homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » One Atonement (Page 14)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  23  24  25 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: One Atonement
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

ISTM that most (if not all) interpretations of the cross and resurrection are weakly supported by the biblical record. Dare I include Paul in that? What scriptural authority did he claim for much of his writing. What possible basis is there for Charles Wesley to add himself to the charge sheet? Do you, shipmates, see your names on the list?

Again, apologies if that was rhetorical, but I don't. I dislike the poetic notion that the hands and cries of "crucify him" were mine.

As far as I read, the calling is to consider myself crucified with Christ, not to consider myself the abuser and crucifier.

quote:
I think that somewhere in all this we have to recognise the important influence of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to our spirits, because in trying to articulate the atonement, however insecurely, there are great doses of religious imagination that have uncertain scriptural bases at best and almost none at all in many cases. That is not to say these insights are false but we are in trouble if we seek to anchor them solely in biblical authority. Don't let scripture limit the Witness of Truth!
Exactly. Part of my objective here has been to articulate a view that attempts to be rooted in the scriptures but is 180 degrees at odds with the Evangelical understanding of the atonement. It is, by any estimation, "biblical".

But as my sig suggests, anything that is worth believing needs to be more than just "biblical", it also needs to be "not bollocks".

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr. cheesy wrote:
quote:
I dislike the poetic notion that the hands and cries of "crucify him" were mine.

As far as I read, the calling is to consider myself crucified with Christ, not to consider myself the abuser and crucifier.

I don't think you have to be a grade A exegete to suggest those two things run together - the former point relating to the human nature, the second (through repentance and burying the old man) to putting that aside and growing in the Holy Spirit/theosis/etc.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4787 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He even allows a hemorrhaging woman to touch him and rewards that audacious act with healing. The idea seems to be that rather than being contaminated by our impurity, Jesus moves to us to infect us with his purity.

He didn't allow it and He didn't heal her.
[Confused]
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Especially due to my deliberate use of that as a weapon with cliffdweller, who said a lot of good stuff, BUT had a mote in her eye. My beam looks larger.

Before we start comparing who's is bigger [Big Grin] could you explain the mote??? I'm sure I have many, but not at all sure what one you're talking about here. [Confused]
Ay up cliffdweller, the mote is your singular hermeneutic, as Nick pointed out and your insistence on it. As in other areas [Smile] Well one.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16886 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr cheesy
quote:
Kwesi: Do you, shipmates, see your names on the list?
I suppose in tone, mr cheesy, it was a rhetorical question, but it was intended to provoke responses, not only from such as yourself but from those of a different opinion. Really, I'm just looking for sincerity, because there are those for whom such an identification leads to an atoning experience. Evidently, not for you, which is just fine.
Posts: 1513 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
mr. cheesy wrote:
quote:
I dislike the poetic notion that the hands and cries of "crucify him" were mine.

As far as I read, the calling is to consider myself crucified with Christ, not to consider myself the abuser and crucifier.

I don't think you have to be a grade A exegete to suggest those two things run together - the former point relating to the human nature, the second (through repentance and burying the old man) to putting that aside and growing in the Holy Spirit/theosis/etc.
I identify with all parties. Easily.

[ 15. May 2017, 12:08: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16886 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Could someone clarify for me what the cross had to do with the forgiveness of sins? As I see it Jesus forgave sins on numerous occasions in the course of his ministry. This power arose not from his atoning work on the cross but from his Trinitarian status, that as God he had power on earth to forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins not because of what he did but because of who he was. (A power he exercised as he was being crucified).

I don't know that I can clarify it. I don't think I can explain it. But I do think it's incomplete to exclude the cross from the forgiveness of sin or God's reconciling work in Christ (which are intertwined—forgiveness is part of reconciliation.) It seems to me that it's not just his Trinitarian status at work, but his Incarnation as well.

Yes, the cross—and what we call the atonement—is talked about a variety of ways in the NT. My point is simply that it's worth paying attention to all of those ways. In the other recent thread on this topic, I said this all seems to me like the story of the blind men and the elephant—lots of differing descriptions, some of which can appear to be describing totally different things, that add to the picture but that, on their own, are incomplete or even wrong. I tend to think of these various descriptions as akin to the parables—"The kingdom of heaven is like....". Not "is," but "is like."

