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 | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » One Atonement (Page 23)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  23  24  25 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: One Atonement
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My main concern is to emphasise that atonement or reconciliation is much more than forgiveness because forgiveness, though an important element, does not require the cross. The question, for me, is what is the essential extra ingredient that needs the cross.

From my perspective it is not God's wrath that stands in the way of atonement but human reluctance to accept him, like the tenants of the vineyard. The problem regarding atonement, therefore, is how to persuade the tenants that reconciliation is worth seeking. I don't deny that sin is the major cause of human reluctance, a crucial part of the problem, because we prefer to order the vineyard without the owner. Of course, we have different views as to where the problem lies in bringing God and humanity together and how the cross inspires the desire for reconciliation on our part. It's that element of inspiration I think we should be considering.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If I am reading Galatians 4 through the lense of a tradition, first of all I would like you to tell me what tradition says that differs to the original meaning of 'Christ was born under the Law, and then tell me what another tradition says that is different.

How many different ways can you interpret Christ was born under the law??

Does 'born' have different interpretations?
Does 'under' have different meanings?
Are there different 'Laws' depending on your tradition?

The clear meaning of the text is the Christ was born subject to and into the Torah.

What other meaning is there?

Of course you are reading Galatians 4 through the lens of a tradition. How can you not be?

It's impossible for you - or I - or anyone else not to do so.

The point I was making wasn't in relation to Galatians 4 in particular, but to the entire scriptures in general.

Consequently, those of us who've been more exposed to Protestant and particularly evangelical Protestant traditions are going to be pre-disposed to interpreting the scriptural references to the atonement in a more juridical and penal kind of way than those who haven't ... or who come at it from an entirely different angle.

That's the only point I'm making and it's an obvious and incontrovertible one.

Unless you are claiming that you somehow have the miraculous ability to transcend all human, social and traditional influences whatsoever ... in which case I'd have to up the ante and insist that you are deluded ...

I'm not suggesting that Jamat, Kaplan and your very good self are unaware that you are operating within a particular tradition and frame of reference - but I'm afraid I do get something of that impression at times ...

'Isn't that in your Bible?' and questions like that.

As if for something to be 'in the Bible' is sufficient in and of itself - without the process of interpretation and collegial/collective engagement that goes on to try to achieve some kind of consensus on what it might mean.

At its crudest level it can boil down to, 'You've got a tradition which influences the way you interpret the Bible. I don't. I simply go by what it says ...'

Which is far from the case for any of us.

On the particular passages you're referencing, about Christ being 'born under the Law' and so on - sure, I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation at all. That's not the point I was making.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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:
it wasn't the Torah he was breaking but all the little interpretations and man-made additions.

False distinction - then as now Jews regard the developing tradition as part of Torah.

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

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 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 Mudfrog:
How many different ways can you interpret Christ was born under the law??

Does 'born' have different interpretations?
Does 'under' have different meanings?
Are there different 'Laws' depending on your tradition?

The clear meaning of the text is the Christ was born subject to and into the Torah.

What other meaning is there?

One doesn't have to check too many commentaries to discover it's not as clear as you think. The Greek word translated "born" is not the usual Greek word we translate as "born"; it is often translated "made." (Indeed, the KJV translates that verse as "made under the law.")

As for "the law," there apparently is no article in the Greek, as there is in other places where Torah is being referenced. So, the translation could be "made of woman, made under law," which is interpreted by some to be a reference to the laws of nature, the "laws" that bind all humans, not the Mosaic law. With that understanding, "born/made under [the] law" would mean truly human—subject to everything the laws of nature impose on being human, including hunger and thirst, pain and death.

I'm not saying that interpretation is correct. I am saying that your idea (based on English translations) that the text permits only one interpretation is incorrect.

--------------------
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: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's a fair point, leo.

But would it be fair to say that - in the broadest sense - what we find Christ doing in the Gospel accounts is challenging the 'external' or 'outward' forms where they appear to be adhered to in such a way as to 'miss the point' or fly in the face of the core intention?

