 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/8/2010 5:15 PM (GMT -6) |   | Yeah, I've gotten tired many times of this kind of approach. It's usually the "plead the blood" (and that means...what exactly?) that gets me. I mean, I "plead" the blood...and look, there goes the blood of Jesus, all over the place so that the victory (or what have you) I claim is now efficaciously applied and proven. Yeah, okay. Whatever.
I make exceptions (in how quickly I tire) with those folk who just have'nt studied themselves and have just gone with the flow of whomever has had this theological influence over them. Fine. But sheesh, when someone starts trying to pull out Scripture in support of that cockimany theology (okay, so I don't know how to spell that word), it becomes very tiring to try to talk any sense into the person...namely, the sense of "Can we just let the text speak for itself and not read into it all our theology about the blood?"
And, boy, you are in deep doo-doo if you dare insinuate that there isn't some sort of magical property in the blood of Jesus. After all: it's the blood! The Blood. THE BLOOD of Jesus, able to jump tall buildings, travel faster than a speeding bullet and all that. How DARE you disrespect the blooooooood! Oh, it gives me chills and makes my hand tremble, as if the Spirit is flowing through me (you know, that super spiritual stuff), at just the mere thought of pleading the blood."
And so, since it's virtually impossible to talk about this matter with Christians, I, like you, Tom, give up!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/9/2010 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | To me, what needs to be explained is how the NT argues as if the blood has atoning effects for trangressions under the first covenant, etc. IOW, the blood effects people who were long dead before the blood was shed. We don't have to assume that the blood of Christ has any mystical powers. We don't have to assume that God can't forgive without atonement. All we have to assume is that God SAID that sin would result in death and that God MEANS what He says.
IOW, sin may not result in death by some metaphysical principle outside of God's control. But if God INTENDED that men only live eternally via sinlessness (i.e., because sin is the falling SHORT of some aspect of God's glory), it is within God's perogative to require, as a condition for eternal life of creatures, the substitutionary death (even death by the shedding of blood) as a backup plan to people actually living sinlessly, so as to render forgiveness NON-ARBITRARY for humans who think and deliberate NON-ARBITRARILY (i.e., rationally/discursively).
There is nothing more mystical about IMPUTING the death of one to another than there is about IMPUTING faith as the equivalent of living sinlessly (i.e., righteously as per some law that defines sin). But scripture, to me, seems to indicate that God can rationally (i.e., non-arbitrarily) do the latter BECAUSE He does the former. "Imputation" is a concept that all humans readily conceive of. Thus, imputation/substitution is not mystical for that reason alone. And, consequently, the divinely intended role of "blood" is no more mystical.
We all agree that being repentant is a condition for forgiveness. But we have to define what forgiveness means. For humans, forgiveness means we will not hold the wrong-doers accountable for their actions in any way. But what does accountability mean? Per scripture, there are TWO kinds of accountability. One is DEATH; the other is WORKS ACCOUNTABILITY. God could forgive, in the sense that humans do, a repentant sinner and, thus, never hold that sinner accountable for his/her works. But that doesn't address the issue of DEATH vs. LIFE. And that's the issue that scripture says Christ's death is necessary for.
We, as Christians, will STILL have a works accountability, at least for those sins we commit after conversion. But that works accountability won't be to the Father, as Him out of whom all created things are, but to Christ, as he who, due to the contingency of the Fall, PURCHASED us, with his own blood, to be his obedient servants. Hence, Christ could truly say, as he is said to have in John, that the Father gives ALL judgment to the Son, that he might be honored uniquely because of his unique role in redemptive history.
Thus, atonement is rational to the extent that it is dealing with something OTHER than works accountability. And this distinction between humans and angels, such that humans die and angels do not, is what renders, IMO, the atonement competely rational. Angels don't die and, thus, only experience WORKS accountability. Humans have the capacity as animals to move from contingently-abiding life to MORTALITY--i.e., INEVITABLE future death (i.e., non-conscious existence, like other animal souls presumably are subject to). Angels, being pure spirits, can't do that, it seems.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 2/9/2010 11:38:55 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/9/2010 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't think it's a matter of "atoning" not having an effect for transgressions; I think it's a matter, rather, of understanding atoning from a different perspective other than how we've confined it to something that deals merely with forgiveness.
Yes, God can forgive without the need for blood to be shed, but forgiveness is only half the problem. There is still the matter of the separation between God and man that resulted from sin (the point of the account of the Fall). God didn't tell Adam He'd kill him if he ate of the fruit. What God did tell Adam was that death would enter into the stream of existence if Adam ate. It's a question of what is death?
Theologically, death is not cessation of existence. It's separation. In the case of the Fall, the act of sin disturbed the relationship between God and man in that it effected, in an of itself, an unrepairable breach: separation between God and man. "The soul that sins shall die" is not a statement of cause but of effect. Just because we do not know the metaphysics of how the first death took place does not mean it didn't take place or that it was determined by God rather than effected by man.
The only way, then, to repair the breach was to kill the breach itself; that is, separate that which separated. To to this required an act of power greater than separation. That is, a power greater than death. Obviously, it wouldn't be any normal human being who could be found to accomplish this task. Hence, the death of Christ, which efficaciously brought about the separation of separation (death), made a way to "get back to" God.
The death of Christ, then, works for all people of all ages, because it's not the transgressions that are the focus of attention in the work of the cross, but the resulting separation due to sin that is the spotlight. We might see the attention on the transgressions (as in, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" ), but that's because sin and the death that resulted are so intertwined they can't be divorced from each other. The sin question is only ultimately taken care of if the power of death is overcome.
So I hold that the death of Christ was absolutely necessary and required if the broken relationship between God and man was ever to be repaired. I see no other avenue for God to have taken (not that He needed one, since Christ was "slain from the foundation of the world" ). I just don't hold that Christ's cross was merely so that God could forgive us.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/9/2010 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: Theologically, death is not cessation of existence. It's separation.
Jeff: I agree that death is not the cessation of existence. But returning to dust sounds like physical death to me. Nor does it seem necessary to define death as separation to render other verses that use that word intelligible and meaningful. So I guess I'm just trying to stay parsimonious.
Starkman: It's separation. In the case of the Fall, the act of sin disturbed the relationship between God and man in that it effected, in an of itself, an unrepairable breach: separation between God and man.
...The only way, then, to repair the breach was to kill the breach itself; that is, separate that which separated. To to this required an act of power greater than separation. That is, a power greater than death. Obviously, it wouldn't be any normal human being who could be found to accomplish this task. Hence, the death of Christ, which efficaciously brought about the separation of separation (death), made a way to "get back to" God.
Jeff: I have no idea how that's supposed to sound less mystical than substitutionary atonement. First of all, I don't know why the breach was unrepairable. Nor do I see how Christ's death effectually repaired the breach, if not by substitution. And this on top of the fact that death doesn't even seem to mean separation, as far as I can tell. It seems much easier to define it as the state of a being when that being is not alive. And the most simple thing I can come up with for that is that death is a state of non-transient unconsciousness--i.e., unconsciousness that persists, unlike the transitory unconscious states that occur due to natural conditions like sleep, etc, which may not even involve absolute unconsciouness in the first place.
Starkman: Just because we do not know the metaphysics of how the first death took place does not mean it didn't take place or that it was determined by God rather than effected by man.
Jeff: All I can go on is that it said there was a tree of life that GOD providentially hindered access to. That sounds, to me, like scripture is trying to suggest, figuratively or not, that God had something to do with it.
Starkman: Hence, the death of Christ, which efficaciously brought about the separation of separation (death), made a way to "get back to" God.
Jeff: I don't understand it. I read the words, but have no idea why it would be true. Indeed, it would seem to me that if you were to flesh it out, you would end up saying things that are no less mystical sounding than good old fashioned substitutionary atonement.
Starkman: The death of Christ, then, works for all people of all ages, because it's not the transgressions that are the focus of attention in the work of the cross, but the resulting separation due to sin that is the spotlight.
Jeff: A separation is not a thing. It is a relation. To say that the events of the cross caused a relation to cease to be sounds exactly like what people mean by good old substitutionary atonement. Except the old fashioned route uses a concept of death that is more easily inferred from statements like "to dust thou shalt return."
Starkman: The sin question is only ultimately taken care of if the power of death is overcome.
Jeff: The sin question is only ultimately taken care of when we receive the Spirit which empowers us to live sinlessly therefrom or, in the case that doesn't or won't occur, when we partake of the divine nature so we can NOT sin anymore. Even Christ's death was not a sufficient condition for that. It was merely a necessary condition of it. No one received the power to overcome sin the minute Christ died. The Spirit was not received by all believers for many days thereafter. Only then could people live sinlessly, and even then, most don't.
Starkman: I see no other avenue for God to have taken...
Jeff: I don't see how it's an avenue at all. I don't know what this "separation" is that can't be remedied by forgiveness, if substitutionary atonement ("life for life") is unnecessary for humans. And I have no idea how a death by cross had any effect on it. It's like saying all natural evil is necessary for human becoming. It may be true. But I can't for the life of me see how. And I don't see scripture indicating either. So those kinds of claims don't help me much. I hold to the C.S. Lewis epistemological approach. If nothing is obvious, nothing can be proved (i.e., discursively inferred). What you're saying to me is not anything I can even get a conceptual handle on.
Starkman: I just don't hold that Christ's cross was merely so that God could forgive us.
Jeff: Yes, that is evident from other scriptures, IMO.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/11/2010 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Jeff,
I guess I really don't know what to say here, then, other than that if Ephesians 2:18 is means anything (For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father), it means we didn't have access to—we were separated from—God prior to Christ's death. So His death must have something to do with not only reuniting us to God but with (His) death having been a requirement for this to take place. Otherwise, it's senseless to talk about Christ dying for the world.
The New Testament is all about reunification, not the need for death by bloodshed for any other reason. I don't discount forgiveness of sins being in view of Christ's death either; the two are so tightly intertwined, as I said, that they cannot be divorced from one another. It was sin that separated man from God, and it was Christ's death AND resurrection (not His death) that opened a new way to access God undisturbed by sin.
If you dispute this, then I don't really know what else the New Testament is all about.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/16/2010 8:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Similtude said...
Starkman: The New Testament is all about reunification, not the need for death by bloodshed for any other reason.
Jeff: Right. But it also talks about ressurection unto life. So if death is caused by sin, and death is a state of unconsciousness, and if unification requires consciousness (and it clearly does), it makes all the sense in the world that reunification requires ressurection unto life. IOW, what I'm saying makes sense of all of this without positing anything more than what you yourself are already conceding; namely, that "I don't discount forgiveness of sins being in view of Christ's death" Adding on more to it than that doesn't buy me anything that I can make sense of, given my particular view of death.
Hey Jeff,
It's not resurrection from unconsciousness that's the theme or point of Christ's resurrection: it's that His resurrection makes possible the way unto eternal life, regardless of whether a person is unconscious prior to that great day we will be resurrected. The message of the book of Acts is that Christ had risen, which changed something. The change was not, "Christ rose and therefore you will rise from unconsciousness." Rather it was For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father (Eph 2:18), as I quoted in an earlier post.
But even if we hold to a belief in soul-sleeping, as some say I Corinthians 15 teaches, it is verse 17 that is the crux: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Without the resurrection, the sin issue—the matter of being a sinner—has not been dealt with. And what else does it mean when one is a sinner if it doesn't mean that there's a separation (a death) in the relationship between God and man? I mean, if it's just about forgiving so that one can get on into life in a sinless state, then the resurrection is merely after-the-fact reality so that Christ can live among us as well. In other words, His resurrection becomes nothing more to us than an opportunity to see Him again. Such is not the theology of the resurrection, though.
You said, But if God INTENDED that men only live eternally via sinlessness (i.e., because sin is the falling SHORT of some aspect of God's glory), it is within God's perogative to require, as a condition for eternal life of creatures, the substitutionary death (even death by the shedding of blood) as a backup plan to people actually living sinlessly, so as to render forgiveness NON-ARBITRARY for humans who think and deliberate NON-ARBITRARILY (i.e., rationally/discursively).
I don't have a qualm with the the idea that man, if he's to live sinless must die. That's not in dispute. But it is clear to me that Adam was separated from God (a spiritual death) long before he died physically, because of the very sin you talk about. There was much more going in in the Garden than just the desire for God to have mankind live in eternity without sin present; for there had been a change—death—in the relationship between man and God when man fell. This doesn't have to be some super-spiritual or metaphysical transaction. It's simply a reality of a break in the relationship between the two. That's all. And that break put God and man at opposite ends of the poles, without any hope of a bridge if the answer were to be left up to man to figure out.
The purpose of the death of Christ is incomplete without the resurrection. Why? Because whether we subscribe to Christ's death as having atoning effect, man is still, as Paul noted in I Cor 15:17, left without access to God if Christ is not risen; for man would still be in his sins, still existing in the old, that place in which relationship between God and him had been severed. Without the death (regardless of our view of the atoning effect of said death) resurrection unto newness of life was not possible. Finally, it had to be Christ who resurrected, because only He possesses eternal life within Himself.
This is the crux of Romans 5: that as sin had worked its way through one individual into many, so would Christ's life, because of His resurrection, work its way by one into the many. There is nothing about the nature of physical death (e.g., soul sleeping) having anything to do with this. Rather, it is all about a new way unto God made possible not by the death of Christ, but by both His death and resurrection. The bridge has been built, in other words. Death (separation between God and man) ceases to have its stranglehold over mankind.
Thanks much,
Starkman
(Just to be clear, my point is not to dispute your view that physical death leads to unconsciousness until the resurrection, Jeff. All I'm saying is that whether your view is correct, it's not the substance of the theology of the resurrection. In other words, the same effect is brought about regardless of our view of life after death pre-resurrection.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/27/2010 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: The purpose of the death of Christ is incomplete without the resurrection.
Jeff: This much is obvious. But ...
Starkman: Why? Because whether we subscribe to Christ's death as having atoning effect, man is still, as Paul noted in I Cor 15:17, left without access to God if Christ is not risen; for man would still be in his sins, still existing in the old, that place in which relationship between God and him had been severed. Without the death (regardless of our view of the atoning effect of said death) resurrection unto newness of life was not possible. Finally, it had to be Christ who resurrected, because only He possesses eternal life within Himself.
Jeff: Notice what you've done here. You've taken scriptural claims that the ressurection of Christ somehow is effectual to my reconciliation to God as fact. But then you act as though other scriptural claims as the role of "blood" in the remission of sins are NOT necessarily facts. I can't follow you.
It's just as logical to say that Christ ressurected because he had never sinned. Thus, Hades could not hold him. And the fact THAT he had not sinned ALSO explains WHY he became righteousness FOR us. IOW, Christ's death was only acceptable to God as propitiatory because Christ was sinless. And that same sinlessness rendered it impossible for Christ to be held in a state of death. His temporary state of death was chosen VOLUNTARILY.
IOW, no matter which way you go, we have to just flat take God's word for it that certain events are deemed best fitted to God's Self-revelatory/doxological ends and therefore motivate Him to act in those SPECIFIC ways. There is nothing about those acts from which we could formulate a deductive argument in terms of what is inductively knowable by us, independent of God's revelation of His mode of redemption, to show that Christ's death OR ressurection were effectual for our redemption. Thus, acting as though the role of blood is unnecessary renders the role of the ressurection unnecessary by the very same logic. We have God's word on both matters. And there's nothing more to it than that. It's either sufficient to establish both, or it's insufficeint to establish either.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 2/27/2010 12:22:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/27/2010 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Wait a sec, Jeff!
First, let me be clear here: I DO believe the roll of the blood of Jesus HAD to be shed if mankind was to find a way to God. Further, there was no other way to redeem mankind; however, what I made clear, though, was that without the resurrection, the effect of the shed blood of Jesus would remain without affect (1Co 15:17 "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins). Now that's about as clear as it can get.
Second, you said, "It's just as logical to say that Christ ressurected because he had never sinned. Thus, Hades could not hold him. And the fact THAT he had not sinned ALSO explains WHY he became righteousness FOR us. IOW, Christ's death was only acceptable to God as propitiatory because Christ was sinless. And that same sinlessness rendered it impossible for Christ to be held in a state of death. His temporary state of death was chosen VOLUNTARILY.
Jeff, of course it's logical to conclude such. It's BECAUSE Christ was sinless that His resurrection not only could take place, but that's the point: If it were left to us to fend for ourselves, there'd be no chance of redemption; we would be eternally separated from God...dead to Him, dead in our sins, which is just another way of saying "separated from God."
This is about as theologically sound as it can be. I don't see what the problem is here. I mean, what was Jesus saying in John 6 and what was the author's point in the book of Hebrews if it wasn't that only the Christ possessed the required sinless life and power to resurrect from the dead? And for what purpose was this resurrection? In order to complete the salvation brought about in His death.
Finally, one doesn't have to deduce much of anything with regard to what I've just said and been saying. It's plain and clear in Scripture—we've been told what the truth of the matter is with regard to what it will take to effect our salvation. Doesn't matter if I could not have deduced such by means of my environment were God to have remained silent.
I was reading in Colossians today. Note verses 3:1-5
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Two things: First, there's that "you died" theme again. I was clear about what the concept of death because of sin is in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, as it regards our position before God: it is of separation from Him. In this case, however, of Colossians 3, it is separation from the old—the way life is defined on earth rather than the way life is defined in heaven. This is clearly seen in what Paul said earlier at the start of his letter: He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son (1:13). That is the epitome of death: separation from the old into the new, and that's Paul's point, again, in Col 3.
Second, since we have "died" to the old, we are to "put to death" that which represents the old. Obviously, we can't annihilate or cause to to cease to exist in our realm any of those things (though one day the old will be completely done away with, praise the Lord!), but we can separate ourselves from them, by faith, in trust that God will reveal that much more of the real life we have in Him.
All of this to say simply that we have been clearly instructed in God's word that our sin left the problem of reconciliation up to either us or God. If left to us, we would be toast. If left to God, it would required death. It isn't that death is just something God came up with, motiviated to be enforced for who knows what reason. Rather, it is clear that death was the only way to redeem mankind.
Theologically, Christ died in two ways: first by emptying Himself of that which he rightfully had claim to hold on to (Phil 2). In other words, He "separated" Himself from that which was rightfully His and defined Him as who He was prior to the incarnation...that is death (PULEEESE...let's not get into what all was emptied, because I'm the first to admit I don't have that answer!). His separation from that which was in fullness prior to the incarnation was required in order to die physically, His second death—again, having become "separated"; this time from His body. If you or I died, we'd remain in that state forever. There is no other way around this matter. There was no other answer, there was no other plan, there was no other way to save mankind. Someone had to enter into the stream of life, die physically (taking ALL of what separated us from God) and then resurrect, or the whole point of the death would be incomplete.
Finally, because Christ held the power of eternal life, His resurrection, as I explained above, made a new (the only) way to get to God undisturbed by sin. That's the whole point, Jeff. And I cannot see where this isn't clear in Scripture and, therefore, where we are left to conclude that God hasn't told us about what motivated Him to use the method of redemption He chose. IT WAS THE ONLY METHOD AVAILABLE!
Anyway, maybe we're at a standstill, but I just want to be sure that I'm being clear (I'd MUCH rather talk than write, so I can easily screw things up!).
Thanks,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/28/2010 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | | | To get some history to this discussion, let me say that much of what has been debated before has to do with the fact that God can forgive without atonement. IOW, the argument has gone (if memory serves) that God doesn't need the incarnation to FORGIVE people. What you and I are saying is that for some reason, the incarnation and the death of Christ really IS necessary for God's forgiveness of humans at least. I tie that fact to the related seeming fact that humans die when they sin whereas angels don't. Once we have death from sin for humans (beings with physiologically-grounded life), the incarnation and substitutionary atonement makes all the sense in the world.
My reply to Tom etal is that God's forgiveness of humans, even to the extent that it is necessarily secured by substitutionary atonement, is consistent with the fact that God doesn't NEED substitutionary atonement to BE forgiving in the sense that God is forgiving BY NATURE. But God seemingly needs substitutionary atonement because of the fact that humans DIE from sin, unlike angels. Why do humans die from sin and angels don't? I don't know. But I think scripture gives us that much information. And that much information is sufficient to render the atoning work of Christ for humans rational. That's all I'm saying.
IOW, I can get it back to the seeming brute fact that humans die from sin whereas angels don't. I can reason from there about the need for atonement for humans. But I can't get it back any further than that. But that still means that substitutionary atonement doesn't imply that God is not forgiving BY NATURE. He is. It's just that for some revelatory or other reason, He has to implement that forgiving nature differently for humans and angels because of their inherent, essential differences.
Humans are LOWER than the angels. God has to get LOWER than angels to accomodate human need. That speaks of God's essential nature playing out diversely for diverse states of affairs. The essential divine nature is not in question.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 2/28/2010 12:40:23 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/28/2010 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Way cool, Jeff.
I would only add that my belief, as I understand what God has said about the death with regard to the redemption of human beings, is that death is required, even though God can forgive with out it, because there is still a matter of justice; "The soul that sins shall die" being intimately involved with that concept.
Did you ever see the movie National Treasure with Nicholas Cage? Near the end of the movie, the FBI guy is "negotiating" with Nicholas Cage, who, by now, had found the lost treasure. Nicholas did not want to go to jail and was hoping that he would be able to escape prison. The FBI guy responded with, "Someone has to go to jail."
I think that's something of what's going on with regard to why Christ had to die. Based on how mankind is set up to live, we ourselves know and sense something about justice; that though one may, and can, forgive, something is still left unfinished, incomplete. This is why, I believe, that we are told to forgive everyone 70 times 7 times BUT "vengeance is mine, says the Lord." In other words, it is one thing to forgive, but that does not address the built-in matter-of-fact requirement for justice to be served. Obviously, only God is qualified to dish out such vengeance.
Now, I don't adhere to the idea of God having Christ crucified for merely reasons of punishment in the "Boy, I'll get you for that sin, buddy" sense, but I do believe that Isaiah 53, in its broader theological context and meaning, speaks of this matter of "Someone must go to jail." The simple understanding we all have on earth of right and wrong and the instinctive notion of this calling for justice to be served are clues with regard to our relationship with God; it is no less the case that justice is required from humans for their sin before God. It isn't that God gets off on punishing; it is that He had already provided the Perfect One who could both die WITHIN and AS PART OF humanity, AND overcome. But let's go further here.
And, as I've already said, but find also in the death of Christ so amazing and fantastic is that along with the issue of justice is also is deliverance from anything and everything that is defined by this world's existence. It is death (that concept of separation) of Christ by which, we are told, that the flesh is found crucified with Christ, along with its passions and desires. In other words, in that God has made a new way to be reconciled with Him, He has done so by making all things new; something that could not have taken place without death. So, there's basically two aspects of why I believe death was both necessary and required.
Do angels (namely those who fell) fall into some similar category of a death-required relationship? I don't know. The only clue we seem to have about them is that their judgment is yet to come, where as it has already come for us through Christ. Does the judgment of angels yet to come mean they will be redeemed? Some say yes, some say no. We'll see, won't we!
At any rate, Jeff, your last post hits the nail well on the head. And I hope I haven't rambled on too much!
Thanks,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/7/2010 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | | Been snowed, bro. Obviously, I can't prove my thesis about angels vs. humans. But I think there is evidence for it. When I get time, I'll try to get some verses together that I think are indicative of it.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|