One Died For All

[Fervent]

Your words sound totally Gnostic! As I recall it was an element of Gnosticism to maintain that flesh itself is tainted/evil. The soul is tainted with sin, not human protoplasm (a machine). Machines cannot be associated with sin. Christ had the same kind of flesh/protoplasm as we do, but His soul was untainted.

Open-ended terms typically have limited scope in normal usage. Example: "Let's start the meeting, since everyone is here." Everyone? In the whole world?

I was not claiming that position, but pointing out that Clare's position in comparing Christ's flesh as a mere superficial resemblance to human flesh crossed the line from borderline to full on gnostic ideas. I'm not sure why you're arguing about open ended terms when the phrase in question doesn't really allow for idiomatic meaning, and the point was to demonstrate that Christ's flesh was the same as ours. Though no where is it really supported the soul is tainted with sin, when in fact the spirit of man is dead and the flesh corrupted by sin which is why both issues had to be addressed with the flesh being put to death in the crucifixion and the spirit being replaced in the resurrection.

 

[JAL]

I was not claiming that position, but pointing out that Clare's position in comparing Christ's flesh as a mere superficial resemblance to human flesh crossed the line from borderline to full on gnostic ideas. I'm not sure why you're arguing about open ended terms when the phrase in question doesn't really allow for idiomatic meaning, and the point was to demonstrate that Christ's flesh was the same as ours. Though no where is it really supported the soul is tainted with sin, when in fact the spirit of man is dead and the flesh corrupted by sin which is why both issues had to be addressed with the flesh being put to death in the crucifixion and the spirit being replaced in the resurrection.

I thought she was saying the same thing I did.
(1) Christ's flesh was protoplasmic just like ours.
(2) This has nothing to do with sin.

Again, associating protoplasm with sin was a tendency sometimes seen in gnosticism and rejected by church consensus as heretical. (Not that the church is always correct but I think in this case it is).

 

[Fervent]

Are you saying that we are saved by Christ as our federal representative? IN other words, by our identification with our Rep? As opposed to substitutionary death quenching God's wrath?

Something along those lines, though representation isn't quite strong enough as Christ's death was instead of ours, but not on account of wrath. It was a penalty paid as a "natural" consequence of sin, since sin is opposed to God's nature and as such is destruction and death. The understanding of the cross has to make sense of Jesus' words about the pharisee's in John when He healed the blind man. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin."

 

[Fervent]

I thought she was saying the same thing I did.
(1) Christ's flesh was protoplasmic just like ours.
(2) This has nothing to do with sin.

Again, associating protoplasm with sin was a tendency sometimes seen in gnosticism and rejected by church consensus as heretical. (Not that the church is always correct but I think in this case it is).

She's arguing for the "sin nature," which traditionally is taken to be in the flesh (with the NIV translators even going so far as to translate the Greek word for flesh as sin nature). My argument is such an understanding isn't true Biblically and is the result of gnostic tendencies entering mainstream theology through Augustine. The material world is corrupted by sin, but it's not a matter of culpability but that sin corrupts everything as a destructive anti-reality. Death entered the world via sin, culpability entered via the law.

 

[JAL]

I don't find your words particularly clear. Maybe I'll reply later today.

 

[JAL]

She's arguing for the "sin nature," which traditionally is taken to be in the flesh (with the NIV translators even going so far as to translate the Greek word for flesh as sin nature). My argument is such an understanding isn't true Biblically and is the result of gnostic tendencies entering mainstream theology through Augustine. The material world is corrupted by sin, but it's not a matter of culpability but that sin corrupts everything as a destructive anti-reality. Death entered the world via sin, culpability entered via the law.

I think you've already concurred that we have a corrupted disposition from the Fall. And maybe you dislike the terminology "sinful nature". But for clarification, what is the locus of this corrupted disposition?
(1) Is it an immaterial soul?
(2) Is it the human protoplasm?
(3) Is it a physical soul?

Most of the church votes for #1 as far as I know. What say you? With all your talk about Christ's sinful flesh, I was thinking you vote for #2. (Which, as far as I know, is gnosticism).

 

[Fervent]

I don't find your words particularly clear. Maybe I'll reply later today.

Post 343? Yeah, it's kind of difficult for me to convey exactly what I mean. My rejection of penal substitution is entirely in the idea of satisfaction, especially when connected with wrath. Christ's death was both penal(on account of the law and our breaking of it) and substitutionary(Christ's death replacing ours) but I do not find the idea that something in God was "satisfied" by it to be something that comes from what's in the Bible. Neither honor, nor justice, nor wrath. In fact, the idea that the problem of sin was on God's end I don't find compelling as I don't see why God would have acted if there was something deficient in that way.

 

[JAL]

And by the way, let's not confuse these two
(1) How is the corruption TRANSMITTED from Adam to us? (Yes, some would say that biology/protoplasm is instrumental here)
(2) What is the ontological nature of this corrupt disposition? Protoplasm?

 

[Fervent]

I think you've already concurred that we have a corrupted disposition from the Fall. And maybe you dislike the terminology "sinful nature". But for clarification, what is the locus of this corrupted disposition?
(1) Is it an immaterial soul?
(2) Is it the human protoplasm?
(3) Is it a physical soul?

Most of the church votes for #1 as far as I know. What say you? With all your talk about Christ's sinful flesh, I was thinking you vote for #2. (Which, as far as I know, is gnosticism).

James tells us what the corruption is. " But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." It's neither in the flesh, nor in the soul. The flesh gives blind desires for food and sex and comfort, and our sinful nature twists these desires by looking to satisfy them as easily as possible.

 

[Fervent]

And by the way, let's not confuse these two
(1) How is the corruption TRANSMITTED from Adam to us? (Yes, some would say that biology/protoplasm is instrumental here)
(2) What is the ontological nature of this corrupt disposition? Protoplasm?

1) It's transmission comes from living in a corrupted world. It's not an inherent feature of the material world, but the corruption is complete and simply being within that corrupted world lends to our corruption. We are born into the world dead, and must be born from above to cleanse the flesh of its sin. 2) I believe you mean metaphysical, and that would be that it has no substance of its own but instead distorts reality.

 

[Clare73]

She's arguing for the "sin nature," which traditionally is taken to be in the flesh (with the NIV translators even going so far as to translate the Greek word for flesh as sin nature). My argument is such an understanding isn't true Biblically and is the result of gnostic tendencies entering mainstream theology through Augustine. The material world is corrupted by sin, but it's not a matter of culpability but that sin corrupts everything as a destructive anti-reality. Death entered the world via sin, culpability entered via the law.

Pual's usage of "in the flesh" means the natural, spirit-unregenerated man, not physical flesh.

Edit: Misspoken. . .corrected in post #357.

 

[Clare73]

Post 343? Yeah, it's kind of difficult for me to convey exactly what I mean. My rejection of penal substitution is entirely in the idea of satisfaction, especially when connected with wrath. Christ's death was both penal(on account of the law and our breaking of it) and substitutionary(Christ's death replacing ours) but I do not find the idea that something in God was "satisfied" by it to be something that comes from what's in the Bible. Neither honor, nor justice, nor wrath. In fact, the idea that the problem of sin was on God's end I don't find compelling as I don't see why God would have acted if there was something deficient in that way.

It comes from the Greek word Paul uses, which in the Greek means satisfied, appeased.

 

[Fervent]

It comes from the Greek word Paul uses, which in the Greek means satisfied, appeased.

No, it comes from Anselm of Canterbury, and that from medeival ideas about honor.

 

[Fervent]

Pual's usage of "in the flesh" means the natural, spirit-unregenerated man, not physical flesh.

And where does Paul make that distinction? Especially considering Paul speaks of his own struggles with the flesh after coming to salvation.

 

[Clare73]

Not quite. . .
Nothing in the OT indicates that the Mosaic covenant would be made obsolete (Heb 8:7,13).
Nothing in the OT indicates that the law could make no one righteous (Ro 3:20).
Nothing in the OT indicates that the Mosaic covenant did not replace the Abrahamic covenant, but was temporarily added to it (Gal 3:17-18).
There's nothing to first to understand in the OT in order to properly understand Heb 8:7, 13 or Ro 3:20.

You can't properly understand the Mosaic covenant or the law without the NT's revelation concerning both of them.

1) Yes, there is. The covenant with Moses is explicitly tied with the land and is entirely contingent on the Israelites upholding it, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel both talk about how their failure to keep it will lead God to replace it. Deuteronomy 4 even predicts this will happen.
2) The command throughout the OT is "be holy, for the Lord is holy." This is a sentiment set apart from the law, and through narrative it is demonstrated that

the main purpose is to restrain evil rather than teach good.

3) Nothing indicates that it did, either. But the Mosaic covenant is explicitly contingent on the adherence to it.
4) Hebrews is almost entirely a commentary on Leviticus, without first understanding Leviticus

Hebrews is bound to be misinterpreted. Without understanding the ordinances and institutions of the Old Testament, the superiority mentioned in Hebrews doesn't really make sense.
It's true that the OT is a shadow compared to the new, but

every book of the Bible must first be understood in its own context before bringing in material outside its context to modify it.

Penal substitution is almost entirely the invention of John Calvin.

Agreed on the obsoleteness of the Mosaic Covenant.

Paul's letters indicate that is not what Israel understood, that they understood it as the means of righteousness.

Nothing indicates that it did, but from Paul we clearly see that is precisely what Israel maintained.
His laboring over righteousness by faith rather than by law-keeping shows that Israel thought it did.

I don't see why Hebrews is bound to be misinterpreted when the content of its revelation connects everything back to the OT, which connections give the true meaning of the OT.

Except where the OT context is incomplete, which cannot be known until NT revelation brought in from outside it shows that it is.
NT revelation governs the meaning of OT revelation.
The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed.

Actually, penal substitution is the work of Paul.
The "curse of the Law" (Dt 27:26) was penal, Gods retributive judgment on sin (Ro 1:18, 2:5-9), which retribution (payment for, punishment) was laid on Christ as our substitute (Gal 3:13).
Penal substitution is revelation of the NT.

 

[Clare73]

No, it comes from Anselm of Canterbury, and that from medeival ideas about honor.

That's not what the Greek shows.

 

[Clare73]

And where does Paul make that distinction? Especially considering Paul speaks of his own struggles with the flesh after coming to salvation.

Oops!

I meant the fallen, sinful nature.

 

[Fervent]

Agreed on the obsoleteness of the Mosaic Covenant.

Paul's letters indicate that is not what Israel understood, that they understood it as the means of righteousness.

Nothing indicates that it did, but from Paul we clearly see that is precisely what Israel maintained.
His laboring over righteousness by faith rather than by law-keeping shows that Israel thought it did.

I don't see why Hebrews is bound to be misinterpreted when the content of its revelation connects everything back to the OT, which connections give the true meaning of the OT.

Actually, penal substitution is the work of Paul.
The "curse of the Law" (Dt 27:26) was penal, Gods retributive judgment on sin (Ro 1:18, 2:5-9), which retribution (payment for, punishment) was laid on Christ as our substitute (Gal 3:13).
Penal substitution is revelation of the NT.

[/QUOTE]
Hebrews is bound to be misinterpreted if the underlying imagery and themes aren't understood, like if someone were to try to explain something in a TV show that references a movie and the person doesn't have the underlying understanding of the movie to get the reference.

As for penal substitution, the objection on my part is to neither of the named aspects and purely to the Calvinist idea of substitution as a satisfaction of God's wrath.

 

[Fervent]

That's not what the Greek shows.

What Greek word do you think carries the meaning that the theological term "satisfaction" holds? And where is this used?

 

[Fervent]

Oops!

I meant the fallen, sinful nature.

Where does Paul use the phrase "sinful nature?" The closest I know of being "sinful flesh" but that does not correspond to the modern claim of a "sin nature." The idea of a "sin nature" comes from Augustine's arguments with Pelagius, and much of that based on an inappropriate translation of "epi" in Jerome's Vulgate that transformed "because all sinned" to "in whom all sinned" that allowed him to maintain his manichean anthropology.