Certainly, others' mileage may differ, but I find myself increasingly disinclined to need to know how exactly it all works, and increasingly content to live with tension and even paradox that arises from the different descriptions.

So all that is to say that I'm far from a full-blown PSAer. Quite far. But at the same time, there is enough in Scripture—both from Jesus himself, from the apostles and from the underlying OT context—describing the cross's role in God's reconciling work in Christ, of which forgiveness is part, for me feel uncomfortable ignoring it.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
My take on it is that the cross is a temporal manifestation—an outcropping or intersection of the divine into human history—of an eternal reality. Revelation describes Christ as the Lamb sacrificed or slain from the foundation of the world. The cross is that sacrifice breaking into our history. In the incarnation-cross-resurrection, it seems to me, the Incarnate God does what the Word eternally does—offer himself in love and bring forth life. What exactly is going on is a mystery, but it is, I think, a mystery that undergirds all of our relation to God and a mystery that we are invited into, not to understand but to participate in and experience. And in experiencing it, we find salvation—healing, wholeness, acceptance, welcome, forgiveness (and self-forgiveness), reconciliation, release from bondage, love, abundant life and more.

It is so much more than that, and unfortunately this is where the Evangelical understanding of the atonement and works of Christ fall so short. It just isn't about "you" and your personal release from bondage. That's already offered to you by the God who loves you and wants to see the best for you.

It's about upsetting the Karma applecart and breaking the powers and announcing a new kingdom and a new set of priorities and that all the crap that we see is just temporal and will be swept away.

I agree completely. That's why I said "and more." But I can see how what I listed emphasized the individual to the point it could read like I think that's the extent of it. Thanks for the corrective/expansion.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2498 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Could someone clarify for me what the cross had to do with the forgiveness of sins? As I see it Jesus forgave sins on numerous occasions in the course of his ministry. This power arose not from his atoning work on the cross but from his Trinitarian status, that as God h
If The atonement relied on his status as you put it, then that would not create an identification with us. Jesus was the 'last Adam'. 1Cor 15:45,46. He was obviously always God as well but as Paul states in Philippians 2:6, while he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, he humbled himself to the point of becoming truly man with it and further, to the death on the cross which Galatians 3:13 tells us was a curse.

Regarding forgiveness and the cross, time is irrelevant. The cross, as Gamaliel suggested above, is the central event of history. All revelation of scripture looks either forward to it or back from it. The OT sacrificial system provided temporary forgiveness in the sin offering, but as Hebrews explains, in ch 8,9,10, Christ's death on the Cross is the real,unique thing that deals with that for all time. He is priest and victim. All further offerings for sin from that point are unnecessary and irrelevant to ones true spiritual status.

The cross expunged sin once and for all time rather than temporarily covering it. The life given by Christ in his humanity, the shed blood, without which, under the law there was no forgiveness, now enabled forgiveness to flow forward and backward in time.

When Christ as Peter states preached to the 'spirits in prison' 1 Pet 3:19, when he, as stated in Colossians 2:13,14, disarmed Satan, it was by cancelling out the debt against us through the cross, he was saying in effect, 'now you can be 'truly' justified.'

Thus, OT believers looked forward to the cross. NT believers look back to it. Either way, the cross is the central sacrifice that enables forgiveness.

This is well laid out in the book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 9:12 : Christ through his own blood entered the holy place once,for all:14, how much more will the blood of Christ..cleanse your conscience from dead works: 28, Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many: 26, he was manifested,to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

It couldn't be much more clearly stated.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think what might be missing is this.
Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
In other words, in the very heart of God is the experience of death and sacrifice.

It cannot be true that before Jesus' death there was no atonement, no sacrifice.
When Jesus died that was not God's first experience of suffering and death; there is always death in the heart of God.