So, for instance, the Pharisees don't come in for some stick because they are devout in their observance - rather because their devotion can take them over into ... well ... 'pharisaical' and hypocritical territory?

So, the wearing of phylacteries isn't wrong in and of itself, but parading around with them as a badge of one's personal devoutness is ...

Praying outside isn't wrong, but doing so on a street corner in order to be seen and admired certainly is ...

But I take your point. I often think that some conservative evangelicals and other forms of very conservative Christians tend to apply their own yardstick to the way the Jews deal with their own scriptures and traditions ...

I'm certainly no expert on Judaism, far from it, but from what I can gather from conversations with Jewish folk over the years is that they don't tend to treat the Torah in the same way as conservative evangelicals treat the Old or the New Testaments ...

Of course, there are more fundamentalist Jews around, but even there I don't get the impression that they treat their scriptures in the same sort of way - and they are upfront and honest when it comes to acknowledging the role of tradition - which some conservative evangelicals don't even realise applies to them just as it does to anyone else ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm ... that sounds fairly unlikely to me, Nick Tamen as I don't think we have that many scriptural references to the 'laws of nature' and so on in that general sense - but I take the point ...

One could interpret 'made under law' as implying that he was formed and developed his ideas, ethos and ministry under the influence of the Jewish Law ... which is certainly the case. How could it not have been?

The Incarnation doesn't mean that God the Word somehow hovered around without getting his hands dirty or in a way that transcended time, place and culture ... no, rather it was completely 'immersive' ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | 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 Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... that sounds fairly unlikely to me, Nick Tamen as I don't think we have that many scriptural references to the 'laws of nature' and so on in that general sense - but I take the point ...

Unlikely that some apply that interpretation, or unlikely that's what Paul meant? The latter is quite possible; the former is demonstrably wrong.

And that's the point—it's possible even with passages that seem crystal clear, allowing for only one interpretation, that if one goes back and examines original languages, original contexts, etc., the passage is not quite so clear after all. Different interpretations can be argued with support.

Which brings it back to your point: Our particular lenses, our Tradition/tradition and our particular rules of hermeneutics come into play in how we evaluate competing arguments (and possibly even whether we are willing to entertain competing arguments). That's true for every one of us.

[ 03. June 2017, 16:44: 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: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What other meaning is there?

It could mean, not saying it does, that the circumstances of his birth were in accordance with the law. He was born to a law-abiding Jewish woman, was presented in the temple, and so on. It needn't say he himself was subject to the law. That's just ONE possible alternate reading to yours. There are doubtless others.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
My main concern is to emphasise that atonement or reconciliation is much more than forgiveness because forgiveness, though an important element, does not require the cross. The question, for me, is what is the essential extra ingredient that needs the cross.

This is how it looks from my standpoint. The cross doesn't somehow enable God to forgive, as if he lacked that ability outwith the crucifixion and resurrection.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Nick, I was thinking that it was unlikely that this is what the Apostle Paul meant ...

But yes, I take your point and agree wholeheartedly.

What seems obvious to us isn't necessarily obvious to someone who operates within a different frame of reference and a different hermeneutic or theological framework.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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:
Gamaliel: What seems obvious to us isn't necessarily obvious to someone who operates within a different frame of reference and a different hermeneutic or theological framework
All this about "we are reading through the lens of a tradition" is actually an excuse to enable text to mean what you want it to. You obviously want it to mean all things to all men. It doesn't and it is basically a denial of principles of hermeneutics that are widely accepted.

If you say this then you have to take it to the logical conclusion. What was the 'tradition ' of the writers? What was the tradition of the Holy Spirit who inspired them? Whoops that's God..duh..what was his frame of reference?

Your avatar is that of a Jewish sage. The writers of the scripture were all Jewish. What does 'under the law' mean to a Jew? It has to mean subject to the law because of Jewish nationality. No other reading is logical or reasonable.

Where you get to on your track is a denial of the divine inspiration of the Bible. You can't have it both ways. Your much vaunted 'high' view of the scriptures becomes mere cant.
'They were fallible men each speaking from a cultural context. How on earth can we accept the view of herdsman Amos of fisherman Peter, or scholar Paul. We have to adjust for their lens..'. which we can not POSSIBLY understand as it is foreign territory.

No mate, scripture is pretty clear on the basics. Jesus died 'for our sins,according to the scripture' ' without shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness'

One denies that Christ shed his blood because he had to so WE can be forgiven,at one's eternal peril.

[ 03. June 2017, 21:17: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
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: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Once again you completely misunderstand my point, Jamat.

There is nothing in what I am saying that is incompatible with a high view of scripture nor with the idea of the divine inspiration of scripture.

It only becomes so if you take the kind of rigid, constipated, Janet and John, Join-the-dots approach which you appear to adopt.

Your views on these issues are so two-dimensional I'm surprised they don't fall over ... In fact, they would fall over if they weren't shored up by a framework of tradition erected to keep them from toppling.

When you read my posts, it seems to me, you put 2 and 2 together and make 5.

'That Gamaliel is taking account of contexts and interpretive frameworks, therefore he must be undermining the very idea of Divine inspiration ...'

How does that follow?

It only follows if you have a very brittle and two-dimensional stand-point.

There is nothing in what I've written that is incompatible with a belief in the inspiration of scripture nor our need of Christ to be saved from the consequences of our sins.

Once again you resort to threats of eternal damnation, to dualistic and binary accusations and to a febrile clinging to a knife-edge narrowness of perspective.

I am not a theological liberal. Neither am I a fundamentalist. You don't appear to recognise that there are other options and other variants between those two extremes.

Are you really a teacher or someone who paints zebra-crossings for a living?

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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:
Are you really a teacher or someone who paints zebra-crossings for a living?

I'd have loved to do that. You do it with machines these days. And everyone else has to take notice😊
Seriously, though, I explained where all this 'Oh but you are talking out of tradition ' is going to lead you.
If you don't get it .. well, you just don't.

[ 03. June 2017, 21:43: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posts: 3228 | 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 
Under the law

Strong's Concordance
hupo: by, under
Original Word: ὑπό
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: hupo
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-o')
Short Definition: by, under, about
Definition: by, under, about.
HELPS Word-studies
5259 hypó (a preposition) – properly, under, often meaning "under authority" of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else).

Jesus was born under the authority of the law, subordinate to the law.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Under the law

Strong's Concordance
hupo: by, under
Original Word: ὑπό
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: hupo
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-o')
Short Definition: by, under, about
Definition: by, under, about.
HELPS Word-studies
5259 hypó (a preposition) – properly, under, often meaning "under authority" of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else).

Jesus was born under the authority of the law, subordinate to the law.

(a) prepositions are notoriously difficult to translate;

(b) you're just quoting a translation made by someone who agrees with your desired usage.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't patronise me, Jamat.

You're clearly thinking of Hebrews 10:29 which talks about the deserved punishment of those who have trampled underfoot the Son of God and treated the 'blood of the covenant' as a 'common thing'.

Perhaps you'd like to show me where I've done that, seeing as you clearly have the ability to see inside men's souls?

I have never said, anywhere in my posts that the blood of Christ doesn't cleanse us from sin.

All I'm trying to do is understand various perspectives on that and to explore what it means. It strikes me that the strings on your fret-board are so highly strung that they don't 'give' but snap.

I really don't know why you consider yourself to have a mandate to determine the spiritual state of anyone on these boards, people you haven't even met face to face.

The audacity of it is breathtaking.

Sure, let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall ... We all have to watch ourselves and watch out for one another.

But show me anything I've written that steps outside the boundaries of received tradition (small t) or which undermines either a high Christology or a high view of scripture.

Once you've done so, once you've found something, then come back and show me. I'd be interested to hear it.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | 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 Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: What seems obvious to us isn't necessarily obvious to someone who operates within a different frame of reference and a different hermeneutic or theological framework
All this about "we are reading through the lens of a tradition" is actually an excuse to enable text to mean what you want it to.
No, its honesty, despite the troop of straw men you seek to deploy.

It's actually caring about what the text says, and recognizing that what we bring to the text colors how we understand the text, perhaps in a helpful way or perhaps not.

It's recognizing that this is true of all of us, and acknowledging that those who see it differently from how we see it may be still taking the text just as seriously as we are.

And it's having the humility to acknowledge that just as we think we have something to teach those who see it differently from us, they just might have something to teach us as well. They might even be right.

[ 03. June 2017, 22:10: 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: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Under the law

Strong's Concordance
hupo: by, under
Original Word: ὑπό
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: hupo
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-o')
Short Definition: by, under, about
Definition: by, under, about.
HELPS Word-studies
5259 hypó (a preposition) – properly, under, often meaning "under authority" of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else).

Jesus was born under the authority of the law, subordinate to the law.

(a) prepositions are notoriously difficult to translate;

(b) you're just quoting a translation made by someone who agrees with your desired usage.

Well yes, I copied and pasted it from Strong's Gk Concordance.
You are welcome to use another.

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

Posts: 8237 | 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 
How about this, from Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

1. of motion, in answer to the question 'whither?': to come ὑπό τήν στέγην, Matthew 8:8; Luke 7:6; ἐπισυνάγειν, Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34; with verbs of putting or placing: Matthew 5:15; Mark 4:21; Luke 11:33; 1 Corinthians 15:25; of placing under or subjecting, Luke 7:8; Romans 7:14; Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Galatians 3:22; Galatians 4:3; Ephesians 1:22; 1 Peter 5:6; ἔχω τινα ὑπ' ἐμαυτόν, Matthew 8:9; Luke 7:8, γίνεσθαι, born under i. e. subject to, Galatians 4:4; of falling, tropically, James 5:12 (where Rst εἰς ὑπκρισιν).

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At any rate you're just dodging. You claimed there was no other possible interpretation. I provided one. You were therefore wrong.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

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

Mudfrog, whilst I tend to concur with your standpoint on what it means that Christ was 'born under law' I think you've lost the plot in the way you're now proof-texting with Concordances.

Mousethief's point, if I understood him correctly, was that in choosing to quote Strong you were simply citing someone from within your own Protestant tradition and who concurs with you.

We're back to my point about lenses again - something which is clearly incontrovertible and which applies to all of us and yet something that Jamat - and possibly you to an extent - appear to perceive as a threat.

What a concordance does is cross-reference verses and sheds light on the meaning of words. Great. They are useful tools. But they don't work like fruit machines where you get all the lemons in a row and bingo - jackpot.

To explore what it means about Christ being 'under the law' would require commentaries and discussion not simply a concordance and a Greek-English interlinear text.

In this instance, I pretty much concur with your conclusions but not your methodology.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nick Tamen gave an alternative interpretation too - not one he concurred with - but that wasn't his point.

His point was that - rightly or wrongly - people can reach different conclusions from the same text.

Why is that?

My point again.bit's down to viewpoints and perspectives.

That doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal or valid. Far from it.

But what it does mean is that what might be 'obvious' to us, isn't necessarily obvious or self-evident to anyone else.

Acknowledging that isn't a plea for vagueness and fudge, rather it's a pragmatic acknowledgement​ of what is actually going on when we engage with and interpret a text.

This is basic stuff. I'm not bandying Saussure, Derrida or Roland Barth around ...

You can pull out your Strong's, your Young's or whatever else as much as you like, it doesn't alter the fact that all of us are approaching these things from the stand-point of one tradition or other ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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:
Gamaliel: don't patronise me, Jamat
Not doing this..at least not intentionally but on the other hand all the..
" There,there, don't you realise we all interpret.."
stuff you serve up IS exceedingly patronising.
Regarding the salvation issue where you accuse me of judging
Maybe you'd also accuse Paul of being judgemental when he advised Timothy to not even associate with those who call themselves brethren but who do not keep to the line taught by him and the other apostles.
What was that line? Well, just read 1Cor15:1-5.

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nobody here has the spiritual stature of St. Paul, to justify using him to justify their rudeness.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sure it's not relevant, but here goes. Jesus was born in Bethlehem under Caesar Augustus (indeed, because his dad was under Caesar Augustus), and 'suffered under Pontius Pilot'. He was also under ethnic obligation, as a Jew, to the claims of the Torah. He was also under Herod. In other words he was under all sorts of laws and customs of varying origin. He took a rather pragmatic approach to the consequences by recommending that, depending on context, these jurisdictions were recognised as legitimate, rendering to each their due. IMO being born under the Torah simply indicates his ethnic identity. I don't think too much should be made of it. Relax, shipmates!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, Mousethief, if I have transgressed 2 Corinthians 15:1-5 then Jamat would be perfectly within his rights to call me on it.

The onus, though would be on him to demonstrate that I had in fact done so.

The point is, I haven't.

I have said nothing whatsoever on this thread that is incompatible with historic, creedal Christianity.

If I have done then I'd like Jamat to point it out.

The fact is, he can't.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
2 Cor has no chapter 15. 1 Cor 15:1-5 doesn't say aught but Christ died for our sins, and was buried and raised and observed (a skeleton of the Symbol of Faith), and that if that's not true, we have believed in vain.

I don't see as any Christian on this thread has denied any of those points. Certainly not thee or me.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
IMO being born under the Torah simply indicates his ethnic identity. I don't think too much should be made of it.

And there's aNOTHer possible interpretation.

quote:
Relax, shipmates!
As soon as the term is over.

[ 03. June 2017, 23:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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:
No, Mousethief, if I have transgressed 2 Corinthians 15:1-5 then Jamat would be perfectly within his rights to call me on i
No accusations are involved but this is just tiresome.
What you continually do is say
Oh, but we interpret,..Oh but our traditions influence our reading.. Oh but not everyone agrees.."
In other words, you state the obvious with much boring regularity.
My issue is that it actually says what it says despite this.
1Cor 15:3
" ..died for our sins.."
This is the entire issue..well, did he?
And if so are you forgiven on that basis? I say yes. I'm sure you do too, but that brings you into a contrary viewpoint with several here.

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  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 Jamat:
In other words, you state the obvious with much boring regularity.

Perhaps that is because your responses not only seem ignore the obvious, but go a step further and with much boring regularity mischaracterize the point you find tiresome.

--------------------
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: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  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 mousethief:
2 Cor has no chapter 15. 1 Cor 15:1-5 doesn't say aught but Christ died for our sins, and was buried and raised and observed (a skeleton of the Symbol of Faith), and that if that's not true, we have believed in vain.

I don't see as any Christian on this thread has denied any of those points. Certainly not thee or me.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
IMO being born under the Torah simply indicates his ethnic identity. I don't think too much should be made of it.

And there's aNOTHer possible interpretation.

quote:
Relax, shipmates!
As soon as the term is over.

If that is true that under the law simply means ethnic identity then we need to quote the whole verse:

quote:
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 to redeem those under the Law,
So, Jesus came just to redeem ethnic Jews?

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 Mudfrog:
If that is true that under the law simply means ethnic identity then we need to quote the whole verse:

quote:
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 to redeem those under the Law,
So, Jesus came just to redeem ethnic Jews?
Not sure that context helps you. Only Jews were (and in Jewish understanding, are) bound to observe Torah. Gentiles are not. Which actually supports the idea that the "law" referred to here just might be something other than "the Law."

--------------------
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: 2833 | 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:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In other words, you state the obvious with much boring regularity.

Perhaps that is because your responses not only seem ignore the obvious, but go a step further and with much boring regularity mischaracterize the point you find tiresome.
And your point is what?
The obvious what? that we interpret? Yes, I agree.

However, that is not the whole issue is it?
The issue is that if Jesus died for our sins then there are certain contingent realities:
It must have been necessary for our salvation for his life to be laid down.
Our sins must be forgiven by his doing so, if we trust that he did
Our sins are not dealt with by anything else
This is the fact that assures us we can be saved.

