In order to understand Christ as our Savior we must first understand the biblical teachings concerning the lostness of man. Man’s chief problem is offending a good God. The Bible teaches us all of humanity have sinned against God (Romans 3:23) with sin being behavior and thoughts that goes against God’s Law or lawlessness (1 John 3:4). Any attempt by man’s own effort towards “righteous deeds are like a filthy garment” (Isaiah 64:6). Proverbs 13:15 and 13:21 teaches us that sins have terrible consequences even on this side of eternity but we must not forget the biggest problem is that fallen humanity is guilty in their sin against God and one day Jesus will call sinners to give an account of their lives since God the Father has “given all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22 cf. John 5:27).
The consequences of man’s lostness after death in their sins is devastating: Those who are lost and whose name is not written in the book of life will appear on Judgement Day before Christ’s great white throne and be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). Here too we see Jesus’ involvement as judge since Matthew 13:41-42 indicates there is a place of torment in which Jesus as the Son of Man will commission his angels to throw the lost into “that place” where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
meh. until over 200 years after christ’s death, no one had any concept of an augustinian fall or an anselmic need for propitiation. that’s just a matter if history. it just isn’t there. you may as well quote psalms rather than romans, and jesus saying it aloud once more, including himself in it: there is no one good, no not one.
the classic, early views of sin, soteriology, and atonement and christology is simply the metaphor of two trees in the garden; a choice in every moment to judge yourself and others, or like god and christ, love instead.
you can here this and nearly only this from ignatius specifically (the vanquishing, the victory over, death of corruption preventing humanity from being … human), and from polycarp, noetus, and irenaeus to name a few.
so no, that it all begins with some idea of a fall and disobedience and a cosmic “righting” of justice between debts owed man to god … it seems christians are precisely not obliged in any way to think so, or if they do, they must start there.
in fact, in the garden, why was god pissed? what was he angry with? what was his first comment?
he was angry at adam and eve believing (because now they judged) they were not worthy to be in god’s presence! his only following comment was deducing why they now thought their metaphoric nakedness (ie insufficiency) … “ah! you ate from the tree, eh?”
what is shameful in modern christianity is still buying that lie we tell ourselves. instead of “just as i am without one plea, i come”, we now bastardize christ by fashioning him into yet one more set of clothing to cover what god is fine with in the first place; our humanity, all of it, as it is, loved just as it it and perhaps our image of ourselves restored if we believe christ telling us so. life to the full, not to judge you but save you (from it), your own judgment, the message of love even the prodigal did not believe when asking merely to be allowed back as a servant (nothing you do can change the fact you’re my son and i love you!).
but, i digress.
How can we be saved without knowing what we have been saved from?
how can we be damned without knowing what for? is jesus more impotent than adam? for the record, no one knows how atonement works, so even if there are a myriad reasons we could say we’re doomed, there are just as many ideas of how we can be saved. any wonder why jesus didn’t fuss with any of that? do good, what you already know to do, be changed in the participation of the good? except where christ is condemning creed and doctrine, where do we see him creating a single one? you have to ask!
if what we’re being saved from is judgment, seems obvious the solution is to simply stop.
Steven I honestly am not sure what you said there perhaps you could explain it better. For the record we do know how atonement works because God’s Word tells us quite clearly. Repentance toward God and faith in His Son Jesus Christ. That is the only way to be saved. Any other ways man says we can be saved is just that…. n man making his own way of salvation. And we cannot say we do not know what for either as we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. We don’t even need to know the specifics of how because we all have.
12+ theories says we don’t.
Repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. Period and end of story
jesus didn’t have any requirements about belief in himself; he had a very old jewish message he wished was simply believed. his only unique addition to it was a universalism and focus on the inner-man. a way of seeing the world differently, through love, and behavior is then lawless, unjudgable.
So when He said I am the way the truth and the life was He lying or perhaps mistaken`
i just wrote an article today on the very thing! “the way. word!” … maybe read it. the problem is literacy and ignorance, not scripture.
Look Steven I don’t mean to sound impatient but I am not here to be interrogated endlessly on every point I make. It is perfectly reasonable for you to state your belief just as I have mine. Otherwise I cannot really have a true conversation because then it is just you interrogating me. Peace
excerpt:
Really, as part of the Enlightenment, we just find it simpleton to read the Bible and that’s that; though some are keen to find that completely sufficient. The rejoinder is scholarship and theologians applying a systematic approach and textual criticism to get at the truth, not shy away from it.
An ignorance comes without it. For instance, a case in point is often found in quoting John about Jesus being the “Word” of God and Jesus being the exclusive “Way” (in which the presumption is ontology rather than teleology). Ignorant of Greek language and culture, many presume something about Jesus that simply isn’t there. It infects theology immensely and damningly. The only coherent view of both is that “Way” in the Greek, ἀλήθεια, ας, ἡ (Strong’s 255), and “Word”, λόγος, ου, ὁ (Strong’s 3056), describe Jesus only as representing the fullness of humanity as God intended us. It does not demonstrate any exclusive “means” to an end (ie heaven/hell, etc.); treating any person as a mere means to an end is immoral anyway. Who Jesus was ontologically is who we are ontologically and the claim in the passage of John is only rationally interpretable as “If you want the fullest life possible, being as I [Jesus] am is the only way you’ll experience it”. More, Jesus is representational of how things were intended. Further, all of John’s writings are theologies, not histories, and Paul’s, never having met Jesus, is a private revelation publicly articulated; both authors clearly influenced by Greek Platonism and exemplifying the ethics of Stoicism, from Cicero to Seneca to Rufus, and how we find Christ’s ethics is then a delicate cultural and textual comparison, or a removal of that Greek ethical stamp to find what’s left; that typically being limited to comments about grace, empowerment, and how to conduct Christian community.
Before rather paltry and shoddy Evangelical thinking, unthoughtful to the very core (a move no more better demonstrated than by its laymen), this was understood, as seen in the first theories of atonement; Recapitulation (which my comments actually begin to articulate along with Irenaeus) and Moral Influence (which are means-descriptive, Jesus’ likeness in understanding and action also beginning to be articulated in the above along with Abelard) looking nothing like the monstrosity of philosophy developed over a thousand years removed from Christ and after the heretical abandonment of the only historic Church in any way linked to Christ, however loosely it may be.
To have the flippant mentality that “It’s right there in plain English, y’all!” and “The Bible says it, so I believe it, and that settles it!” is to be monumentally illiterate. To say that some heresy is afoot because Evangelism has become irrelevant, and to characterize a returning to more traditional Christian philosophies and theologies as anything other than that is to be wholly and literally ignorant of the entire history of Christianity and its development.
wally … any response to this?
My response to your comment: https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/troll-on-veritas-domain-jesus-didnt-have-any-requirements-about-belief-in-himself/
If you’re the troll and you are reading this, there will be no comments approved on this blog until you you translate, parse, decline and argue grammatically from the Greek.
If you’re the troll and you are reading this, there will be no comments approved on this blog until you you translate, parse, decline and argue grammatically from the Greek.
1e.) “12+ theories says we don’t.”
Response: It is a fallacious argument to note there are multiple possible theories about something and then conclude we cannot know something. It does not logically follow.
If you’re the troll and you are reading this, there will be no comments approved on this blog until you you translate, parse, decline and argue grammatically from the Greek.
Amen! By the way you were not the only one who thought Steven Hoyt didn’t always make sense since his point wasn’t clear.
Stop what? Sinning? Can you do that? Not possible. Too late any way as you already have
stop judging, of course! including projecting human conceptions of judgment onto god.
Ok Steven I am speaking into a vacuum here. My worldview is obvious but you are an unknown factor to me. I find this conversation difficult because I have no clue as to what you believe or do not believe
it doesn’t matter what i believe.
Well I beg to differ it matters greatly what you believe in order for a conversation with you to make any sense
not really. that i don’t believe what you do and give the objections for you to consider is quite enough.
No sorry what you do believe matters vastly. But that’s o.k. you have many thoughts about what Jesus taught. Exactly how did you arrive at that? The Bible of course is the only source we have for what He taught and it and you don’t really match up
about 25 years in theology.
Lol hate to break this news to you but if your theology comes from anywhere but the Bible it is of no import whatsoever
sigh. wally, christian belief has always been developmental. all of the myriad of beliefs are based on scripture, so that’s quite non sequitur. it’s like noting there’s one reality and therefore we only have one theory of gravity.
Great so why don’t you establish the source of your belief and exactly what it is Steven? Because anything other than repentance toward God and Faith in Jesus Christ is wrong and scripture never wavers from that. You obviously do but sorry my friend but God disagrees
scripture never speaks for itself. in fact, i just posted a proper response to your misinterpretation of john and jesus being the “way”.
suggesting sola scriptura and sola fide are so anti traditional christianity that i can’t but scratch my head as to how it is you don’t know it … except to say you may want just a cursory course in christian theology proper or in christian history.
“about 25 years in theology” <–The Hubris.
Wally,
“I find this conversation difficult because I have no clue as to what you believe or do not believe”
I also find this conversation difficult because Steven is not as clear in his comments.
It’s ironic you are projecting man-centered desire that God doesn’t judge onto God.
If you’re the troll and you are reading this, there will be no comments approved on this blog until you you translate, parse, decline and argue grammatically from the Greek.
For the record, reading the Bible will teach you exactly how atonement (redemption) works, unless you are,still blinded by Satan and unable to understand spiritual things.
seems it doesn’t … all 12+ theories are all based on scripture.
That’s kind of what I thought too Dan but I don’t think Steven buys it as not only is he blinded but is further clouded by twenty five years of theology from who knows where
Perhaps he would benefit from just studying all of those theories and actual Biblical analysis. I have a lot of such material and the substitutionary view seems to be the truest view, although others have merit. I didn’t come to that conclusion from research though. It was simply reading the Bible when I was still a teenager that took me to that. Something about the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture to the average reader.
That’s my point the Bible is quite clear in and of itself. If I can get it then I venture most can. If we fail to get it we are either still blind to it or are purposely seeking an explanation we like better
no, it’s not clear at all.
So once again why don’t you state what you believe and what the source of that belief is and we can go from there
you have presented a view, your beliefs. i am calling some things into question. what i believe is then irrelevant. your task is to overcome the objections.
take your interpretation of john and jedus being the way. i have clear objections and you are leaving those untouched.
why is that?
hey, you may want to approve all my comments so i don’t have to keep repeating myself. thanks.
Steven this is not my blog I approve or disapprove nothing
ah, well, some comments post immediately and some are still pending.
see my comments above.
you know, i got nothing out of dr seuss books that i do now, back when i was a child reading what was so clear. but, i grew up and there was so much more there than i could have known at the time. what changed was my literacy.
dan, your last comment is quite smug and condescending. my thesis is on atonement, eh.
listen, for both of you, i’d recommend any course work on theology. there are many great books to informally read in the meantime. “ideas of atonement in christianit”, by hastings rashdall, is a great one and free online in pdf; exhaustive in detail and all angles of examination. “the bible: a biography”, by karen armstrong, is another as well as “jesus: an experiment in christology”, by edward schillebeeckx.
Steven my question stands what is your position and what is your source
my position is irrelevant! my objections are scriptural, historical, and textually critical. simply respond to one objection, eh!
start with jesus being the “way”. you have fully misinterpreted that and i gave a full accounting of why i assert you are mistaken. do the right thing then, and overcome the objection.
Steven, your position is quite relevant. I do not exist here to play 20 questions with the non believer ok?
This quote you provided from a man. “just find it simpleton to read the Bible and that’s that; though some are keen to find that completely sufficient. ”
So, if I understand you correctly, you discount Jesus clearly saying, I am the way, the truth, and the life……and so on. Yet, because some writer you like says so, you classify reliance on The Bible as the all sufficient rule for faith and life as “simpleton?” I maintain that to trust the words of some man over what the Bible clearly teaches is, in fact, heretical.
Your turn. What is your position and what is your source. No answer, no more engagement with you other than me presenting the Gospel to you, as I suspect you need it.
Peace
the whole of theology rejects both sola scriptura and sola fide as heresy.
what i’d like you to do is use the greek, the original language john was written in, and justify jesus being the way is ontological rather than teleological.
i said simply thinking the bible speaks for itself and that a plain read gives you proper grounds for understanding what is being conveyed is in fact, simpleton. no theologian nor scholar would say any different.
Wow was surprise to find a debate ensuing here Wally! Thanks for jumping in; I’m currently on a trip and have limited internet access and a weak device but the moment I have more time I want to look at the troll’s comments more closely.
No problem Jim, although I didn’t jump in so much as got dragged in. I am not really sure one can call it a debate, as Steven never actually said what his position was. He was just taking shots and anybody else’s position without every saying what his actually was.
Have a good trip and travel safe, Brother.
Thanks!
Welcome back Jim! Good to see you, as you can deal with that guy when he comes back, as he gave me a headache. I like a good rumble now and then though LOL.
I’m actually still on the trip, but now I have internet. Pulled a late night/morning to respond =)
1f.) ” my objections are scriptural, historical, and textually critical.”
Response: I’m sorry but nowhere in your comment were you “textually critical.” I don’t think you know what textual criticism means.
If you’re the troll and you are reading this, there will be no comments approved on this blog until you you translate, parse, decline and argue grammatically from the Greek.
Good point Dan. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Exactly!
Here’s my response to the first comment:
1a.) “until over 200 years after christ’s death, no one had any concept of an augustinian fall or an anselmic need for propitiation. that’s just a matter if history. it just isn’t there.”
Response: Irrelevant to the post here. This post is not looking at the particulars of Augustine’s theology or Anslem’s theory of atonement. We’re looking to the Bible.
1b.) “you may as well quote psalms rather than romans, and jesus saying it aloud once more, including himself in it: there is no one good, no not one.”
Response: Confirming my post’s use of Romans 3:23.
1c.) “the classic, early views of sin, soteriology, and atonement and christology is simply the metaphor of two trees in the garden; a choice in every moment to judge yourself and others, or like god and christ, love instead.you can here this and nearly only this from ignatius specifically (the vanquishing, the victory over, death of corruption preventing humanity from being … human), and from polycarp, noetus, and irenaeus to name a few.”
Response: Merely loving others and not judging others cannot be equivocated with soteriology, Christology and the atonement. Nor was two trees in a garden metaphorically describing and justifying this equivocation. “polycarp, noetus, and irenaeus” are among the names you cited as teaching this equivocation is untrue. You are flattening their nuances in their theology when you say they taught the same equivocation fallacy you hold on to. Merely name dropping doesn’t work here.
1d.) “so no, that it all begins with some idea of a fall and disobedience and a cosmic “righting” of justice between debts owed man to god … it seems christians are precisely not obliged in any way to think so, or if they do, they must start there.”
Response: Mere assertion of opinion.
The rest will be the subject of my next post for the blog.
Very well explained SJ. Sin is the problem and Christ is the Only solution to that problem. Lord bless!
Thank you Pastor Rob!
Very well explained Wally. I appreciate your clear description of the Biblical doctrine of the atonement through Christ alone. Lord bless you!
I really appreciated Wally’s interaction on here!
Thanks Rob. It’s such a simple concept, I hate sometimes that we over complicate it sometimes. And it’s mostly the people looking for a way out who over complicate it.
[…] https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/beginning-with-the-bad-news-mans-chief-problem-is-sin… […]
Thanks for sharing this post!
[…] https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/beginning-with-the-bad-news-mans-chief-problem-is-sin… […]
[…] theology what is his mighty conclusion of Jesus’ life and ministry ? His comment found HERE is very […]
[…] View the original post here at The Domain for Truth […]
Wow thank you for sharing this post!
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thank you Vincent for reblogging this post!
You’re very welcome Pastor Jim!
[…] Here in this post I want to tackle another point with the troll’s comment here. I’ve already responded to the first half of his comment over there but I thought I take […]
Reblogged this on The Battle Cry.