(from a book by Hopko)


(1) Jesus saves mankind by providing the perfect image and example of human life as filled with the grace and power of God.


(2) Christ's one, indivisible act of salvation of man and his world is the accomplishment of man's reconciliation with God the Father through the forgiveness of sins. This is the redemption and atonement strictly speaking, the release from sins, and the punishment due to sins; the being made "at one" with God.

...the "redemption," the "ransom," the "expiation," the "propitiation" spoken about in the scriptures which had to be made so that man could be "at one" with God. Christ "paid the price" which was necessary to be paid for the world to be pardoned and cleansed of all iniquities and sins (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23).

. . . .

. . . about the question of to whom Christ "pays the price" for man's salvation, St. Gregory the Theologian in the fourth century wrote the following in his second Easter Oration:

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma,
neglected by most people, but in my judgment well
worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered
that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean
the precious and famous Blood of our God and High
Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold
under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for
wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to
him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this
offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives
ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists
of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for
his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have
left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not
by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on
what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son
delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac,
when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,]
but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place
of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither
asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the
incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by
the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself,
and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to
Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged
his to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He
obeys in all things.

. . . .

Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He "paid the price," not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He "paid the price" not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received "satisfaction" from His creatures in Him. He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).

By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil "in his own territory" and on "his own terms." The "wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal. This is what the Church sings on the feast of the Resurrection, the New Passover in Christ, the new Paschal Lamb, who is risen from the dead:

Christ is risen from the dead!
Trampling down death by death!
And upon those in the tombs bestowing life!
(Easter Troparion)

. . . . .

(3) . . . the destruction of death by Christ's own death. It is the transformation of death itself into an act of life. It is the recreation of Sheol -- the spiritual condition of being dead -- into the paradise of God. Thus, in and through the death of Jesus Christ, death is made to die. In Him, who is the Resurrection and the Life, man cannot die, but lives forever with God.

Truly, truly I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life (Jn 5:24).
"I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die" (Jn 11:25-26).

It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us! Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? [...] For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:34-39).

For in Him the whole fullness of divinity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness of life in Him ... and you were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead. And you were dead in trespasses ... God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this He set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the [demonic] principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them ... for you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God (Col 2:9 ff).

quote:

---

Here is something: Jesus is the Reconciler of Man with God. Taken together, these three things make up what Jesus did to reconcile man to God.

---

quote:

---

What's "wobbly" is your apparent misunderstanding of justice and due process.

---

Sure, there are lot of things I am very “wobbly” about, but God’s love is not one of them. What, one could ask, would be justice in a God who already pre-decides who is going to be in His elite “saved” set, then still creates a “nonsaved” set, lets them live a mortal life without Him, raises them from the dead, only to chuck them into hell and watch them being “punished for eternity”. Sorry, but I prefer my own “wobbly” sense of justice and love, in which God just ain’t like that!

Whilst I agree that, “Righteousness and truth will be vindicated”. I have difficulty accepting that “Sin and rebellion will be judged and punished”. I would prefer to say that non-belief and rebellion will be judged and punished but that sin will be non-rewarded. For those who believe in Christ, their sins have been paid for in full. It is our works that are judged and rewarded. Salvation itself does not require works or abiding of the law - but works ARE acknowledged and rewarded:


“ Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Gal 2:16

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:8-9


“Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” 1Cr 3:13-15

I said:

quote:

---

Equally, Revelation states that on the day of Judgement, the dead will be raised and judged according to their works (what happen to "faith alone"?)

---

to which you replied:

quote:

---

Wow. That makes for a rather squirrelly contradiction then, doesn't it? Which verse will you cut out of your Bible? Eph 2:8,9 or Rev. 20:13? Let me know when you decide.

---

Again, I think you misunderstand me. I am actually raising the question, not making a statement. As you know, one may not remove or add to scriptures and I don’t think anyone should encourage another to do so. I simply do not understand to whom Rev 20:13 refers, as it only makes reference to works, which,as you also point out, appears contradictory to other verses that show faith alone is sufficient.


You also say:

quote:

---

You betray false notions regarding salvation that concern me greatly. Repent or perish. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your Head and you will be saved.

---

Thank you for you concern But it is exactly your words “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” that I question as to whether belief actually is so yes or no. For there are many who seem to happily believe that sufficient “belief” is to say “yes” if someone happens to ask if you believe, otherwise just carry on life without another thought about faith or Jesus. There again, there are others who believe true faith is only held by those who truly give their whole life to serving Jesus (I have never met such a person). Most people have varying degrees of belief that seem to wax and wane throughout their lifetimes – so how much is enough?