We cannot state that Christ globally reconciled God and the world apart from individual salvation. If he did this, why is the world so opposed to him still..if the devil is bound and evil restrained then who let the devil free again?

--------------------
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: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  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 Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In other words, you state the obvious with much boring regularity.

Perhaps that is because your responses not only seem ignore the obvious, but go a step further and with much boring regularity mischaracterize the point you find tiresome.
And your point is what?
The obvious what? that we interpret? Yes, I agree.

My point is exactly what you just quoted. My point has to do with how you have repeatedly responded to other posts, not with how salvation works.

--------------------
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: 2833 | 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:
Nick Tamen: having the humility to acknowledge that just as we think we have something to teach those who see it differently from us, they just might have something to teach us as well. They might even be right
We will always differ but your view, whatever it might be, I don't know, I do not find threatening whereas it obvious that several people here find mine threatening because I know that the gospel, in the end, is divisive.

One of the things Jesus said in Matt 24 was take care not to be deceived. He said it 3 times..quite an emphasis.
He was talking about the end of the age but the gospel is something many do not grasp and are deceived about.

As a former Catholic I know know all the novenas, scapulas,rosaries, sacraments, holy water and last rites count for nix. Imagine breathing your last and seeing the devil's face Nick? After a lifetime of thinking you are a Christian you find you never were. It should be your worst nightmare; it is mine.

I am not judging or accusing here but I think,though,that the whole issue of atonement is visceral. If you put your faith in a false Christ or another gospel, it will not save.

--------------------
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: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think anyone finds your views threatening, Jamat. I certainly do not. Many have disagreed with some or all of your views, some have even found them to represent a limited or distorted view of the scriptural witness, and many have been aggravated by how those views are expressed. But none of those are the same thing as being threatened by your views.

--------------------
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: 2833 | 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:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't think anyone finds your views threatening, Jamat. I certainly do not. Many have disagreed with some or all of your views, some have even found them to represent a limited or distorted view of the scriptural witness, and many have been aggravated by how those views are expressed. But none of those are the same thing as being threatened by your views.

I must be imagining it then.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just as you are imagining that I'm departing in some way from historic, creedal Christianity just because I haven't become the walking embodiment of a Chick Tract.

Don't flatter yourself by imagining that I, or anyone else here is 'threatened' by your inflexible adherence to an ultra-conservative form of evangelicalism in reaction to to your upbringing in 1950s pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism.

The world isn't divided into three neatly divided categories - evangelical Protestants, conservative RCs and woolly liberals.

I have said repeatedly - with boring regularity perhaps - that if any of us are saved we are saved by the atoning work of Christ. That isn't a reductionist thing - it is an holistic and all-embracing one. It hinges on the Cross - but along with that includes our Lord's life, moral teaching and example, his atoning death and spilt blood, his glorious resurrection and ascension, his continuing intercession for us and his coming again in glory to judge the quick and the dead.

I have stated that over and over again.

You don't appear to have noticed that.

Instead, you misrepresent the fairly anodyne and uncontentious points I've made that the way we understand these things is conditioned inevitably by whatever Christian tradition we happen to have been influenced by the most.

Is the Pope a Catholic?

The only one who seems 'threatened' here, if I may say so, is you.

You seem to find it threatening that people can interpret things differently to you as if in so doing they are either going to end up apostasising or in some kind of re-run of your 1950s bogeyman RC childhood.

It's as if you have closed down any other options or possibilities in your mind.

And yes, MT, I know there's no 2 Corinthians 15, it was a typo. I need to preview my posts more. Just as so need to sleep despite having woken up, checked my phone, read the dreadful news from London and then come on here ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If that is true that under the law simply means ethnic identity then we need to quote the whole verse:

quote:
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 to redeem those under the Law,
So, Jesus came just to redeem ethnic Jews?
Ethnic Jews or religious Jews; take your pick. Nobody else is "under the Law."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As a former Catholic I know know all the novenas, scapulas,rosaries, sacraments, holy water and last rites count for nix. Imagine breathing your last and seeing the devil's face Nick? After a lifetime of thinking you are a Christian you find you never were. It should be your worst nightmare; it is mine.

Don't you trust Jesus to save you? Didn't he die for you on the cross and rise again? Haven't you accepted him as your saviour? Whom, then, shall we fear? I don't understand how this nightmare would plague a Christian believer who puts his (or her) trust in Christ, outwith a flawed understanding of soteriology.

quote:
I am not judging or accusing here but I think,though,that the whole issue of atonement is visceral. If you put your faith in a false Christ or another gospel, it will not save.
And yet you don't fully trust the gospel you have put your faith in, or you wouldn't have nightmares about not being saved.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't think anyone finds your views threatening, Jamat. I certainly do not.

I must be imagining it then.
It would appear the only person who feels threatened by your views is Jamat.

[ 04. June 2017, 03:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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:
Don't you trust Jesus to save you? Didn't he die for you on the cross and rise again? Haven't you accepted him as your saviour? Whom, then, shall we fear? I don't understand how this nightmare would plague a Christian believer who puts his (or her) trust in Christ, outwith a flawed understanding of soteriology
Yes, yes and certainly but obviously, you have never been Catholic.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
there is a very important distinction to make between who Jesus was, on the one hand, and what he did on the other

No there isn't.

It is not a matter of artificially separating "God has sovereign power to forgive sins" from "God forgives sins because of Calvary".

It is rather a case of "God sovereignly chooses to forgive sins on the basis of his saving work in and through Christ at Calvary".

You appear to be inadvertently guilty of some species of soteriological Nestorianism.


quote:
Kaplan Corday and Jamat on behalf of PSA disagree.
It has nothing to do with PSA in particular or evangelicalism in general.

All Christian traditions agree that God forgives and saves through the cross.


quote:
I rest my case on the evidence of the scribes and Jesus.
Sure you do.

Read some of Gamaliel's innumerable comments on those who claim to rest their case on what the Bible "self-evidently" teaches.

[ 04. June 2017, 10:36: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  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 Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
there is a very important distinction to make between who Jesus was, on the one hand, and what he did on the other

No there isn't.

It is not a matter of artificially separating "God has sovereign power to forgive sins" from "God forgives sins because of Calvary".

It is rather a case of "God sovereignly chooses to forgive sins on the basis of his saving work in and through Christ at Calvary".

You appear to be inadvertently guilty of some species of soteriological Nestorianism.

This conversation is quite headache-inducing, largely because you keep insisting that people are saying something that they're not.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection. That's not Nestorianism, that's the faith of the church. None of the ancient creeds say anything about "God forgives sins because of Calvary"

Instead of simply reformulating your view and trying to claim that they're representative of the entirity of Christianity and using long words that you clearly don't understand to characterise other people's arguments, it'd be nice if you tried listening and addressing the points.

But of course you won't, because you're totally closed-minded. You see the bible saying something and you bang the drum for it repeatedly, even though it is clearly bollocks and even though there are other ways to understand things that you could address.

Instead it is just easier to rubbish other arguments and keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

I'm done here.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
None of the ancient creeds say anything about "God forgives sins because of Calvary"

Well, Christ's death and resurrection are part of the laundry list that follows the words "For us men and for our salvation" in the Nicene Creed. So, yeah, no.

quote:
... and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father ...
That "crucified" and "suffered" part? Code for Calvary.

quote:
I'm done here.
Oh don't go.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 mousethief:
Well, Christ's death and resurrection are part of the laundry list that follows the words "For us men and for our salvation" in the Nicene Creed. So, yeah, no.

Not sure what you're saying. The usual formation in English says

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man

I'm not sure how you get from that the idea that the Cross is itself salvic. Maybe you could explain.

quote:
quote:
... and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father ...
That "crucified" and "suffered" part? Code for Calvary.
But nobody is trying to say that Calvary wasn't important. The discussion is about the phrase "God forgives sins because of Calvary".