The atonement of the cross is not a new act of God.
It's the final act of atonement that fulfills and validates all the sacrifices that went before.
Jesus, on effect, was the last and perfect Mosaic 'animal' sacrifice (he was the lamb remember).

Jesus was born under the Torah, lived under the Torah, and died as a Torah-stipulated sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.

People ask how Jesus could forgive all those Jewish people he met.
Did he forgive them all simply because he was God? Well yes, 'only God has authority to forgive sins.'

But what is the basis of God's authority, what is the process, the mechanism, the justification for him saying 'I forgive'?

According to the entire Old Testament, it's the gift of the sacrificial system - we are told clearly 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Now, don't protest and say that's not right, because that is that the Bible says - whether we like it or not. Forgiveness can only be provided by the shedding of sacrificial blood.
God said it, set the entire sacrificial system up through Moses - and of course it was accepted and used by God in the times of the patriarchs as well.

So, when Jesus went round forgiving people it was as the lamb of God; he embodied atoning sacrifice in his very being and essence.

Many have said already that the atonement wasn't just the nails and the spear. It is Christ's incarnation, his life, his words, his miracles, his humble obedience in Gethsemane, his silence before Pilate, his crucifixion, his resting in the tomb, his rising, ascending and expected coming again in power and glory.

As he laid his hand on the penitent, his own sacrifice effected the atonement in that moment, in that person.

His own death 'from the foundation of the world', prefigured and demonstrated in Mosaic animal sacrifice and perfectly fulfilled finally 'once for all' upon the cross, revealed the atoning power of God and completed it - thus 'it is finished' - so that the sacrificial system ended upon the cross, destroying the work of the evil one for the whole world in that one 'dread act'.

The sacrificial system was fulfilled on Calvary, the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled at Calvary so that from that moment, any Jew who had lived under the Torah and who accepted Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah, the lamb who takes away the sin of the world, was forgiven whilst still under their Mosaic covenant, now fulfilled and ended on the cross.

That's how the thousands on the Day of Pentecost were added to the church - they believed that Jesus was their Messiah.

It was the crucifixion and the resurrection that 'cut the people to the heart' and they were encouraged to repent and baptised in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.

The crucifixion has everything to do with forgiveness. The cross is the sacrament of the eternal sacrifice, the ever-slain lamb of God.


.

[ 15. May 2017, 16:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog
quote:
But what is the basis of God's authority, what is the process, the mechanism, the justification for him saying 'I forgive'?
Does God need a basis of authority other than what he is?
Posts: 1513 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

According to the entire Old Testament, it's the gift of the sacrificial system - we are told clearly 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Now, don't protest and say that's not right, because that is that the Bible says - whether we like it or not. Forgiveness can only be provided by the shedding of sacrificial blood.
God said it, set the entire sacrificial system up through Moses - and of course it was accepted and used by God in the times of the patriarchs as well.

Heb 9:21 And both the tabernacle and all the utensils of worship he likewise sprinkled with blood. 9:22 Indeed according to the law almost everything was purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The text doesn't say what you think it says.

It cannot be talking about the forgiveness of individual sins because there are a multiple number of examples in the OT of characters who were forgiven without the shedding of blood.

[ 15. May 2017, 16:27: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog
quote:
But what is the basis of God's authority, what is the process, the mechanism, the justification for him saying 'I forgive'?
Does God need a basis of authority other than what he is?
Yes. He governs a universe of justice, law and his own expressed will. He himself said, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


According to the entire Old Testament, it's the gift of the sacrificial system - we are told clearly 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Now, don't protest and say that's not right, because that is that the Bible says - whether we like it or not. Forgiveness can only be provided by the shedding of sacrificial blood.
God said it, set the entire sacrificial system up through Moses - and of course it was accepted and used by God in the times of the patriarchs as well.

Also this doesn't work - because the way you've explained it, God has to accept sacrifices where there was the shedding of blood. And Isaiah 1 and Amos 4 shows that's not the case. Not only is there no obligation on the deity to accept the sacrifice, the prophets effectively tell the people to stop, because he can't stand it.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes. He governs a universe of justice, law and his own expressed will. He himself said, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

You're banking rather a lot on one chapter of Hebrews and ignoring all my other points about forgiveness in the OT offered without sacrifice, and prophetic injunctions in Isaiah and Amos to dispense with the sacrifice in favour of doing justice.

