Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[Adventtruth]

Truth should not frighten one whose faith is firm. As the Israeli Orthodox rabbi and scholar Mordecai Breuer writes: "Unable to withstand the contradiction (between faith and modern biblical scholarship) most men of faith consciously avoid biblical scholarship in order to safeguard their traditional belief." Those who hold that people should never explore such questions have very circumscribed notions of why God gave us brains. The Talmud ringingly declares: "God's seal is truth" (Shabbat 55a).

Whatever.

AT

 

[sentipente]

Whatever.

AT

Something tells me your Lord is disappointed with that response.

 

[JohnT]

Agreed

Sentepente wrote

Scripture is not inherently Christian. There is Christians Scripture and there is non-Christian Scripture. All Scripture came from the same source. Their differences reflect the human agencies. Claiming that only Christian writings are Scripture exposes your lack of objectivity on this subject.

He seems to be unaware of the oxymoron in that statement I quoted

John T

If we are talking about Christian beliefs, then there is a source for all Christian thought: Scripture. Christian thought then is derived from Scripture. When we say, "Scripture says..." we have a source for our belief, and can back it up.

Stormy retorted
absurd.... it is only "backed up" as you phrase it IF those to whom you speak agree that the bible is authoritative

If Scripture is NOT authoritative; it is relative, as he alleges, then there is no difference between that, the Kama Sutra, or the Gilgamesh Epic, or the Magna Carta. (That is a logical statement)

The implication of that belief is horrendous, for it goes to the issue of soteriology. It is contrary to what Jesus says about Scripture and Himself.

 

[sentipente]

If Scripture is NOT authoritative; it is relative, as he alleges, then there is no difference between that, the Kama Sutra, or the Gilgamesh Epic, or the Magna Carta. (That is a logical statement)

The implication of that belief is horrendous, for it goes to the issue of soteriology. It is contrary to what Jesus says about Scripture and Himself.

It does not. Your problem is that your salvation is dependent on an ancient text. My salvation is dependent on the Creator. He is not a creation of the Bible.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So it does not even speak for God? Even the bible disagrees with you.

(2Pe 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2Pe 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



AT

The problem of course is telling what is prophecy from what was the opinions or ideas of the writers. The prophecy would be the part given by God as Prophecy means forth telling a message from God. So obviously if something actually is a prophecy it is from God and it came through the power of God. Interpretation of what is from God and what is not is another subject of course. If a prophecy was from God that said to kill sabbath breakers and adulters and God does not change then that would make those Old Testament statements prophecies of God who speaks the truth and never changes. Were those statements in the Old testament prophecies or were they perhaps instructions for a specific time and place given with good intention by people who were inspired by God to lead?

 

[AzA]

I think it's fair to dissociate the following:
(a) a message
(b) the interpretation of the message
(c) the comprehension of the message
(d) the application of the message today
(e) the application of the message tomorrow

It's a matter of record that both American slaveholders and American abolitionists appealed to the same scriptures. Yet neither would have agreed that their God was confused. Retrospectively we argue that some were misguided in their appeals. It's more than possible that our grandchildren will do the same to us.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Post by AzA: I think it's fair to dissociate the following:
(a) a message
(b) the interpretation of the message
(c) the comprehension of the message
(d) the application of the message today
(e) the application of the message tomorrow

It's a matter of record that both American slaveholders and American abolitionists appealed to the same scriptures. Yet neither would have agreed that their God was confused. Retrospectively we argue that some were misguided in their appeals. It's more than possible that our grandchildren will do the same to us.

Very good post, AzA!

The life choices and experiences of many to whom you refer as "fundamentalists" demonstrate that they are in fact capable of change and are capable of rejecting certain traditions. It would seem that you simultaneously find fault with them for (1) making change and rejecting traditions and (2) hating change and loving traditions. Perhaps you ought to concern yourself more with RC and less with people you barely know.

Here's hoping for more substantive discussion, and less discussion about our impressions of those who post here . . . .

Just a suggestion,
BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Here's hoping for more substantive discussion, and less discussion about our impressions of those who post here . . . .

and this statement could have been said days ago when some here were suggesting who was and was not a christian among other things.... not slamming you for not saying it BFA, but let's face it, RC, or myself did not initiate this recent madness...

Lastly, and I am done with this, what does it say about this fourm when a person can be accused of being a poser, not being a christian, thinking irrationally, etc and the accusers are not taken to task? Only when some of us defend ourselves is the appeal made to "have more substantive discussions...."

 

[Byfaithalone1]

and this statement could have been said days ago when some here were suggesting who was and was not a christian among other things.... not slamming you for not saying it BFA, but let's face it, RC, or myself did not initiate this recent madness...

Lastly, and I am done with this, what does it say about this fourm when a person can be accused of being a poser, not being a christian, thinking irrationally, etc and the accusers are not taken to task? Only when some of us defend ourselves is the appeal made to "have more substantive discussions...."

Stormy,

Did you see the post set out in the link below? I'm never online during the weekend, but I posted the attached as soon as I logged in on Monday morning and read this thread.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48074089&postcount=194

Regardless, I stand behind my statement that the life choices and experiences of many to whom RC refers as "fundamentalists" demonstrate that they are in fact capable of change and are capable of rejecting certain traditions.

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

Did you see the post set out in the link below? I was not online during the weekend and posted the attached as soon as I read this thread on Monday morning.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48074089&postcount=194

BFA

saw it..... good post, good points.... I apologize for suggesting that you had not addressed the current conflict.....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

saw it..... good post, good points.... I apologize for suggesting that you had not addressed the current conflict.....

Not a problem. I'm looking forward to discussing other things with you, and have appreciated our dialogue these past few months.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Regardless, I stand behind my statement that the life choices and experiences of many to whom RC refers as "fundamentalists" demonstrate that they are in fact capable of change and are capable of rejecting certain traditions.

BFA

Exceptions don't make the rule! One who leaves fundamentalism is no longer a fundamentalist. The statement was of those currently in fundamentalism, currently stuck in their perferred rut. When you tell me to not write about what I don't know about when you know even less it only makes you look silly.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Exceptions don't make the rule! One who leaves fundamentalism is no longer a fundamentalist. The statement was of those currently in fundamentalism, currently stuck in their perferred rut. When you tell me to not write about what I don't know about when you know even less it only makes you look silly.

Your post begs a couple of questions:

(1) Have former SDAs changed in their system of beliefs? Do former SDAs hold the same system of beliefs that they held while they were SDAs? Are former SDAs capable of change?

(2) Who is qualified to discuss the progression (or lack thereof) that characterizes the experience of many former SDAs?
​

BFA

 

[AzA]

Fundamentalism is not a religious denomination; it is an approach to "truth," whatever one has decided that truth is.

 

[StormyOne]

Fundamentalism is not a religious denomination; it is an approach to "truth," whatever one has decided that truth is.

correct... people can be fundamentalist in their approach to truth and be sda.... when they decide to leave adventism, their approach to truth can still be fundamentalist.... meaning little change in their core beliefs or values....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

correct... people can be fundamentalist in their approach to truth and be sda.... when they decide to leave adventism, their approach to truth can still be fundamentalist.... meaning little change in their core beliefs or values....

"Little change" according to whom? Who makes the determination regarding how much has changed? How much do we know about the changes in the hearts of fellow posters? Does God change everything in a man instantaneously? Are there examples where God changed people more gradually? Do we have faith that He will do what He has promised to do, even when we don't see the evidence that we think we should see?

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

"Little change" according to whom? Who makes the determination regarding how much has changed? How much do we know about the changes in the hearts of fellow posters? Does God change everything in a man instantaneously? Are there examples where God changed people more gradually? Do we have faith that He will do what He has promised to do, even when we don't see the evidence that we think we should see?

BFA

change according to the person... I am not referring to changes in the members here, but how people approach finding "the truth." If a person believes that the bible is error free and infallible as an adventist, if they leave adventism, do they leave the belief that the bible is error free and infallible? Probably not.... that is what I am talking about when I speak of core beliefs....

As for how God does what he does... he does it anyway he wishes to do it correct? Evidence gives us foundation for our faith... God does not ask us to have faith in him without providing evidence... that is how John summed it up was it not?

John 20: "30, Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

 

[sentipente]

"Do we have faith that He will do what He has promised to do, even when we don't see the evidence that we think we should see?

BFA

It is a false premise that this is a healthy approach to life. God did not necessarily promise something simply because we find words that could indicate that in the Bible.

We don't take drive our cars off the cliff hoping that they will act as aeroplanes.

 

[AzA]

BFA, Stormy -- I'm apparently not talking about the same thing you are. For me the issue is not measuring posters, nor limiting fundamentalism to one's concept of a particular book.
We have fundamentalist Adventists, fundamentalist nondenominational Christians, fundamentalist atheists, fundamentalist humanists, fundamentalist spiritualists... Fundamentalism doesn't label any one domain or a system of belief; it describes an approach to ideas, the search for meaning, and one's relationships with Others.

 

[StormyOne]

BFA, Stormy -- I'm apparently not talking about the same thing you are. For me the issue is not measuring posters, nor limiting fundamentalism to one's concept of a particular book.
We have fundamentalist Adventists, fundamentalist nondenominational Christians, fundamentalist atheists, fundamentalist humanists, fundamentalist spiritualists... Fundamentalism doesn't label any one domain or a system of belief; it describes an approach to ideas, the search for meaning, and one's relationships with Others.

understood, my example was highlighting how that approach might be manifested here.... your point is one that is often made with the suggestion that there is little difference between a fundamentalist christian, a fundamentalist jew or a fundamentalist muslim....