Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[Byfaithalone1]

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.

And I suppose we don't drive our staff into the sea, hoping that it will part.

And I suppose we don't build an ark on dry ground, hoping that it will one day rain.

And I suppose we don't march around a city seven times, hoping that the walls will fall.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

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....

So if a person approaches Scripture the way that you do, he is on the right path? And if a person approaches Scipture differently, he is a fundamentalist? Are you certain that the things that you desire for people are the same things that God desires for them?

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

So if a person approaches Scripture the way that you do, he is on the right path? And if a person approaches Scipture differently, he is a fundamentalist? Are you certain that the things that you desire for people are the same things that God desires for them?

BFA

you are saying something I have not said nor implied... there are more than 2 ways to search for truth.... unless you are equating scripture with truth? God desires that we be fully human, to live out our potential as the humans he created..... I desire that.... don't you?

 

[sentipente]

And I suppose we don't drive our staff into the sea, hoping that it will part.

And I suppose we don't build an ark on dry ground, hoping that it will one day rain.

And I suppose we don't march around a city seven times, hoping that the walls will fall.

BFA

You do realize that in each of these instances there was personal communication. None of the principals in those stories acted based on conclusions they drew after reading an ancient document.

 

[AzA]

There is also the question of things acting within nature. The one miracle coming to mind where an object acted out of its nature was the miracle where the sticks became snakes. In the end those didn't "prove" God's authority because Jannes and Jambres were able to perform it as well.
Water parts under certain conditions. Rain falls under certain conditions. Walls fall under certain conditions. Water even becomes grape juice under certain conditions. Our knowledge of natural things is never complete.

 

[StormyOne]

And I suppose we don't drive our staff into the sea, hoping that it will part.

before getting to the sea, God showed Moses that the staff he held could be transformed into a snake....

And I suppose we don't build an ark on dry ground, hoping that it will one day rain.

Before the building commenced God provided proof and a promise that he was the Creator of all....

And I suppose we don't march around a city seven times, hoping that the walls will fall.

BFA

before the walls fell, the sea was parted..... evidence was given so that they would have enough to believe....

 

[AzA]

Claim:
Faith leaps. (BFA)

Three counterclaims:
1. Faith is based on relationship. (sentipente)
2. Faith is based on true nature. (AzA)
3. Faith is based on evidence. (StormyOne)

I don't think any of the counterclaims suggest that faith requires complete knowledge. That would be silly.
But they all suggest there is, after all, a sound basis for faith.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Claim:
Faith leaps. (BFA)

Three counterclaims:
1. Faith is based on relationship. (sentipente)
2. Faith is based on true nature. (AzA)
3. Faith is based on evidence. (StormyOne)

I don't think any of the counterclaims suggest that faith requires complete knowledge. That would be silly.
But they all suggest there is, after all, a sound basis for faith.

Hopefully, folks reading my posts have not concluded that I believe that one negates the other. Even though there may be circumstances to prepare a person to take a leap, that doesn't minimize the fact that faith leaps.

I've never read a sentence in the Scriptures that specifically instructed my wife to quit her job so she could become a full time mother. However, I have read things in the Scriptures that demonstrate to me what faith looks like. Those things were an encouragement to me when the Spirit convicted my wife that she should quit her job and cut our household income in half. The stories of Scripture were an encouragement that prepared us to take a leap.

The stories of Scripture were not specifically targeted to me. My name is not mentioned in Scripture. Rather, Scripture contains helpful lessons and principles. Perhaps some folks may be reading more into what I've written than I actually meant? I'm not sure.

BFA

P.S. BFA is not suggesting in this post that the Spirit convicts all women to be stay-at-home mothers. Rather, I am simply suggesting that this was the right decision for BFA's family.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

you are saying something I have not said nor implied...

OK. If so, then I'm glad that you're clarifying.

there are more than 2 ways to search for truth....

I would agree that one can find truth through the conviction of the Spirit, through exploring God's creation and through communing with God . . . . .

unless you are equating scripture with truth?

. . . . however, I would also add that one can find truth through the study of the Scriptures.

God desires that we be fully human, to live out our potential as the humans he created..... I desire that.... don't you?

I desire to know God. I know what the phrase "being human" means to me, and I don't particularly desire that (not sure what the phrase "being human" means to you).

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Faith does not leap. Faith is a context. Humans leap based on faith.

 

[sentipente]

I know what the phrase "being human" means to me, and I don't particularly desire that.

BFA

That is a strange claim when we consider that God, whom you claim you wish to know, decided to make us human. Do you think He made an error in judgment?

 

[AzA]

Hopefully, folks reading my posts have not concluded that I believe that one negates the other. Even though there may be circumstances to prepare a person to take a leap, that doesn't minimize the fact that faith leaps.
<snip>
The stories of Scripture were not specifically targeted to me. My name is not mentioned in Scripture. Rather, Scripture contains helpful lessons and principles. Perhaps some folks may be reading more into what I've written than I actually meant? I'm not sure.

Perhaps.
The rhetorical questions in your response to Sentipente's "we don't treat cars like airplanes" might have given that impression.

Do we always know where we're going? I think we rarely do. But the journey is not a blind grope if we trust the basis (Basis) for our walk.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Faith does not leap. Faith is a context. Humans leap based on faith.

On this point, we are not saying different things.

That is a strange claim when we consider that God, whom you claim you wish to know, decided to make us human. Do you think He made an error in judgment?

"Being human" carries with it a connotation that you may not have meant. In my mind, "being human" carries with a connotation of being sinful. That's why I said "I know what the phrase "being human" means to me." I have not concluded that God created us for the express purpose of entering into sin. Rather, I have concluded that God created even though He knew we would sin.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Do we always know where we're going? I think we rarely do. But the journey is not a blind grope if we trust the basis (Basis) for our walk.

Agreed.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

"Being human" carries with it a connotation that you may not have meant. In my mind, "being human" carries with a connotation of being sinful. That's why I said "I know what the phrase "being human" means to me."

I hate to have to tell you this, but you have bought into a lie. Being human does not mean being sinful.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I hate to have to tell you this, but you have bought into a lie. Being human does not mean being sinful.

Connotations are attached to phrases. That is a limitation of language. It seems only reasonable for me to clarify the intent of a phrase prior to assuming that I've understood what the person (in this case Stormy) meant when using the phrase. That doesn't suggest buying into anything. Rather, it suggests that I'm trying to understand the point being made. By raising the point, I sought to clarify whether Stormy was referring to the common use of the phrase relating to "you're only human" or "I'm only human."

BFA

 

[AzA]

What else but human should we be?
I recall having to learn the saying "Godliness -- God-like-ness -- is the goal to be reached."
Is it?
On the one hand, we were made like God from the very beginning.
And on the other hand, according to the edenic story, grasping to be what we were not began our farce here.
So... what else but human should we be?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

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.

Actually all those other fundamentalist "isms" are based upon the concept of fundamentalist Christians who are intolerant of other beliefs or interpretations based upon the publication of the pamphlets called the "Fundamentals" around 1910. So saying a fundamentalist Islam is merely attaching the derogatory fundamentalist term without having any historical or linguistic merit. Which is one reason that people have moved away from using that term to such terms as radical Islam etc.

A good example of the effects of a fundamentalist conception (in this case Adventist as opposed to following the "fundamentals" documents) is found in this quote from Evin Taylor on his recent Atoday blog, (you have to subscribe to be able to read it so I won't post the link)

Obviously this issue is too large and too complex to deal with here in any detailed manner. However, in the context of this discussion, I only wish to suggest that in the interest of clarity, discussants might wish to express their views about this question. Let me pose the most extreme position that one might hold: The Adventist theological system is a set of conceptual propositions all directly revealed by God to a specially appointed set of humans--ancient and modern--and is, because of this, completely and totally without error. On this basis, one can know without question that any concept or idea that deviates from any element of the current Adventist theological system is in error. I would assume that anyone espousing that view would be absolutely certain as to what the "Adventist theological system" includes.

Obviously, if one agrees with this position, the veracity of a concept such as the operation of evolutionary processes over hundreds of millions of years must, on its face, be completely erroneous. If one says that he agrees with the above stated proposition, then it seems that there can be little middle ground concerning this topic. However, if one's theological assumptions are not congruent with the proposition outlined above in whole or in any part, there seems to me to be room for continuing a dialogue.

So when we say fundamentalist we say that they hold to presuppositions which they have historically held with the publication which gave them their name. Anything contrary is assumed to be error. And that is how we use it however improperly for other things that some people call fundamentalist.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

What else but human should we be?
I recall having to learn the saying "Godliness -- God-like-ness -- is the goal to be reached."
Is it?
On the one hand, we were made like God from the very beginning.
And on the other hand, according to the edenic story, grasping to be what we were not began our farce here.
So... what else but human should we be?

We don't have much choice, do we?

My goal is to know God, not to be God.

Have fun,
BFA

 

[AzA]

Actually all those other fundamentalist "isms" are based upon the concept of fundamentalist Christians who are intolerant of other beliefs or interpretations based upon the publication of the pamphlets called the "Fundamentals" around 1910. So saying a fundamentalist Islam is merely attaching the derogatory fundamentalist term without having any historical or linguistic merit. Which is one reason that people have moved away from using that term to such terms as radical Islam etc.

<snip>
So when we say fundamentalist we say that they hold to presuppositions which they have historically held with the publication which gave them their name. Anything contrary is assumed to be error. And that is how we use it however improperly for other things that some people call fundamentalist.

I understand the distinction you're making. Am possibly coming at it more loosely with the back-up of history and political science, not just Christian or religious sociology. As a result, I think subbing "fundamentalist" with "radical" also has issues, more or less the same ones as you say accrue to "fundamentalist": "radical" has its own very specific meaning but is easily misapplied. But let's move beyond the label to the mindset... we could get bogged down in labelling discussions for a very long time, lol!

I said I was using the term to describe an approach to ideas, the search for meaning, and Others. By that I meant that any such -ism or -ology would present as a closed system, unable to learn (perhaps because it believed it had already received the last revelation for mankind), unwilling to receive as brethren any outside that system unless they joined that system, and defining growth as "increased certainty" rather than as "increased meaning". The sum of experience might well be "being sure," and because life is complicated, "being coherent" has to take a back seat to certainty if it's in the same car at all. These traits are the reason I see this phenomenon across religions, across politics, and across cultures.

In day-to-day human relationships the phenomenon might show as the unwillingness to try out new glasses, to value the insights of others regardless of their premises, or to value the different... as the tendency to enslave, convert, or kill -- physically or metaphorically. (My mother once called the latter "the jihad trifecta." But the Muslims did not invent it.)

That's where I'm coming from with my description and why I resisted our limiting it to a certain subsection of Adventism.