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 24)

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

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But Jesus did say "This cup is the cup of the new covenant, sealed in my blood, which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins."

Saying "God forgives sins because of Calvary" does, I think, push things too far in one direction. But I think suggesting the cross had nothing to do with salvation, of which forgiveness of sins is part, goes too far in the other direction.

[ 04. June 2017, 13:29: 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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see the incarnation as Christ's body and blood being poured out. So I don't see this phrase as uniquely about the blood at Calvary.

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

Posts: 10697 | 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 
I've said this before and I'll say it again, 'Both/and' not 'Either/or'.

--------------------
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
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nick Tamen
quote:
But I think suggesting the cross had nothing to do with salvation, of which forgiveness of sins is part, goes too far in the other direction.

OK, but what are the other parts that make up salvation?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  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 Nick Tamen:
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."
Just as Torah = Pentateuch and tradition for Jews, Scripture = Bible and tradition for Catholic Christians.

--------------------
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
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:
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.
That is true! But defeating sin and forgiving sins are two separate things. The former requires the cross. The latter, as I have been arguing, does not. God has always been able to forgive. But to defeat the sin in humans requires to be human. To unite the divine and human natures requires actually uniting the divine and human natures. And the only thing that has a human nature is a human. Hence the incarnation.

Salvation, of course, for the Orthodox is theosis -- becoming by grace what God is by nature. It's more than forgiveness of sins and persevering until the end. It's radical transformation of the whole being.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've said this before and I'll say it again, 'Both/and' not 'Either/or'.

You should just put this in your sig. Then when you need to bring it up in conversation, just put "see my sig."

[ 04. June 2017, 16:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
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 
I might well do that, Mousethief. That would save me the bother of posting at all. Many Shippies would breathe a sigh f relief ...

Meanwhile, @Kwesi ... It's this 'parts' thing I have an issue with. 'Which part of the atonement does this? Which part does that?'

Ok, I know Mousethief is making a distinction between forgiveness of sins and the rest of the package,bad it were, but it seems to me that we can't all be it all up into bite-size chunks.

It'd be a bit like taking a consecrated wafer, say, if one were a Catholic, and saying, 'This section here represents Christ's head, this part of the Host is his arms, that part his legs ...'

--------------------
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 Kwesi:
Nick Tamen
quote:
But I think suggesting the cross had nothing to do with salvation, of which forgiveness of sins is part, goes too far in the other direction.

OK, but what are the other parts that make up salvation?
It seems like we've been over this umpteen times in this thread.

But though theosis is not part of my native Reforned vocabulary, as it were, I'd pretty much agree with mousethief. Salvation isn't just forgiveness, it's release from the bondage and power of sin*, being healed and made whole from the damage of sin, being freed from the power of death to eternal and abundant life, being fully reconciled with and united with God, and being transformed fully into the people God created us to be.

* Sin here referring to a condition, or disease, not to individual acts or transgressions.

--------------------
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
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 leo:
Just as Torah = Pentateuch and tradition for Jews, Scripture = Bible and tradition for Catholic Christians.

Okay, but how is that relevant to what Paul meant by "born/made under the law" in Galatians 4:4?

--------------------
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
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel
quote:
Meanwhile, @Kwesi ... It's this 'parts' thing I have an issue with. 'Which part of the atonement does this? Which part does that?'

I largely agree with your remarks. My beef, however, is that most posters seem to equate atonement with forgiveness, and discuss nothing else. That is why i and one or two others wish to question that by pointing out that forgiveness does not require the cross. If the cross is necessary for atonement then it must do more than simply forgive. I want to discuss the whole, indeed, as a whole, not simply as one thing.
Posts: 1641 | 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 
Amen brother. God reaching down to pick us up from helpless, innocent, feckless, terminal, violent existence, save us from meaninglessness, isn't 'the Forgiveness'.

[ 04. June 2017, 17:57: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

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

Posts: 17586 | 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 
And I largely agree with you, Kwesi. Sorry if my use of "part" suggested otherwise. I think the "atonement = I'm forgiven and going to heaven" message that I encounter too often is a problematic distortion of the Gospel.

--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
Ok, I know Mousethief is making a distinction between forgiveness of sins and the rest of the package,bad it were, but it seems to me that we can't all be it all up into bite-size chunks.

It'd be a bit like taking a consecrated wafer, say, if one were a Catholic, and saying, 'This section here represents Christ's head, this part of the Host is his arms, that part his legs ...'

It's more like the distinction between taking the hot pan off the counter, and fixing the blistered laminate that it defaced. Yes they are all part of undoing the damage. But they are quite easily distinguished.

The former is relatively easy; the latter requires a heck of a lot of work. God is able to move our sins from our souls. This doesn't require tearing up the counter. Fixing the damage that those sins caused does.

[ 04. June 2017, 19:13: Message edited by: mousethief ]

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Nick Tamen
quote:
But I think suggesting the cross had nothing to do with salvation, of which forgiveness of sins is part, goes too far in the other direction.

OK, but what are the other parts that make up salvation?
For one thing, the main part of salvation - is the resurrection. The whole discussion of Salvation is usually muddled by the lack of discussion of what we are saved from. The cross was major piece of progress, but didn't itself enact salvation. Hence, the cross is not a central focus of Paul's Epistles, and he was a sharp scholar. He focused more on the hope of Glory, than on Jesus' death.

And as another thing, forgiveness of the sin of the world for those begotten by God was enabled in the Garden of Gethsemane. It is important to note that John details the words of this "high priestly prayer in John 17, and Matthew records the great effort and sweat "as if it were blood". (I do not believe Jesus sweat actual blood, I believe Matthew said that the sweat was behaving "as if" it were blood. Had the blood been real, I think John would have recorded it.

Salvation as a process.....We are saved from death (not that we don't die) by not STAYING DEAD. Death has stopped being permanent for the believer, hence, in that sense salvation has been enabled through the visible body of the risen Christ, the firstfruit. Salvation is Saved-from-death. We are saved from permanent-death already.

Yet, we don't always make it past tense. Being as we must yet die and rise again to be like Christ we must view our salvation as something in progress in the temporal sense. Jesus speaks of things both in and out of the temporal sense.


Salvation is most often spoken of in a forward looking sense, however, in the prophetic sense it is often translated in the past perfect tense. The English "perfect" tense is a major obstacle to understanding the Gospel. The Greek scholars I know don't do very well helping us get around that.

An in-progress salvation is an understanding that further helps explain whether we are "sanctified" or "being sanctified"... and so on. (Also helpful to clearly delineate the action words like Sanctification [verb I think] and the nouns... but I digress)

In any case, the cross was a major waypoint in the whole redemption of man but not THE point.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, I know Mousethief is making a distinction between forgiveness of sins and the rest of the package,bad it were, but it seems to me that we can't all be it all up into bite-size chunks.

It'd be a bit like taking a consecrated wafer, say, if one were a Catholic, and saying, 'This section here represents Christ's head, this part of the Host is his arms, that part his legs ...'

It's more like the distinction between taking the hot pan off the counter, and fixing the blistered laminate that it defaced. Yes they are all part of undoing the damage. But they are quite easily distinguished.

The former is relatively easy; the latter requires a heck of a lot of work. God is able to move our sins from our souls. This doesn't require tearing up the counter. Fixing the damage that those sins caused does.

I like that analogy.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  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:
Mousethief: But defeating sin and forgiving sins are two separate things. The former requires the cross. The latter, as I have been arguing, does not.
You are in error then as your statement flies directly in the face of scripture.
1Peter 2:24.
"..and he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by his wounds you were healed."

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 
That seems perfectly consistent with what mousethief said. "Dead to sin" and "by his wounds you are healed" clearly seem to refer to defeating sin, not just forgiving sins.

--------------------
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
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's not Nestorianism

The reference in the post was to soteriological Nestorianism.

Nestorianism, or diophysitism (which might or might not have been actually taught by Nestorius) describes a failure to integrate, in the field of Christology, the two great biblical truths as regards Christ's two natures.

Soteriological Nestorianism in the post refers to the failure in the field of soteriology to integrate the biblical truths of God's sovereignty in forgiveness, and his sovereign choice to forgive through Christ's sacrifice.

It is a very simple analogy, and accessible, one might have thought, to any average intelligence.

[ 04. June 2017, 22:50: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ISTM that an essential part of atonement or reconciliation is that it requires the consent of two parties. Much of our discussion has been concerned with the role of Gpd in his various persons, but what about the role of human beings? Or rather what of the interaction between God and human beings?

The problem, as I see it, is not that God is so repelled by the sin of human beings that he cannot approach and accept us, otherwise there could have been no incarnation. Rather the problem is that human beings are reluctant to be drawn into the life of God and prefer to go their own way. What then has to happen to makes us want to be at one with him? How are we to make the necessary leap of spiritual imagination and desire? That, i believe, is where the cross intervenes as a brutal demonstration of God’s unqualified identification with the human condition and equally gracious love for us, which demand a response on our part. Atonement takes place when we consent to accept the invitation to share the life divine.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  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 Nick Tamen:
That seems perfectly consistent with what mousethief said. "Dead to sin" and "by his wounds you are healed" clearly seem to refer to defeating sin, not just forgiving sins.

Exactly. If they seem the same it is because Jamat has conflated the two.

--------------------
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:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
That seems perfectly consistent with what mousethief said. "Dead to sin" and "by his wounds you are healed" clearly seem to refer to defeating sin, not just forgiving sins.

Exactly. If they seem the same it is because Jamat has conflated the two.
So, it seems did the apostle Peter; so did Paul when he states:" Christ died for our sins.."in 1Cor 15:4.
You are wrong to dissociate the forgiveness of sins from the cross, so blatantly wrong that if it is not dishonesty, it is at least privileging your theological predilections over scripture.

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  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:
Kwesi: The problem, as I see it, is not that God is so repelled by the sin of human beings that he cannot approach and accept us, otherwise there could have been no incarnation
This is illogical. There is no reason why God could not at the same time, love humanity and be unable to directly approach us. The whole of the Bible is the story of both those things which, fortunately for us did culminate in the incarnation.

--------------------
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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
That seems perfectly consistent with what mousethief said. "Dead to sin" and "by his wounds you are healed" clearly seem to refer to defeating sin, not just forgiving sins.

Exactly. If they seem the same it is because Jamat has conflated the two.
So, it seems did the apostle Peter; so did Paul when he states:" Christ died for our sins.."in 1Cor 15:4.
You are wrong to dissociate the forgiveness of sins from the cross, so blatantly wrong that if it is not dishonesty, it is at least privileging your theological predilections over scripture.

Instead of simply proof-texting and declaring people wronger than wrong, how about actually put forward an argument.

Where is the word "forgiveness" in the verse you quoted? Why is it clearer than clear that by "died for," Paul meant Christ died to forgive our sins rather than that Christ died to overcome our sin?

Are you positive that you're not privileging your theological predilections over Scripture?

--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
That seems perfectly consistent with what mousethief said. "Dead to sin" and "by his wounds you are healed" clearly seem to refer to defeating sin, not just forgiving sins.

Exactly. If they seem the same it is because Jamat has conflated the two.
So, it seems did the apostle Peter; so did Paul when he states:" Christ died for our sins.."in 1Cor 15:4.
You are wrong to dissociate the forgiveness of sins from the cross, so blatantly wrong that if it is not dishonesty, it is at least privileging your theological predilections over scripture.

Instead of simply proof-texting and declaring people wronger than wrong, how about actually put forward an argument.

Where is the word "forgiveness" in the verse you quoted? Why is it clearer than clear that by "died for," Paul meant Christ died to forgive our sins rather than that Christ died to overcome our sin?

Are you positive that you're not privileging your theological predilections over Scripture?

Nick, if you read my posts I have not proof texted. I rather think yours and others' speculative might bes and could bes are a last resort ploy. What I have done is demonstrate my point from scriptural evidence. I suggest you do the same or recognise you are in error. The time honoured art of eisigesis is needed by Mousethief as he is locked into a system of spiritual authority,(Eastern Orthodoxy,) that dictates what he must believe about these issues. I was too, in Catholicism. However, coming back to the Bible itself, one quotes in support of an argument not as an argument itself. My reasoning is quite clear. It is that the cross and the concept of forgiveness are inextricable in scripture. The two verses I quoted here, and there are lots of others, clearly link the cross with God's remedy for expunging sin and sins, i.e. forgiveness.
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 
Nothing in the scriptures you have provided equates expunging with forgiveness, or conflates the forgiveness of sin and the repair of the damage caused by sin.

Next, are my arguments speculative, or defending Orthodoxy? You can't have THAT both ways. In fact you don't know fuck-all about Orthodoxy. That is very plain from your writings.