According to you, God is wrong to say that in Amos - if there is no blood, he can't forgive.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
All that goes back to a ritual which is only of antiquarian interest. But behind it there is an eternal principle--Forgiveness is a costly thing. Human forgiveness is costly. A son or a daughter may go wrong and a father or a mother may forgive; but that forgiveness brings tears, whiteness to the hair, lines to the face, a cutting anguish and then a long dull ache to the heart. It does not cost nothing. Divine forgiveness is costly. God is love but he is also holiness. He least of all can break the great moral laws on which the universe is built. Sin must have its punishment or the very structure of life disintegrates. And God alone can pay the terrible price that is necessary before men can be forgiven. Forgiveness is never a case of saying: "It's all right; it doesn't matter." It is the most costly thing in the world. Without the shedding of heart's blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. Nothing brings a man to his senses with such arresting violence as to see the effect of his sin on someone who loves him in this world or on the God who loves him for ever, and to say to himself: "It cost that to forgive my sin." Where there is forgiveness someone must be crucified.
This is taken from William Barclay's Daily Study Bible, Hebrews 9

It may be a few years old now, and Barclay was no fundamentalist PSA evangelical, as far as I know.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
William Barclay, originally posted by Mudfrog:
Where there is forgiveness someone must be crucified.

I agree with this. The "someone" who must be crucified is the self.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


According to the entire Old Testament, it's the gift of the sacrificial system - we are told clearly 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Now, don't protest and say that's not right, because that is that the Bible says - whether we like it or not. Forgiveness can only be provided by the shedding of sacrificial blood.
God said it, set the entire sacrificial system up through Moses - and of course it was accepted and used by God in the times of the patriarchs as well.

Also this doesn't work - because the way you've explained it, God has to accept sacrifices where there was the shedding of blood. And Isaiah 1 and Amos 4 shows that's not the case. Not only is there no obligation on the deity to accept the sacrifice, the prophets effectively tell the people to stop, because he can't stand it.
Yeah, even a cursory reading of those 2 passages reveals that the people of Israel were performing ritual actions whilst still unrepentant and far from God in their hearts.

The sacrificial system was a gift of grace to those who were repentant. It was the means of atonement for those who confessed their sins, not who just performed outward religious exercises with sinful hands.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
William Barclay, originally posted by Mudfrog:
Where there is forgiveness someone must be crucified.

I agree with this. The "someone" who must be crucified is the self.
Oh very good!
We now die for our own sins.

Sorry Cheesy but I'm not good enough to be a spotless and blameless sacrifice.
I think the multitude in Heaven in the Book of Revelation are quite right when they testified that Jesus is the only one who is worthy.

I've seen it all now.
Keep deluding yourself.

[ 15. May 2017, 16:46: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah, even a cursory reading of those 2 passages reveals that the people of Israel were performing ritual actions whilst still unrepentant and far from God in their hearts.

The sacrificial system was a gift of grace to those who were repentant. It was the means of atonement for those who confessed their sins, not who just performed outward religious exercises with sinful hands.

OK well I don't see it like that. You've interpreted away the injunctions in Amos, I think they're the crux of the whole of the OT relationship of the deity.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog
quote:
Kwesi: Does God need a basis of authority other than what he is?

Mudfrog: Yes.

This doesn't look like a satisfactory answer to me because it appears God requires permission to exercise his sovereign will.
Posts: 1513 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh very good!
We now die for our own sins.

Sorry Cheesy but I'm not good enough to be a spotless and blameless sacrifice.
I think the multitude in Heaven in the Book of Revelation are quite right when they testified that Jesus is the only one who is worthy.

I've seen it all now.
Keep deluding yourself.

It's not a sacrifice for sin. I think I've been fairly clear about that if you read my previous longer posts.

