pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Quote Robert: Now, the sinner can chose to throw it away, but that's his/her problem. This the sinner would do by unbelief, correct? Why should the sinner be able to undo what Christ did by unbelief? That is, if God accomplished reconciliation/salvation/justification for every individual, and God changes the character of believers when they are resurrected, so they will be happy in heaven, why doesn't God just go ahead and do this for everybody? 8thdaypriest 1 Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
8thdaypriest Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I can understand the Father doing something which revealed His great love for mankind, and individuals responding to that message. I can understand the LAW being simply a revelation of how things work, so that violation of that LAW would disrupt the workings of persons, or society. I can understand that humans need to declare - by their actions - which god they serve, (Yahweh or Satan). Actions against God's LAW give Satan authority over the person, or at least accusations against the person. By repeated actions against God's LAW forfeit God's protection and blessing. But the idea that the righteous man's death (Jesus' death) could "pay for" the sins of unrighteous men, has never made sense to me. It makes the Father out to be a despot who demands PAYMENT. Robert's teaching that Jesus somehow "saved" all men, by incorporating them metaphysically into Himself, so they died when He died, - that teaching - is even harder to understand, than the PAYMENT teaching. It just doesn't make sense to me. 8thdaypriest
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Quote Robert: Let me quote Jack Sequeira again. BTW, he was introduced to the "in Christ" motif from Wieland, but both actually learned this truth from the writings of the Apostle Paul: This isn't accurate. Wieland got the idea from reading Waggoner, and Sequeira got it from Wieland. After they had the idea, they went to Paul. In my opinion, Waggoner had it correct, and to the extent that Wieland and Waggoner strayed from Waggoner, they drifted. Wieland had some astoundingly beautiful insights regarding the cross and agape, and, thankfully, Sequeira kept those. Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Also worth mentioning that there was a short period of time, around 1896-1897, where Ellen White's endorsements of W. W. Prescott were as strong as they were for Jones and Waggoner, the endorsements of which ran from around 1888 through 1896. Prescost had a very nice sermon from Avandale on the "in Christ" motif, called something like "The Word Made Flesh", which should be available online. Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
8thdaypriest Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, Robert said: Wrong! Here's where you go off the deep end. This is typical Arminianism. Faith is the response to those who hear the gospel. Some haven't heard it and others couldn't comprehend it (like infants), yet these will be saved. How? Not by faith, but because God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ Jesus. So what Christ did isn't provisional. The sinner has been reconciled...the sinner has been justified. Now, the sinner can chose to throw it away, but that's his/her problem. The Father did NOT NEED TO BE "RECONCILED" to mankind. There was nothing wrong with the Father's attitude towards men. Nothing needed to CHANGE in God. It was men's hearts that needed to be changed. Men needed to "be reconciled" towards God. Jesus death DID NOT change the mind of every man who would ever exist. It did not! That is why Paul preached and told us to preach - "be reconciled to God". Why would Paul preach this, if we were already reconciled? 8thdaypriest
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Quote This conclusion is a subtle form of legalism, salvation by works, since repentance and faith contribute towards ones salvation. Whereas, according to Paul, it is the goodness of God (the reality phase or objective facts of the gospel) that leads one to faith and repentance (Romans 2:4). Hence, faith is not allowing God or giving Him permission to put us into Christ but accepting with grateful hearts what God has already accomplished for mankind in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30-31; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Ephesians 1:3-4). Rather, more accurate would be "this conclusion *may* lead to a subtle form of legalism", since it is hardly the case every Armianist is legalistic. It's perfectly possible to have a traditional Arminian understanding and believe that it is the goodness of God which leads us to repentance, and nothing we do effects our salvation. One simply accepts what God has given in Christ with a thankful heart. There are many Areminans who believe this way. Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Quote 8th day:But the idea that the righteous man's death (Jesus' death) could "pay for" the sins of unrighteous men, has never made sense to me. It makes the Father out to be a despot who demands PAYMENT. Robert's teaching that Jesus somehow "saved" all men, by incorporating them metaphysically into Himself, so they died when He died, - that teaching - is even harder to understand, than the PAYMENT teaching. It just doesn't make sense to me. Regarding the payment idea, I agree completely that this idea doesn't make sense, and, futthermore, the idea didn't exist at the time of Paul. No early Christian writers had this idea, much less first century Jews. A fundamental problem I see in Robert's position is that it assumes the problem that God needed to solve is a forensic one, yet the evidence doesn't support this idea. Everything Robert writes starts from this assumption. Therefore Robert's conclusions regarding the corporate work of Christ are slanted this way too. However, if we start from the assumption that the problem God needed to fix is that we were at odds of Him because of believing lies about God spread by the enemy, then it's very easy to see how the work of Christ could be a corporate work. I don't disagree with the corporate theme, but with the foresnsic application of this theme. 8thdaypriest 1 Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 51 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said: Regarding Ephesians 2, you can use that, but what's your point? I don't see how this would help in answering the question you raised regarding what the new creature or new creation is in 2 Cor. 5. That's what was taken to heaven in Christ, our "new creation".
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Ephesians 2 doesn't say anything about a new creation being taken to heaven, right? I don't see that it says anything about a new creation at all. In order to use Ephesians 2 to prove your idea about 2 Cor. 5, you'd have to: 1.Prove Ephesians 2 supports your idea. 2.Show that Paul is speaking about the same thing in Ephesians 2 as he is in 2 Cor. 5. Just out of curiosity, since Eph. 2 came up, how do you understand Paul's statement: Quote 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Specifically, why is Paul speaking of faith here? Shouldn't it simply be "for by grace you are saved"? Why is it "For by grace are you saved through faith"? Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 4 hours ago, pnattmbtc said: This the sinner would do by unbelief, correct? Yes, and to reject the gospel he would have to hear the gospel....You can't reject something you are not aware of..... Quote Why should the sinner be able to undo what Christ did by unbelief? "Undo"? Those are you words and they show a lack of knowledge in what Christ accomplished. The sinner who rejects the gospel doesn't undo what Christ has done. That's a foolish idea. He simple rejects what Christ has done.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said: Why would Paul preach this, if we were already reconciled? You, like your friend, are playing the same tune over and over. " while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son"
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Robert said: Yes, and to reject the gospel he would have to hear....You can't reject something you are not aware of..... "Undo"? Those are you words and they show a lack of knowledge in what Christ accomplished. The sinner who rejects the gospel doesn't undo what Christ has done. That's a foolish idea. He simple rejects what Christ has done. You really don't understand the question? The question is, given that Christ did something for every person, why should unbelief result in the sinner not going to heaven? 8thdaypriest 1 Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Robert said: You, like your friend, I playing the same tune over and over. " while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son" If the "we" here is believers, there is no contradiction. If the "we" includes unbelievers, then Paul would be contradicting himself, since he says our message to unbelievers is "be reconciled to God." Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 4 hours ago, pnattmbtc said: Rather, more accurate would be "this conclusion *may* lead to a subtle form of legalism".... No, it does lead to a subtle form of legalism....The emphasis becomes something you do because Christ, according the Arminian theology, really hasn't done anything until one does something! That's subtle legalism.
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Robert said: No, it does lead to a subtle form of legalism....The emphasis becomes something you do because Christ, according the Arminian theology, really hasn't done anything until one does something! That's subtle legalism. Again, please include the context of what you're talking about, so the reader doesn't have to go back and look. The problem is with the "it", which is referencing a corporate/forensic idea. The causal relationship is between believing you need to do something to earn God's favor and legalism, not between a cognitive understanding of how a corporate forensic relationship works. *If* one's understanding of the corporate forensic understanding led to one believing that they must do something to earn God's favor would the legalism be there. However, this need not follow, hence the "may". Also, you left out the heart of the argument I made, which is this: Quote it is hardly the case every Armianist is legalistic. It's perfectly possible to have a traditional Arminian understanding and believe that it is the goodness of God which leads us to repentance, and nothing we do effects our salvation. One simply accepts what God has given in Christ with a thankful heart. There are many Areminans who believe this way. Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 3 hours ago, pnattmbtc said: Ephesians 2 doesn't say anything about a new creation being taken to heaven.... Eph 2:6 doesn't use the exact phrase "new creation", that's true. But nonetheless that's what the "us" has to be, not unless you are currently in heaven now. Eph 2:6 God...raised us up with Him (Christ), and seated us with Him (Christ) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Robert said: Eph 2:6 doesn't use the exact phrase "new creation", that's true. But nonetheless that's what the "us" has to be, not unless you are currently in heaven now. Eph 2:6 God...raised us up with Him (Christ), and seated us with Him (Christ) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus Why would you think the "us" refers to a new creation? You're just assuming your conclusion, which you do all the time, which isn't the way to construct an argument, and covering up your lack of logic with stupid emoticons. More logic please, and less stupid emoticons. Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said: You really don't understand the question? The question is, given that Christ did something for every person, why should unbelief result in the sinner not going to heaven? Foolish question.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, pnattmbtc said: Why would you think the "us" refers to a new creation? You're just assuming your conclusion, which you do all the time, which isn't the way to construct an argument, and covering up your lack of logic with stupid emoticons. More logic please, and less stupid emoticons. Oh, you don't like the stupid emoticons? I wish I knew this before I could have had a bit of fun.... Don't blow a fuse....
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said: Why would you think the "us" refers to a new creation? Then what, dear man, was taken to heaven? I mean you have all the answers....You tell me.
pnattmbtc Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Robert said: Foolish question. Quote The question is, given that Christ did something for every person, why should unbelief result in the sinner not going to heaven? If everyone is reconciled to God, what would be the problem of taking any such person to heaven? Especially since their fallen natures could be changed, the same as a believer's, when you say the problem is our fallen nature. Why doesn't God change everybody's nature from fallen to not? Why is the believing aspect to crucial? Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 Just now, pnattmbtc said: If everyone is reconciled to God, what would be the problem of taking any such person to heaven? Because they reject God's finished work. To reject Christ is to remain under law and condemnation. It's called free-will.
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 17 minutes ago, Robert said: Eph 2:6 God...raised us up with Him (Christ), and seated us with Him (Christ) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.... Having united us in Christ, having lived a perfect life and having died the wages of sin, in verse 6, Paul tells us, “And God raised us up.” He raised us up but please notice He did not raise us up as individuals but He raised us up corporately together, and that together means together with Christ. Since we were united with Him in the incarnation, then His life becomes our life, His death becomes our death, His resurrection becomes our resurrection and, thus, He raised us up together with Christ and made us sit together with Christ in the heavenly places. [Pastor Sequeira]
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. Please notice, salvation is more than a provision. It is an actual fact. God actually saved us by grace. This salvation, of course, is a gift and has to be received and this reception is called faith. Paul says we are saved by what God did in Christ and this salvation becomes ours through faith. The grammar meaning in the Greek is that “it” in “it is the gift of God” refers to “grace.” Grace is a gift. We are saved through a gift because of God’s abundant mercy because of His great love for us and because of His redemptive activity in Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. In Christ, God has obtained salvation full and complete and the reason why that salvation can be yours is because you were in that humanity of Christ that obeyed the law perfectly. You were in that humanity of Christ that died on the cross. That famous scholar, Bruce Westscott, says that Christ was not just one man among many men but that all men were in Him so that we were organically united to Him. As we accept this truth, His death becomes our death, His life becomes our life, His resurrection becomes our resurrection, His ascension becomes ours. [Jack]
Robert Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 Luke 23:42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise.” Comments later...
Recommended Posts