Finally I'd appreciate it if you stop telling me what my motivations are. It's rude and not conducive to a respectful conversation.

--------------------
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:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nothing in the scriptures you have provided equates expunging with forgiveness, or conflates the forgiveness of sin and the repair of the damage caused by sin.

Next, are my arguments speculative, or defending Orthodoxy? You can't have THAT both ways. In fact you don't know fuck-all about Orthodoxy. That is very plain from your writings.

Finally I'd appreciate it if you stop telling me what my motivations are. It's rude and not conducive to a respectful conversation.

Oh dear rude? I apologise. I was not intending of course to tell you what you think. But let's unpack; two verses that associate cross dealing with sin. Now how, I wonder, does the cross deal with sin ? If Jesus died for our sins it's a pretty sure bet that that it is the agent of forgiveness right? Not much speculation needed there. And you are Eastern Orthodox are you not? And thus bound by its equivalent of the 'Senus Plenior' or whatever you call in in your parlance. Why are you so touchy about someone pointing it out?

--------------------
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
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat, you seem to either be missing or deliberately avoiding the question at hand. We all agree the cross "deals with" sin. The question at hand is what does "deal with" mean? Does it mean only "forgive" or does it mean something more than that-- something more like mousethief's "overcoming" or "defeating"-- reflecting the much, much broader understanding of salvation we see throughout the OT and NT.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  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 cliffdweller:
Jamat, you seem to either be missing or deliberately avoiding the question at hand. We all agree the cross "deals with" sin. The question at hand is what does "deal with" mean? Does it mean only "forgive" or does it mean something more than that-- something more like mousethief's "overcoming" or "defeating"-- reflecting the much, much broader understanding of salvation we see throughout the OT and NT.

No one says the cross ONLY means forgive. What Mousethief denied above was that it was relevant at all to forgiveness of sins. Mr Cheesy has also said this. He contends with others, that God is God,so he can forgive if he likes. No legal transaction or whatever mechanism you like is needed.

Others, have rightly pointed out that God in his sovereignty, has chosen to use the cross, to effect reconciliation which must include forgiveness.

The forgiveness of our sins is the first thing that happens at conversion right? Could it happen without the cross is the question. Scripture denies that forgiveness can happen without the cross, that is without the shed blood, without Jesus giving his life, without the atonement in fact or the reconciliation as some style it.

This is shown in scripture viz Matt 26:28 " this is my blood of the covenant,which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

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 
Again, we are getting into filleting things up territory, chopping things about rather than taking it as a whole.

'The first thing that happens at conversion is forgiveness, right?'

One could argue that conversion is the result of forgiveness, not the other way around. 'With you there is forgiveness, that is why you are to be feared.'

What Jamat appears to highlighting here is a consciousness of forgiveness, of being aware that one is forgiven ...

One could suggest that God's' forgiveness precedes such an awareness and isn't contingent on that.

It's this filleting things up and dividing them into chunks thing ... This time it's being done in a sequential and temporal way ...

'The first thing that happens is this ... The next thing that happens is that ...'

'The wind bloweth where it listeth ...'

In various forms of evangelicalism one encounters attempts to systematise and chart the process of conversion. First there's conviction of sin, then there's ...

The whole thing is presented in a nice, neat,sequential pattern, which can, at the extremes, be presented as a template that all must follow in exactly the same way.

As human beings we like to find patterns. Converts are taught to account for their experience in a systematic way that conforms to a particular model or narrative. That's not necessarily wrong in and of itself, but it's simply to reiterate, yet again, that we are all shaped and formed by some tradition or framework or other.

So there's no point in Jamat railing at Mousethief for adhering to a particular schema - Orthodox Christianity - as though he himself isn't subject to any external framework because that patently isn't the case.

Jamat is as much a product of a particular form of evangelical Christianity as Mousethief is of Orthodoxy.

The difference is that Mousethief would acknowledge and celebrate that instead of denying it or pretending it's not the case.

Jamat doesn't even appear to be willing to entertain the idea that he has been shaped and formed by a particular tradition. Instead, he fondly imagines himself to somehow transcend all that and be purely shaped and motivated by scripture.

I can understand why. He found his Catholic upbringing stifling and unsatisfactory and remembers the sense of relief he felt when he no longer had to perform a panoply of religious rituals in order - as he saw it - to gain favour with the Almighty.

I can certainly understand that sense if relief and also the unwillingness to embrace or go back to anything that looks to him to be similar.

Howbeit, on various sides of this debate, it seems to me, people are trying to isolate and extract various facets instead of holding them all together.

With some, you get the impression that the Cross is some kind of bolt-on extra ... rather than something at the heart of the entire 'Christ-event'.

With others, the whole thing appears to be handled Inna reductionist way which boils everything down to a simple transactional model as if that, too, can be singled out and isolated from everything else.

I like the piece from The Liturgy of St Chrysostom that Mousethief quoted and have always admired it when I've heard it in Orthodox services.

We need a more holistic approach.

I thoroughly understand why Jamat and other PSA proponents want to hold firm to what they see as the nub and core of the Gospel. That's completely understandable. They are worried that if they let go of that there's a slippery slope back to big bogeyman Rome or to forms of works-based soteriology.

Hence the initial question in the OP.

I understand their concern. However, by gripping one favoured element so closely they may run the risk of not the wood for the trees. The whole thing is much, much bigger than any of us can conceive.

--------------------
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 Jamat:
No one says the cross ONLY means forgive. What Mousethief denied above was that it was relevant at all to forgiveness of sins. Mr Cheesy has also said this. He contends with others, that God is God,so he can forgive if he likes. No legal transaction or whatever mechanism you like is needed.

Others, have rightly pointed out that God in his sovereignty, has chosen to use the cross, to effect reconciliation which must include forgiveness.

The forgiveness of our sins is the first thing that happens at conversion right? Could it happen without the cross is the question. Scripture denies that forgiveness can happen without the cross, that is without the shed blood, without Jesus giving his life, without the atonement in fact or the reconciliation as some style it.

This is really what I'm arguing with. Can God forgive without the cross? Yes, obvs. Look at Jesus.

quote:
This is shown in scripture viz Matt 26:28 " this is my blood of the covenant,which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Interestingly the words translated "forgiveness of sins" are απηεσισ meaning release from bondage and ηαμαρτια meaning sins.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat
quote:
The forgiveness of our sins is the first thing that happens at conversion right?
Christ forgave the soldiers as they nailed him to the cross. There is no evidence that they were converted, nor that they desired to be forgiven.

There is an argument for suggesting that forgiveness by God pre-dates conversion or no conversion at all.

Forgiveness can be independent of reconciliation. As we often do, forgive and walk away. That, of course, is not atonement.

The first think a person does on conversion is turn round and walk in the opposite direction.

We can't get away with this obsession with forgiveness, can we, although we seem agreed it is not contingent on the cross.

Posts: 1641 | 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 mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No one says the cross ONLY means forgive. What Mousethief denied above was that it was relevant at all to forgiveness of sins. Mr Cheesy has also said this. He contends with others, that God is God,so he can forgive if he likes. No legal transaction or whatever mechanism you like is needed.

Others, have rightly pointed out that God in his sovereignty, has chosen to use the cross, to effect reconciliation which must include forgiveness.

The forgiveness of our sins is the first thing that happens at conversion right? Could it happen without the cross is the question. Scripture denies that forgiveness can happen without the cross, that is without the shed blood, without Jesus giving his life, without the atonement in fact or the reconciliation as some style it.

This is really what I'm arguing with. Can God forgive without the cross? Yes, obvs. Look at Jesus.

quote:
This is shown in scripture viz Matt 26:28 " this is my blood of the covenant,which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Interestingly the words translated "forgiveness of sins" are απηεσισ meaning release from bondage and ηαμαρτια meaning sins.

Aye mr cheesy, but you also repeatedly insist on contrition? That follows FROM atonement. Not before.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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 Martin60:
Aye mr cheesy, but you also repeatedly insist on contrition? That follows FROM atonement. Not before.

I'm not sure that I see it as a linear process. God offers to forgive freely. To individually embrace that forgiveness is to be contrite.

I don't see it as an instant response where one understands and assents to the idea that Christ came and died on a cross for our sins, that we're sorry and accept Jesus as our personal saviour. To me one must embrace the full incarnation and atonement, which means one must have a contrite attitude, one must pick up the cross and follow wherever the road leads.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree. In that order. Contrition follows atonement.

[ 05. June 2017, 09:55: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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 Martin60:
I agree. In that order.

I don't see that there is an "order". The two things are unavoidably linked. God forgives the penitent.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the impenitent.

How are SCIS going to repent without knowing the atonement? Repent of what? Or Ian Brady and Efraín Ríos Montt?

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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 Martin60:
And the impenitent.

How are SCIS going to repent without knowing the atonement? Repent of what? Or Ian Brady and Efraín Ríos Montt?

Purgatory.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr cheesy
quote:
I don't see that there is an "order". The two things are unavoidably linked. God forgives the penitent.
Martin60
quote:
And the impenitent.
How are SCIS going to repent without knowing the atonement?

IMO God forgives the penitent and the impenitent, the soldiers who drove in the nails, the penitent thief.

My argument is that atonement comes when an individual seeks to have a relationship with God enabling him/her to accept the benefits offered of restoration and subsequent healing. The soldiers at the crucifixion were probably quite indifferent to Christ's forgiveness, unaffected by it (at least at the time), but the thief who asks Christ to remember him is not only forgiven but granted a place in his kingdom: made righteous. Atonement is the product of a positive interaction between God and us.

Posts: 1641 | 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 mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And the impenitent.

How are SCIS going to repent without knowing the atonement? Repent of what? Or Ian Brady and Efraín Ríos Montt?

Purgatory.
Ah HAH! So what's the process? They have to learn what they did was wrong first? Why? How? Where? Not in Paradise?

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

Posts: 17586 | 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 mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is shown in scripture viz Matt 26:28 " this is my blood of the covenant,which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Interestingly the words translated "forgiveness of sins" are απηεσισ meaning release from bondage and ηαμαρτια meaning sins.
Interesting. Thanks for pointing this out; I had not encountered this before, or even looked it up.

Yes, αφεσιν (it's a φ, not πη [ph]—I thought for a minute we had different words) is translated "release" in Luke 4:18 ("to announce release to the captives").

--------------------
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 Jamat:
I was not intending of course to tell you what you think.

I don't see "of course" at all.

quote:
And you are Eastern Orthodox are you not? And thus bound by its equivalent of the 'Senus Plenior' or whatever you call in in your parlance.
I have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:
Why are you so touchy about someone pointing it out?
Now you're telling me what I think again. I thought you were sorry about that?

--------------------
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 
The touchiness seems to be in the eye of the beholder 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
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is shown in scripture viz Matt 26:28 " this is my blood of the covenant,which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Interestingly the words translated "forgiveness of sins" are απηεσισ meaning release from bondage and ηαμαρτια meaning sins.
Interesting. Thanks for pointing this out; I had not encountered this before, or even looked it up.

Yes, αφεσιν (it's a φ, not πη [ph]—I thought for a minute we had different words) is translated "release" in Luke 4:18 ("to announce release to the captives").

It is interesting - thanks from me, too, mr cheesy. As well as what Nick Tamen says, to me it also has Passover/Exodus overtones (seeing "bondage" as to do with slavery). Which, in turn, makes me think that maybe Atonement is much more than just forgiveness of an offence caused, but an act of liberation: God acting in Christ to set us free from bondage/slavery to sin (something we were powerless to do on our own). Atonement = a new Exodus, for the whole of humanity?

Ie it's not (just*) that we've done wrong things that God forgives; it's that we are caught up in a power that enslaves us and from which God acts, through the cross, to free us.

*Delete as appropriate

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

Posts: 1117 | 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 Stejjie:
It is interesting - thanks from me, too, mr cheesy. As well as what Nick Tamen says, to me it also has Passover/Exodus overtones (seeing "bondage" as to do with slavery). Which, in turn, makes me think that maybe Atonement is much more than just forgiveness of an offence caused, but an act of liberation: God acting in Christ to set us free from bondage/slavery to sin (something we were powerless to do on our own). Atonement = a new Exodus, for the whole of humanity?

Ie it's not (just*) that we've done wrong things that God forgives; it's that we are caught up in a power that enslaves us and from which God acts, through the cross, to free us.

*Delete as appropriate

This is well expressed and is pretty much what I think despite my prior inability to communicate it very well.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, Stejjie said it well.

This raises the question of which what is sin-bondage and whether sin has power to enslave us today, or not.

Paul used the analogy of a sin-master in connection with the law and in a Hebrew context. But I suppose we must consider original sin, and whether man is born under a curse of sin to a sin-master which enslaves.

Original sin is not as popular an idea as it once was because it offends our sense of fairness - to accuse a baby of wrong knowing God doesn't hold us accountable for other's sins'.

Are we born guilty - even without having transgressed? Or are we born blameless? When are we counted sinful? Are we pre-disposed to sin because of a condition? What was really going on in the garden when Adam sinned?

If we suppose that sin is a condition in which God sees us each as unholy apart from any action on our part, does the cross change God's viewpoint on that?

If we suppose sin is an external force acting on us, then I would say that it is an easier matter to explain the cross as having cancelled that power.

At the heart of all this is how we define and value free-will vs independent-free-will. Does anyone find it a contradiction to be dependent, yet free?

I see the suffering death of Christ as a demonstration of the end result of God using FORCE to BREAK the will of man (Israel) to do his will. His new invitation (New Covenant) is for all men to lay down their life to follow him willfully, not in a King VS subject, but a friend to friend paradigm.

This by no means changes the ultimate terms of the Covenant, which are still life and death. It's sort of like:

[JESUS] "Hello friend, come inside out of that Blizzard - or if not feel free to freeze to death outside."

We may either follow (enter his house) and by following admit that God has bent our will to suit his own and we freely choose to do his will, or, we may choose full independence, and subsequent death.

The cross solves the friendship problem. God has proven he is our friend and deserves our love. Showing himself to be a Lamb doesn't mean he stops being a Lion though. He's both.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, Stejjie, the Passover/liberation overtones are very clear. Thanks for highlighting them and their significance.

--------------------
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
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Gamaliel said (all of it): very insightful and helpful.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  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: Jamat is as much a product of a particular form of evangelical Christianity as Mousethief is of Orthodoxy.

The difference is that Mousethief would acknowledge and celebrate that instead of denying it or pretending it's not the case.

Jamat doesn't even appear to be willing to entertain the idea that he has been shaped and formed by a particular tradition. Instead, he fondly imagines himself to somehow transcend all that and be purely shaped and motivated by scripture.

Think about this a bit Gamaliel:
This the most arrogant, patronising, uninformed piece of cant. You have surpassed yourself. You do not know me at all. Kindly refrain from attempting to explain my thinking, theology or my personal faith. Also, refrain from the pathetically ignorant analysis of how a mentality such as my own could conceivably have formed. I am happy to do this myself as required.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: Jamat is as much a product of a particular form of evangelical Christianity as Mousethief is of Orthodoxy.

The difference is that Mousethief would acknowledge and celebrate that instead of denying it or pretending it's not the case.

Jamat doesn't even appear to be willing to entertain the idea that he has been shaped and formed by a particular tradition. Instead, he fondly imagines himself to somehow transcend all that and be purely shaped and motivated by scripture.

Think about this a bit Gamaliel:
This the most arrogant, patronising, uninformed piece of cant. You have surpassed yourself. You do not know me at all. Kindly refrain from attempting to explain my thinking, theology or my personal faith. Also, refrain from the pathetically ignorant analysis of how a mentality such as my own could conceivably have formed. I am happy to do this myself as required.

[Killing me]

Ok, perhaps I shouldn't have presumed to offer an explanation for your views, but you seem to do it to everyone else all the time.

You've done it with Mousethief just a wee bit upthread and you've done it with me in the past too. You've done it time and time again. Hence your recent Hell Call.

For once, I'm lost for words.

The lack of self-awareness in your latest post is monumental.

--------------------
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
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Clffdweller: It's only when PSA becomes the be-all and end-all or is treated not as metaphor but as transaction that it becomes truly toxic.
There is a lot in your post that I agree with but I would argue that rightly grasped it, PSA, is clear in scripture.
Here This guy covers most of the ground pretty succinctly. His basic view is probably softer than mine as it is hard for me to see ANY gospel without it..rightly understood of course.

I'm not disputing that PSA is in Scripture. Very few here are. But it is clearly not the only image for the atonement found in Scripture or the early church. And the way multiple images are interwoven throughout the NT often even within a book or even chapter demonstrates that it is a metaphor-- not a transaction-- and must be treated as such

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  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