Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Heaven: How to Get In
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 83 of 91 (525114)
09-21-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Bailey
09-21-2009 2:10 PM


Re: cutting to the chase ...
Bailey writes:
If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you.
My apologies for scrolling down past so much (well formatted) posting to arrive at the nub of the issue. Consider it my 'cutting to the chase'.
The reason for your singing from a different hymnsheet to
me isn't the point of interest. The fact that we are singing so, is.
In case temptation to shift the discussion to "who wrote what bits of the Bible" raises it's head, know that that topic holds about as much interest for me as does discussion on quantum mechanics.
I'm drawing a slightly longer line under this paragraph for a reason.
___________
I contend that a ransom is different than a sacrifice; you equivocate.
I've a pretty good memory for these things and don't recall equivocating on the difference in meaning between ransom and sacrifice. The basic meanings of both are reasonably clear. As to their application?
Jesus as ransom: deals with an element of salvation that sees us released from our captivity to sin. Paul deals with this in depth, but the basic idea is that the saved are release from their former enslavement to both Sin and sins stimulator; the law of sin and death.
Jesus as sacrifice: deals with an element of salvation that sees us forgiven by God. I've outlined this before in stating that the forgiver is the one who has to pay the price of the transgression against him - so won't address it here again.
We need a release from captivity and we need forgiveness for our transgressions. Thus we need a ransom and a sacrifice.
-
Discussion is taking place good friend.
Not on the issue of whether Jesus is a sacrifice or not. But I've no problem discussing the place/need for a sacrifice, it being a part of the mechanism of salvation I'm positing.
-
When a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
The question is whether you decided to surrender to authority when you considered it possible to fight on (works) or whether you surrendered to that authority when you were completely defeated (grace). I've expanded on this further on in this post.
-
I wasn't under the impression that you were being inclusive, but rather I was working under the premise that you agreed with Paul that all are saved.
The weight of scripture indicates that all are not saved. That this or that verse needs attention as to it's meaning doesn't mean we should throw the weight of scripture, or such verses, out.
The point made remains: Paul addressing 'you' at the point in question refers, contextually, to the saved-by-faith.
-
I don't perceive the Father that way; yet, the Father has revealed himself to many people in many ways. That you serve a God of guilt is fine by me.
I only ask you to allow the Father to reveal himself to others in the way he sees fit, as opposed to the only way you are willing to see and know.
I didn't perceive the father at all during the time that guilt and shame were being used in bringing me to salvation.
Guilt and shame post-conversion arise, I think, out of immaturity/failure to seek forgiveness. Like, how can you entertain guilt for something you are declared innocent of? I see no problem in the father using guilt and shame in order to discipline and grow those whom he loves. Which is not to say this is the only attribute of God I see revealed.
As to anothers experience of Gods way of drawing them to himself?
I'd note that the scriptural model is inevitably one whereby folk come to God via severe distress of one sort or another: pain, guilt, fear, outcasted-ness, shame, worry, sickness, despair. I was about to say that there are perhaps some neutral examples which would impinge on my use of the word 'inevitable', my mind turning to the Ethiopian eunach. Until a realisation of the psychological damage caused to a man by his being castrated stayed my hand.
Off the top of my head: the woman with a bleeding issue, the blind, the lepers, the centurian, the thief on the cross, the prostitutes, publicans and tax collectors, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the ethiopian eunach, the persecutor Saul...
Perhaps you can think of some biblical example which would divert me from my view? Some examples of nice conversions or an occasion where someone was being drawn to God from more pleasant surroundings?
-
A thing we choose to do', as in a 'work'. Yet, according to your theology, when we choose not to refuse, it isn't a 'work', but 'grace'. Whatever dude.
As pointed out previously, I reject the notion that lost men can chose 'not to refuse' - arising from my rejection of the notion that lost men have the free will to do so. Pauls description of mans "enslavement to sin" and statements describing the heart of man to be capable of 'only wickedness all the time' put paid to that novel, if commonly discussed idea.
My suggestion was that any movement towards 'good' on our part is powered by God - for 'only God is good'. Conscience is his force: we are pulled to good ends by it - or we pull the other way via ban application of our sinful will.
Remember the fisherman story? Either the fishermans' will lands fish OR the fishes will escapes hook.
-
If you can help it, please make a valid attempt to not bring up the 'refusal to love the TruthTM' bit again as a means of your theological salvation ...
At least until you are willing to address the fact that the ToRaH was forged by Levite scribes and stare other documented forgeries head on.
As before:
The thread is, in essence, about salvation mechanisms. And I'm positing one based on the Bible. I'm not interested in positing a mechanism based on a canon arived at by you.
-
That you're able to perceive pain as kindness is your perogative and I'd assume not judge that perception.
Can you imagine the state of your teeth if God wasn't kind enough to provide you with a sense of pain?
Your withholding judgment or not isn't my concern. I'm merely indicating how I consider the mechanism to work - given a scriptural tendency to illustrate the conditions under which others were led to repentance.
Jesus said himself that it involved being heavily burdened and a certain yearning for rest. You've been asked to provide examples befitting an alternative, 'nicer' model of kindness from scripture (as it hints to pertain to salvation). I'll await your response to that request.
-
I understand that you are having trouble with this. I have told you that repentance, as it has been revealed to me, is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. You agreed that there is indeed a cooperative measure at work between the Father and his children.
I have agreed that cooperation ensues post salvation on receipt of the Holy Spirits indwelling - him being the instigator and encourager of such cooperation. I wouldn't spin things to suggest that any such cooperation exists pre-salvation. Nor that cooperation is involved at the 'tipping point' at which a person tumbles from their lost position into salvation. Cooperation after Bailey, only after. That is my position.
Nor have I agreed that lost folk are children of God. In case you're reading things that way of me. Adoption as children occurs on being saved. It's one of salvations consequences.
-
I've also stated that repentance, as I understand it, requires the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21). Earlier in this post I attempt to clarify that statement by asserting that when a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
And so, if you're unable and unwilling to recognize that repentance in this understanding doesn't have an option to claim any boasting rights, I'm at a loss.
I've commented above on this by way of enquiry into the nature of your salvation mechanisms' form of surrender. Shifting the analogy to the business merger environment we can say that two modes of merging competing companies exist:
the first merger sees the weaker competitor recognising the strength of his rival and choosing to 'surrender' sovereignty from a postition of some strength. I say 'some strength' because whilst both know the stronger competitor can press on and destroy the weaker rival, they also know that it's better for the stronger that destruction not happen. So we have surrender - but no unconditional surrender.
the second kind of merger sees' the stronger competitor rejecting all attempts at brokering a cease fire on the way. Instead he presses on until the total destruction of his competitor is complete. The kind of surrender that occurs here is total: the weaker is completely vanquished and can only plead for mercy that it's battered remnants be put to even the most lowly use in the stronger companies service. The surrender is unconditional - it doesn't involve a choosing to do so, it's merely an acknowledgement as to what has occurred
The former merger illustrates the existance of remnents of ego, the latter merger illustrates the complete shattering of ego. So long as your cooperation is required your surrender of ego then you are talking about the first kind of merger.
No cooperation on your part is required for the second. If your services are retained after your defeat then it is only by grace that they are so.
-
Apparently, repentance, in this understanding, will be considered as some type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others, just as your 'refusal to love the TruthTM' will be considered a type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others.
Central to the mechanism I posit is the (scripturally supported) notion that man hasn't free will in the direction "choosing for the things of God". It isn't all relevant what a persons view is regarding "a refusal to love" if the mechanism suggested precludes ones working for. They'd have to figure out how someone, who is by nature antagonistic to God could will for the things when left to their own devices.
-
Seeing as the veiw of repentance I've set forth can plainly be seen to not be a 'work' on our behalf, we are, then, back to the substance of Message 78 ...
This conclusion awaits some clarification regarding the nature of your surrender.
-
Baileys earlier message writes:
I have made the assertion that a ritual atonement killing of a human or of the divine - directly involving blood magic was, is and will always be completely unnecessary to accomplish a 'positive afterlife outcome' (PAO) or procure salvation or enter the Kingdom of Heaven; however one would word this.
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
As already pointed out, I'm not interested in investigating a mechanism of salvation that is based on a stripped-to-a convenient-bone Bible. No more than I am in interrogating Mormon salvation or Islamic salvation. My interest is limited to revealing the works based nature of it in order to support my earlier contention that there is but one way that is by grace.
That said: I'd be interesting in hearing how can you describe the love of God as unconditional when there is a requirement on your part to fulfill. And how does unconditional love condemn some. Perhaps your mechanism can ponder on this for me?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Bailey, posted 09-21-2009 2:10 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Bailey, posted 09-22-2009 2:48 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 85 of 91 (525372)
09-23-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Bailey
09-22-2009 2:48 PM


Going, going...?
iano writes:
In case temptation to shift the discussion to "who wrote what bits of the Bible" raises it's head, know that that topic holds about as much interest for me as does discussion on quantum mechanics.
Bailey writes:
All things considered, I'll quickly afford you the defense that such an issue, as the one above, is off topic. However, the matter of actual debate is not.
Perhaps it might assist if I explain what the matter of actual debate is, from my perspective as opposed to yours. My intention in the thread is to posit the mechanism of salvation as I consider it found in the Bible to which I hold (the common, 66 book Bible), this from the perspective of one who holds all that text inspired. Whilst welcoming counter-viewpoints which challenge my understanding of the text - insofar as such challenges throw spanners in the mechanism posed, I am not interested in:
- discussing from another canon whether judaic, islamic or yours.
- discussing whether certain bits do or don't belong in the Bible, especially not if they don't concern themselve with the mechanism posed.
- discussing from a viewpoint which hold one piece of scripture to more authorititive than another.
Not interested. And never was interested. So what you call..
Another diversionary tactic..
..is actually another attempt to spell my position out to you. This conversation isn't going to head down in the direction you insist it goes in, Bailey, and no amount of leaning on the rudder is going to change that.
But in case I have misunderstood your intentions and the above exclusions don't apply to what it is you are after (for I find your writing as obtuse at times as you do mine diversionary) let me pose the follow 'qualifying' question for you in the light of what you request below.
With that said, if you'd be so kind, I was hoping you may move forward, establishing your contention(s) (sacrificial blood revenge techniques performed through religious rites are reguired by God in order to attain the forgiveness of sins, Joshua's venemous murder on a torture stake is a ritual atonement killing that effectively employs blood magic to atone for and forgive sins through a 'mechanism' referred to as penal substitution; then allowing those who justify the murder to enter 'heaven', etc.) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
Qualifying Question:
Do you accept that Pauls writings (which describe Christs death as a sacrifice and detail various salvation-mechanical aspects associated with that sacrifice) are effectively the words of God and are as authorititive as anything attributed to the Father or Christ directly?
If the answer is 'yes' we can discuss further (although I'd not be quite sure about the question you are asking anymore). If the answer is 'no' then I would:
a) point you to the exclusions up top and the rational behind them
b) cite irreconcilable difference re: the hymnsheets we sing from
c) request that we agree to end the discussion amicably.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Bailey, posted 09-22-2009 2:48 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Bailey, posted 09-23-2009 7:33 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 88 of 91 (526499)
09-28-2009 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Bailey
09-23-2009 7:33 PM


Re: In regards to an early biblical foundation for penal substitution ...
Hi Bailey,
Apologies for the delay in replying
Thank's for taking the time to do this. Now, correct me if I am mistaken; the topic of the thread and original matter of debate is 'how to get into heaven'.
You posit that entrance into that place is arrived at through grace, which the Father applies by way of a 'mechanism' commonly referred to as penal substitution. So then, the matter of debate has become - does penal substitution, as a potential 'mechanism', maintain any valid basis in scripture?
With the sticking point being the issue of what constitutes scripture.
-
... do you feel that requesting you to provide biblical evidence in support of p-sub from within the former Yuhdean texts (ie. original testaments) first, before attempting to further evidence and promote p-sub through latter added Yuhdean texts (ie. newer testaments) is unreasonable?
My assumption is that you feel the request is unneccesary, but I would like to know if you find the request unreasonable.
If, on entering a library, I'm told that I mustn't go to the sector which might best deal with the issue at hand, but must instead progress my search, beginning at the shelves beside the door then yes, I'd consider that unreasonable.
-
Honestly, as I stated in our last exchange, I would rather you ...
... be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have ...
And I'd rather you'd take your tongue out of your cheek
The idea of quoting scripture you don't (necessarily) find authorititive.. so as to have the authority of scripture encourage me to move in your preferred direction. Well, let's just say that it raises a smile.
(I note that you appear to have clarified your position to be "all scripture inspired" for the purposes of discussion.)
-
Wouldn't you quickly agree that if 'certain bits' canonized within the common roman bible may seem to speak against p-sub, in some regard, that those portions of scripture text must be included in one's consideration and given their proper weight before any reasonable and valid conclusion may be drawn?
And please, don't attempt to shift this discussion to 'Well, where might those portions of scripture be found?'; if anything, a simple yes or no.
Certain parts of the Bible seem to speak for a works-based salvation - and I'm not at all suggesting they be ignored. So, Yes.
-
This is the type of behavior we should be avoiding. Is it not fair to suppose that you're attempting to maintain 'discussion from a viewpoint' that is 'holding one piece of scripture' - ie. the unique letters of encouragement attributed to uncle Paul that are 'hard to understand' - as 'more authoritative than others'?
These 'unique letters of encouragement' happen to be choc-full of doctrine Bailey. And if doctrine is to theology what blueprints are to mechanical engineering then I fail to see why you'd want to concentrate your search for mechanical understanding anywhere else.
Question: if Paul is considered (for the purposes of discussion) as authorititive as Jesus or the Father, then why the persistant (from the get-go in fact) demand regarding the Fathers'/Jesus' mention of a sacrifice when Pauls' mention of it would do just as well?
quote:
while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this. (emphasis mine - iano)
-
Much ado has been made of my interpretation of Pauls writings when in fact most of the effort has been spent attempting to shift you from the above "Jesus/Father only" postion. Let me re-phrase my question then - removing references to my opinion that Paul describes Jesus death as a sacrifice.
Do you accept (for the purposes of discussion) that Pauls writings are as authorititive as anything attributed to the Father or Jesus directly - on this or any other matter?
Edited by iano, : Attribute emphasis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Bailey, posted 09-23-2009 7:33 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Bailey, posted 10-03-2009 6:55 PM iano has not replied
 Message 90 by Bailey, posted 10-03-2009 9:05 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 91 of 91 (528205)
10-05-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Bailey
10-03-2009 9:05 PM


The 'actual' purpose of discussion
Bailey writes:
That's irrelevant '(for the purposes of discussion)', as the actual purpose of the discussion was for you to ...
quote:
' ... show when the FATHER first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS?'
Which is what the purpose of and question in Message 78, Message 82, Message 84, Message 87 and Message 89 have always been.
This discussion started out with your repeated denial that Jesus was a sacrifice or that his death was even necessary allied to a demand that I support claims of same from scriptures-of-your-choosing. It has morphed it's way into a multi-facetted, not to say baffling, attempt to ringfence the discussion to one of your liking.
In it's current stage of evolution, the issue of Jesus being a sacrifice or no has been moved off centre stage in favour of a target called the doctrine of p-sub. Your m.o. hasn't altered however; the demand being that claims (whether psub or Jesus-as-sacrifice) be supported in a manner and from a range of scripture proscribed by you.
You say the purpose 'has always been' as you (somewhat curiously*) describe it above. Yet when we shift back just prior to the posts listed above we see that your then purpose sought Jesus' imprimateur on the notion of his being a sacrifice. Which shifts things beyond the FATHER and beyond the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS and into the GOSPELS but not as far as THE EPISTLES.
Here are some supporting post references showing variability in this supposed unwavering purpose of your. (Do note my having accomodated your request re: Jesus not having referred to himself as a sacrifice, at message 76 - I'm pretty sure I've stated that the father didn't either, somewhere along the line.)
Bailey at message 72
quote:
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom. Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
Bailey at message 73
quote:
For the record, I am not the one who has continually ignored the request, or rather - challenge, to provide any portion of scripture, apocrypha or otherwise, wherein Joshua the Anointed One refers to himself as a sacrifice. That has been your interesting challenge repeatedly kicked to the curb.
iano at message 76
quote:
Not having a photographic memory the best I can do is say that I don't recall Jesus ever referring to himself as a sacrifice.
-
My immovable positon has been that (eg) Pauls' describing of Jesus-as-sacrifice is as accurate and authorititive a description of the situation as would Jesus' describing of himself so - were it that Jesus actually did so. And that barring some semantical rabbit-from-a-hat trick on your part, in which the word sacrifice...
quote:
1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
quote:
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
...doesn't mean sacrifice, Jesus-as-sacrifice is plainly established by scripture. Not scripture according to the father, not scripture according to the son. Just according to scripture.
-
And so we come we to the end of our discussion, Bailey. Or perhaps 'exchange' would be a better term for it seeing as it's only ever been a dance. It might well be that you have worthwhile objections to make to the doctrine of p-sub (although a denial of Jesus as sacrifice isn't one of them). Whatever those merits might be, they are, to my mind, buried in eloquent verbosity which, when distilled down, reveals yet more attempts at ringfencing the discussion to one of your own liking. You can hardly expect that I would collude with you in this.
God bless for now.
Ian
-
* This is what I mean by 'somewhat curiously'
quote:
' ... show when the FATHER first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS?'
I've never suggested that the father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin. Indeed, the orthodox position is that animal sacrifices (which were requested by the father) covered, but didn't atone for sin. I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to do here - other than erect, perhaps, a similar strawman to the one you erected when demanding I demonstrate where Jesus/the father (but not the epistles) refers to Jesus as a sacrifice
Given that Jesus wasn't an animal sacrifice (what with him being God..) I fail to see what an admission that the father never requested animal sacrifices as an atonement would do to advance your position. The discussion being over, I'm not requiring an answer from you on this - but am merely pointing out why I view your approach an impossible one to navigate.
If you do provide a rationale (by way of information) however, perhaps you could go one step further and tell me (in as plain a speak as you can manage) what you make of John the Baptist's description of Jesus as the 'lamb of God'. I've always been curious about how your non-sacrificial view deals with that one.
Thanks
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Bailey, posted 10-03-2009 9:05 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024