Marshall and Craig, and whoever else is wasting time trying to talk sense to Dan:
You are pushing a rope. Give up. I believe God has long since given Dan up to his own depravity.
Dan's attitude is found within Romans 1:22-25
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man...(this verse describes how Dan puts God into a box of human comprehension. Dan cannot fathom a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present. He has to be like man.)
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness...(or, in Dan's case, heretical beliefs)
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. This verse describes Dan's Humanistic moral relativists philosophy)
Well said, Mark.
I think the most irritating thing is that there's one thing off with the "pushing a rope" analogy. While Dan will say anything, it's clear that it's all in the service of an agenda to which he's shown a single-minded sense of devotion: an agenda of advancing his radical philosophy in the guise of biblical Christianity.
But I'll try better to listen to your sage advice and my better nature, and ignore the creep.
Dan, I think you got my point in my last comment, but in your typical cute way you appear to be pointing in the wrong direction about deceivers. I fear the deceiver has you recruited as one of his helpers. I pray it is not too late for you. mom2
That's interesting, mom2. We have one person here that I know of (well, two, counting Mark and maybe three, if you fall into this group) who have demonstrably misrepresented the truth. Bubba has clearly misrepresented my position. He has deceived those who might be deceived if they are gullible enough to believe HE knows what I think better than I do.
And so, with ONE demonstrable deceiver here, you appear to cling to the charge that I have been deceived. Based on what? The fact that I disagree with you?
Once again, the fact that I might slightly disagree with you does not point to "proof" that I have been deceived or that I have lied. It is merely that, IN MY ATTEMPT to, by God's grace, sincerely walk in Jesus' steps and follow God's way, I have come to a conclusion different than you on a few topics.
But I'm sure you're old enough to realize that I disagree with you is not proof that I disagree with God. Far from it, right?
Since you asked, Dan; I don't really know what you believe other than that you trust yourself and your judgment over God's Word in its' entirety. You may mean well, but good intentions can only go so far. It takes courage to accept truth. mom2
mom2 misrepresented...
I don't really know what you believe other than that you trust yourself and your judgment over God's Word in its' entirety.
That is a falsehood, mom2. I'll assume you have made that false statement in ignorance - because, as you state, YOU DON'T KNOW ME.
In truth, I trust God, or at least strive to by God's grace. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I am a fallible human being capable of error. I COULD be wrong about gay marriage, for instance.
On the other hand, have ANY of you all made such a statement? No, I don't think you have.
WHO, then, is trusting their own wisdom and who is humbly seeking God's will? The people who acknowledge their limited genius and fallible nature or the people who insist that THEIR opinion is the only possible correct position?
WHO is trusting their own wisdom, mom2: Me or you?
Dan, you don't deserve one shred of credit for the false humility in admitting that you "could" be wrong about "gay marriage," when it's clear that you're not willing to put your beliefs on the line.
You don't subject your position to scrutiny in good faith: you don't take seriously the substance of arguments against your position, and your own arguments are based in absurd interpretations of Scripture -- such as concluding that Matthew 19 ONLY teaches that marriage is good without any implications about its composition.
Your admission that you could be wrong is entirely hypothetical and is therefore useless.
when it's clear that you're not willing to put your beliefs on the line.
As I have clearly demonstrated before, I HAVE put my beliefs on the line. I DID believe that gay marriage was wrong. I was convinced of it. It was only through prayerful bible study and seeking God's will that I came to a different conclusion.
I HAVE done so and it's easily demonstrated. I continue to do so prayerfully.
So, how about you? Have you ever changed your position away from the traditions of men that you follow in order to more closely align yourself with God's will?
Dan, as I tried to explain in the other, more recent thread, it is true that I don't know your inner thoughts, but it's also irrelevant.
(And it's begging the question to appeal to yourself to prove that you're trustworthy.)
"He has deceived those who might be deceived if they are gullible enough to believe HE knows what I think better than I do."
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, one could never conclude that a person is a liar unless he admitted to it himself.
But while your innermost thoughts remain hidden from us, we're not without hope.
We have your arguments by which to judge your honesty, and your arguments are shit. So I'm left to conclude that the ONLY possibilities are that either you're a world-class idiot or you're an unrepentant liar, and I don't think you're as dumb as your arguments.
Basically, I have it on good authority that there are deceivers, wolves in sheep's clothing.
And I have it on equally good authority that we're not prevented from discerning who's deceitful just because we can't read minds.
We can AND SHOULD judge trees by their fruit.
You should know this, Dan, since you claim to love all that Jesus taught and the Sermon on the Mount in particular.
This rigmarole of how I can't determine that you're a liar because I don't know your thoughts is in defiance of that teaching.
I DO know that we are to judge trees by their fruit, and people by their actions. And I find your actions troubling and your fruit rotten.
But then, I also know that none of us are perfect and that includes me. So I lump myself with you as another sinner saved by God's grace and try to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you show little grace, little love of the Christian community, little patience, little kindness, little self-control, little of the fruit of the Spirit.
In short, by all evidences, you are not living a life of grace by God's Spirit. You have an argumentative spirit and you continually slander and misrepresent the truth. And so, I pray for you and for God's grace and peace to find it's way into your life.
And for me, as well.
First things first, Dan:
"As I have clearly demonstrated before, I HAVE put my beliefs on the line. I DID believe that gay marriage was wrong. I was convinced of it. It was only through prayerful bible study and seeking God's will that I came to a different conclusion.
"I HAVE done so and it's easily demonstrated. I continue to do so prayerfully."
1) You prove my point from what I wrote in the other thread about an hour prior to your comment.
"I don't see you own up to any SPECIFIC misunderstandings or mistakes on your part EXCEPT for your life before converting to progressivism."
That you own up to poor arguments as pre-conversion Dan IS NOT proof that you are still willing to own up to bad arguments now.
2) What you write is hardly evidence of your being convicted by the Bible's clear teachings, and I say that because your arguments are shit.
You say, "It was only through prayerful bible study and seeking God's will that I came to a different conclusion."
The ONLY WAY we could discern whether you're being accurate is to judge the quality of the arguments for your new position. You're sometimes coy about those arguments (and even about the positions themselves), and when you present those arguments, they simply don't stand up to any real scrutiny.
You could walk us through the process of your transformation if it REALLY was the result of Bible study, but because you don't, I cannot but doubt the veracity of the claim.
[continued]
[continued]
"So, how about you? Have you ever changed your position away from the traditions of men that you follow in order to more closely align yourself with God's will?"
I've pointed out one instance before. I'm quite ecumenical toward theologically conservative, orthodox Christians, and so I used to believe that transubstantiation, which I reject, was nevertheless a subject about which Christians could agree to disagree.
I have come to understand that that doctrine entails the belief that Christ continues to be sacrificed countless times a day, all over the world, and has been continually sacrificed for centuries. I have come to reject that doctrine as completely outside the bounds because Hebrews is clear -- esp. in 7:27, 9:12, 9:28, and 10:10 -- that Christ's sacrifice was "once for all."
There are two other areas that hit closer to home politically:
1) My pastor's son, a good friend of mine, is a theology student who has concluded that Locke's natural law theory cannot be justified in Scripture. As a political conservative who has always held to natural law, I've struggled to find any reason to reach a different conclusion, so far to no avail.
I continue studying when I can to see if I'm missing anything, but for now I've at least provisionally concluded that natural law may be AT BEST a working construct that isn't biblical but can provide enough intellectual common ground for a free, pluralistic society.
2) My study of Romans -- particularly Romans 13 -- has led me to question civil disobedience and revolution in all its forms, INCLUDING the American Revolution from whence came the nation which I so dearly love.
Paul taught that we should submit to the governing authorities as an agent of God's wrath, and he did this in the context of a pagan Roman empire that was almost certainly already persecuting Christians.
The only time that it appears to be biblically permissible and even REQUIRED to stand against the government is when their decrees directly contradict God's law -- as seen when Daniel was told to worship the king and, much later, when the Apostles were told not to preach about Jesus.
(Note that, despite your claim that Jesus committed civil disobedience, all four Gospels are quite clear that Pilate thought He was COMPLETELY innocent, guilty of no crime whatsover.)
So, the Bible isn't an explicitly political document and doesn't have much directly to say about government, but I do think there's a much stronger case against EVEN the American revolution and instances of civil disobedience, then there is against, say, the invasion of Iraq and even the bombing of Hiroshima. It's possible that the American colonists indeed have the right to rebel (as described in the Declaration) but that Christians ought not to exercise that right.
So, as a political conservative, my loyalty to the clear teachings of Scripture have required me to reconsider the existence of Lockean natural rights and even the morality of the American Revolution.
You wouldn't have any instances of the Bible overriding your **CURRENT** political inclinations, would you, Dan? Or do all your anecdotes about getting things wrong suddenly stop when you stopped thinking you were (or stopped pretending to be) a conservative?
Now, Dan, about your latest comment, that you find my fruit rotten, I have much to say -- but much that will be addressed in that other thread.
For now, I stand by what I've written; I do not believe I am guilty of slander.
You write that I show "little grace, little love of the Christian community, little patience, little kindness, little self-control, little of the fruit of the Spirit."
This is a bullshit claim in the context of LITERALLY years of lengthy, detailed online discussions -- discussions going back at least three years and three months, almost to the day.
I haven't always been as patient as I could have been, but I have given you every reasonable consideration and every reasonable benefit of the doubt.
(Even now, as I have done repeatedly over the last few months, I go over lists of issues that are the result of our lengthy conversations, and you continue to misconstrue my substantive objections as mere "feelings" and "hunches.")
If it were possible for me to conclude that your positions are a reasonable result from good-faith Bible study, I would have long since said so by now.
If it were possible for me to conclude that you argue in good faith and that you genuinely try to be honest about what you believe and why, I would have done so by now.
I don't because I can't. Your writing is so consistently tendentious that I MUST conclude that it's deliberate.
You are an unrepentant liar, and the fact that I've waited literally a thousand days to state the obvious so unequivocally is a testament to my patience, my kindness, and my self-control.
And as for "love of the Christian community," it is love and loyalty to Christ's church that drives me to quite literally hate your treacherous behavior.
(It's your behavior I hate; you I only pity.)
I believe it's obvious that you're trying to co-opt His church to suit your political purposes. Love of the Christian community requires me to call you out on it.
More, much more, elsewhere.
Post a Comment