Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
C. H. Dodd was a widely recognised conservative, protestant scholar and he dealt with the context in which words were used, not just a single dictionary definition.

It could well be that NT writers and preachers used woerds that their audiences were familiar with - but then developed an argument - as I have suggested above re blood = life.

The Hebrew sacrificial sustem was not about an animal bearing people's sins - the scapegoat was not killed but sent away. It couldn't be offered to God because it was cursed - just as Jesus would have been seen as cursed because he hung on a tree and Paul has to go to lenghths tp explain his way out of that. The sacricial system was about the life of an animal covering/blotting out sins, not being killed insesad of humans.

This, of the two theories of atonement that get confused with each other, the sacrificial theory is nearer to scripture (especially the letter to the Hebrews) than the juridical (PSA) one. (Mind you, the juridical one would be easier understood by Gentile Romans.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The Hebrew sacrificial sustem was not about an animal bearing people's sins - the scapegoat was not killed but sent away. It couldn't be offered to God because it was cursed - just as Jesus would have been seen as cursed because he hung on a tree and Paul has to go to lenghths tp explain his way out of that. The sacricial system was about the life of an animal covering/blotting out sins, not being killed insesad of humans.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Martin NPCASB
And if Christ's death doesn't pay for my sin, what will?!?! If even the death of God's son on my behalf isn't good enough, what can be? And if it's unnecessary, if I'm forgiven without it ... what's it a sacrifice for? If I don't need it, I don't want it. I'd rather it wasn't necessary in the first place regardless. If I don't need it I don't have to acknowledge it surely?
Surely I'm ENTITLED to eternal life? Sorry or not? Sorry for what? 'Sin'?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afghan:
According to the Talmud the goat of Azazel was killed - by being pushed off a cliff.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
So did I miss it, or has the Bishop of Willesden made a public apology to Jeffrey John for his overly hasty evaluation of a talk that Dean John had not yet given?

Apparently, Dean John got quite a bit of hate mail as a result of the comments by +Broadbent, +Wright, and +Benn. Does Christian charity require them to ask forgiveness?

---

I would imagine the Bishop of Willesden would consider that beneath his dignity, after all he clearly considers that Jeffrey John isn't a proper Christian

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
I would imagine the Bishop of Willesden would consider that beneath his dignity, after all he clearly considers that Jeffrey John isn't a proper Christian

---

Ahhh...but does +Broadbent consider himself a proper Christian?

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:Two goats. One dies, the other escapes. Hence "scapegoat".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
So did I miss it, or has the Bishop of Willesden made a public apology to Jeffrey John for his overly hasty evaluation of a talk that Dean John had not yet given?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boviwanjoshobi:

If we deny this, we rip out the heart of Christianity and we have a different religion entirely.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He did. The book of Romans. And applied non-esoteric, non-intellectualist and perfectly valid Christian thinking to it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He did. The book of Romans. And applied non-esoteric, non-intellectualist and perfectly valid Christian thinking to it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
...the Bible's central message is that people should believe in and obey God - and that PSA defeats that central message by denying the human ability to do this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
...the Bible's central message is that people should believe in and obey God - and that PSA defeats that central message by denying the human ability to do this.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
...the Bible's central message is that people should believe in and obey God - and that PSA defeats that central message by denying the human ability to do this.

---

I don't follow this.
Can you expand on it a little?

I believe in PSA and think it is very important that we should believe in and obey God.

---

quote:

---

12. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor. 5:19–21).
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.

14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners."The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration"

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boviwanjoshobi:
‘Christ died for us’, is central to the message of the gospel.

---

quote:

---

He substitutes for us,

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's works. Salvation by works.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
...intellectualist and perfectly valid Christian thinking to it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's what you said: 'You are not saved while still sinning. You need to stop sinning.'

---

quote:

---

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7.19-23

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
One doesn't need to be a liberal, an intellectual or a rationalist* to believe that it is no bad thing to think about faith. One needs simply to think that it is good for human beings to do characteristically human things, that thought is characteristically human, and that faith does not contradict reason.


*Whatever those words actually mean. In the UK they tend to be words for Bad Things in the eyes of Daily Mail readers.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

From where I sit, it's the thinking-about-God-people who try to make sure that The Wrong People (tm) don't think that God loves them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And the vast majority of those here who reckon they are Christian intellectuals ... aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I dunno, a woman thinking is like a dog walking on its hind legs.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And are you JUSTIFIED by bearing good fruit Freddy?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And are you JUSTIFIED by bearing good fruit Freddy?

---

quote:

---

Matthew 12:37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Romans 2:13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

James 2:25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

---

quote:

---

Acts 13:39 By Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Galatians 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No it bloody isn't. If the "left" and the "right" have atonement theories and the left's is less inclusive (any thing EXCEPT PSA) than the right's (PSA+), how can the right's be about excluding any one from the love of God?

I dunno, a woman thinking is like a dog walking on its hind legs.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

From where I sit, it's the thinking-about-God-people who try to make sure that The Wrong People (tm) don't think that God loves them.

---

Yeah, that's right. The problem with Fred Phelps is that he's just way too intellectual.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No it bloody isn't. If the "left" and the "right" have atonement theories and the left's is less inclusive (any thing EXCEPT PSA) than the right's (PSA+), how can the right's be about excluding any one from the love of God?

---

The popular version of PSA doesn't include any other theory of atonement. The vast majority of the Anglican right who think that the rest of the community aren't really Christians (e.g Reform and Anglican Mainstream(sic)) argue that it's PSA only; read "Where Wrath and Mercy Meet" edited by David Peterson.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I have. And it doesn't say any such thing. It says that PSA is the central model, essential for understanding the others. This is similarly what Stott's Cross of Christ says, and the book about the atonement by Leon Morris and Jim Packer in his definitve essay "The Logic of Penal Substitution". I have yet to meet an evangelical, scholar or other wise who thinks that Jesus taking our punishment, is the ONLY thing happening on the cross.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
And that last comment was unworthy of you, Martin.

---

He wasn't making it, he was quoting it, as a sort of allusion. Maybe Martin's postings are easier to follow if you think of them as a sort of free verse

Actually I have to confess I find them quite easy to follow. I think he thinks in ways similar to me. But I've got a sort of copy-editor module somewhere in my brain that re-arranges the words into a semblance of functional prose before I type.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Freddie, Jesus was preaching to Jews - people wo knew the truth about God as they had received it, pople who were part of the covenant people. His words apply to people who belong to God already, not to humanity in general.

---

Oh. I didn't know that.

Is it possible for you to quote any source that might explain that? Or even state it? I find it a little incredible.

I've never heard that Jesus' words only applied to Jews - or are you only saying that Jesus' words about salvation only apply to Jews?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The verses you quote do not say 'bear fruit and I will decide to save you'.

---

quote:

---

John 15.5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

---

quote:

---

John 6:56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

---

quote:

---

John 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

---

So, yes, Jesus says "bear fruit and I will save you." Or do you read those passages differently?

Or maybe, if this only apply to Jews, it doesn't matter what Jesus says.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
He wasn't making it, he was quoting it, as a sort of allusion.

---

What was he quoting, or alluding to? My reaction was the same as Seeker's.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I have. And it doesn't say any such thing. It says that PSA is the central model, essential for understanding the others. This is similarly what Stott's Cross of Christ says, and the book about the atonement by Leon Morris and Jim Packer in his definitve essay "The Logic of Penal Substitution". I have yet to meet an evangelical, scholar or other wise who thinks that Jesus taking our punishment, is the ONLY thing happening on the cross.

---

I have a LOT of time for Packer's view, specifically because he rejects the idea of retributive justice, but I then wonder why it's actually PSA?

---

quote:

---

I don't think that conservative theologians think that "Jesus taking our punishment is the only thing that happens on the cross". The way I understood the book, the argument is something like "PSA incorporates all the other ideas that other atonement theories hold; it is the one complete theory of atonement". I read some people as thinking that other theories of atonement just confuse the issue and should not be expressed. Is my reading unfair in your view?

---