I don't think your church teaches that, I don't think the creeds teach that.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure how you get from that the idea that the Cross is itself salvic. Maybe you could explain.

I'm not sure how you can read "for us men and for our salvation [a bunch of other stuff and] he was crucified..." and say the cross isn't salvific.

quote:
But nobody is trying to say that Calvary wasn't important.
You just said it wasn't salvific. "Important" isn't enough.

quote:
The discussion is about the phrase "God forgives sins because of Calvary".

I don't think your church teaches that, I don't think the creeds teach that.

I think we may be saying the same thing, as long as you aren't saying the cross was unnecessary for salvation. I have already said that "forgiveness of sins" and "salvation" are not interchangeable. Is that all you're saying?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 mousethief:
I'm not sure how you can read "for us men and for our salvation [a bunch of other stuff and] he was crucified..." and say the cross isn't salvific.

I read it as straight as it is written; that Christ came, lived, died and was resurrected for our salvation.

quote:
You just said it wasn't salvific. "Important" isn't enough.
I believe God forgives sinners, I don't think that temple blood was uniquely about salvation in the way that Evangelicals suggest via PSA. It would be inconsistent for me to believe that therefore the cross was satisfactory in the sense of paying for sin.

And I don't think this reading is a necessary reading of the creeds.

quote:
I think we may be saying the same thing, as long as you aren't saying the cross was unnecessary for salvation. I have already said that "forgiveness of sins" and "salvation" are not interchangeable. Is that all you're saying?
Honestly, I don't know.

I'm not sure I understand your position, but I'm mostly reacting to the idea that PSA is the only possible understanding of how salvation comes, because only at the cross was the acceptable lamb's blood shed - and this was the only way that God could possibly forgive sin.

I don't accept that because God seems to forgive as and when he wants. And Jesus - who we understand is the very image and person of God - is portrayed as forgiving people without animal sacrifice.

It seems to make more sense to me to talk about the totality of the incarnation as salvic. And so to me the discussion about Christ's "work on the cross" seems moribund.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't accept that because God seems to forgive as and when he wants. And Jesus - who we understand is the very image and person of God - is portrayed as forgiving people without animal sacrifice.

Yes. Because forgiveness <> salvation. There's more to salvation than forgiveness.

quote:
It seems to make more sense to me to talk about the totality of the incarnation as salvic.
Which is what the Creed does. "Became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit." For the Orthodox it doesn't stop at the cross either; in Chrysostom's liturgy we cite "the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into Heaven, the sitting at the right hand and the Second and glorious Coming." All of this saves.

quote:
And so to me the discussion about Christ's "work on the cross" seems moribund.
Perhaps so. But it is a necessary and non-optional part of the working out of our salvation in the person of the God-Man Christ.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the Incarnation includes Christ's 'work on the cross', mr cheesy.

Which leads to another point I've been making and infinitum - and probably tediously on this thread ...

Which is that we need to look at the whole thing and not try to disaggregate any element and set it up in isolation - be it the cross, be it the resurrection, be it Christ's moral example ...

Jamat's mentioned the 'seamless robe' but it seems to me that we need a seamless and holistic approach to the atonement too, without trying to focus on our 'favourite' bits as it were but taking the whole thing in its entirety.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 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 mousethief:
Perhaps so. But it is a necessary and non-optional part of the working out of our salvation in the person of the God-Man Christ.

Yes. But not because the blood shed at Calvary forgave sins. I (think I) am talking about the wider sense of salvation involving a full embrace of the incarnation (life, death and resurrection) and self-sacrificial cross-carrying and persevering to the end.

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

Posts: 10697 | 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 Gamaliel:
But the Incarnation includes Christ's 'work on the cross', mr cheesy.

Maybe that depends on what you mean. I suggest that most/many Evangelicals mean something by this term that you might not - namely that Christ was defeating sin by shedding blood at the cross.

To me, the work of the incarnation - which necessarily included the cross was more than a transaction for sin.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  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

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools