The false teaching: . . . rose from the grave to purchase a place for us in heaven.

[37818]

You're in "that mode" again, aren't you? Of COURSE the atonement is not "alleged" -- it's the notion that he "purchased" a place in Heaven. He's HEIR, an we are JOINT heirs with Him --- that's the part that seems weird to me - that he "purchased" a place for us.

What mode? I'm trying to understand the justification for this "purchased" or "bought" through or by the resurrection. I see it as simply not right. Some may not believe to the saving of their souls on account of it. It is bad enough some have doubted God's justification for the substitutionary atonement.

The resurrection and its true role is not to be alleged either.

Come back when you're not so grumpy.

And I want to go into that.

Just call me Oscar. But that was, I thought a legitimate comment, not being grouchy.

[37818]

I understand the argument now but I can't help but think that it may be better to think of Jesus's death and his resurrection as one inseparable event. Jesus's statement "it is finished" (although said while he was still alive) does seem to indicate a sort of finality but there is certainly theological significance to the resurrection itself, as Paul appeals to it as the cornerstone of faith in 1 Corinthians 15:17: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. "

The resurrection is indeed key as evidence of what was completed prior to Christ's physical death. And was declared by His resurrection to be truly the Son of God (Romans 1:4). And we are justified in believing in the finished work by the resurrection (Romans 4:25). At issue is not the resurrection. But somehow Christ had to "buy" our salvation by being raised from the dead? That is almost as bad as teaching that Jesus had to go to Hell while in the grave to pay for our sins.

[KingsGambit]

The resurrection is indeed key as evidence of what was completed prior to Christ's physical death. And was declared by His resurrection to be truly the Son of God (Romans 1:4). And we are justified in believing in the finished work by the resurrection (Romans 4:25). At issue is not the resurrection. But somehow Christ had to "buy" our salvation by being raised from the dead? That is almost as bad as teaching that Jesus had to go to Hell while in the grave to pay for our sins.

I am beginning to come around to this line of thinking.

[Cow Poke]

Is it true that by the resurrection Christ purchased salvation?

That wasn't your premise -- it was about purchasing a "place in heaven".

[Littlejoe]

Who's teaching that?

The Evangelism Explosion gospel.

I used to be a EE instructor and this is not an accurate portrayal of the EE's presentation of the gospel. The whole EE statement is (from my EE outline): So you are falsely separating something out that isn't separated in the presentation. It's one long statement of what Christ did.

[Cow Poke]

I used to be a EE instructor and this is not an accurate portrayal of the EE's presentation of the gospel. The whole EE statement is (from my EE outline): So you are falsely separating something out that isn't separated in the presentation. It's one long statement of what Christ did.

Yeah, I was involved in EE, but it's been YEARS ago, and I don't remember anything as problematic as 37 is implying.

In FACT, this whole thing seems a bit "chicken and egg" to me ---
A) What is the atoning death on the cross without Jesus' resurrection?
2) What is the resurrection without the atoning death on the cross?

Is ANYBODY trying to push "the resurrection" WITHOUT the atoning death?

[Littlejoe]

Yeah, we're talking there about our "inheritance", not something "purchased" for us. BUT, I'm certainly open to the fact that He "purchased for us" redemption, and WITH that comes...

I've just never heard it put that he "purchased a place in Heaven".

Explain how you understand "purchased" from " hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, . . ?"

Seems to me to be a lot of "semantic quibbling"... But whatever. Inductive reasoning could reasonably conclude that IF there is an inheritance reserved in Heaven for you, then it stands to reason that someone purchased (or earned) it for you...and Peter says you are begotten to it by Christ's Resurrection, not by his death on the cross. But, TBH, I think it was ALL of it, not just one part. If you take away ANY component of Christ, then he ceases to be Christ...i.e. born of a virgin, sinless life, beaten and crucified, resurrected. Which part is unimportant enough that you could dismiss it?

ETA: I see you ninja'd me a bit CP, we basically said the same thing!

[Cow Poke]

The resurrection is indeed key as evidence of what was completed prior to Christ's physical death.

I don't think it's just "key evidence" -- I think Paul saw "power" in the resurrection:

Source: Philippians 3:8-14 KJV

) (8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, (9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (10) That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; (11) If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (12) Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. (13) Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (14) I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

© Copyright Original Source

Again, MY first "objection" was the premise that WHATEVER it was (the atoning death or the resurrection or BOTH) was about "purchasing a place in heaven", as opposed to "purchasing for us redemption".

But, again, that's a bit "chicken or the egg" - and I guess I see it as....

Justice -- we DESERVE Hell
Mercy -- He purchased for us redemption
Grace -- BECAUSE of that, we "get Heaven".

Perhaps it would help if 37 posted an ACTUAL CITATION of somebody saying something that 37 claims is "false teaching"

[Cow Poke]

Seems to me to be a lot of "semantic quibbling"... But whatever. Inductive reasoning could reasonably conclude that IF there is an inheritance reserved in Heaven for you, then it stands to reason that someone purchased (or earned) it for you...and Peter says you are begotten to it by Christ's Resurrection, not by his death on the cross. But, TBH, I think it was ALL of it, not just one part. If you take away ANY component of Christ, then he ceases to be Christ...i.e. born of a virgin, sinless life, beaten and crucified, resurrected. Which part is unimportant enough that you could dismiss it?

ETA: I see you ninja'd me a bit CP, we basically said the same thing!

Yeah.

[37818]

Seems to me to be a lot of "semantic quibbling"... But whatever. Inductive reasoning could reasonably conclude that IF there is an inheritance reserved in Heaven for you, then it stands to reason that someone purchased (or earned) it for you...and Peter says you are begotten to it by Christ's Resurrection, not by his death on the cross. But, TBH, I think it was ALL of it, not just one part. If you take away ANY component of Christ, then he ceases to be Christ...i.e. born of a virgin, sinless life, beaten and crucified, resurrected. Which part is unimportant enough that you could dismiss it?

There are now a number of issues. Did you explain how "begotten" equates to "a purchase?" Conclusions by way of "inductive" reasoning are not always true. You did not present the inductive argument you alleged to be there. So I cannot refute what was not presented. Other than say it "is not there." Now not knowing about the "virgin" birth or "deity" of Christ, in and of itself does not prevent one from being "saved." But if a person is "saved" once those teachings are presented, one would not be inclined to deny such. So I deny that the bodily resurrection did anything to obtain eternal life. So am I lost? I affirm the necessity of the bodily resurrection to the gospel, as an essential to be saved. It is true, therefore eternal life was really bought on the cross. It salvation was already purchased when Jesus rose from the dead. Not on the account of being rose from the dead. Now that being said, as I believe, because I deny, salvation was purchased by or through the resurrection, am I not really saved?