Anyway, you're just highlighting how PSA doesn't work and isn't at all biblical.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog
quote:
Kwesi: Does God need a basis of authority other than what he is?

Mudfrog: Yes.

This doesn't look like a satisfactory answer to me because it appears God requires permission to exercise his sovereign will.
No, God set that sovereign will in the first place. He will not go against the laws he has set.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh very good!
We now die for our own sins.

Sorry Cheesy but I'm not good enough to be a spotless and blameless sacrifice.
I think the multitude in Heaven in the Book of Revelation are quite right when they testified that Jesus is the only one who is worthy.

I've seen it all now.
Keep deluding yourself.

It's not a sacrifice for sin. I think I've been fairly clear about that if you read my previous longer posts.

Anyway, you're just highlighting how PSA doesn't work and isn't at all biblical.

In what way?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Many have said already that the atonement wasn't just the nails and the spear. It is Christ's incarnation, his life, his words, his miracles, his humble obedience in Gethsemane, his silence before Pilate, his crucifixion, his resting in the tomb, his rising, ascending and expected coming again in power and glory.

Strongly agreee - so what we sre talking about here isn't penal substitution but the sacrificial metaphor/model.

[ 15. May 2017, 17:25: Message edited by: leo ]

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23060 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In what way?

In the way that it doesn't address the witness of the OT, does not address the actions of Jesus, does not address the words of Jesus, does not address the teaching of the epistles relating to self-sacrifice.

PSA says that the atonement is mechanistic - man must do x, because God is y and therefore z.

But the biblical witness is that nobody can force God to do anything, that he doesn't need y, that he detests z.

[ 15. May 2017, 17:31: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Many have said already that the atonement wasn't just the nails and the spear. It is Christ's incarnation, his life, his words, his miracles, his humble obedience in Gethsemane, his silence before Pilate, his crucifixion, his resting in the tomb, his rising, ascending and expected coming again in power and glory.

Strongly agreee - so what we sre talking about here isn't penal substitution but the sacrificial metaphor/model.
Indeed. I haven't mentioned PSA in these last few posts whatsoever. I was surprised that Cheesy brought it up.
I'm talking about how Jesus is the Lamb of God - the sacrifice - and how forgiveness is dependent upon that; even indirectly.

Jesus was able to forgive with a word simply because he was in himself, the lamb of God.

Yes, in this context, nowt to do with PSA at all.

You see, I'm not so obsessed with it.
Who brought it up? Not me.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thing is a single idea: PSA is needed because (a) God can't stand sin and therefore (b) needs a sacrifice to pay for it and (c) the atonement is therefore best understood as a transactional payment to take it away.

Which is why it is so undermining of the structure of evangelical understanding of the incarnation to deny that the atonement is about forgiving individual sins and the witness of the bible that God forgives the penitent is such a threat.

[ 15. May 2017, 17:36: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In what way?

In the way that it doesn't address the witness of the OT, does not address the actions of Jesus, does not address the words of Jesus, does not address the teaching of the epistles relating to self-sacrifice.

PSA says that the atonement is mechanistic - man must do x, because God is y and therefore z.

But the biblical witness is that nobody can force God to do anything, that he doesn't need y, that he detests z.

As I've just said in the previous post, who's talking PSA?

I'm talking about sacrifice as the basis for forgiveness.

You then brought in Amos 4 which all my commentaries are telling me is about selfish observance of outward ritual without actual change of heart.

Sacrifice is to be accompanied by penitence and repentance, not just performed because it will 'do something' (which it won't.)

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As I've just said in the previous post, who's talking PSA?

I'm talking about sacrifice as the basis for forgiveness.

You then brought in Amos 4 which all my commentaries are telling me is about selfish observance of outward ritual without actual change of heart.

Away with your sacrifice, says God in Amos, because I can't stand them.

It isn't a call to do justice as well, it is a call to put away the animal sacrifice and instead focus on the true sacrifice, which is to do justice.

