What Exactly Does Propitiation Accomplish?

[seer]

Ok, so you don't hold to substitution. But I'am still not getting exactly what propitiation actually accomplishes. I mean how are our sins actually forgiven?

[Thomas2003]

Ok, so you don't hold to substitution. But I'am still not getting exactly what propitiation actually accomplishes. I mean how are our sins actually forgiven?

Substitution and propitiation are not opposite doctrines.

Substitution is the act of Christ taking the place of another, propitiation is the act of appeasing wrath in the atonement, the atonement is the expiation of sin.

Christ was an expiatory sacrifice.

If you are saying, "Ok, so you don't hold to substitution" then there is no propitiation to discuss, the concept of appeasing wrath has no basis because Christ had no sin.

Your question doesn't make any sense.

[seer]

Substitution and propitiation are not opposite doctrines.

Substitution is the act of Christ taking the place of another, propitiation is the act of appeasing wrath in the atonement, the atonement is the expiation of sin.

Christ was an expiatory sacrifice.

If you are saying, "Ok, so you don't hold to substitution" then there is no propitiation to discuss, the concept of appeasing wrath has no basis because Christ had no sin.

Your question doesn't make any sense.

I have no problem with substitution and propitiation together. I'am just trying to find out how propitiation without substitution accomplishes anything. Do you know?

[Thomas2003]

I have no problem with substitution and propitiation together. I'am just trying to find out how propitiation without substitution accomplishes anything. Do you know?

Yes, it doesn't accomplish anything which is the whole problem with Arminianism. There is no forgiveness of sin.

[Kevin Wayne]

Yes, it doesn't accomplish anything which is the whole problem with Arminianism. There is no forgiveness of sin.



Except that Athanasius, who preceded Armianism by about ohhh- 1300 years or so, taught an unlimted atonement.

[themuzicman]

Ok, so you don't hold to substitution. But I'am still not getting exactly what propitiation actually accomplishes. I mean how are our sins actually forgiven?

Propitiation appeases God's wrath against sin. It is corporate "atonement", if you will, rather than individual, substitutionary atonement.

It appeases God's wrath for all those who come into the New Covenant.

Thus, Paul can say (Rom 5:18) that justification comes TO all men, but that we are then justified by faith.

Michael

[seer]

Yes, it doesn't accomplish anything which is the whole problem with Arminianism. There is no forgiveness of sin.

Why? I'am an Arminian and believe in substitution. So what's the problem?

[seer]

Propitiation appeases God's wrath against sin. It is corporate "atonement", if you will, rather than individual, substitutionary atonement.

It appeases God's wrath for all those who come into the New Covenant.

Thus, Paul can say (Rom 5:18) that justification comes TO all men, but that we are then justified by faith.

Michael

Again Mike. So God poured His wrath on Jesus, the wrath we deserved. So how is that at least some form of substitution?

[themuzicman]

Why? I'am an Arminian and believe in substitution. So what's the problem?
Penal substitution usually implies unconditional election and irresistable grace, not to mention limited atonement... Or universalism.

[seer]

Penal substitution usually implies unconditional election and irresistable grace, not to mention limited atonement... Or universalism.

No it doesn't. All it requies is foreknowledge. God knew exactly who would freely respond to His offer, and it was those alone for whom Christ died... Makes sense to me...

[themuzicman]

No it doesn't. All it requies is foreknowledge. God knew exactly who would freely respond to His offer, and it was those alone for whom Christ died... Makes sense to me...
By extension, that's individual election. Depending on how God knows what men will freely offer, it's probably irresistable grace, too.

It's DEFINATELY limited atonement.

[seer]

By extension, that's individual election. Depending on how God knows what men will freely offer, it's probably irresistable grace, too.

That does not follow. It doesn't have to be irresistable grace, it could simply be perfect foreknowledge...

It's DEFINATELY limited atonement.

Well of course. Christ would not need to die for those He knew perfectly well would reject Him.

[cbro]

Again Mike. So God poured His wrath on Jesus, the wrath we deserved. So how is that at least some form of substitution?How about, Jesus is substituted for us by the choice of God so that the Father can justly judge that the penalty for our sins has been paid?

[seer]

How about, Jesus is substituted for us by the choice of God so that the Father can justly judge that the penalty for our sins has been paid?


Sounds good to me. I don't think Mike will like it though...

[Thomas2003]

Except that Athanasius, who preceded Armianism by about ohhh- 1300 years or so, taught an unlimted atonement.


Athanasius was not orthodox on the atonement, but he did not affirm an "Arminian" conception of the atonement, so your reference is misleading.

When he condemned the Arians he said:

"For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest, through created by the Son, we should name another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the all-creating God." Four Discourses Against the Arians 2:15

The Greek folly of Arians was that salvation was primarily the work of Christ the man and as such they fostered creature worship which was always condemned.

This is the same folly of Arminianism, of which Athanasius is clearly opposed.

[Kevin Wayne]

Athanasius was not orthodox on the atonement, but he did not affirm an "Arminian" conception of the atonement, so your reference is misleading.

When he condemned the Arians he said:

"For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest, through created by the Son, we should name another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the all-creating God." Four Discourses Against the Arians 2:15

The Greek folly of Arians was that salvation was primarily the work of Christ the man and as such they fostered creature worship which was always condemned.

This is the same folly of Arminianism, of which Athanasius is clearly opposed.



Beg to differ, read his treatise on the Incarnation. ;-)

[Thomas2003]

Why? I'am an Arminian and believe in substitution. So what's the problem?

You appear to be a hybrid to me. If you believe in substitutionary atonement you must also believe that atonement is limited to the elect. Or you redefined the terms and I don't understand that.

From what I've read in your various posts is a position which seems to be derived from logical inference affirming an infralapsarianism which you then outwork in terms of the eternal decree as it pertains to the Procession of the Holy Ghost - not the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Almost every thread you've started is premised upon this presupposition in which you transfer ultimacy to time in the Procession (e.g., which you tie to faith). In other words you reject Calvinistic Predestination in Calvinistic terms, not in Arminianistic terms. It is a transfer not a denial. I think you are more of an "unCalvinist" than an Arminian - they don't approach the problem like you have.

I can only conclude that somewhere along the way the doctrine of Economic Appropriation has got screwed up. It doesn't appear to come out as an affirmation of mere moral union in the atonement as the Arminians do, however.

At some point, though, if you continue to follow this path you will start entertaining a denial of the Procession through the Son entirely - because you can't solve the problem. Then Justification by Faith will fall and the Church will become mediator :eek:

[Thomas2003]

No it doesn't. All it requies is foreknowledge. God knew exactly who would freely respond to His offer, and it was those alone for whom Christ died... Makes sense to me...

Aha, that's limited atonement right there. :lol:

[Thomas2003]

By extension, that's individual election. Depending on how God knows what men will freely offer, it's probably irresistable grace, too.

That does not follow. It doesn't have to be irresistable grace, it could simply be perfect foreknowledge...

:lol: This is funny.


It's DEFINATELY limited atonement.

Well of course. Christ would not need to die for those He knew perfectly well would reject Him.

Please explain, if you don't mind, your conception of the Procession of the Holy Ghost?

[Thomas2003]

Beg to differ, read his treatise on the Incarnation. ;-)


Why don't you post the pertinent part and explain yourself.

[Kevin Wayne]

Why don't you post the pertinent part and explain yourself.


I might do that in another thread, when I'm through reading it over. Then I want to go into the similarity of his concepts to Hebrews 2 & Romans 5.


Meantime, are you ever going to respond to Tercel's challenge he gave you quite awhile back? You were asked to show how a true and correct understanding of the Trinity and Incarnation proves Calvinism, seeing that your belief in the Trinity and Chalcedon definition of Christ are historically derived from the Catholic/Orthodox churches neither of whom believed Calvinism?

[seer]

Aha, that's limited atonement right there. :lol:

Yes...

[seer]

Mike: By extension, that's individual election. Depending on how God knows what men will freely offer, it's probably irresistable grace, too.

Me: That does not follow. It doesn't have to be irresistable grace, it could simply be perfect foreknowledge...


Tom: This is funny.

Me new - why is that funny Tom?



Mike: It's DEFINATELY limited atonement.

Me: Well of course. Christ would not need to die for those He knew perfectly well would reject Him.


Tom: Please explain, if you don't mind, your conception of the Procession of the Holy Ghost?

Me new - I'am not sure what you mean Tom. Except that the Holy Spirit is the agent of rebirth and enlightenment.

[themuzicman]

By extension, that's individual election. Depending on how God knows what men will freely offer, it's probably irresistable grace, too.

That does not follow. It doesn't have to be irresistable grace, it could simply be perfect foreknowledge...

Well, now you have a chicken/egg problem. By definition, truly free will choices are unknowable before they happen, yet, you say that God foreknows them. How does He do this?

It's DEFINATELY limited atonement.

Well of course. Christ would not need to die for those He knew perfectly well would reject Him.

Then how do you explain Rom 5:18, where justification comes to ALL MEN?

Michael

[Thomas2003]

I might do that in another thread, when I'm through reading it over. Then I want to go into the similarity of his concepts to Hebrews 2 & Romans 5.


Meantime, are you ever going to respond to Tercel's challenge he gave you quite awhile back? You were asked to show how a true and correct understanding of the Trinity and Incarnation proves Calvinism, seeing that your belief in the Trinity and Chalcedon definition of Christ are historically derived from the Catholic/Orthodox churches neither of whom believed Calvinism?

I don't remember where that even was, but I've explained it in a half dozen posts or more.

The Roman Church abandoned the creeds when they gave into a nature-grace dialetic, but it appears to me you have a hostility to history that I don't quite understand. In other words, it almost seems that because the Roman Church became heretical that this charge becomes backwardly applicable all the way to the book of Romans itself.

When you speak history has a color to it that you paint upon it and you are unable to examine history in the light of history, but only through this filter you have. It's very strange.

[Thomas2003]

Mike: By extension, that's individual election. Depending on how God knows what men will freely offer, it's probably irresistable grace, too.

Me: That does not follow. It doesn't have to be irresistable grace, it could simply be perfect foreknowledge...


Tom: This is funny.

Me new - why is that funny Tom?

I had responded to your post and then scrolled down and read some more and low and behold you admit to limited atonement, while claiming to be an Arminian.



Mike: It's DEFINATELY limited atonement.

Me: Well of course. Christ would not need to die for those He knew perfectly well would reject Him.


Tom: Please explain, if you don't mind, your conception of the Procession of the Holy Ghost?

Me new - I'am not sure what you mean Tom. Except that the Holy Spirit is the agent of rebirth and enlightenment.

In the Nicene Creed the filioque was added by the council of Toledo to deal with some lingering assertions of Arianism and subordinationism derived from their interpretation of John 15:26. The bold & underline clause was added: "And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified."

The doctrine explains the interpretation of those verses from John and defines them in a way that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, not separate from him as Arianism was teaching. This is because it combines several verses to interpret that meaning - that one can come to the Father only by and through Christ, hence the "procession" in John 15:26 is not separate from Christ. (see, John 14:6, "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.")

Hence, Christ was not subordinate but ontologically on par with both the Father and the Spirit. Christ as "God manifest in the flesh, is just as much God as the Father and the Spirit, not ontologically subordinated as a lesser person as both Arian and Nestorius taught. It is a critical doctrine.

The lingering elements of subordinationists of both Nestorianism and Arianism were dealt with and condemned by the assertion of this interpretation of Scripture. Because it affects just who or what Christ is.

Calvinism holds to this doctrine that the Trinity is one God, three persons, with no subordination of one person to another in substance or being, but only in terms of economy or operation.

Hence, the Calvinistic interpretation of the Procession is consistent with it's interpretation of the Atonement. What I have sensed in your position is an inconsistency because you are asserting a limited atonement, which requires an ontological oneness of God, yet then a subordinationism of Christ is asserted in the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

There are baptists that very openly assert this doctrine, they are generally called "briders" because they have two processions of the Holy Ghost. They believe some people are saved by the procession from the Father, others are saved from a procession from the Son - these form the "bride of Christ" in Scripture. Hence, everyone doesn't have to come to the Father through the Son, some can come directly to the Father of their own merit - it's just another flavour of Arminianism in the "Baskin Robbins of it's 31onderful flavors."

So, I'm trying to understand your doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost - because this where I see that you are rejecting the conclusions of Calvinism, not in the atonement like most American Arminians.

[Thomas2003]

Then how do you explain Rom 5:18, where justification comes to ALL MEN?


I'd like to know that too - that's what I'm asking in my question to explain your doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

As a Calvinist I'd answer this question in terms of Grace in the atonement in v 17 and Procession in terms of v 19, hence the "all men" in verse 18 is not a license to alter the ontological nature of Christ, hence it identifies the elect.

The difference is that Calvinists approach soteriology in terms of who and what Christ is, Arminians approach soteriology in terms of who and what they are.

Calvinists don't do that - we limit our understanding to Christ, hence a few words that seem inconsistent don't license us to turn the incarnation inside out like a dirty sock.

The inconsistency is that you are holding to a limited atonement and the "trigger" to the Procession is not Christ, but free will.

[seer]

I had responded to your post and then scrolled down and read some more and low and behold you admit to limited atonement, while claiming to be an Arminian.





In the Nicene Creed the filioque was added by the council of Toledo to deal with some lingering assertions of Arianism and subordinationism derived from their interpretation of John 15:26. The bold & underline clause was added: "And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified."

The doctrine explains the interpretation of those verses from John and defines them in a way that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, not separate from him as Arianism was teaching. This is because it combines several verses to interpret that meaning - that one can come to the Father only by and through Christ, hence the "procession" in John 15:26 is not separate from Christ. (see, John 14:6, "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.")

Hence, Christ was not subordinate but ontologically on par with both the Father and the Spirit. Christ as "God manifest in the flesh, is just as much God as the Father and the Spirit, not ontologically subordinated as a lesser person as both Arian and Nestorius taught. It is a critical doctrine.

The lingering elements of subordinationists of both Nestorianism and Arianism were dealt with and condemned by the assertion of this interpretation of Scripture. Because it affects just who or what Christ is.

Calvinism holds to this doctrine that the Trinity is one God, three persons, with no subordination of one person to another in substance or being, but only in terms of economy or operation.

Hence, the Calvinistic interpretation of the Procession is consistent with it's interpretation of the Atonement. What I have sensed in your position is an inconsistency because you are asserting a limited atonement, which requires an ontological oneness of God, yet then a subordinationism of Christ is asserted in the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

There are baptists that very openly assert this doctrine, they are generally called "briders" because they have two processions of the Holy Ghost. They believe some people are saved by the procession from the Father, others are saved from a procession from the Son - these form the "bride of Christ" in Scripture. Hence, everyone doesn't have to come to the Father through the Son, some can come directly to the Father of their own merit - it's just another flavour of Arminianism in the "Baskin Robbins of it's 31onderful flavors."

So, I'm trying to understand your doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost - because this where I see that you are rejecting the conclusions of Calvinism, not in the atonement like most American Arminians.

My point is Tom, that universal atonement is not necessary for my Arminian position. And your belief of the Procession of the H.S. would work for me also. Even in the free will model... I think...

[IncRus]

Ok, so you don't hold to substitution. But I'am still not getting exactly what propitiation actually accomplishes. I mean how are our sins actually forgiven?

seer,

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "propitiation" as "something that propitiates; specif: an atoning sacrifice."

The same dictionary defines "propitiate" as "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of: APPEASE, CONCILIATE or PACIFY."

The same dictionary also defines "atoning" as "reconciling" and "atonement" as "the reconciliation of God and man through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ."

Thus, when John writes: "And he himself is the PROPITIATION for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2), John meant to say that Jesus is the "atoning sacrifice" for the "sins of man (in general)" in order that man (in general) might be RECONCILED to God THROUGH his death (Rom. 5:16).

This does NOT mean, however, that "ALL men" benefit from Jesus' being the PROPITIATION for sins and does NOT mean either that "ALL men" are RECONCILED to God.

God has a LAW that Jesus came to FULFILL and "NOT one jot nor tittle will by no means pass from the LAW until all is FULFILLED" (Matt. 5:17-18).

That LAW is for "...EACH man to DIE for his OWN sin" (Deut. 24:16). Therefore, while Jesus is the "atoning sacrifice" for the "sins of all MEN," his DEATH on the cross atones ONLY his OWN sin in conformity with God's LAW!

But we know that Christ had NO sin! So, HOW did God make Christ who knew NO sin to be sin FOR us that we might become the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God in him (2 Cor. 5:21)?

"Christ CREATED in himself ONE NEW MAN from the two (Jews and Greeks as the BODY and him as HEAD - Col. 1:18), and that he might RECONCILE them both (Jews and Greeks) to God in ONE BODY through the cross" (Eph. 2:15-16).

That ONE BODY is the CHURCH (Eph. 1:22-23) which apostle Paul called the "Church of Christ which Christ PURCHASED with his OWN blood" (Acts 20:28 Lamsa).

This is the CHURCH that Christ GAVE his life for (Eph. 5:25), the CHURCH that Christ will save (Eph. 5:23).

Yes, Jesus is the "atoning sacrifice" for "the sins of ALL men" but the SOLE beneficiary of his being the "atoning sacrifice for sins" is HIS body, the Church of Christ.

[Kevin Wayne]

I don't remember where that even was, but I've explained it in a half dozen posts or more.

The Roman Church abandoned the creeds when they gave into a nature-grace dialetic, but it appears to me you have a hostility to history that I don't quite understand. In other words, it almost seems that because the Roman Church became heretical that this charge becomes backwardly applicable all the way to the book of Romans itself.

When you speak history has a color to it that you paint upon it and you are unable to examine history in the light of history, but only through this filter you have. It's very strange.


Well that's a bit of an odd charge, that I see heresy in the church running all the way back to Romans. My feelings are that 2,000 years of Theological deliberation stands between us and Christ & his original followers, and so the Creeds don't really hold much authority to me. However, I do like history and am not opposed to learning from anything. As such, the New Perspective on Paul holds great fascination to me because it confirms some things I’ve long suspected. More importantly, it gets us back to Scripture as the authority, which is where we should be.

You on the other hand seem to have an odd loyalty to these things, as if they're on a par with Scripture, which is why I goaded you with the thought that maybe you really are unconsciously Catholic- your position isn’t Sola Scriptura. Note that there have been Calvinists who have gone on some kind of great Quest for the True Church and wound up RC or EO.

But your answer really didn’t point to the issue at hand AFAICS. “The Roman Church abandoned the creeds when they gave into a nature-grace dialectic” doesn’t at all address the reality that the Early Church was hardly Calvinistic. Even Augustine, it has been argued, may not have been quite as extreme as later “Augustinians”, and even after him, it can hardly be said that all of Christendom fully adopted his paradigms.

Oden has argued, I think quite well, that Augustine tended to stray to extremes during his battles with Pelagius (probably the same can be said for Luther/Erasmus.) In accordance with this, the Catholic church has argued that Calvin and his followers have built themselves on a foundation that ignores much of Augustine’s work, (I also cited a RC scholar’s assessment of the Luther/Erasmus battles to that effect) and I think the onus is on you to prove that false. But I digress.

Btw, I posted a modest amount of references on this short thread if you want to take a look:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=18754


My contributions start on post #13. Note also the reference to the ATS Journal on Augustine.


So the question still remains: why would one HAVE to be Calvinist, based on the data you present (the Creeds) when the EC wasn’t Calvinistic? I have no doubt that in Calvinism you find those who have more of a grasp on history. But I doubt that’s the only place we could go. I note that your response on Athanasius was kind of thin. Nobody I know disagrees with what he said in the quote you provided. Furthermore, his treatise on the Incarnation is something we would rejoice in.

[cbro]

Sounds good to me. I don't think Mike will like it though...Could it be more accurate for you to ask "What did Jesus propitiation accomplish?"?

[Thomas2003]

Well that's a bit of an odd charge, that I see heresy in the church running all the way back to Romans. My feelings are that 2,000 years of Theological deliberation stands between us and Christ & his original followers, and so the Creeds don't really hold much authority to me.

OK, well, that is pretty much what I meant. I believe Scripture teaches that everyone has a calling, hence, God uses people in history to work out His will and peform the calling He has given them. We build upon men before us who built upon men before them all the way back to the Apostles. While these vessels are sinful men the proper credit goes to the Holy Spirit who calls and equips men to outwork the faith in history.

There is a modern presumption, however, that being faithful to Scripture requires that the progressive work of the Holy Spirit through history be rejected and that everyone is necessarily called to hammer all things out on their own anvil. This is an invalid premise and cannot be supported from Scripture, it is actually unfaithful, arrogant and presumptious.

For example, today one popular concept is that all men are called to be textual critics and decide for themselves which textual base they are going to use and which translation method they believe is most accurate &c. Walk into any book store and there is a smorgasboard of Bibles, all based upon variant texts and translated in variant ways upon variant premises and teaching variant things. Everyone needs a book shelf of bibles, three Greek lexicons, and fourteen opinion pieces to find out what God really said. Ultimately, each man has become his own authority.

In contrast, I hold that God called men to this task in history, they outworked their calling and I can see the fruit of it, I can point to the establishment of it with Legal Sovereignty in history, so I am subject to that. That doesn't mean God can't call other men in history to advance these things, but it also doesn't mean He is required to either - and with all of the dozens upon dozens of "new and easier to read bibles" that are published to "finally give serious bible students new light" upon Scripture - I don't see growth, I don't see fruit. I see a major growth, in contrast, to a complete and total reject of the principles of Authority of God's Word, however.

The reprobate principle of democracy rules the hearts of most Christians when they approach all things Christian and as a result when Scripture is hostile to democracy they are hostile to Scripture.

However, I do like history and am not opposed to learning from anything. As such, the New Perspective on Paul holds great fascination to me because it confirms some things I’ve long suspected. More importantly, it gets us back to Scripture as the authority, which is where we should be.

It's more than merely learning, it's advancement of the Faith against it's enemies and historically settling challenges to that Faith. If it's just merely learning then nothing is ever established and nothing is ever really learned. It presupposes that Christianity is an impotent faith and must be an impotent faith because it presumes a Greek dialetic is normative and cuts off Christianity from ever speaking in real terms. Christianity is delegated to a fuzzy formula of mystery from which no truth can ultimately be known because nothing can truly be known.

You on the other hand seem to have an odd loyalty to these things, as if they're on a par with Scripture, which is why I goaded you with the thought that maybe you really are unconsciously Catholic- your position isn’t Sola Scriptura. Note that there have been Calvinists who have gone on some kind of great Quest for the True Church and wound up RC or EO.

On the contrary, my position is entirely Sola Scriptura. However, Sola Scriptura does not mean Sola Me, and that is the problem with the modern redefinition of this doctrine. It is actually applied today as Sola Private Interpretation.

Sola Scriptura means that there is no further revelation, not that Christianity can never escape Scripture as a prison. In principle modern Christians apply the legal concept of the Supreme Courts definition of "separation of Church and State" to this doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Christianity is bound into the pages of history and limited to mental assent and must never see freedom of action. It must be isolated and separated from life, for here man is king and his free will chooses all things, he predestinates all things - not God. Time rules eternity is the assertion, not the eternal Word of God.

The early Creeds, however, are early Christians coming to unity in terms of Truth, they were divisive in terms of Scripture and it's activity in the world. All things to them must be brought captive to Christ. Modern Christians that come to unity do so in terms of unity, their position is like the new Methodist Church advertisent, "We don't believe the same things, but we have open hearts, open minds and open doors." All things Christians must become captive of man, limited and made non-offensive.

The early Creeds serve as tests to the veracity of Scripture in confronting the established religious beliefs and philosophical presuppositions of the day. They testify to the Truth of Scripture and provide a guide to it's tested and tried interpretation from which one can see the fruit thereof.


But your answer really didn’t point to the issue at hand AFAICS. “The Roman Church abandoned the creeds when they gave into a nature-grace dialectic” doesn’t at all address the reality that the Early Church was hardly Calvinistic. Even Augustine, it has been argued, may not have been quite as extreme as later “Augustinians”, and even after him, it can hardly be said that all of Christendom fully adopted his paradigms.

So

Oden has argued, I think quite well, that Augustine tended to stray to extremes during his battles with Pelagius (probably the same can be said for Luther/Erasmus.) In accordance with this, the Catholic church has argued that Calvin and his followers have built themselves on a foundation that ignores much of Augustine’s work, (I also cited a RC scholar’s assessment of the Luther/Erasmus battles to that effect) and I think the onus is on you to prove that false. But I digress.

Nope, because it is a false paradigm. Luther's doctorate, for example, was in Augustianism, his 97 Thesis is a far more important work than his 95 Thesis which was nothing more than a theological outworking of the former. But the former is not attacked directly, Romanists attacked the latter because they couldn't attack the former.

The issue, theologically, is this - is it a building fitly framed together or something different upon entirely different foundations? So, when someone comes in and says, "Oh, you see this theological beam, it doesn't fit the theological dimension of this or that - but it is done from an entirely different foundation, then it is the device and standard of measure that must first come into question.

So, when you euphamistically say that your 12 mm nut doesn't fit my 7/16 bolt, the burden of proof does not rest upon me to prove or disprove an entirely different standard.

Christian history coming into America, upon which we draw our faith, is English Protestant history - Calvinism - and it is the Faith and Social Order which Americans are born into. The problem we have today is all of these metric nuts stripping the threads out of Protestant theology but having no, nor having the ability to, offer a different foundation.

Arminianism is a guerilla faith allied with humanism cutting down the flower of Christianity in history and handing the predestination of history to sinful man, or so he thinks.



Btw, I posted a modest amount of references on this short thread if you want to take a look:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=18754


My contributions start on post #13. Note also the reference to the ATS Journal on Augustine.

I'll try to take a look at this later.


So the question still remains: why would one HAVE to be Calvinist, based on the data you present (the Creeds) when the EC wasn’t Calvinistic? I have no doubt that in Calvinism you find those who have more of a grasp on history. But I doubt that’s the only place we could go. I note that your response on Athanasius was kind of thin. Nobody I know disagrees with what he said in the quote you provided. Furthermore, his treatise on the Incarnation is something we would rejoice in.

Because the Authority of Christianity is Scripture and that Scripture comes onto the scene in the middle of a Greek social order where the presuppositions of life are Greek. Judaism became nothing more than a Greek faith in biblical terminology and it was upon this that they could say, "we have no king but Caesar."

One cannot presume that early Christians outworked Scriptures theology consistently and the ones that did ended up killed, like the Apostles, Stephen &c. It was several hundred years before they collated all of the Scriptures and made doctrinal assertions to the valid ones, hence rejecting heretical ones.

The big glaring inconsistency today is this assertion that all doctrine must go back to find Authority but the Bible stops in history at its canonical establishment and is backwardly applied. The early Christians didn't have this canonical establishment and most, it can be presumed, didn't have complete New Testaments.

If you subscribe to Sola Scriptura, however, canonical establishment and doctrinal establishment go hand in hand and that leaves one at the early Creeds as definitive statements of what Scripture means. The Apostles Creed flows from the earliest Churches along side of Scripture - but robust definitions don't flower until centuries later. The roots are in history, but the fruit blooms later and you have to tie these together.

This is the premise upon which Calvin built and this is the fountainhead from which Calvinism flows. We presume Chalcedon is a correct definition of the Scriptural doctrine of the incarnation, this is not done lightly, but in study and affirmation of Scripture.

Calvinism is consistent upon this and doesn't allow our fancy or our limited ability to understand particular phrases to alter this doctrine. Since Salvation is based upon the work of Jesus Christ, it matters who and what Jesus Christ is. If Calvinism is incorrect then the burden of proof is upon it's challengers to show where the Chalcedon Creed is incorrect.

If you can do that Calvinism will fall. I repented of Arminianism because I found out I didn't understand the incarnation nor did I understand the Trinity, I was actually a modalist - not a Trinitarian. When I came to understand these things, I became a Calvinist. The latter flows from the former like water from a stream.

[Kevin Wayne]

Well Thomas, I have to say that I've looked at the fruits also of where things went in regards to Augustine, etc. and I find that the results were years of persecution, wars, and unnecessary things such as those that are unbecoming of followers of "The Prince of Peace". I note also that the Reformation hardly corrected these things. For me, Anabaptism seems to have grasped what the ECF knew prior the rise of Augustinian just war doctrine. I also believe they grasped what God was trying to do in the Reformation even better than the main theologians of that movement itself.


You pretty much avoided the issue at hand and still haven't really proven that the early church at any point was Calvinist, even at the apex of what you see as perfection: that being the outworking of what you see as Orthodoxy.

I too, believe as you that private interpretation is something that we need to get away from. However, whereas you only trust the Holy Spirit to do so in the 1st few centuries of the Church, I do so throughout history. I also firmly believe the Sprit of God is being poured out regularly in Churches whose doctrine I couldn't give a fig about. In those cases, it's on you and I both to yield our presuppositions to what God is currently doing.(Acts 10:9-28). To that end, I trust “Consensus” (which is different than Democracy) more than I trust “Creeds.” Thus, at any point in history, truth can be discerned (even given your point about the Canon).


The OT teaches us a doctrine of lost and recovered faith. That's why you see Josiah recovering that which the people of God had lost. And what was that? Pages of commentaries or deliberations of the Law? No, the Law itself, Holy Writ. That is why beleivers can adopt this principle to the Bible over the Creeds. And Jesus himself usurped your whole system of thought when he told his followers he could directly call God Father. Also, I firmly disagree with your view of the Newer Bible helps, and I see much fruit and growth in the Church and in people’s lives as a result.


Ultimately, what you are talking about is the same thing the Catholic Church is saying: too much democracy, too many people thinking they can go to God on their own. Eventually the fruits of Protestantism will drive you to the Roman Catholic church.

[Kevin Wayne]

And Jesus himself usurped your whole system of thought when he told his followers he could directly call God Father.


Correction to that statement, I'm past the editing limit. Should read "Jesus ...told his followers they could directly call God "Father."

[Thomas2003]

Well Thomas, I have to say that I've looked at the fruits also of where things went in regards to Augustine, etc. and I find that the results were years of persecution, wars, and unnecessary things such as those that are unbecoming of followers of "The Prince of Peace". I note also that the Reformation hardly corrected these things. For me, Anabaptism seems to have grasped what the ECF knew prior the rise of Augustinian just war doctrine. I also believe they grasped what God was trying to do in the Reformation even better than the main theologians of that movement itself.

It is so easy to look back in history and assign sins, I'm sure that several hundred years from now people will look upon us and judge our fruit by the 50 million children aborted in about 30 years. Or the 20th Century itself accounting for more warfare and the slaughter of countless millions whereby the totals in a hundred years exceeds all previous history combined. What historical sins compare with Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler?

You see great sins in history flowing from Augustianism and I see great sins flowing from anabaptism. But I think overall what you will find is satan rising up in wrath and instigating this stuff, not Christians on either side. Scripture says we war against principalities and powers, but they war in the flesh - so eventually defenses are required. Ecclesiastes says there is a time for war and a time for peace, everything in its season - I just accept that, we live in a fallen world.


You pretty much avoided the issue at hand and still haven't really proven that the early church at any point was Calvinist, even at the apex of what you see as perfection: that being the outworking of what you see as Orthodoxy.

I'm not certain it was, I think they were probably more consistent with Greek philosophy, so coming to terms with Christian soteriology required not merely a comprehension of revelation, but a complete negation of their philosophical premise. The early Churches show real struggle with that, even within Scripture itself Paul is rebuking them for many heinous things they probably saw as normative, just now normative in "Jesus name."

I too, believe as you that private interpretation is something that we need to get away from. However, whereas you only trust the Holy Spirit to do so in the 1st few centuries of the Church, I do so throughout history.

Nope, that is a false accusation and you should know it.

I also firmly believe the Sprit of God is being poured out regularly in Churches whose doctrine I couldn't give a fig about. In those cases, it's on you and I both to yield our presuppositions to what God is currently doing.(Acts 10:9-28).

I agree.

To that end, I trust “Consensus” (which is different than Democracy) more than I trust “Creeds.” Thus, at any point in history, truth can be discerned (even given your point about the Canon).

My point is that the creeds are consensus in dealing with specific heresies. Heresies that don't go away because they flow from philosophical thought, but just repeat themselves over and over and over as new men arrive on the scene asserting those philosophies. Hence, the creeds are valuable because they deal with those philosophies and protect us from them.

For example, I was raised a baptist dispensationalist, but dispensational premillienialism robbed me of many years of my Christian walk. I was spiritually neutered in it. I eventually came to repentance on that, but if I would have been taught the creeds and there meaning, that eschatology would have been cut off at the root since it roots into Greece.


The OT teaches us a doctrine of lost and recovered faith. That's why you see Josiah recovering that which the people of God had lost. And what was that? Pages of commentaries or deliberations of the Law? No, the Law itself, Holy Writ. That is why beleivers can adopt this principle to the Bible over the Creeds.

Once again, you are making a false accusation - I'm not saying the creeds are over the Bible, I've never said that - but rather that the creeds are true definitions of Bible doctrines. Hence, they are subordinate, but if correct, they are derivatively authoritative because they are simply asserting the bible.

What is it that you believe they substantively teach wrong?


And Jesus himself usurped your whole system of thought when he told his followers he could directly call God Father. Also, I firmly disagree with your view of the Newer Bible helps, and I see much fruit and growth in the Church and in people’s lives as a result.

Hmmmm...I derived my whole system of thought from Scripture, again, another false notion.


Ultimately, what you are talking about is the same thing the Catholic Church is saying: too much democracy, too many people thinking they can go to God on their own.

Nope, I wasn't talking about ecclesiology at all. I was talking about statism, the resultant faith of Arminianism - because democratic assertions have absolutely nothing to with going to God. God is a word used, but only in terms of denying Him. Democracy is, in principle, a monarchial assertion of Sovereignty for both cling to the absolute of the state and its masters - it is a denial of God and His Sovereignty.

Christianity asserts communion and outworks it's faith in those terms, not equalitarianism.

Eventually the fruits of Protestantism will drive you to the Roman Catholic church.

You keep asserting that, but it isn't true - I'm anti-Roman Catholic and see it as a Molechian Temple headed by an antichrist, sitting in the seat of antichrist. I deny the entirety of the scholastic philosophy, yet affirm the catholicity of the communion of Christianity.

So, with your repeated baseless assertions I'm beginning to believe what you mean is that you deny the catholicity of the communion of Christianity. Is that what you are saying?

[freelight]

Ok, so you don't hold to substitution. But I'am still not getting exactly what propitiation actually accomplishes. I mean how are our sins actually forgiven?

Hi Seer,

Some would question the substitionary/propitiationary aspects of atonement altogether and ask if another man or 'God-Man' can actually pay the price for anothers sins, etc. I know there are various aspects of 'atonement' and the dynamics/logics of its operation.....however,....the universal law of compensation (karma/sowing and reaping) appears to be the active law applicable to all souls, meaning that each soul bears the burden/consequences for his own sins and also must therefore expiate his own sins thru conversion, repentance, etc. In this purview,.....repentance and return to faith and good works IS the true atonement if you will ...as far as one returning to harmony with Gods Law.

It would appear that the belief in propitiation or vicarious atonement held by some or later invented from older atonement models in scripture and traditional thought....is only valid within that belief system or paradigm and other systems may teach another concept/ideal about atonement not requiring the blood sacrifice of a Man or Messiah to save sinners. Jesus death in this case would be a sacrifice of Loving service and ministry on mans behalf....and the power of his ministry/legacy would be his teaching, example and spiritual presence having been incarnated and bestowing divine grace upon the earth effecting a new dispensation.

So we may ask what Jesus death really accomplished on our behalf at all and if the effection of 'propitiation' is only as powerful as those who believe it make it out to be. Otherwise,....there are plenty of christians(perhaps of more unorthodox persuasions) who accept Jesus and his loving life sacrifice....who thru only prayer and repentance...follow the Example of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit....making atonement for their souls daily thru true spiritual living.

As far as how our sins are forgiven....confession to God of sins is necessary...then confession to those to whom we have sinned against....as we make amends/restitution with them.....then repenting/converting our minds/actions in the way of righteousness. Is there another way? We do indeed read how that Gods Love provided for us propitiation for our sins thru Jesus Christ, our Lord......but still, in light of this divine appropriation of grace....we are called to do righteousness, love the brethren and walk in the Light......as sons of light. THIS when practiced is the full manifestation of the atonement IMO. I just feel there are other more tenable or reasonable views of atonement available than just one view however favored or accepted by mass christian acceptance.

Love really is the ultimate atonement.


paul

[seer]

Hi Seer,

Some would question the substitionary/propitiationary aspects of atonement altogether and ask if another man or 'God-Man' can actually pay the price for anothers sins, etc. I know there are various aspects of 'atonement' and the dynamics/logics of its operation.....however,....the universal law of compensation (karma/sowing and reaping) appears to be the active law applicable to all souls, meaning that each soul bears the burden/consequences for his own sins and also must therefore expiate his own sins thru conversion, repentance, etc. In this purview,.....repentance and return to faith and good works IS the true atonement if you will ...as far as one returning to harmony with Gods Law.

It would appear that the belief in propitiation or vicarious atonement held by some or later invented from older atonement models in scripture and traditional thought....is only valid within that belief system or paradigm and other systems may teach another concept/ideal about atonement not requiring the blood sacrifice of a Man or Messiah to save sinners. Jesus death in this case would be a sacrifice of Loving service and ministry on mans behalf....and the power of his ministry/legacy would be his teaching, example and spiritual presence having been incarnated and bestowing divine grace upon the earth effecting a new dispensation.

So we may ask what Jesus death really accomplished on our behalf at all and if the effection of 'propitiation' is only as powerful as those who believe it make it out to be. Otherwise,....there are plenty of christians(perhaps of more unorthodox persuasions) who accept Jesus and his loving life sacrifice....who thru only prayer and repentance...follow the Example of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit....making atonement for their souls daily thru true spiritual living.

As far as how our sins are forgiven....confession to God of sins is necessary...then confession to those to whom we have sinned against....as we make amends/restitution with them.....then repenting/converting our minds/actions in the way of righteousness. Is there another way? We do indeed read how that Gods Love provided for us propitiation for our sins thru Jesus Christ, our Lord......but still, in light of this divine appropriation of grace....we are called to do righteousness, love the brethren and walk in the Light......as sons of light. THIS when practiced is the full manifestation of the atonement IMO. I just feel there are other more tenable or reasonable views of atonement available than just one view however favored or accepted by mass christian acceptance.

Love really is the ultimate atonement.


paul

Now that Paul is heresy. And I do not say that often. We "atone" for our own sins? This is simply the moral influence theory - where is the grace and forgiveness?

[freelight]

Now that Paul is heresy. And I do not say that often. We "atone" for our own sins? This is simply the moral influence theory - where is the grace and forgiveness?

The Truth stands :smile: - you may want to reponder my last post. Is one responsible for his own sins? If so, is not one responsible to atone for his own sins(in one way or another)? Do you believe in self-responsibility?

Absolutely YES, we atone for our sins in one way or another for we are responsible for our own sins. This is not just a moral influence theory. Grace is always present for any soul who wishes to make atonement or accept the atonement provisions God has made available, but God will not bypass or side-step the self-responsibility that each soul to make atonement for their own sins.

Now,....we can attribute a universal and individual bestowment of grace or 'propitiation' if you will,...over the whole human family by whatever atonement model you hold to....but you will still reap what you sow. I know this opens up many dimensions and beliefs about atonement to explore and re-evaluate. The questions in blue above await your response.


paul

[seer]

The Truth stands - you may want to reponder my last post. Is one responsible for his own sins? If so, is not one responsible to atone for his own sins(in one way or another)? Do you believe in self-responsibility?

Our responsibility is to receive justification through the blood of Christ. Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgivness of sin. Which puts the burden of OUR sin on Christ.

Absolutely YES, we atone for our sins in one way or another for we are responsible for our own sins.

How do you know when you have completed the task? Is perfection required? Is it done in one lifetime?

[freelight]

Paul -

The Truth stands - you may want to reponder my last post. Is one responsible for his own sins? If so, is not one responsible to atone for his own sins(in one way or another)? Do you believe in self-responsibility?


Our responsibility is to receive justification through the blood of Christ. Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgivness of sin. Which puts the burden of OUR sin on Christ.



I see you did not specifically answer the questions...instead stating a presupposition. This cannot go further until the questions are thoroughly probed and answered. The entire content of your response is only supported by that particular belief system, however....there are other ways of 'atonement' that do not require the shedding of blood. (this requires more study - its been awhile since I reviewed these other ways....but the knowledge is out there).



Absolutely YES, we atone for our sins in one way or another for we are responsible for our own sins.

How do you know when you have completed the task?

Well,....logic would say we atone for our sins when such is required by the law of love....when we are aware we have sinned - when such is necessary for our own soul - this is done thru confession, repentance, giving restitution, making amends - when the offended party is satisfied with our recompense atonement for that particular sin is complete. Atoning for ones sin is necessary as long as one does sin. Even if you hold that Jesus is the one-time Atonement and his blood was the full-payment for the sins of mankind - still,....one reaps what he sows....and bears the burden or freedom of his attitude/choice/actions.



Is perfection required?

No. Just what the law demands...and that is repentance and then obedience to that principle/law.



Is it done in one lifetime?

Atoning for ones sin is done in any life-time or dimension of being where a soul is capable of sinning.






paul

[seer]

I see you did not specifically answer the questions...instead stating a presupposition. This cannot go further until the questions are thoroughly probed and answered. The entire content of your response is only supported by that particular belief system, however....there are other ways of 'atonement' that do not require the shedding of blood. (this requires more study - its been awhile since I reviewed these other ways....but the knowledge is out there).

Well that is the point. The biblical view of atonement certainly does require blood. We are in fact justified by "the blood" of Christ. That is either true or it isn't. And I did answer the question - men are responsible for their sin - and they can not atone for said sin. And remember Paul, we believe that God is also an offened party - how do we atone for our sins concerning Him?

Well,....logic would say we atone for our sins when such is required by the law of love....when we are aware we have sinned - when such is necessary for our own soul - this is done thru confession, repentance, giving restitution, making amends - when the offended party is satisfied with our recompense atonement for that particular sin is complete. Atoning for ones sin is necessary as long as one does sin. Even if you hold that Jesus is the one-time Atonement and his blood was the full-payment for the sins of mankind - still,....one reaps what he sows....and bears the burden or freedom of his attitude/choice/actions.

First, in the Christian model we do not get what we rightly deserve. Second, I have harmed people who are long dead. How do I make amends to them? There is no hope in your work based system Paul because one could never know if he has fully satisified the offended party's just demands. I'am sorry Paul, there is NO grace in this...


Atoning for ones sin is done in any life-time or dimension of being where a soul is capable of sinning.

Do you believe in reicarnation Paul?

[freelight]

I see you did not specifically answer the questions...instead stating a presupposition. This cannot go further until the questions are thoroughly probed and answered. The entire content of your response is only supported by that particular belief system, however....there are other ways of 'atonement' that do not require the shedding of blood. (this requires more study - its been awhile since I reviewed these other ways....but the knowledge is out there).

Well that is the point. The biblical view of atonement certainly does require blood. We are in fact justified by "the blood" of Christ. That is either true or it isn't. And I did answer the question - men are responsible for their sin - and they can not atone for said sin. And remember Paul, we believe that God is also an offened party - how do we atone for our sins concerning Him?

Again,...there are other forms of atonement that just blood-letting. Those ancient forms/concepts that required blood have symbolic/esoteric meanings/implications and therefore could have some valid applications if the soul perceives them correctly....but God prefers repentance, return to ethical conduct, reconciliation and righteous living as the means for atonement - 'obediance is better than sacrifice'. I dont believe God is an offended party demanding the slaugher of animals, the pouring out of blood....let alone a mans blood. If we have offended God...we have done so in our own conscience and against our fellowman....who represents the God-presence...for how we treat others is how we treat God. So...we reconcile between each other by means of atoning - confession, restitution, amends, rectification of mind/action, making things right, return to Love, etc. Our loving God and our fellowman is mutually tied...and God knows the intricacies of the dimensions involved. Love is the fulfilling of the Law...the law of our being/existence.

Well,....logic would say we atone for our sins when such is required by the law of love....when we are aware we have sinned - when such is necessary for our own soul - this is done thru confession, repentance, giving restitution, making amends - when the offended party is satisfied with our recompense atonement for that particular sin is complete. Atoning for ones sin is necessary as long as one does sin. Even if you hold that Jesus is the one-time Atonement and his blood was the full-payment for the sins of mankind - still,....one reaps what he sows....and bears the burden or freedom of his attitude/choice/actions.

First, in the Christian model we do not get what we rightly deserve. Second, I have harmed people who are long dead. How do I make amends to them? There is no hope in your work based system Paul because one could never know if he has fully satisified the offended party's just demands. I'am sorry Paul, there is NO grace in this...


There is always hope for we can mediate thru prayer/meditation and rightful living/acts of love. Hope is ever present in God. If one has offended people long passed.....and hasnt gotten to make amends.....he can still do so in prayer to God and those offended in the spiritual realm - God knows the heart and soul and these unforgiven/unresolved issues can still be mediated thru Gods grace and the Mediation of Christ. So indeed,....for those things that seem to be beyond our control or power....the Mediation/grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit is always present in minstration power to those who work with God to bring these things to pass,.....the satisfaction of divine Will.


Atoning for ones sin is done in any life-time or dimension of being where a soul is capable of sinning.

Do you believe in reicarnation Paul?

In my studies so far....I have not made a definitive decision on this subject...as there are many dimensions and views even within believers of reincarnation....as far as the dynamics involved if such is a possible course for all souls or only some souls. So I cannot say 'Yes' to this question currently. I do however believe in the spiritual progress of the soul (call it 'eternal progression' if you will)......towards perfection, excellence, virtue, God-likeness.....essentially the 'ascension' process. I see endless expansion of growth/consciousness and beauty in the ONE. (yes,....God is ONE....the Original Primal Unity of BEING in which all that IS abides).

Some teachers also see that term 'atonement' to mean 'at-one-ment' with God.....being more a state or condition of 'attunement' with the divine :smile:







paul

[seer]

Again,...there are other forms of atonement that just blood-letting. Those ancient forms/concepts that required blood have symbolic/esoteric meanings/implications and therefore could have some valid applications if the soul perceives them correctly....but God prefers repentance, return to ethical conduct, reconciliation and righteous living as the means for atonement - 'obediance is better than sacrifice'. I dont believe God is an offended party demanding the slaugher of animals, the pouring out of blood....let alone a mans blood.

You quote scripture, yet I can offer you dozens that clearly say that God does desire blood sacrifice, and is the MAIN party offened. Yes, He would rather have obedience - but that's the point - none of us obey fully - or even close. It's not that scripture does not teach blood atonement - it's that you find it personally objectionable. In other words Paul, scripture states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin - why should I believe you over scripture? Has God spoken to you on these matters?

There is always hope for we can mediate thru prayer/meditation and rightful living/acts of love. Hope is ever present in God. If one has offended people long passed.....and hasnt gotten to make amends.....he can still do so in prayer to God and those offended in the spiritual realm - God knows the heart and soul and these unforgiven/unresolved issues can still be mediated thru Gods grace and the Mediation of Christ. So indeed,....for those things that seem to be beyond our control or power....the Mediation/grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit is always present in minstration power to those who work with God to bring these things to pass,.....the satisfaction of divine Will.

First, where did you get this information? And how exactly does one atone for murder? What, God tells the offened party that we are sorry? Why would that matter? And what about those who refuse to forgive or refuse to be forgiven?

BTW Paul, you might want to continue of discussion on the other thread. I find that subject much more interesting...


I see endless expansion of growth/consciousness and beauty in the ONE. (yes,....God is ONE....the Original Primal Unity of BEING in which all that IS abides).

If God IS all - does that mean you are God?

Some teachers also see that term 'atonement' to mean 'at-one-ment' with God.....being more a state or condition of 'attunement' with the divine.

Well how the heck did we get out of harmony in the first place? Was God divided?

[freelight]

Again,...there are other forms of atonement that just blood-letting. Those ancient forms/concepts that required blood have symbolic/esoteric meanings/implications and therefore could have some valid applications if the soul perceives them correctly....but God prefers repentance, return to ethical conduct, reconciliation and righteous living as the means for atonement - 'obediance is better than sacrifice'. I dont believe God is an offended party demanding the slaugher of animals, the pouring out of blood....let alone a mans blood.

You quote scripture, yet I can offer you dozens that clearly say that God does desire blood sacrifice, and is the MAIN party offened. Yes, He would rather have obedience - but that's the point - none of us obey fully - or even close. It's not that scripture does not teach blood atonement - it's that you find it personally objectionable. In other words Paul, scripture states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin - why should I believe you over scripture? Has God spoken to you on these matters?


There are also areas in scripture where one can make amends with God and other persons apart from a bloody sacrifice. Although some means of atonement were (in the old system) tied with the sacrifice of 'animals'....quoting one verse from the book of Hebrews doesnt mean that blood was the only means of remission - that was the writers perspective in his discourse in a contextual sense in his address. There are more Jewish sources for the principle of atonement...but Rabbi Singers treatment should be good for starters. -

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html

And, I'm not asking you to believe me,....but sharing logic/truth/reason as I see it. Also....YES,......God does speak to those open to His Voice. The unction or anointing of the Spirit teaches what no man can teach....the spirit of truth is the teacher. Truth triumphs over tradition.





There is always hope for we can mediate thru prayer/meditation and rightful living/acts of love. Hope is ever present in God. If one has offended people long passed.....and hasnt gotten to make amends.....he can still do so in prayer to God and those offended in the spiritual realm - God knows the heart and soul and these unforgiven/unresolved issues can still be mediated thru Gods grace and the Mediation of Christ. So indeed,....for those things that seem to be beyond our control or power....the Mediation/grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit is always present in minstration power to those who work with God to bring these things to pass,.....the satisfaction of divine Will.

First, where did you get this information?

Common and spiritual sense....and what light I have gleaned so far in the journey.

And how exactly does one atone for murder? What, God tells the offened party that we are sorry? Why would that matter? And what about those who refuse to forgive or refuse to be forgiven?

These issues are dealt with in the Providence of Gods grace naturally. While trusting the general essentials.......trust is also given in the details/specifics....which man cannot always understand or articulate. For those who refuse forgiveness.....they are thwarted from further spiritual progress or liberty. Remember the law - to be forgiven by any and more importantly by God you must forgive and be forgiven.


BTW Paul, you might want to continue of discussion on the other thread. I find that subject much more interesting...

Will do!


I see endless expansion of growth/consciousness and beauty in the ONE. (yes,....God is ONE....the Original Primal Unity of BEING in which all that IS abides).

If God IS all - does that mean you are God?

Only God is God....thru-out. The Entirety of God spans the fullness and totality of Existence.....Infinite. Only the I AM Consciousnes is God....the Eternal "I".


Some teachers also see that term 'atonement' to mean 'at-one-ment' with God.....being more a state or condition of 'attunement' with the divine.

Well how the heck did we get out of harmony in the first place? Was God divided?

These questions require deeper probing in metaphysical dimensions that are beyond the parameters of traditional theology. Gods central Unity of BEING is Whole. Whatever perceptions of division, fragmentation, duality arise...are in the realm of the relative. The Absolute of Gods divine Integrity however remains Eternal.








paul

[seer]

And, I'm not asking you to believe me,....but sharing logic/truth/reason as I see it. Also....YES,......God does speak to those open to His Voice. The unction or anointing of the Spirit teaches what no man can teach....the spirit of truth is the teacher. Truth triumphs over tradition.

Really? What exactly did God sound like? This is what He sounds like:

Matthew 26:27,28

"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

So who to believe - Rabbi Singers or Rabbi Jesus? There is no contest in my mind...

Only God is God....thru-out. The Entirety of God spans the fullness and totality of Existence.....Infinite. Only the I AM Consciousnes is God....the Eternal "I".

I don't get it Paul - If God IS All, then either you are God or something separate from God. Which is it?


These questions require deeper probing in metaphysical dimensions that are beyond the parameters of traditional theology. Gods central Unity of BEING is Whole. Whatever perceptions of division, fragmentation, duality arise...are in the realm of the relative. The Absolute of Gods divine Integrity however remains Eternal.

Try speaking english to us poor uneducated folk... So evil is only a perception of division? The Holocaust was a morally relative event?

[freelight]

And, I'm not asking you to believe me,....but sharing logic/truth/reason as I see it. Also....YES,......God does speak to those open to His Voice. The unction or anointing of the Spirit teaches what no man can teach....the spirit of truth is the teacher. Truth triumphs over tradition.

Really? What exactly did God sound like? This is what He sounds like:

Matthew 26:27,28

"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

So who to believe - Rabbi Singers or Rabbi Jesus? There is no contest in my mind...


Jesus in other places however shows one how to walk in the Way of God and in these places he does not mention the necessity of redemption thru blood. The compilers of the NT naturally incorporated some OT ideas of atonement, mixed with some pagan concepts....and with some minor tinkering and other amalgamations....made the 'salvation thru the blood of Jesus' doctrine...as many aspects within tradition, scripture and other beliefs of the times made such a belief palatable. Now, do I deny any validity or significance about the blood of Jesus - I dont think so. It has its place in the NT economy of salvation and 'tradition' and can also be interpreted/employed in esoteric and symbolic sense within an applied context. But, there are other ways/means of atonement acceptable to God. If you deny this and choose to keep believing only in the blood of Jesus as the only and valid atonement, that is your right.


Only God is God....thru-out. The Entirety of God spans the fullness and totality of Existence.....Infinite. Only the I AM Consciousnes is God....the Eternal "I".

I don't get it Paul - If God IS All, then either you are God or something separate from God. Which is it?

Ah,...ever the persistent inquirer :smile: - good that you are probing away...as even I still have many quest-ions to explore. Thats the joy of the Quest......discovery. Now to your question - what If the true Self of me (the primal and divine consciousness/intelligence) is 'God'...and the false or human-self aspects of 'me' collected over time thru 'experience'(of mortal sense) are 'seperate' from God being the relative or finite self/ego - my human counterpart/creation/accumalation. The subject of the 'true self' can be an intensive study.

I believe the 'God is All' purview is shared by some metaphysical students in the Absolute sense, holding that Gods Presence/Being is all-inclusive and all-pervading. I cover more on this theme in my 'Exploring the divine nature' thread -


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=700135#post700135

A primary teacher-influence recently in my evolution is Alfred Aiken - His link is on my current dialogues page - his philosophy-teaching is solely on 'Absolute Truth'. (just to give u a little background on some of my theosophy) -

http://www.freewebs.com/pauljosephpurcell/currentdialogues.htm


These questions require deeper probing in metaphysical dimensions that are beyond the parameters of traditional theology. Gods central Unity of BEING is Whole. Whatever perceptions of division, fragmentation, duality arise...are in the realm of the relative. The Absolute of Gods divine Integrity however remains Eternal.

Try speaking english to us poor uneducated folk... So evil is only a perception of division? The Holocaust was a morally relative event?

lol. :lol: - evil can be described as many things. Perhaps starting another thread just on these topics may be proper. Dont want to go to far from the topic of the thread at hand.(tangents). Maybe I'll post some thoughts on the blood atonement from some more modern revelations - for compartive views.






paul

[seer]

It has its place in the NT economy of salvation and 'tradition' and can also be interpreted/employed in esoteric and symbolic sense within an applied context. But, there are other ways/means of atonement acceptable to God. If you deny this and choose to keep believing only in the blood of Jesus as the only and valid atonement, that is your right.

That is your opinion. The great day of Atonement in Jewish tradition required blood. This is when all national and individual sins were covered. And it was a sacrifice to God for offending "Him."

The compilers of the NT naturally incorporated some OT ideas of atonement, mixed with some pagan concepts....and with some minor tinkering and other amalgamations....made the 'salvation thru the blood of Jesus' doctrine.

Or they really believed that Christ's sacrifice was necessary for reconcilation with God... That is what Christ, Paul, John, Peter, Luke all state.

Ah,...ever the persistent inquirer - good that you are probing away...as even I still have many quest-ions to explore. Thats the joy of the Quest......discovery. Now to your question - what If the true Self of me (the primal and divine consciousness/intelligence) is 'God'...and the false or human-self aspects of 'me' collected over time thru 'experience'(of mortal sense) are 'seperate' from God being the relative or finite self/ego - my human counterpart/creation/accumalation. The subject of the 'true self' can be an intensive study.

Paul, I want to hear you say it. Don't mince words. "I Paul am God..." Go ahead...

Also, are you backing away from from your God IS ALL statement? Is your ego "separate" from God?

A primary teacher-influence recently in my evolution is Alfred Aiken - His link is on my current dialogues page - his philosophy-teaching is solely on 'Absolute Truth'. (just to give u a little background on some of my theosophy)

Yes, I know that. Aiken is you Messiah. Be careful dear friend... You may be on the road to darkness...

Try speaking english to us poor uneducated folk... So evil is only a perception of division? The Holocaust was a morally relative event?

lol. - evil can be described as many things. Perhaps starting another thread just on these topics may be proper. Dont want to go to far from the topic of the thread at hand.(tangents). Maybe I'll post some thoughts on the blood atonement from some more modern revelations - for compartive views.

Paul, I know your views on atonement. I have ran across then before in various forms. I am now trying to get at what you believe. Is evil merely perception of division? God really IS the Holocaust?

[freelight]

Paul, I want to hear you say it. Don't mince words. "I Paul am God..." Go ahead...


There is Only One Deity BEING that is 'God'. 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' = 'I AM' or 'I Will Be' - this is Gods Name/Sole ID-entity forever. (how one chooses or intuits their own 'being' or true ID-entity in God or recognizing that God-presence within them is their privelege of discernment).



Also, are you backing away from from your God IS ALL statement? Is your ego "separate" from God?


Again these are dimensional issues - minor inflections. To God, God is ALL....for God is Conscious of His Eternal and Infinite Being....He is His own Entirety of Perfection. My 'ego' may be seperate in one sense as part of the illusion of humanhood and the mortal-dream....but the 'I AM' remains ever Aware of its own Infinite BEING.



Yes, I know that. Aiken is your Messiah. Be careful dear friend... You may be on the road to darkness...


Thanks for your concerns, but I never claimed Aiken was my Messiah. He just happened to pioneer a radical teaching on 'Absolute Truth' offering his discourse to any,....inviting them to investigate such for themselves. In my journey so far.....I've found each teacher who has some light and calling...shares their own unique portion of the God-Light so one can learn/glean from many teachers along the Path. I've gleaned from many and do not claim to just follow one in particular at this point - the Spirit must ever lead.....for the Spirit is truth.


Paul, I know your views on atonement. I have ran across then before in various forms. I am now trying to get at what you believe. Is evil merely perception of division? God really IS the Holocaust?


Well,....beliefs come a dime a dozen. Truth however is solitary. Sometimes beliefs must be dropped,.....traded in for truth. As far as evil goes.....it can be many things and defined many ways. -its existence can be speculated til the cows come home - also why God allows it, how it can exist in Omnipresence, etc., etc., etc. I will no longer address your fixation with the Holocaust.





paul

[seer]

There is Only One Deity BEING that is 'God'. 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' = 'I AM' or 'I Will Be' - this is Gods Name/Sole ID-entity forever. (how one chooses or intuits their own 'being' or true ID-entity in God or recognizing that God-presence within them is their privelege of discernment).

Is that a dogmatic statement or are you just guessing? But if the above is true then you are in fact God. Please have the nerve to say it: "I am God..." I'll be waiting...


Again these are dimensional issues - minor inflections. To God, God is ALL....for God is Conscious of His Eternal and Infinite Being....He is His own Entirety of Perfection. My 'ego' may be seperate in one sense as part of the illusion of humanhood and the mortal-dream....but the 'I AM' remains ever Aware of its own Infinite BEING.

So life is an illusion? But either your ego (and it's darkness) is separated from God or it is not...

Thanks for your concerns, but I never claimed Aiken was my Messiah. He just happened to pioneer a radical teaching on 'Absolute Truth' offering his discourse to any.

This is not radical - it's simply repackaged eastern thought... Mixed in with a little greek philosophy. Aiken is offering nothing new.

Well,....beliefs come a dime a dozen. Truth however is solitary. Sometimes beliefs must be dropped,.....traded in for truth. As far as evil goes.....it can be many things and defined many ways. -its existence can be speculated til the cows come home - also why God allows it, how it can exist in Omnipresence, etc., etc., etc. I will no longer address your fixation with the Holocaust.

Well of course, you do not want to deal with the Holocaust. But what the heck - it was all an illusion. Have the courage of your convictions Paul - the next time you see an old jewish man with a number tattooed on his arms - tell him it was all an illusion...

[freelight]

I am going to share some alternative views on atonement from other sources - the first are from the collection of messages received thru James E Padgett. The first couple messages are alleged to be from St. Luke (Padgett received spirit-communications wherein spiritual truths that were lost or misrepresented in the biblical texts are restored and the true doctrine set forth). For further research into the 2 volumes of messages compiled as 'The gospel revealed anew by Jesus' see these links -

http://www.divine-love.org/

http://www.divinelove.org/

http://www.new-birth.net/


I will share St. Lukes discourse on 'atonement' in the following posts - in 2 parts. Again, I simply share these views and let them speak for themselves - each reader will judge and explore the content of the message for themselves making their own decisions about their authenticity.






paul

[freelight]

ATONEMENT



I AM HERE. St. Luke.


I come to-night to tell you of a truth that is of very great importance to you and to mankind, and desire that you shall be very careful in receiving what I may say. I am in a condition of love that enables me to know whereof I write and to cause what I may say to be accepted by you as true.

I want to tell you that the Love of which we have been writing is the only Love that can make a spirit or man at one with the Father, and this my theme: The Atonement.

This word as used in the Bible and interpreted by the churches and the commentators on the Bible, carries with it a meaning of some price being paid by Jesus for the redemption of mankind from their sins and from the punishment that they will have to undergo because of having committed sin; and also, the idea that God, as an angry and insatiable God, was waiting for the price to be paid in order for His wrath to become satisfied and for man to stand before him acquitted of sin and the consequences of disobedience.

This price, according to the teachings of the churches and the persons named, must have been paid by one who in his goodness and purity was capable of paying this price; that is one who had in him such inherent qualities, and by his sacrifices was of such inherent worth as to satisfy the requirements of the demands of this angry God whose laws had been disobeyed. And they also teach that the only way by which such price could have been paid, was by the death on the cross of Jesus, who was the only person in all creation that possessed these qualities sufficiently to meet these requirements; and that by his death and the shedding of his blood the sins were atoned for and God was satisfied. This is the orthodox belief of the atonement and plan of salvation.

In short, a perfect human being free from all sin, a death on the cross and a shedding of blood, which was necessary that the sins of mortals might be washed away and their souls made clean and fitted to become a part of the great family of God.

But all this conception of the atonement is wrong and not justified by any teaching of the Master, or by any of the true teachings of the disciples to whom he had explained the plan of salvation and what the atonement means.

I know that in various parts of the New Testament it is said that the blood of Jesus washes away all sin, and that his death on the cross satisfies the Father's demand for justice; and therein there are many similar expressions conveying the same idea. But these sayings of the Bible were never written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, but by writers who, in their various translations and alleged reproductions of these writings, added to and eliminated from the writings of the original writers, until the Bible became filled with these false doctrines and teachings.

The writers of the Bible, as it now stands, were persons who belonged to the church which was nationalized about the time of Constantine, and as such, had imposed upon them the duty of writing such ideas as the rulers or governors of this church conceived should be incorporated in the Bible for the purpose of carrying out their ideas in order to subserve the interests of the church, and to give it such temporal power as it never could have had under the teachings and guidance of the pure doctrines of the Master.

For nearly two thousand years this false doctrine of the atonement has been believed in and accepted by the so called Christian churches, and has been promulgated by these churches as the true doctrine of Jesus and the one upon which the salvation of man depends; and the consequences have been that men have believed that the only things necessary to their salvation and reconciliation to God, were the death of Jesus and the washing away of their sins by the blood shed on Calvary.

If men only knew how futile his death was and how inefficacious his blood is to wash away sin and pay the debt to the Father, they would not rest in the assurance that all they have to do is to believe in this sacrifice and this blood, but would learn the true plan of salvation and make every effort in their power to follow that plan, and as a consequence, have their souls developed so that they would come into harmony with the Father's love and laws.

ATONEMENT, IN ITS TRUE MEANING, NEVER MEANT THE PAYMENT OF A DEBT OR THE APPEASING OF THE WRATH OF GOD, BUT SIMPLY THE BECOMING AT ONE WITH HIM IN THOSE QUALITIES THAT WILL INSURE TO MEN THE POSSESSION OF HIS LOVE AND THE IMMORTALITY THAT JESUS BROUGHT TO LIGHT. THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS COULD HAVE NO POSSIBLE EFFECT UPON THE CONDITION OF MAN'S SOUL QUALITIES, AND NEITHER COULD THE BLOOD SHEDDING MAKE A VILE AND SINFUL SOUL PURE AND FREE FROM SIN.

God's universe is governed by laws as immutable as they are perfect in their workings, and the great thing to be accomplished by the plan which He provided for the redemption of men, is to have every man come into harmony with these laws, because just as soon as that harmony exists there will be no more discord and sin will not be known to humanity. And so, only that which will bring man into this harmony can possibly save him from his sins and bring about the at-onement that Jesus and his disciples taught.

Man, when created, was endowed with what may be called a natural love, and that love, to the extent of the quality that it possessed, was in perfect harmony with God's universe, and so long as it was permitted to exist in its pure state, was a part of the harmony of the universe; but when it became defiled or impregnated with sin or anything not in accord with God's laws, it became inharmonious and not at one with God, and the only redemption required was the removing of those things that caused the inharmony.

Now, the only way in which this inharmony could be removed was by the natural love becoming again pure and free from that which defiled it. The sacrifice on the cross could not furnish this remedy and neither could the blood atonement accomplish it, because the sacrifice and the blood had no relation to the evil to be remedied. So I assert, if these things paid the penalty and satisfied God and thereby He had no further claim upon man for any debt supposed to be due Him from man, it necessarily implies that He kept the souls of men in this condition of inharmony and would not permit the same to be removed until His demands for satisfaction and blood had been met; and that then, when He should be appeased, He would permit men by His mere ipse dixit to again come in harmony with His laws and the workings of His universe. In other words, He would be willing to let men remain out of harmony with His universe and the workings of His laws, until He had His demands for sacrifice and blood satisfied.

This, as is apparent to any reasonable man, would be a thing so foolish that no mere man in matters pertaining to his earthly affairs, would adopt as a plan for the redemption of those sons of his who had been disobedient.

(I see you have a caller, and will continue later).

[seer]

I know that in various parts of the New Testament it is said that the blood of Jesus washes away all sin, and that his death on the cross satisfies the Father's demand for justice; and therein there are many similar expressions conveying the same idea. But these sayings of the Bible were never written by the persons to whom they are ascribed, but by writers who, in their various translations and alleged reproductions of these writings, added to and eliminated from the writings of the original writers, until the Bible became filled with these false doctrines and teachings.

Where is your evidence that Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, the author of Acts, the book of Revelation did not contain "blood atonement" in their original form?

The writers of the Bible, as it now stands, were persons who belonged to the church which was nationalized about the time of Constantine, and as such, had imposed upon them the duty of writing such ideas as the rulers or governors of this church conceived should be incorporated in the Bible for the purpose of carrying out their ideas in order to subserve the interests of the church, and to give it such temporal power as it never could have had under the teachings and guidance of the pure doctrines of the Master.

Where is you evidence that "blood atonement" was added at this time in history?

[seer]

I am going to share some alternative views on atonement from other sources - the first are from the collection of messages received thru James E Padgett. The first couple messages are alleged to be from St. Luke (Padgett received spirit-communications wherein spiritual truths that were lost or misrepresented in the biblical texts are restored and the true doctrine set forth). For further research into the 2 volumes of messages compiled as 'The gospel revealed anew by Jesus' see these links

Paul if you find out that God did require blood sacrifice to appease His wrath - would you still love and seek Him?

[freelight]

Where is your evidence that Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, the author of Acts, the book of Revelation did not contain "blood atonement" in their original form?


Where is you evidence that "blood atonement" was added at this time in history?


As I shared,.....one can accept these messages or not based on their own discernment - I am just sharing alternative views on atonement. In this case...the spirit is alleged to be St. Luke. Blood atonement concepts of course existed from ancient times....and there is no proof that existing texts were never altered, interpolated, or changed over time for whatever reason.


Paul if you find out that God did require blood sacrifice to appease His wrath - would you still love and seek Him?



Well,..thats the problem...about God demanding or requiring blood to appease His wrath. -its logic is questionable in light of so many things. Indeed, I would love and seek God for the Reality that He IS...for He is ALL. :smile: (couldnt resist). I will now post part 2 of St. Lukes message.







paul

[freelight]

ATONEMENT--BY LUKE, PART II

Continued from Preceding Message


I AM HERE. St. Luke.


I wish to continue my discourse on the Atonement.

As I was saying unless a man gets into harmony with God in the natural love, which God bestowed upon him, and thereby becomes free from sin and error, there can be no redemption for him, and the death of Jesus and the shedding of his blood cannot cause that harmony.

Now what I have heretofore said, relates exclusively to man and his salvation in respect to his condition of becoming perfect in this natural love, which all men have.

But this is not the great atonement which Jesus came to earth to teach men, and the way in which it could be obtained and the effect of its attainment.

As has been told you, in the beginning God conferred upon our first parents not only the natural love but the potentiality of obtaining it, by the observance of certain laws and obedience, the Divine Love of the Father, which, when obtained, would make a man a part of divinity itself; and, while it would not make him a god, or the equal of the Father, yet it would give him a divinity that would cause him to receive the substance of God's Great Love, and not remain the mere image, and, as a consequence, man would become immortal.

GOD ALONE, IS IMMORTAL, AND EVERY PART OF HIM IS IMMORTAL, AND WHEN MEN SHALL OBTAIN IN THEIR SOULS THAT PART OF HIM WHICH IS HIS GREATEST ATTRIBUTE--HIS DIVINE LOVE--THEY WILL ALSO BECOME IMMORTAL, AND THEREAFTER NOT SUBJECT TO DEATH.

THE NATURAL LOVE, WHICH WAS IMPLANTED IN THE SOULS OF ALL MANKIND, IS NOT A PART OF THE DIVINE LOVE--IT IS NOT THIS LOVE IN A LESSER DEGREE EVEN, BUT IS A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE QUALITY OF LOVE, AND ALL MEN POSSESS IT; BUT IN MANY PERSONS IT HAS BECOME CONTAMINATED BY THE SINS THAT FLOW FROM THE VIOLATION OF GOD'S LAWS, SO THAT THE REDEMPTION, OF WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN, IS NECESSARY FOR MAN, EVEN AS THE POSSESSOR OF THIS NATURAL LOVE ONLY.

BUT THE DIVINE LOVE OF THE FATHER IS A LOVE THAT HAS IN IT, AND IS WHOLLY COMPOSED OF THE DIVINITY WHICH THE FATHER POSSESSES, AND NO MAN CAN EVER BECOME A PART OF THAT DIVINITY UNTIL HE POSSESSES THIS GREAT LOVE. I KNOW IT IS SAID THAT MAN IS DIVINE BECAUSE HE WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, BUT NOTHING WHICH IS A MERE IMAGE IS EVER A PART OF THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH IT IS THE IMAGE, AND CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE THE QUALITIES OF THAT SUBSTANCE. COMMONLY SPEAKING, THE IMAGE MAY HAVE THE APPEARANCE AND FOR THE ORDINARY AFFAIRS OF THE MORTAL LIFE, MAY SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE REAL UNTIL SOMETHING THAT ARISES THAT DEMANDS THE PRODUCTION OF THE REAL, AND THEN THE IMAGE WILL NO LONGER SERVE THE PURPOSE.

Now in the case of the creation of man, he was made in the image of God in one particular only, and that in the matter of soul appearance. His physical or spiritual body was not in the image of God, for God has no such bodies, and only the soul of man is in the image of God, the Great Oversoul. And so long as man remains a mere image of the Father, he will never be more than the mere man that he was ot the time of his creation, and the Substance of the Father will never become a part of him; and while the Substance is Divine, the image can never become Divine until it becomes transformed into the Substance.

At man's creation a plan was formed by which that image might become a thing of Substance, and there was given to man, the possessor of the image, the potentiality of obtaining the Substance; but man, through his disobedience or failure to comply with or follow out the requirements of the plan provided, forfeited this potentiality, which had been conferred upon him, and thereby lost the possibility of having the image transformed into the Substance which was absolutely necessary in order for him to ever become the possessor of any part of the Father's divinity. And when men call themselves divine they assert that which is not true, but which, since the coming of Jesus to earth, may become true.

I will not recite what this disobedience of our first parents was, or in what way they lost the great potentiality of becoming Divine, but will only say, that when by their disobedience they forfeited this potentiality, it was taken from them by God, and His decree that in the day they should commit the act of disobedience they should surely die, was carried out and they died; not the material bodies died nor their spiritual bodies died, nor their souls, for men continued to live in their physical bodies for many years after the day of disobedience, and their spirit bodies and souls never died, for they still live. But what died and what the sentence passed upon them affected was the potentiality of receiving the Substance, which would make them Divine and Immortal. This potentiality was taken from them and never restored during the long centuries from the time of its death until the coming of Jesus.

That part of the divine nature, or that divine attribute, which was the object of this potentiality and which would make man a part of the divine nature and immortal, was the Divine Love of the Father and nothing else; and if our first parents through their obedience had received this Divine Love, never would mortality as to the soul have existed on earth, and neither sin or a want of atonement with the Father. But disobedience came and death of the possibility of becoming immortal ensued, and man remained mere man, only an image of the Father and nothing more.

No man in all the long ages that I have mentioned ever had anything more or greater in his nature than the natural love of which I have spoken; and even as to that, man so abused and defiled it, until at a time he became an outcast from the Father as to this love. In other words, he man, buried it so deeply under his acts of sin and the violation of those laws of God which control this natural love, that he appeared to be forsaken by the Father, even as a mere human being.

But in the history of what is called "God's chosen people," the Jews, it appears that time and time again these people became such aliens from God in this natural love, that men, possessed of this love in a purer state than were the common people were used by the forces of the spirit world to call these people to a realization of their obligations to God arising out of the gift of the natural love. None of the prophets--neither Moses nor Elijah, nor any of the others--was possessed of this Divine Love, but merely of the natural love in a purer state than were the people to whom they delivered their messages.

BUT IN GOD'S OWN TIME AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MERCY AND PLAN, HE REBESTOWED UPON MAN THIS GREAT POTENTIALITY OF WHICH I SPEAK, SO THAT MEN SHOULD AGAIN HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BECOMING AT ONE WITH HIM; AND TO DECLARE THE REBESTOWAL OF THIS GREAT GIFT, JESUS WAS SENT TO EARTH IN THE FORM OF MAN CONCEIVED AND BORN AS OTHER MEN, BUT WITHOUT SIN.

IT WAS AT THE TIME OF JESUS' COMING THE GREAT GIFT WAS REBESTOWED UPON BOTH MORTALS AND SPIRITS OF MORTALS THEN LIVING IN THE SPIRIT WORLD, AND THEY ALL, SPIRITS AND MORTALS, RECEIVED THE PRIVILEGE OF BECOMING AT ONE WITH THE FATHER THROUGH THE PLAN OF SALVATION THAT HE HAD REVEALED TO JESUS, AND WHICH JESUS TAUGHT IN HIS MINISTRY DURING THE SHORT YEARS OF HIS EARTHLY LIFE, AND WHICH HE IS STILL TEACHING.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY IN WHICH MAN CAN BECOME AT ONE WITH THE FATHER--IN WHICH THE IMAGE CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO THE SUBSTANCE--THAN THE WAY THAT JESUS TAUGHT, BUT WHICH SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY MEN AFTER THE CHURCH BECAME A CHURCH OF TEMPORAL POWER, AND AFTER THE BIBLE OR THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES WERE EMASCULATED AND THE THOUGHTS AND DESIRES OF MEN INTERPOLATED IN THE PLACE OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE AND SALVATION. YET THERE IS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN ONE DECLARATION OF THE TRUE PLAN OF SALVATION, THOUGH IT IS LITTLE UNDERSTOOD AND ALMOST IGNORED IN PRACTICAL TEACHINGS AND OBSERVANCES OF THE CHURCHES AND THEIR MEMBERS, AND THAT IS "EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD."

THESE WORDS OF THE NEW BIRTH ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT DECLARE THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. NO DEATH OF JESUS ON THE CROSS, NO SHEDDING OF BLOOD OR WASHING AWAY OF SINS BY THE BLOOD, NO PAYING OF ANY DEBT AND NO BELIEVING IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, WILL BRING MEN INTO AT-ONE-MENT WITH THE FATHER AND MAKE THEM PARTAKERS OF HIS DIVINE NATURE OR FIT THEM TO BECOME INHABITANTS OF HIS KINGDOM. ONLY THE NEW BIRTH IS EFFICACIOUS FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND NO OTHER PLAN DID JESUS EVER TEACH AND IS NOT NOW TEACHING.

Then what is meant by the New Birth?

Men in their understanding and interpretation of it differ, and it will do no good for me to recite these different interpretations or what the New Birth is not; but the important thing is, what it is.

As I have said, the potentiality that was conferred upon our first parents was the privilege of obtaining the divine nature and immortality of the Father by becoming possessed of His Great attribute of Divinity--the Divine Love. And had our first parents by their obedience received the benefits of this great privilege, they would have been born again, as you and all other mortals, and spirits as well, may now be born again.

THEN THE NEW BIRTH IS SIMPLY THE EFFECT OF THE FLOWING INTO THE SOUL OF A MAN OF THIS DIVINE LOVE OF THE FATHER, AND THE DISAPPEARING OF EVERYTHING THAT TENDS TO SIN AND ERROR. AS THE DIVINE LOVE TAKES POSSESSION OF THE SOUL, SIN AND ERROR DISAPPEAR; IT, THE SOUL BECOMES OF A QUALITY LIKE THE GREAT SOUL OF THE FATHER; AND THE SOUL OF THE FATHER IN ITS QUALITY OF LOVE BEING DIVINE AND IMMORTAL, SO, WHEN THE SOUL OF MAN BECOMES POSSESSED OF THIS QUALITY OF LOVE THIS SOUL BECOMES DIVINE ALSO--AND THE SOUL IS THE MAN--AND THEN THE IMAGE BECOMES THE SUBSTANCE, THE MORTAL BECOMES THE IMMORTAL, AND THE SOUL OF MAN, AS TO LOVE AND HOPE, BECOMES A PART OF THE FATHER'S DIVINITY.

NOW TO DECLARE THIS PLAN OF SALVATION AND ALSO THE REBESTOWAL OF THE GREAT GIFT OF THE POTENTIALITY OF THE SOUL, JESUS CAME TO EARTH. THIS WAS HIS MISSION, AND NONE OTHER. AS READERS OF THE BIBLE WILL REMEMBER, AND IT IS A TRUTH, WHEN JESUS WAS BAPTIZED AND ANOINTED, AND ALSO ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION, THE VOICE OF GOD, AS IT IS WRITTEN, DECLARED THAT JESUS WAS HIS WELL BELOVED SON AND DEMANDED OF THE PEOPLE "HEAR YE HIM." NOT TO BELIEVE THAT HE CAME TO DIE ON THE CROSS, NOT TO BELIEVE THAT HIS BLOOD WOULD BRING ABOUT THE ATONEMENT, NOT TO BELIEVE IN ANY VICARIOUS ATONEMENT OR THAT GOD INWRATH DEMANDED A SACRIFICE, BUT ONLY "HEAR YE HIM." AND JESUS IN ALL HIS TEACHINGS NEVER TAUGHT ONE OF THESE THINGS, BUT ONLY THE NEW BIRTH AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IT. THIS IS THE ONLY THING NECESSARY TO THE ATONEMENT, AND HE IS STILL TEACHING IT.

He also taught moral truths affecting the conduct and relation of man to man, and man to God in his natural state, but none of these things or moral teachings were sufficient to bring about the Great At-onement. There is no doubt that the observance of many of these teachings of morality and of man's conduct towards God will have a tendency to lead men to seek the higher Love of the Father and help their souls to get in the condition that will make it easier for this Great Love to flow into them; but these moral teachings or prescribed conduct will not, of themselves, be sufficient to bring the New Birth, and hence the at-one-ment.

NOW JESUS NOT ONLY TAUGHT THE NECESSITY FOR THE NEW BIRTH, BUT HE ALSO TAUGHT THE WAY IN WHICH IT COULD BE OBTAINED, AND THAT WAY IS JUST AS SIMPLE AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD AS THE NEW BIRTH ITSELF. HE TAUGHT, AND IS NOW TEACHING, THAT THROUGH EARNEST PRAYER TO THE FATHER, AND FAITH, WHICH MAKES ALL ASPIRATIONS AND SOUL LONGINGS THINGS OF REAL EXISTENCE, AND BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH IS THE FATHER'S MESSENGER OF LOVE--OR TO CARRY HIS DIVINE LOVE--THIS LOVE WILL FLOW INTO THE SOULS OF MEN IN RESPONSE TO SUCH PRAYERS; AND BY SUCH FAITH MEN WILL REALIZE ITS PRESENCE, AND IN THIS WAY, AND THIS WAY ONLY, MEN WILL RECEIVE THE NEW BIRTH.

THIS IS WHOLLY AN INDIVIDUAL MATTER, AND WITHOUT THE PERSONAL, EARNEST PRAYER OF THE SUPPLICANT AND FAITH, THAT COMES WITH THE LOVE, A MAN CANNOT RECEIVE THE NEW BIRTH. NO CEREMONY OF CHURCH, NO LAYING ON OF HANDS OR MASSES FOR THE SOULS OF THE DEAD WILL BE EFFICACIOUS TO MAKE THE MAN OR SPIRIT A NEW CREATURE IN GOD.

What I have written is the meaning of the atonement as taught by the Master, and as understood by all the redeemed of the Father who are now living in His Celestial Heavens, and there is no other atonement possible.

I have written enough and hope I have made it plain to all men the true explanation of the atonement. We who are inhabitants of the Celestial Heavens know the truth of my explanation, both from personal experience and from the other fact, which no spirit in all the universe can deny, that only those who have received this Divine Love of the Father in their souls in sufficient abundance can or do inhabit the Celestial Heavens; all other spirits, no matter what their several beliefs may be, live in the lower spiritual spheres and cannot enter the Celestial Heavens, unless they seek for and obtain the New Birth that Jesus taught, and is still teaching.

So my dear brother, without writing more, I will say good-night.


Your brother in Christ,



LUKE.

[seer]

As I shared,.....one can accept these messages or not based on their own discernment - I am just sharing alternative views on atonement. In this case...the spirit is alleged to be St. Luke. Blood atonement concepts of course existed from ancient times....and there is no proof that existing texts were never altered, interpolated, or changed over time for whatever reason.

And it could be a lying Spirit. Sent to lead men away from the only path to salvation - through the blood of Christ. And unless you have evidence that "blood atonement" was added late - I will take the texts on face value. Especially since these texts were quoted by the earliest Church Fathers in the second century. Long before the time of Constantine.

Well,..thats the problem...about God demanding or requiring blood to appease His wrath. -its logic is questionable in light of so many things. Indeed, I would love and seek God for the Reality that He IS...for He is ALL. (couldnt resist).

Who's logic? So you would still love and seek God if He did in fact require blood atonement?

[freelight]

As I shared,.....one can accept these messages or not based on their own discernment - I am just sharing alternative views on atonement. In this case...the spirit is alleged to be St. Luke. Blood atonement concepts of course existed from ancient times....and there is no proof that existing texts were never altered, interpolated, or changed over time for whatever reason.

And it could be a lying Spirit. Sent to lead men away from the only path to salvation - through the blood of Christ. And unless you have evidence that "blood atonement" was added late - I will take the texts on face value. Especially since these texts were quoted by the earliest Church Fathers in the second century. Long before the time of Constantine.

Whether the spirits are lying or not will have to be judged by the reader and the validity/logic/soundness of the commentary. True the ideas of blood atonement go back to ancient times....that doesnt validate them as effectual but only resonant with primitive belief systems.


Well,..thats the problem...about God demanding or requiring blood to appease His wrath. -its logic is questionable in light of so many things. Indeed, I would love and seek God for the Reality that He IS...for He is ALL. (couldnt resist).

Who's logic? So you would still love and seek God if He did in fact require blood atonement?


That is the issue isnt it - did/Does God really demand human sacrifice just so I could be forgiven of some original sin or my own individual sin. Like I shared there other ways of atonement that does'nt require the death of a Man...or an animal for that matter. God accepts repentace, humility, change of heart....these can come about thru sincere prayer and committing to good works and fruitful spiritual living - the return to Love. This is what is required and when the heart/soul turns to God....he/she can come into unity/at-one-ment with the Father. The NT atonement models are just that as conceptual theological belief structures built up to provide a system-reference to validate belief in such a procedure of forgiveness. But what does the Lord require? - to walk humbly, to love mercy, to do what is right(justice)[no mention of blood sacrifice there and there are other scriptures that mention no need of blood]...to return to Him with heart and soul - many times he was tired of all the blood sacrifice and rejected them because their hearts were still wicked. Repentance and true prayer to the Living One was enough to reconcile wayward souls back to truth. There is much more on this topic...but this will suffice for now.












paul

[seer]

Whether the spirits are lying or not will have to be judged by the reader and the validity/logic/soundness of the commentary. True the ideas of blood atonement go back to ancient times....that doesnt validate them as effectual but only resonant with primitive belief systems.

Yes Paul, and they are also universal. Hummm.. ya think God was trying to tell us something? ; )


That is the issue isnt it - did/Does God really demand human sacrifice just so I could be forgiven of some original sin or my own individual sin. Like I shared there other ways of atonement that does'nt require the death of a Man...or an animal for that matter. God accepts repentace, humility, change of heart....these can come about thru sincere prayer and committing to good works and fruitful spiritual living - the return to Love.

Paul, that is your opinion. And God did not demand human sacrifice. He sacrifice Himself - He asorbed our punishment. That is the greatest picture of solidarity with man known...


But what does the Lord require? - to walk humbly, to love mercy, to do what is right(justice)[no mention of blood sacrifice there and there are other scriptures that mention no need of blood]...to return to Him with heart and soul - many times he was tired of all the blood sacrifice and rejected them because their hearts were still wicked. Repentance and true prayer to the Living One was enough to reconcile wayward souls back to truth. There is much more on this topic...but this will suffice for now.

First Paul, the Jews were under the sacrifical system when that was written. Second, and I have to say it. You do not know your own heart. You do not walk humbly, love mercy, or do justice. At least not in the way God calls for. None of us do - or ever did.

And Paul until you see your sin and selfishness in the light of God's Holy Love you will simply not understand. You are immature in this spiritual area... But once this happen to you - you will lose all illusions of your own goodness. You will fall on your face and cry "what a wretched, dirty little thing I am!" And then you will fly to the pure waters of the Living Atonement....

But to be honest Paul, most men inherently fear this journery of self-discovery. So they remain content to live with their high plaitudes about the nature of God rather than meeting the actual "Lion of Judah" Himself... It's a scary thing believe me. It will rock your world...

[freelight]

The following is a 2 part commentary on how the celestial beings who gave this message interpret the death of Jesus on the cross relative to his ministry to us here on earth - the celestials call this planet, 'Urantia'. (one of many inhabited worlds in this local universe system). UB, Paper 188




4. MEANING OF THE DEATH ON THE CROSS



188:4.1 Although Jesus did not die this death on the cross to atone for the racial guilt of mortal man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and unforgiving God; even though the Son of Man did not offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation; notwithstanding that these ideas of atonement and propitiation are erroneous, nonetheless, there are significances attached to this death of Jesus on the cross which should not be overlooked. It is a fact that Urantia has become known among other neighboring inhabited planets as the "World of the Cross."

188:4.2 Jesus desired to live a full mortal life in the flesh on Urantia. Death is, ordinarily, a part of life. Death is the last act in the mortal drama. In your well-meant efforts to escape the superstitious errors of the false interpretation of the meaning of the death on the cross, you should be careful not to make the great mistake of failing to perceive the true significance and the genuine import of the Master's death.



188:4.3 Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evildoing of his ancestors. Neither was the Master's death on the cross a sacrifice which consisted in an effort to pay God a debt which the race of mankind had come to owe him.

188:4.4 Before Jesus lived on earth, you might possibly have been justified in believing in such a God, but not since the Master lived and died among your fellow mortals. Moses taught the dignity and justice of a Creator God; but Jesus portrayed the love and mercy of a heavenly Father.

188:4.5 The animal nature -- the tendency toward evil-doing -- may be hereditary, but sin is not transmitted from parent to child. Sin is the act of conscious and deliberate rebellion against the Father's will and the Sons' laws by an individual will creature.

188:4.6 Jesus lived and died for a whole universe, not just for the races of this one world. While the mortals of the realms had salvation even before Jesus lived and died on Urantia, it is nevertheless a fact that his bestowal on this world greatly illuminated the way of salvation; his death did much to make forever plain the