Are you really saying that you believe all persons are selected or non-selected by God alone even as they are created? Do you really believe that you have no choice in your own salvation? I don’t wish to dispute it, but I find that incredibly sad. I can’t understand why we would have a Bible if that were the case. I also do not understand how, as I said above, God would want to create certain people who were destined for eternal suffering in hell through no fault of their own. All are equally sinners, what is “just” about some being given their salvation before even birth, and others no salvation regardless of how much they would want it. Do none of the nonsaved read and love the Bible?

But I ask you a question. If all are predetermined as saved/nonsaved, how do you deal with children that die as babies at say 0-3 years? These are without faith in their own right. Are they:

a) All destroyed regardless
b) All saved regardless
c) only those with the “saved” brand are saved
d) only those with the “nonsaved” brand are even allowed to die as babies.
e) some other alternative?

Alt a) could not be true as it breaks God’s decision. Alt b) would require a certain age where this no longer applies. Alt c) would be grossly unjust as all babies are equal in their own innocence and lack of personal faith. Alt d) is possible, but sounds a little sci fi – and is certainly not very nice for the poor parents of those non-starters. Alt e)????


You say:

quote:

---

Where do you get the idea that salvation is offered? It is a command, and imperative, not an "offer." Does Christ make an "offer" to not be a murderer or an adulterer? It is a command, punishable by death and damnation.

---

I actually equally wonder where YOU get the idea that salvation is a command!!! The fact that it is offered is clear, at least to me, in all the Bible references wherein we are exhorted to believe and be saved. Are you saying that some are “forced” to believe and others are “denied” belief? I would really be interested to see you references to that. I always keep an open mind and would be happy to consider anything you can offer on this.

You also say,

quote:

---

Does Christ make an "offer" to not be a murderer or an adulterer? It is a command, punishable by death and damnation.

---

Actually, yes, I DO think He makes it an offer – it is called free-will. And I do not think you really mean it when you say it is punishable by death and damnation. As you have said earlier, salvation is through belief, not through lack of crime. Are you saying that a murderer or an adulterer cannot ever be saved? That is not what the Bible tells us (e.g. Moses was a murderer!) Non-belief and sins against the Holy Spirit are the only ones I know of that are not forgiven. But I really believe the choice is mine. I AM free to believe or not:

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. “Rom 3:10


It is one thing to say that God has power to protect you from the freewill agents who work for your destruction, but that is not the same as saying that He is willing to grant you that protection. Once again, we should not mix belief with sin. Provided I remain in faith, my inevitable continued sin is of no relevance. It is beyond my control, no matter how much I regret and hate that fact. But faith is an entirely different matter – and that is always at risk - that is why the New Testament puts so much emphasis of works – not as salvatory – but as a measure of how real our faith actually is. And if it is found lacking in works then we are very much at risk of losing our faith when it is tested (and the Bible says it WILL be tested) – why else would Jesus tell us to do what he says and thereby build our faith on solid durable rock not on unstable, shifting sand:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Mat 7:24-27

But I once again thank you sincerely for your responses – sharing views and beliefs and understandings is one of the richest things we can give to each other as we pass briefly – each on their own personal journey towards God.


Markus

quote:

---

JET, Would you wave at Hilger's Farm Market & Restaurant on 30 for me?!!!

---

quote:

---

So far I haven’t been able to get my point across to Hilston. When all else fails, they say, "TRY AN ANALOGY". So here goes:

---

quote:

---

3. Is there internal evidence that conclusively shows an individual that they are in the SavedSet?

---

quote:

---

Histon: "SavedSet"

PotOnWheel: Hilston, can you be more specific about that you mean by "saved" and "salvation?"

Thanks. I'd appreciate it.

PotOnWheel

---

I haven't seen an answer to that one.

And for anyone else, I might also ask what your thinking currently is on the definition (which I won't object to) that "'grace' is God's unmerted favor?"

I think that the em-PHA-sis must be placed on the "God's...favor" part; and regard the "unmerited" part a true side-comment on "favor."

But I think that we then must ask what "favor" is. I think that the "favor" of God is Christ! I don't think that "favor" is an unacted-upon-idea. (Some philosophers have wondered whether God has any, saying of God that he is 'pure actuality'--an interesting question.) Christ IS the "favorable day of the Lord." That "favor" IS THE LIFE that is IN Christ -- His diviinity -- which He shares with us-in-Him by grace. Again: His Life by nature shared with us by grace. God's favor is communion with God. It is unmerited. But it is given by the grace, and by the Holy Spirit we participate in it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


One objection I have to any claim that the three choices Hilston puts on the table is exhaustive is that I see any such claim as being reductionist. Correct me where you see me wrong -- anybody -- but it seems that that whole presentation was a form of only mental decisions being made (on God's part), a 'vertual reality' and nothing else. I'm sure no one at core really thinks that way. But Hilston's emphasis on certain idea-belief-sets, possibly at the exclusion of actual relationship, seems to be so tied to such an abstraction of vertual reality. (Push-comes-to-shove, I don't think he really believes this.)

Within this, then, is the talk of "effectual value." To its core it is an abstraction, and an inferrence. At the core of that kind of thinking is a breaking up into parts, and a subsequent subordination of all of the other parts to one particular part. That is what Hilston's view (not his on his own) has done. But it is not new. Medieval Scholasticism spoke much of whether something was effecacious, whether done this way or that way. Medieval Nominalism liked to break things down into little parts: and from that came the Roman Catholic Mass' idea that certain words spoken by one particular person could replace the whole of the congregation in the Communion--proests taking communion by themselves.

Salvation is not just one part. To present it as just one part is REDUCTIVISTIC!!!

To present "salvation" as a right belief is to dethrone Christ. Such ideas of TEXT replacing LIVING WORD crept into Medieval Europe with the concuring Moors, in the academy of Cordova, Spain. (We do not reduce the Bible at all to "only" a book; but recognize the Word of Christ IN it -- both as a book, and in its reading.)

But Christ is God Incarnate, Life. Not a text.

Luther had some interesting comments (95) made on paper, on a door, to a Pope who claimed to have effecacious merits:

quote:

---

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

---

Luther was asking why, if the Pope had something separate from Christ himself, that was so "effective", why he didn't give it all away. Great sarcasm!!! Luther in another of the 95 thesis contrasted the Pope's cross to the actual cross of Christ.

Does Hilston replace (a) belief in a certain doctrine understood a particular way for (b) the ACTUAL Cross? Christ's ACTUAL DEATH AND RESSURRECTION. Text for Liveing Word? (I don't realy think so; but that seems to be the way he's talking.)


The Gospel of Christ the way Hilston (seems to me) presents it is one where God COULD save, but desires not to. Does Hilston present a picture of God akin to that of this Pope that Luther anathamizes?

If salvation is just an abstraction, a vertual reality, a wim, an opinion, a divine disposition, then why are not all saved?

What I don't like about all this is its reduction of salvation, taking it away from Christ and putting it into a set-of-words.


Key == How we must understand salvation is IN CHRIST, and not within any of the models that we have set up.


When one thinks about "what Jesus did to reconcile man to God" think about THAT: "WHAT Jesus did" and WHAT IT TAKES "to reconcile man to God". And, so, don't immediately (of before hand) jump into the question of "ALL men? Or some?" (To do the later is to try to push salvation into a the reductivist framework of numbers, with will surely give you a distorted view of salvation.)

(T. U. L. I. P. is a bouquet of abstractions, written in the hast of debat, as a reaction, and in connection with fistfights in the street's of Dort. Its not even a very good picture of Reformed churchlife.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ALL that Christ did can not be pushed together into the quantitative question of numerical effectiveness/fulness.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Affirmatively...

Christ paid the price IN FULL. Therefore there is NO OTHER PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID. Indeed Christ is the ONLY ONE who can pay such a price. Only Christ could-and-did lay down his life and take it up again. ANY other payment would have to be on the same basis: but there is NO ONE who can do it -- and "not we ourselved!"

Any debate that has lost sight of that is derailed.

So....

Christ paid the price for ALL MEN. We are one race. Christ paid the price for me -- though by the Holy Spirit he accepted the flesh and blood of a young Jewish girl who said "yes." That flesh-made-divine is OF me and FOR me. Christ and the Spirit, and the Church, then preach to ALL the world this salvation. And to this salvation FOR ALL we proclaim "repent and believe."

Any debate that reduces the fulness of Christ's salvation, 100% paid into a DIFFERENT discussion of who to predict salvation for CHANGES the Gospel.


The descriptions of the Gospel that I quoted in an above post inclueded may things that must be read for themeselves -- and not as part of any debate exterior to our need and God's salvation:

• being made "at one" with God
• reconciled man with God
• God filled human life
• Christ's death destroyed the poser of death
• Christ's one, indivisible act of salvation of man and his world
• Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God.
• It is the recreation of Sheol -- the spiritual condition of being dead -- into the paradise of God. Thus, in and through the death of Jesus Christ, death is made to die. In Him, who is the Resurrection and the Life, man cannot die, but lives forever with God.
• (3) . . . the destruction of death by Christ's own death. It is the transformation of death itself into an act of life.
• He defeated the devil "in his own territory" and on "his own terms." The "wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal.
• He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).

Hilston: God's righteousness demands death as payment for sin.


PoW: OUR sin required salvation. God, in his mercy, provided a temporary solution in the form of mortal death. That way we don't just keep going on, an on, and keep getting worse. (The Heidelberg Catechism says this too, as to the Eastern Orthodox.) But final release from our sin, our saving, required (And it our SIN that REQUIRES this; not God's righteousness.) BOTH the death and resurrection of one who could lay down his life and take it up again!

Hopko: He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself.


Lets resist the temptation of trying to squeeze the message of the Gospel into the (recent) 'traditions' of man!

Salvation is not a philosophical construct; it is a REAL life-saving with real deified flesh, given for us, in the Love of the Father who loves us, the Son who loves us, and the Spirit who loves us. To the glory of God.






Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/29/2002 11:33:26 AM

quote:

---

Hence, it seems to me that the more love you have for others, the less you can enjoy your election.

---

Let's finish this thought...

In this system, the more love you have for God (even over and against others), the MORE that you can enjoy your election.

This makes sense to y'all, right? Since the love of people is, in this case, made DISTINCT from love of God, this works out. The more one loves God as a gracious being who has given UNMERITED salvation to some, then more they can enjoy the fact of THEIR election. This I've talked about. This is why I think many people CONFLATE love for God with love for people. It's easier to deal with. It's easier to say that loving people is EQUAL to loving God...instead of dealing with the possibility that God may do things FOR HIMSELF at the "expense" of others. Oh, and for those who say we should follow the Jesus motif...

Mat 10:34-39
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

and...

Mat 12:46-50
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."


Now before everyone wants to jump on me here, let me tell you what I'm seeing. I am not seeing Jesus denigrate either parent/child relations or the honor of his mother PER SE. What I'm seeing is an overt PRIORITIZATION of these relations in line with his relation to his Father and his Father's purposes. And isn't this a CONSISTENT theme???

Luke 2:43-50
After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" But they did not understand what he was saying to them.


Just me, y'all. But I don't think that ditching your parents for 3 days, worrying them sick is very honorific of them at all. But Jesus's priorities seemed pretty firm, now didn't they? Basically what I want to show is this. I believe that even if we just look at some events from the life of Jesus, we can see that sometimes the "things of God" can be CONTRARY to what many morally sound human beings would consider "good values" And we could see where Jesus's priority OBVIOUSLY lay! Would Jesus ever THINK of saying that the "well-being" of his human counterparts was to be PRIORITIZED OVER God's estimation? Hell, no. And neither would Paul. So why do WE feel the need to do it?

Think about it. This whole "Feeding Master" thing basically asks one to choose between esteeming a PERCEIVED unjust master (via going along with the situation) enjoying Him because of his grace TO THEM or esteeming the suffering people left behind MORE THAN said master and being unhappy at the grace given. Ask yourself what would Jesus or Paul say to this? Honestly.


All and all, maybe we come full circle back to the question I asked LONG before about how one would respond to God if Calvinism genuinely WERE the case. Would we follow our "moral wiring" and reject/oppose this God, definitively thinking Him not worthy of our worship or allegiance? Or would we be theistic bootlickers of a sort, saying something like "Regardless of HOW it looks, God is still just"? hmmmm... IF it's an indictment on my sense of morality that I'd be friggin GLAD to be one of the saved and still esteem God as being crazy cool...then I guess that would just be the case...right?


Doc:

quote:

---

Would this not ruin the party for you? Could you go back to your festivities, your joy, your excitment, with the memory of the starving on your mind? Would you not have to kill a part of yourself, deadly your humanity, to go back to the party?

---

Wouldn't you have to deaden your humanity to give some of the answers that Jesus and Paul give to the apparent prioritization of divine concerns over certain human existential issues? Hmmm...


Don't worry, Doc. I don't blame ya. It's the drugs talking, I know. By the way, can I get some of those?


Beginning to exhale (Ahhhhhhh.),
Sir Mephistopheles

PS: Got catchin up to do. Tentative next things...hopefully
1) Responding to Modes (DEFINITE)
2) Wrapping up the Pascal thing
3) A thread about Prayer and it's PERCEIVED effects. (This will be a cool one.)
4) An idea about "primal spirituality" (ala Harvey Cox) and unintellgible prayer




"This looks like a job for me,
so, everybody, just follow me,
'cause we need a little bit of controversy,
'cause it feels so empty...without me."
--from "Without Me" by Eminem

Edited by - Mephi2K on 07/02/2002 2:00:48 PM

quote:

---

Consider a group of people in the future who are part of an experiment. Ostensibly, the purpose of the experiment is to test the effectiveness of a neuro-computer chip, inserted in the brain, in controlling a person’s commitment to a cause. The group of participants is divided into three groups. Group one is not told whether or not they have been given the chip. Group two is told they were in fact given a chip, but the chip does not ensure that they will complete the assigned task, for it requires a level of volition to be activated. And a third group is told that they were given the chip and the chip ensures that their willingness to complete the project will not wane below a certain level. All are told that IF they stick with the project one year, they will have helped the poor immensely and will also receive a great reward.

---