ECT This should start a decent discussion: Universal Atonement

TFTn5280

TFTn5280

New member
Cross Reference said:
That puzzles me. How was it helpful if you believe I am
"struggling"?
Click to expand...

One does not need to be 100% right in order to be helpful to those around him. I rather doubt that any of us are 100% right all the time, but each of us may be right on certain things some of the time; we can still learn on those times.
 
Last edited:
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
TFTn5280 said:
Cross Reference said:
One does not need to be 100% right in order to be helpful to those around him. I rather doubt that any of us are 100% right, yet I still learn from fellow humans.
Click to expand...

Here is the issue with me: Can what I take into my thinking be supported with scripture sufficent to convince irrespective of it being complete? I believe so. Let me demonstrate with this that a conclusion must be arrived at without making it fit:

What quality of man could only be accepted for redeeming mankind?

1. Sinless
2. Born of Adam's race

I see two prerequisites. Are there anymore more I am overlooking?
I think not, all religous types and shadows notwithstanding, redeeming man had to do with freeing man from a penalty placed upon him by God. Anymore than that is beyond the scope of what I am trying to establish for a base for my understanding.

We see this written in Genesis 3:15: ". . . I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15 (KJV) Notice it reads, "her seed" and not the seed of man ___ or God. It simply makes clear it to be "her seed".

Question: Why the seed of the woman and not the man? Why did not God say: 'I will send my Divine son to fix this problem' by depositing the seed of a man into the woman? Why the distinction being made here?

Answer. He couldn't anymore than He could place His Divine seed into the ground to create Adam only to have it fail to secure Adam to Himself. If Adam failed it would have be humanity failing and not God. .. There was no divine son of the type written about in the gospels until written about him after the fact of His ascension. All true, mind you. However, I believe Jesus was something less and yet something far greater than supposed of him by the writers who could only interpret as they saw the situation. John 1:1 gives us the best rendition, without the details, now revealed to us through the Promise of the Father. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."J ohn 1:1,14 (KJV) and His Word would be a "consuming fire". Luke 3:16 KJV.

The miracle conception of Jesus was for one purpose, i.e., to introduce a sinless being into the disqualified race of Adam. He was to be nurtured in the knowledge of God and His ways and as the foreunner of all who would soon experience the new birth, teach them. The need for Jesus to be nurtured should explain His humanity, absent Divinity.

When we read of the Father son relationship between God and Jesus, it must be understood that His miracle birth, the "overshadowing by the Holy Spirit", was the only way a sinless human being could have been conceived in a mortal woman, born of Adams race without satan crying, "Foul"! It might be said that God breathed on the seed of Mary and that seed became a sinless soul as the first Adam but now of a new creation would he be and subjected as well, to the same trials and vigors as the first Adam for the necessity of proving his allegiance.

Jesus would escape no human trial by vurtue of his unique conception. Jesus had to come on the scene as did Lucifer, perfect in all his ways, and do battle with him on the same terms, i.e., subjected to vanity that satan, by his diabolical unassuming nature would project upon Jesus in the attempt to get Him to fail as Adam did. Jesus would win these battles. How? What were the weapons he used for His victory over sin and death, He is able now to give us at the outset of our agape road journey through this new creation "Kingdom" experience, __ weapons Lucifer never used in his battle with himself, weapons Adam never used in his battle with himself, weapons we must learn to appropiate in our battles with oursleves?

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
TFTn5280

TFTn5280

New member
Cross Reference said:
Here is the issue with me: Can what I take into my thinking be supported with scripture sufficent to convince irrespective of it being complete? I believe so. Let me demonstrate with this that a conclusion must be arrived at without making it fit:

What quality of man could only be accepted for redeeming mankind?

1. Sinless
2. Born of Adam's race

I see two prerequisites. Are there anymore more I am overlooking?
I think not, all religous types and shadows notwithstanding, redeeming man had to do with freeing man from a penalty placed upon him by God. Anymore than that is beyond the scope of what I am trying to establish for a base for my understanding.

We see this written in Genesis 3:15: ". . . I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15 (KJV) Notice it reads, "her seed" and not the seed of man ___ or God. It simply makes clear it to be "her seed".

Question: Why the seed of the woman and not the man? Why did not God say: 'I will send my Divine son to fix this problem' by depositing the seed of a man into the woman? Why the distinction being made here?

Answer. He couldn't anymore than He could place His Divine seed into the ground to create Adam only to have it fail to secure Adam to Himself. If Adam failed it would have be humanity failing and not God. .. There was no divine son of the type written about in the gospels until written about him after the fact of His ascension. All true, mind you. However, I believe Jesus was something less and yet something far greater than supposed of him by the writers who could only interpret as they saw the situation. John 1:1 gives us the best rendition, without the details, now revealed to us through the Promise of the Father. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."J ohn 1:1,14 (KJV) and His Word would be a "consuming fire". Luke 3:16 KJV.

The miracle conception of Jesus was for one purpose, i.e., to introduce a sinless being into the disqualified race of Adam. He was to be nurtured in the knowledge of God and His ways and as the foreunner of all who would soon experience the new birth, teach them. The need for Jesus to be nurtured should explain His humanity, absent Divinity.

When we read of the Father son relationship between God and Jesus, it must be understood that His miracle birth, the "overshadowing by the Holy Spirit", was the only way a sinless human being could have been conceived in a mortal woman, born of Adams race without satan crying, "Foul"! It might be said that God breathed on the seed of Mary and that seed became a sinless soul as the first Adam but now of a new creation would he be and subjected as well, to the same trials and vigors as the first Adam for the necessity of proving his allegiance.

Jesus would escape no human trial by vurtue of his unique conception. Jesus had to come on the scene as did Lucifer, perfect in all his ways, and do battle with him on the same terms, i.e., subjected to vanity that satan, by his diabolical unassuming nature would project upon Jesus in the attempt to get Him to fail as Adam did. Jesus would win these battles. How? What were the weapons he used for His victory over sin and death, He is able now to give us at the outset of our agape road journey through this new creation "Kingdom" experience, __ weapons Lucifer never used in his battle with himself, weapons Adam never used in his battle with himself, weapons we must learn to appropiate in our battles with oursleves?

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

It helps me understand your position, why you believe what you do. However, I think it is incomplete. Had Christ only been a man, he could only redeem one man, by way of filling in for that man. Yet he redeemed all "men" in his perfecting person. Only God could save all humanity, in the assumption of all in the one human, Jesus Christ; for he is God of God and man of man, mediating the things of God to man and the things of man to God.

Moreover, the only way he could redeem humanity was to become human in the state that we are human; i.e., in our fallen state. It does not do to arrive in perfection and maintain that perfection throughout, because all that does is prove it can be done and thereby further condemn us. Yet he became what we are that he might do battle against those things that without him can only but defeat us ~ sin, death, the devil, the Law, etc ~ his victory over the tyrants thus being our victory as well, that being Christ in us the hope of glory.

Because he was God, he could save us all. Because he was human, his victory is our victory as well. We are saved precisely because we are ontologically included in his existence, in his person: God of God and man of man, Jesus Christ.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
TFTn5280 said:
Cross Reference said:
It helps me understand your position, why you believe what you do. However, I think it is incomplete.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is incomplete.

Had Christ only been a man, he could only redeem one man, by way of filling in for that man.
Click to expand...

You are confusing "individuallly created Angels" with Adam's progeny who are united by it being by a universal substance that links all mankind, i.e., BLOOD. That is why it can be rightly stated, Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect.

Angels do not possess blood which makes the penalty for their transgressions irrevocable. You, indeed, would need a redeemer for each individual one. God had only one begotten son born for redeeming all mankind.

Yet he redeemed all "men" in his perfecting person. Only God could save all humanity, in the assumption of all in the one human, Jesus Christ. Thus he is God of God and man of man, mediating the things of God to man and the things of man to God.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but, there is no "yet" in Jesus' sacrifice. it is not necessary to believe that more then His shed blood was necessary for making peace with God on behalf of all mankind.. I submitted the reasons what was only necessary, i.e., sinlessness and being a human of Adam's race. More of what He was is irrelevant in this.

Moreover, the only way he could redeem humanity was to become human in the state that we are; i.e., in our fallen state.
Click to expand...
No. Jesus never became human. He was human. Not even the Word became human but was simply IN Jesus reconciling man to God in such a way there was no distinction as to when Jesus was speaking or it was the Word using His voice.. In this was Jesus was entrusted with handling the Glory of God even unto His death. Such intimacy is what God is after from His redeemed ones.

It does not do to arrive in perfection and maintain that perfection throughout, because all that does is prove it can be done and thereby further condemn us. Yet he became what we are that he might do battle against those things that without him can only but defeat us ~ sin, death, the devil, the Law, etc.
Click to expand...

He did such battle for us for us to do same and the same way He did it was His example for us to follow. We nust overcome as He did. Rev 2 and 3 speaks of it as many others as well speak of overcoming. Over 600 times the prep. "IF" is used in the NT implying the need for His people to perservere. Why not ask yourself what that means?

Because he was God, he could save us all. Because he was human, his victory is our victory as well. We are saved precisely because we were ontologically included in his existence, in his person: God of God and man of man, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

Blood saved us.. His. That was all that was needed for redemption. Salvation is a choice upon learning of the facts.

How 'bout a reply to what I wrote? Speak of what you disagree with you believe I am in error. Need scripture? I can do that that you probably will reject because they be a compilations of several with my understanding added. In that I probably won't be able to help you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
TFTn5280

TFTn5280

New member
Cross Reference said:
You are confusing "individuallly created Angels" with Adam's progeny who are united by it being by a universal substance that links all mankind, i.e., BLOOD.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, no, I'm not. Yes, Christ is our go'el, Kinsmen Redeemer, by way of his human, blood connection to us. But he is also our go'el by way of our existence ~ ontology ~ contained and sustained in his divinity (Rom 5.15-19; Col 1.17; Eph 1.10).

That is why it can be rightly stated, Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect.
Click to expand...

Jesus is the elect, the chosen One, the Seed of the new covenant. In him we are all included (see above), hence elect by way of that inclusion. In him all died and in him all are resurrected (2 Cor 5.14-15). Were this not so, the "non elect" would not be resurrected. His atonement in that way was universal in scope, and efficacious for all. No one escapes his atoning work, even if dying in refusal of him.

Angels do not possess blood which makes the penalty for their transgressions irrevocable. You, indeed, would need a redeemer for each individual one. God had only one begotten son born for redeeming all mankind.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness we're not talking about angels, although they too are re-gathered and consist in his existence (Eph 1.10; Col 1.17)

Sorry, but, there is no "yet" in Jesus' sacrifice. it is not necessary to believe that more then His shed blood was necessary for making peace with God on behalf of all mankind.. I submitted the reasons what was only necessary, i.e., sinlessness and being a human of Adam's race. More of what He was is irrelevant in this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if all he were was our moral example, this could be said. Me thinks him more than that; for example, how are you raised from the dead if not for his resurrection from the dead, your inclusion being IN him. Said another way, the wages of sin is death: how are you resurrected if not in his righteousness?

No. Jesus never became human. He was human. Not even the Word became human but was simply IN Jesus reconciling man to God in such a way there was no distinction as to when Jesus was speaking or it was the Word using His voice.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a wholly inadequate explanation for John 1.14 ~ and dozens of other verses where Jesus' divinity is upheld, whether by him or others, including demons (Mar 5.7).

In this was Jesus was entrusted with handling the Glory of God even unto His death. Such intimacy is what God is after from His redeemed ones.
Click to expand...

Add to that the orthodox understanding of hypostatic union and you've got the start of a pretty good Christology.

He did such battle for us for us to do same and the same way He did it was His example for us to follow.
Click to expand...

This is the "Moral Theory of Atonement" ~ primarily a Weslyan and Pentecostal construct ~ and is wholly inadequate to redeem us. Yes, Jesus is our moral example. Yes, we are called to walk in his steps. But if that is all he was, then all the more he can only condemn us, as we fail to follow the example set before us.

Furthermore, if this is the extent of our understanding of atonement, it will not be long before we are lying to ourselves and to others about our own moral rectitude, as we seek inclusion in that atonement; e.g., we'll be blaming others for our angry outbursts rather than seeing in them our own sinful behavior.

We nust overcome as He did. Rev 2 and 3 speaks of it as many others as well speak of overcoming.
Click to expand...

Yes, by way of his glorification he sends his Spirit to indwell us to empower us to overcome as well, to live not for ourselves but for him who died for us and rose again.

Over 600 times the prep. "IF" is used in the NT implying the need for His people to perservere.
Click to expand...

Yes, and many of those times ei, "if," should be translated "since." On occasion it is.

Why not ask yourself what that means?
Click to expand...

I have, many times. IF you had watched the videos you would know about the objective and subjective poles of salvation, to which I ascribe.

Blood saved us.. His. That was all that was needed for redemption.
Click to expand...

Yes. As to the ontology and scope of that salvation, we may have to agree to disagree.

Salvation is a choice upon learning of that.
Click to expand...

:nono: When you make salvation conditional upon and activated by your choice ~ be it through repentance, faith, baptism, or a host of other human responses to God's grace ~ you make yourself the weak link in the chain that binds you to salvation, a link so weak that it cannot help but break, either under the weight of your own self-righteous piety or that of total despair in your lack of piety.

How 'bout a reply to what I wrote? Speak of what you disagree with you believe I am in error. Need scripture? I can do that that you probably will reject because they be a compilations of several with my understanding added. In that I probably won't be able to help you.
Click to expand...

We will disagree in our understanding of certain Scriptures, Scriptures we both uphold. But in that disagreement we ought not divide, as it is in our union that metal sharpens metal.
 
Last edited:
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
TFTn5280 said:
Well, actually, no, I'm not. Yes, Christ is our go'el, Kinsmen Redeemer, by way of his human, blood connection to us. But he is also our go'el by way of our existence ~ ontology ~ contained and sustained in his divinity (Rom 5.15-19; Col 1.17; Eph 1.10).
Click to expand...

The fact you will not respond to my words in a simple honest way makes this convoluted verbiage by you a testimony to your spritual indolence and willingness to be guided by commentaries of the same untoward persuasion. I will engage you no further because of the strife it will engender. Sorry I can't say, God bless you.
 
TFTn5280

TFTn5280

New member
Cross Reference said:
The fact you will not respond to my words in a simple honest way makes this convoluted verbiage by you a testimony to your spritual indolence and willingness to be guided by commentaries of the same untoward persuasion. I will engage you no further because of the strife it will engender. Sorry I can't say, God bless you.
Click to expand...

Well that's a bummer. I can wish God's blessing on you.
 
Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
TFTn5280 said:
Well said.
Click to expand...

Glad it 'took'...

The point is, if I seize upon or eagerly claim for myself that which is already mine, I have not stolen anything, nor would I consider it robbery to claim it ~
Click to expand...

Yes...

BUT I may indeed be exploiting it.
Click to expand...

I would hope so...

That, at least, is the way the verb is used, when it is used, in the limited writings we have.
Click to expand...

The writer of this passage in Greek used Greek words which described what he was explaining, and harpazo and its cognates are pretty well understood... I mean, exploiting what one has stolen is a fair derivative of the primary meaning, but would not be definitive for the meaning of the text, yes?

What Christ emptied himself of, was not someone else's, but that which was already, eternally his. Rather than exercise the divine equality that he had shared with the Father, he chose not to exploit, in order that he demonstrate the "mind" of the One who had sent him (see e.g., Joh 5.30).
Click to expand...

I think the matter is far more profound... You see, He not only took on a human fallen body, but He also took on a fallen human soul... Had he kept His Divinity in the soul of His humanity and will, then He would not have had to overcome temptations, and then our ability to do so would not exist...

Whatever He did NOT take on, He did not heal for us in Himself, you see... So as a human person, he lived sinlessly in obedience to His Father in Heaven, and THAT connection was never lost, except at the end, when it was lost to His human eyes in the agony of the final minute on the cross...

So that the consequence of all this is that there are two minds working in one Divine Hypostasis/Person, and in the human mind, He forsook His Divine one... This is His kenosis... To take on what we have, that He heal it in his own virginal flesh and blood...

And on occassion, He does speak as God, and most of the time, as the Son of Man, and always in obedience to His Heavenly Father... So when He says He does not know something, He is speaking as man, not as God...

We are to be of that same mind.
Click to expand...

This means after we have attained union with Him... We cannot then inflate ourselves because "WE KNOW CHRIST AND YOU DON'T TOO BAD FOR YOU HA HA"... That will send us straight to hell...

Thanks,
Click to expand...

I think I am beginning to see what you were wondering about in this thread's purposing...

Arsenios
 
Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
Cross Reference said:
The fact you will not respond to my words in a simple honest way makes this convoluted verbiage by you a testimony to your spritual indolence and willingness to be guided by commentaries of the same untoward persuasion. I will engage you no further because of the strife it will engender. Sorry I can't say, God bless you.
Click to expand...

Mat_11:29
Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me;
for I am meek and lowly in heart:
and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

A.
 
Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
TFTn5280 said:
Here's my next video installment. Grace Communion International interviews Robert T Walker, primarily on T.F. Torrance's theology of resurrection. The middle portion of the interview is less relevant to this thread, in that it goes into Torrance's life, but it begins and ends quite insightfully.

https://www.gci.org/_lib/playvideo....lker:+The+Implications+of+Jesus'+Resurrection

If you can't stand picnics just skip over the opening credits.
Click to expand...

I could not get it to work...

I did an answer your post on the previous page...

A.
 
TFTn5280

TFTn5280

New member
Arsenios said:
Glad it 'took'...

Yes...

I would hope so...

The writer of this passage in Greek used Greek words which described what he was explaining, and harpazo and its cognates are pretty well understood... I mean, exploiting what one has stolen is a fair derivative of the primary meaning, but would not be definitive for the meaning of the text, yes?

I think the matter is far more profound... You see, He not only took on a human fallen body, but He also took on a fallen human soul... Had he kept His Divinity in the soul of His humanity and will, then He would not have had to overcome temptations, and then our ability to do so would not exist...

Whatever He did NOT take on, He did not heal for us in Himself, you see... So as a human person, he lived sinlessly in obedience to His Father in Heaven, and THAT connection was never lost, except at the end, when it was lost to His human eyes in the agony of the final minute on the cross...

So that the consequence of all this is that there are two minds working in one Divine Hypostasis/Person, and in the human mind, He forsook His Divine one... This is His kenosis... To take on what we have, that He heal it in his own virginal flesh and blood...

And on occassion, He does speak as God, and most of the time, as the Son of Man, and always in obedience to His Heavenly Father... So when He says He does not know something, He is speaking as man, not as God...

This means after we have attained union with Him... We cannot then inflate ourselves because "WE KNOW CHRIST AND YOU DON'T TOO BAD FOR YOU HA HA"... That will send us straight to hell...

I think I am beginning to see what you were wondering about in this thread's purposing...

Arsenios
Click to expand...

This one stands on its own, Arsenios. Good on ya! I would only say that we ought to at least hold loosely the idea of exploitation in this passage, as that is what our examples of the verb's usage indicates.

Have a good evening. I don't know why that video won't run for you. It works fine for me.
 
Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
TFTn5280 said:
This one stands on its own, Arsenios. Good on ya!
Click to expand...

Despite its depth, this is simply the Orthodoxy 101 understanding of kenosis and robbery...

I would only say that we ought to at least hold loosely the idea of exploitation in this passage,
as that is what our examples of the verb's usage indicates.
Click to expand...

It is built in, and is a manner of expression, perhaps:
"He thought it not robbery - eg He was the Rightful Owner..."
And He would not think it exploitation either...
But in His human nature, He set His Divinity aside
for the sake of His Hypostatic union with His humanity,
which is a union of Person with person in a relationship of the obedienc
(of the new creation, the Son of Man to) the direction of the Father...
He simply could not come in His Divine Nature
to direct this new creation during the Incarnation
for the reason established -
eg
It is the person, which IS who each of us also are,
who establishes the new nature,
and not special powers which we do not have...
And yet, it is the Divine Nature of which we partake
upon entry into the Risen Body of our Lord...
We eat His Body and drink His Blood unto Communion in Him...
Without which we have no Life WITHIN us...

Hence we attain by Grace that which Christ WAS by Nature,
and in this is the Life of the Saints
who have Holy Powers to heal and direct souls
and, say, appear on the road to the Ethiopian,
catachize him, and baptize him in the river where they were,
and then disappear...
Where the shadow of Peter healed the sick...
These kinds of things have been taking place since Pentecost
within the Body of Christ...

Have a good evening.
Click to expand...

In 45 minutes, we begin the Service that leads us into the Pascha [Easter] Service at Midnight,
and we will end our 54 day period of fasting, including the Great Lenten Fast of 40 days,
in celebration of the Feast of the Resurrection of Christ...
This is our most blessed and holy Service of the entire year...
And it has been one very exceptional Season for me at least...

So thank-you... We should drift off into snooze around 4AM...

People are already arriving, and the "Table" is set...
Soon all the lights will be out,
and in the black darkness a single candle will be lit at the Altar,
and the Priest will begin the slow keening of the Chant:

Come...
Receive the Light...
From the Light...
That is never overtaken...
By night...

https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...fr2=p:s,v:v&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

And later, the Troparion:

Christ...
Is risen...
From the dead...
Trampling down death...
By death...
And...
Upon those in the tombs...
Bestowing Life...

God bless you on this Great and Holy Day, my Brother...

Christ is Risen!

Truly He is Risen!

Arsenios
 
Last edited:
Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
I searched the title, then still had to opt for audio - Video would not play... No big deal... The voice feels lifeless, yet the concepts are fairly coherent... I see it as the movement, in academic settings, of traditional Protestant theologians into the Patristic teachings of the Fathers, which is now penetrating its way into their way of thinking... Seeing ALL of creation being elevated in Christ, for instance, in His Resurrection, is good, and was for them astounding... For us Orthodox, it is 101... Christ was God in the Garden Who cursed the ground, and of course it is Him Who will release the curse in Himself in creation later...

The issues run as deep as one might desire to take them - LXX Psalm 91 places man's original place and function in original creation... And the acquisition of that function entails willing turning from being controlled by fallen creation, to a kind of supra-natural existence here, where one is simply not controlled by creation's needs for food, water, sleep, clothing, shelter, and on and on... The narrow Way of affliction... As Christ said: The world has NOTHING in me...


Arsenios
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top