Your express words on this thread are doubting that God is able to accept forgiveness without blood, and is therefore against the witness of Amos, and by your own definition not biblical.

quote:
Sacrifice is to be accompanied by penitence and repentance, not just performed because it will 'do something' (which it won't.)
Amos isn't about being penitant, it is about doing justice. Go read it.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing is a single idea: PSA is needed because (a) God can't stand sin and therefore (b) needs a sacrifice to pay for it and (c) the atonement is therefore best understood as a transactional payment to take it away.

Which is why it is so undermining of the structure of evangelical understanding of the incarnation to deny that the atonement is about forgiving individual sins and the witness of the bible that God forgives the penitent is such a threat.

Sacrifice does not need penal substitution. That's why it's sacrifice.
Why are you obsessed with PSA??

And are you really saying that an individual man or woman cannot have their own, individual, personal sins forgiven by the grace and forgiveness of God?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As I've just said in the previous post, who's talking PSA?

I'm talking about sacrifice as the basis for forgiveness.

You then brought in Amos 4 which all my commentaries are telling me is about selfish observance of outward ritual without actual change of heart.

Away with your sacrifice, says God in Amos, because I can't stand them.

because...?

What are they doing wrong in those sacrifices?
What are they not doing in their worship that they should have been doing?

Sorry, I have to go out now and conduct a Bible study where we will not be taking a passage out of context, reading it entirely at face value; but will be looking at the background and also looking a other biblical texts which will give a broader understanding that can be gained by taking some verses literally.

[ 15. May 2017, 17:43: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8134 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog
quote:
No, God set that sovereign will in the first place. He will not go against the laws he has set.

What if God wishes to change his mind? Does his will never change? Are there not numerous examples, especially in the OT, of exactly that?
Posts: 1513 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
because...?

What are they doing wrong in those sacrifices?
What are they not doing in their worship that they should have been doing?

God isn't interested in the blood, he is interested in justice.

Isaiah 1:11 “Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the Lord.
“I am stuffed with burnt sacrifices
of rams and the fat from steers.
The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats
I do not want.

1:14 I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I am tired of carrying.
1:15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I look the other way;
when you offer your many prayers, I do not listen,
because your hands are covered with blood.
1:16 Wash! Cleanse yourselves!
Remove your sinful deeds
from my sight.
Stop sinning!
1:17 Learn to do what is right!
Promote justice!

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Sorry, I have to go out now and conduct a Bible study where we will not be taking a passage out of context, reading it entirely at face value; but will be looking at the background and also looking a other biblical texts which will give a broader understanding that can be gained by taking some verses literally.

Right, yeah. When I talk about the broad message of the OT and in detail about individual passages which specifically address the point about the blood sacrifice I'm being a literalist - whereas you're entitled to determine everything through the lens of your faulty understanding of one passage in the epistles.

Ooookay then.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Goodness me ...

Meanwhile, Jamat's exposition of Hebrews and how the Cross works forwards and backwards in time is certainly how I've understood all this ...

I might be wrong, but in terms of 'kairos' it doesn't seem a million miles from RC understandings of how the Eucharist 'works' ...

Although, obviously it differs from that in important respects ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15443 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
because...?

What are they doing wrong in those sacrifices?
What are they not doing in their worship that they should have been doing?

God isn't interested in the blood, he is interested in justice.

Isaiah 1:11 “Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the Lord.
“I am stuffed with burnt sacrifices
of rams and the fat from steers.
The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats
I do not want.

1:14 I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I am tired of carrying.
1:15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I look the other way;
when you offer your many prayers, I do not listen,
because your hands are covered with blood.
1:16 Wash! Cleanse yourselves!
Remove your sinful deeds
from my sight.
Stop sinning!
1:17 Learn to do what is right!
Promote justice!

Absolutely promote justice! And yet...

• Jesus's parents offer the required sacrifices when he is circumcised.

• John calls Jesus the Lamb of God, which is a clear sacrificial reference.

• Jesus said the Son of Man came to give his life (which sounds like sacrifice to me) as a ransom (Matt. 20:28).

• Jesus, whom the Gospels never suggest avoided offering sacrifices, told his disciples to prepare the Passover meal, which involved Temple sacrifice.

• Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (every jot and tittle) and the Law included sacrifice.

• Jesus, in instituting the Eucharist, described his blood being poured out in sacrificial terms.

• Jesus's death is clearly linked in the Gospels to the Passover. John would appear to have Jesus's death happen at the time that the lambs for Passover were being sacrificed.

• The apostles at times speak of Jesus's death in sacrificial terms; John the Divine even describes it as an eternal sacrifice. Paul calls Jesus the paschal lamb who has been sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7).

Given all of that, I just don't see how Amos can possibly mean that God rejects sacrifice per se. Amos clearly seems to be talking about the attitudes and abuses of those who offer the sacrifices make the sacrifices themselves repugnant. I've never heard the passage interpreted any other way, except by the JWs.

Much less can I see how that one passage in Amos means that Jesus's death could not have been a sacrifice.

[ 15. May 2017, 19:01: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2498 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd also note that Isaiah 1 isn't the last word of the prophets on sacrifices. Isaiah 56:6-7 has the prophet envisioning a future where foreigners "joined to the LORD" will be part of the people, with the promise in v7 that "their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar" - clearly, the total abolition of sacrifices is not in view here. Earlier on in the book, in ch 43, God laments that Israel considered even the small sacrifices he called on them to make to be burdensome and didn't do it.

I think the picture's more complicated than a simple quotation of Isaiah 1 and Amos would suggest.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1053 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:


Given all of that, I just don't see how Amos can possibly mean that God rejects sacrifice per se. Amos clearly seems to be talking about the attitudes and abuses of those who offer the sacrifices make the sacrifices themselves repugnant. I've never heard the passage interpreted any other way, except by the JWs.

Much less can I see how that one passage in Amos means that Jesus's death could not have been a sacrifice.

But I'm not arguing that God rejects the sacrifice per say I'm saying that there is evidence within the teaching of the prophets that God offers forgiveness without blood, which Mudfrog above argued was not possible.

Indeed, the Isaiah passage goes further and suggests that God's actually more interested in justice than blood.

As someone else has said in this thread, "it couldn't be clearer".

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'd also note that Isaiah 1 isn't the last word of the prophets on sacrifices. Isaiah 56:6-7 has the prophet envisioning a future where foreigners "joined to the LORD" will be part of the people, with the promise in v7 that "their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar" - clearly, the total abolition of sacrifices is not in view here. Earlier on in the book, in ch 43, God laments that Israel considered even the small sacrifices he called on them to make to be burdensome and didn't do it.

I think the picture's more complicated than a simple quotation of Isaiah 1 and Amos would suggest.

Thanks, yes. It is more complex than I've said - however, it is clearly not the case that blood is always necessary for forgiveness and therefore it clearly isn't true that God required Christ's atoning blood to pay the price of sin as is suggested by PSA.

We have a choice: either we say that the bible in general and the OT (or Isaiah) in particular are many different passages that say contradictory things - in which case there is no way that we can call anything "biblical" or we seek to find a way to knit together these passages which say different things.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm arguing that the latter is possible - and that the only way to do that is to argue for:

(1) an unchanging God who forgives the penitent sinner - who forgives others - out of grace and because of his mercy
(2) who is more interested in justice and mercy than blood sacrifice
(3) where sacrifice is important, but not redemptive (in the sense of changing God's mind or placating his anger)

and because of these, to formulate a completely different understanding of sacrifice which has nothing to do with God's wrath.

[ 15. May 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
lWe have a choice: either we say that the bible in general and the OT (or Isaiah) in particular are many different passages that say contradictory things - in which case there is no way that we can call anything "biblical" or we seek to find a way to knit together these passages which say different things.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm arguing that the latter is possible - and that the only way to do that is to argue for:

(1) an unchanging God who forgives the penitent sinner - who forgives others - out of grace and because of his mercy
(2) who is more interested in justice and mercy than blood sacrifice
(3) where sacrifice is important, but not redemptive (in the sense of changing God's mind or placating his anger)

and because of these, to formulate a completely different understanding of sacrifice which has nothing to do with God's wrath.

And what some of us are saying is that's not the only way to knit them together. Another way to do it is to say that the blood that is shed for forgiveness and human-divine reconciliation is the blood of the Incarnate God, which the blood of animal sacrifices foreshadowed, which is part of the eternal self-offering of the second person of the Trinity, and which underlies all of God's redemptive activity throughout Scripture.

Meanwhile, as noted repeatedly, none of us have said a word about placating God's wrath in this most recent phase of the discussion. I certainly have not; the option I outlined has nothing to do with God's wrath. At all.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2498 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And what some of us are saying is that's not the only way to knit them together. Another way to do it is to say that the blood that is shed for forgiveness and human-divine reconciliation is the blood of the Incarnate God, which the blood of animal sacrifices foreshadowed, which is part of the eternal self-offering of the second person of the Trinity, and which underlies all of God's redemptive activity throughout Scripture.

I didn't say it was the only way to knit them together, I said I thought it was the only way which makes any sense.

quote:

Meanwhile, as noted repeatedly, none of us have said a word about placating God's wrath in this most recent phase of the discussion. I certainly have not; the option I outlined has nothing to do with God's wrath. At all.

Yes, I have noted this. However I don't understand what you think the sacrificed blood was doing if it wasn't placating God's wrath, maybe you could explain.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for the double-post, but on re-reading I picked up on one or two things I missed on first (and second) read. Yes, there's a lesson for me there.

In some ways, I think your option, mr cheesy, and mine are compatible. The eternal self-offering I'm talking about is part and parcel of the grace and mercy of God.

And somehow I missed the parenthetical where you said "but not redemptive (in the sense of changing God's mind or placating his anger)." That's a key error on my part. We all bring our own backgrounds and contexts into play, me included. Perhaps because I don't come from an Evangelical background, it frankly never occurred to me to assume that by "redemptive" you did mean "in the sense of changing God's mind or placating his anger."

As a result, we well may have been talking about two very different ideas of "redemption," which led to not being on the same page with regard to the relationship between (blood) sacrifice and redemption.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2498 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555

 - Posted      Profile for agingjb   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is forgiveness sufficient for salvation?

--------------------
Refraction Villanelles

Posts: 453 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog
quote:
But what is the basis of God's authority, what is the process, the mechanism, the justification for him saying 'I forgive'?
Does God need a basis of authority other than what he is?
Yes. He governs a universe of justice, law and his own expressed will. He himself said, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Context?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16886 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Is forgiveness sufficient for salvation?

Being human is. The vast majority of human beings have done nothing to compromise their assured salvation. Have nothing they need forgiving of that could prevent it. They just have some kinks that need walking out.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16886 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Is forgiveness sufficient for salvation?

This is the danger of defining salvation using a legal paradigm, as a get-out-of-hell-free card, instead of a transformation.

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63088 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
However I don't understand what you think the sacrificed blood was doing if it wasn't placating God's wrath, maybe you could explain.

I'll try.

Blood is life, and the pouring out of blood is the offering of life. It is offering everything, offering oneself completely. Jesus pours out his blood, his life, voluntarily and completely, and in baptism he calls us to die with him. (Not like him; with him.) In inviting us to drink his blood he pours out his life that his life may be our life.

The sacrificied blood doesn't placate wrath; it heals. It heals the effects of sin and alienation from God and it draws us into life with God. It heals the effects of sin and alienation from our neighbors and draws us into life with them. It heals the effects of sin and our alienation from ourselves and who God created us to be.

The blood isn't about placating wrath. It's about sacrificial love that redeems us—individually and collectively—and makes us whole. It's about the length and depth and breadth of God's love for the world.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2498 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Is forgiveness sufficient for salvation?

This is the danger of defining salvation using a legal paradigm, as a get-out-of-hell-free card, instead of a transformation.
Agree, and I say that as one from a tradition that historically has often veered to the legal paradigm.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2498 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That was beautiful. I agree with Nick.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10178 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That was beautiful. I agree with Nick.

[Hot and Hormonal]

Thanks.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2498 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said, Nick.

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63088 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  23  24  25 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools