Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:25 am
Ran Ran,
Thanks for your reactions to my paper and discussion with Jim. On Sept. 22, you nicely clarify what you think Jesus came to do. But I'm feeling slow because I can't understand what your argument is for it. You appear to offer no Biblical exegesis in its' behalf, unlike my paper and discussion with Jim which cites and wrestles with hundreds of Scriptures. When you conclude that the key is to agree with you about "eschatology," it sounds like a tautology to me: that the key to insight is simply to agree with your conclusions.
On Sept. 25, you call my statement that Paul sees the risen Christ and work of the Spirit as vital to God's redemptive purpose "untenable," saying "Christ doesn't take away the sins of the world until you believe that he didn't..." Again I don't follow your logic. If you are meaning to paraphrase my own view, I don't recognize it as mine. If you mean that the Biblical view of the cross is that the Bible has no concern about our lives or response to what Jesus did or secured at the cross, your reading of countless exhortations and warnings simply baffles me.
You do seem to assert that 1 Cor. 15 only means that if Christ is not resurrected, his sacrifiice was not accepted and thus he didn't take away sins. But I argued with numerous references that Paul seems to think the problem here of still "living in our sins" is more than having a sacrifice remove sin's penalty. Rather, that Paul is often concerned with God's desire to deal with actual sin in our lives by the work of Christ's living Spirit who can produce crucial and genuine actual righteousness as we meet the true "requirements of the law," rather than only grant imputed righteousness that cancel's sin's consequeces. That's the foundation on which I find your interpretation unlikely.
Your apparent closer that the problem is my "unbelief" is unintelligible to me. I may not be following your logic, but it sounds like an empty ad hominem argument.
Grace be with you,
Bobx1
Thanks for your reactions to my paper and discussion with Jim. On Sept. 22, you nicely clarify what you think Jesus came to do. But I'm feeling slow because I can't understand what your argument is for it. You appear to offer no Biblical exegesis in its' behalf, unlike my paper and discussion with Jim which cites and wrestles with hundreds of Scriptures. When you conclude that the key is to agree with you about "eschatology," it sounds like a tautology to me: that the key to insight is simply to agree with your conclusions.
On Sept. 25, you call my statement that Paul sees the risen Christ and work of the Spirit as vital to God's redemptive purpose "untenable," saying "Christ doesn't take away the sins of the world until you believe that he didn't..." Again I don't follow your logic. If you are meaning to paraphrase my own view, I don't recognize it as mine. If you mean that the Biblical view of the cross is that the Bible has no concern about our lives or response to what Jesus did or secured at the cross, your reading of countless exhortations and warnings simply baffles me.
You do seem to assert that 1 Cor. 15 only means that if Christ is not resurrected, his sacrifiice was not accepted and thus he didn't take away sins. But I argued with numerous references that Paul seems to think the problem here of still "living in our sins" is more than having a sacrifice remove sin's penalty. Rather, that Paul is often concerned with God's desire to deal with actual sin in our lives by the work of Christ's living Spirit who can produce crucial and genuine actual righteousness as we meet the true "requirements of the law," rather than only grant imputed righteousness that cancel's sin's consequeces. That's the foundation on which I find your interpretation unlikely.
Your apparent closer that the problem is my "unbelief" is unintelligible to me. I may not be following your logic, but it sounds like an empty ad hominem argument.
Grace be with you,
Bobx1