Bob Wilson wrote: But I quoted, "If Christ had not been raised, you are still in your sins." Doesn't that pertain to our salvation from sins, and suggest that the cross alone doesn't secure that? I still think the apostles see the risen Christ and the Spirit's work as a crucial part of God's way of meeting our need for redemption. A substitute sacrifice is not enough in itself to deal with our sins.
Bob Wilson wrote: 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.
Bob Wilson wrote: And if I agree with you that "disbelief" would leave us with our sins not taken away, why doesn't that sound like our belief would be "adding" something?
Is there any other kind? Universal is universal.auggybendoggy wrote:Seems like Ran is arguing along the lines of Ultra Universalism.
RanRan wrote:I do agree with Paul, not believing in the perfection of His sacrifice does put one back in living in their sins
RanRan wrote:That precisely what I don't believe!
Bob Wilson wrote:RanRan wrote:I do agree with Paul, not believing in the perfection of His sacrifice does put one back in living in their sins
Bob Wilson wrote: And if I agree with you that "disbelief" would leave us with our sins...RanRan wrote:That precisely what I don't believe!
I usually can follow the views on the board that I find questionable. But I'm afraid that as we often do, you selectively respond to my inquiries seeking understanding and even those comments are cryptic enough that I'm not able to intelligibly decipher your view so as to respond.
Bob Wilson wrote:God is never 'propitiated,'
Bob Wilson wrote:Ran Ran said,
"Bob...this amounts to - "The pale cast of thought." It is possible to think too much..."
Sorry you find that "thinking" fouls things up for you! And that I don't comprehend your poetry. But if you keep acting like just repeating one's assertions is enough to make a case, I'm afraid there's tons of repetitive rhetoric that I'm foolishly inclined to stop and think about before I would espouse it.
Bob Wilson wrote:Again, my difficulty was not grasping that assertion. It is only in grasping what you think argues for it, or how you interpret the many counter-texts cited that appear to make human responses pivotal in God's dealings with us. Grace be with you, Bob
What sort of language would it take to count against your denial of the apostles' own plain account of "wrath" in God's Gospel?
Bob Wilson wrote:I find Scripture sees God's "wrath" to be the intrinsic disposition of his holy nature toward unrepentant evil, not a grudge which gets cured by venting one-time destruction on a person, a building, or a nation. Thus to separate it or God's way of overcoming sin which calls for wrath, from the Bible's account of the Good News, would cancel out the Bible's whole story.
RanRan wrote: That 'theology' of the last 1600 years just won't go away.
I cited numerous texts where the apostles, presumbly in the late first century, warn churchmen to avoid facing God's future judgment and wrath. Presuming you think the whole NT was written after 70 AD, do you hold that readers were to understand that if their death loomed ahaed after 70 AD, the Bible's concern was now irrelevant? Or, if they lived far from Jerusalem, could they not be concerned about the Biblical emphasis, even in 69 AD?
Bob Wilson wrote:Thus, you do hold that an unbeliever, Josephus, verified by a sign that in Jerusalem's fall Christ has already returned and completed all the eschatological promises or warnings. Therefore it would be clear for churchmen who (1) didn't live near Jerusalem, or (2) were approaching death after AD 70, that they were free to ignore all of the apostle's warnings to them about living in a way that did not bring the risk of being subjected to God's wrath or judgment. For all those Scriptural exhortations were written before AD 70 and were plainly only temporarily cautioning them about a now past event which could not touch them.
JeffA wrote:Of course many are sceptical about Josephus' description of Jesus as it sounds like it was written by a Christian (which Josephus never became).
Bob Wilson wrote:Ran, Jeff makes a good point, but I again take it that you are answering a noteworthy "yes" to my two questions about grasping your interpretation (now reprinted 3x: the irrelevance of apostolic cautions on facing judgment for churchmen (1) living away from Jersalem, as well as (2) Christian readers after 70 AD). Thanks for making your position so clear.
addressed to "elect Jews, and particularly in Jerusalem"?RanRan wrote:Neither of those two groups were among the elect Jews in Israel, and particularly in Jerusalem
Bob Wilson wrote:To my knowledge, the consensus is wide that such admonitions were addressed as universally relevant for believers, Gentile as well as Jew, during "this present evil age."
Bob Wilson wrote:I'm afraid the more you clarify the way that you read such passages about godliness, the more incredulous I am about your interpretation, as out of step with the plain and universal meaning of such texts. Across the board, whether they are interpreted by secular scholars, conservative Christians, or more liberal students, to my knowledge, nobody but you finds such a unique and narrow meaning in them.
Bob Wilson wrote:Brother Ran, are we not blessed to be retired and free to quickly repond about theology! I love your first point since my interaction with Lutherans has been frequent and fruitful. Indeed, my most influential current books are by Lutheran N.T. prof, Dr. David Brondos ("Paul on the Cross" and "Fortress Introduction to Salvation"--tho I'm afraid he finds that the consistent Biblical theme is that our redemption has a future component and is not yet fully realized).
RanRan wrote: the basis for your universalism - God pours out enough torture on people that they finally start liking it
Bob Wilson wrote:Some say "it takes one to know one." Could it be that your insight that God has a need to propitiate his anger by torturing and abandoning his Beloved Son, as well as violently venting its' wrath on Jews and Jerusalem, enables you to find that my own confidence is in such vindictive retribution?
Bob Wilson wrote:...does it follow that you think sin and evil are now only illusions?
Bob Wilson wrote:I am a crazy minority skeptical that the Biblical language is that the cross means "sin has already been removed," or that it was a transaction that changed the ontological nature of God or humanity or the universe.
RanRan wrote:Bob Wilson wrote:I am a crazy minority skeptical that the Biblical language is that the cross means "sin has already been removed," or that it was a transaction that changed the ontological nature of God or humanity or the universe.
Ontologically, both God and mankind has been changed. Past tense.
God has a body now - a human resurrected body. Big change.
Mankind, on the other hand, finds itself in the first of the resurrected - Christ. Whereas, previously, mankind was in Adam - sinning and being given (abandoned) over to death from which there was no escape. That's a huge ontological change for mankind and it became a reality the moment Christ was resurrected. Just as Adam was not and then he was. i.e. a fiat.
As far as the universe goes, and if there are other human beings on other planets, the word will surely go there - perhaps delivered by us!
Bob Wilson wrote:Still, however they understand such a 'change' or transaction, I think the majority of Bible students agree with my larger point that it views us as now remaining in a condition of looking forward to that day you mentioned when evil and sin is fully removed in actuality. My own impression is that nothing less than that is the 'justice' or "righteousness" that fully 'satisfies' God. Maranatha!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests