The Gospel

[mkgal1]

Why would Jesus have died for the church?

That's another excellent framework question, and I'm sure my answer will probably incite more criticism.

I believe Jesus died on the cross to demonstrate His love for us and to defeat death and sin. In the words of Athanasius of Alexander:

"That which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved"​

 

[Residential Bob]

That's another excellent framework question, and I'm sure my answer will probably incite more criticism.

I believe Jesus died on the cross to demonstrate His love for us and to defeat death and sin. In the words of Athanasius of Alexander:

"That which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved"​

Christ died for our sins, certainly, as St. Paul told the Corinthians. He also died specifically for the church, as Paul also says, and so does Luke.

How would you explain that?

 

[ladodgers6]

Not so.

Only Israelites were subject to the law. And not since the Cross.

Okay, clear something up for me. If only the Israelites were subject to the Law. And the Law brings knowledge of sin. And where there is no law, there is no sin. How were everyone else held accountable?

 

[Residential Bob]

Okay, clear something up for me. If only the Israelites were subject to the Law. And the Law brings knowledge of sin. And where there is no law, there is no sin. How were everyone else held accountable?

And now the controversy begins. Or it would if I were to answer, but that's not the subject of this thread.

And I'd rather just play it safe.

 

[Tree of Life]

And now the controversy begins. Or it would if I were to answer, but that's not the subject of this thread.

And I'd rather just play it safe.

You've already demonstrated yourself to be a heretic! Why play it safe now?

 

[mkgal1]

Christ died for our sins, certainly, as St. Paul told the Corinthians. He also died specifically for the church, as Paul also says, and so does Luke.

How would you explain that?

I don't believe in the penal substitutionary atonement theory - but am in agreement with the Francisan's understanding of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. It's probably a mystery so deep that we can always continue to learn and understand more. So I don't misrepresent the doctrine, I'll share a quote:

Quoting from this link: John Duns Scotus: His View of Christ
A key point of the Franciscan/Scotistic view, which catches many people by surprise, is this: The Word of God did not become a creature, a human being, because Adam and Eve sinned. Rather, the Divine Word became flesh because, from all eternity, God wanted Jesus Christ to be creation’s most perfect work. Christ was to be the model and crown of creation and of humanity — the glorious destination toward which all creation is straining. In short, the Word would have been incarnated in Christ even if the first man and woman had never sinned.​

NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF GOD
According to Scotus, God’s first intention — from all eternity — was that human nature be glorified by being united to the divine Word. And this was to happen regardless of the first humans’ innocence or sinfulness. To say that the Incarnation of Christ was an afterthought of God, dependent on Adam and Eve’s fall, would be to base the rich Christian theology of Incarnation on sin! Theologians could do better than that — and Duns Scotus did.

Given humanity’s sin, the way Christ eventually came was in the form of a savior whose great act of love and self-surrender set us free.

In Scotus’ view, however, the God-man would have entered creation and human history as the perfect model of the human being fully alive under any circumstance. It was not Adam who provided the blueprint or pattern that God used in shaping the humanity of Christ.

It was the other way around, insists Scotus: Christ was the model in God’s mind according to which Adam and Eve, as well as the rest of the human race, were created. We can rightly say, therefore, that the Incarnation was not simply some kind of “Plan B arrangement,” or “last-minute cure,” to offset the sin of Adam and Eve. On the contrary, it was God’s “Plan A” from the beginning.

Scotus’ viewpoint has gained prominence in recent times. It has been adopted by such notable Catholic thinkers as Gerard Manley Hopkins, the Jesuit poet; Thomas Merton, the Trappist writer; and Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit-priest-anthropologist. “Christ is not an afterthought in the divine place,” writes Chardin. “He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all things.”​

 

[mkgal1]

And the other side of it is sin and death (God's enemies).

From R.C. Sproul ----->The Bible describes death as an enemy. It is not the only enemy of the Christian, but it is described as the “last enemy.” In 1 Corinthians, Paul affirms that Christ will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet, and the last of those enemies will be death (15:25–26). It should be a great comfort to the believer to know that the one in whom he places his trust is Christus Victor. We see this clearly in Hebrews, where the author describes Jesus as our archegos, or the “supreme champion” of His people.

Both 1 Corinthians and Hebrews harken back to Psalm 8, in which the “son of man” fulfills the destiny of the Second Adam and receives from me Father dominion over creation. This placing of all things in or under subjection to Christ has both a present and a future dimension. In His ascension, Christ was invested as the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is already at the right hand of the Father and reigns over all creation. But the whole of creation is not yet in willing submission or subjection to Him. In short, Christ has rebellious subjects. Satan himself is still in rebellion.

The connection between Satan and death is important: “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14–15).

Here it is declared that the devil had the power of death until that power was wrenched away from him by Christ. We must remember that any power or authority Satan ever has is a delegated authority, as the ultimate authority over death and everything else is God. But Satan’s delegated authority over death is taken from him by Christ. The irony is that Christ’s victory over the devil and the power of death is accomplished by means of death. In His death, Jesus is victorious over death. Death cannot hold Him.

Something glorious and decisive did take place on the cross with respect to death. The sting of death was removed by the captain of our salvation. Paul writes: “So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?’ The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:54–57).~ The Last Enemy by R.C. Sproul​

 

[mkgal1]

Christ died for our sins, certainly, as St. Paul told the Corinthians. He also died specifically for the church, as Paul also says, and so does Luke.

How would you explain that?

I'm not sure if my other posts addressed what you are getting at here.


"Died specifically for the church" - as opposed to individual salvation....is that what you're pointing out? I think that's pointing to His value on community and love. Unless there is community - I don't believe love can be properly demonstrated (and the Trinity is a foundational place to look for that, in my belief).

 

[Residential Bob]

I'm not sure if my other posts addressed what you are getting at here.


"Died specifically for the church" - as opposed to individual salvation....is that what you're pointing out? I think that's pointing to His value on community and love. Unless there is community - I don't believe love can be properly demonstrated (and the Trinity is a foundational place to look for that, in my belief).

If I've learned one thing from these forums, it's that Wright was right; modern western thought has indeed infiltrated first-century Jewish culture.

Just as I have presented the kingdom as the Gospel - very little conjecture or embellishment - I'm asking why Christ died for the church. Very plainly. Here are a couple of verses:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. (Eph 5:25)

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
​

Why would Jesus have obtained the church with his blood? Why would he have died for the church?

Maybe if we can answer this question, we can understand the kingdom.

 

[Pneuma3]

I don't believe in the penal substitutionary atonement theory - but am in agreement with the Francisan's understanding of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. It's probably a mystery so deep that we can always continue to learn and understand more. So I don't misrepresent the doctrine, I'll share a quote:

Quoting from this link: John Duns Scotus: His View of Christ
A key point of the Franciscan/Scotistic view, which catches many people by surprise, is this: The Word of God did not become a creature, a human being, because Adam and Eve sinned. Rather, the Divine Word became flesh because, from all eternity, God wanted Jesus Christ to be creation’s most perfect work. Christ was to be the model and crown of creation and of humanity — the glorious destination toward which all creation is straining. In short, the Word would have been incarnated in Christ even if the first man and woman had never sinned.​

NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF GOD
According to Scotus, God’s first intention — from all eternity — was that human nature be glorified by being united to the divine Word. And this was to happen regardless of the first humans’ innocence or sinfulness. To say that the Incarnation of Christ was an afterthought of God, dependent on Adam and Eve’s fall, would be to base the rich Christian theology of Incarnation on sin! Theologians could do better than that — and Duns Scotus did.

Given humanity’s sin, the way Christ eventually came was in the form of a savior whose great act of love and self-surrender set us free.

In Scotus’ view, however, the God-man would have entered creation and human history as the perfect model of the human being fully alive under any circumstance. It was not Adam who provided the blueprint or pattern that God used in shaping the humanity of Christ.

It was the other way around, insists Scotus: Christ was the model in God’s mind according to which Adam and Eve, as well as the rest of the human race, were created. We can rightly say, therefore, that the Incarnation was not simply some kind of “Plan B arrangement,” or “last-minute cure,” to offset the sin of Adam and Eve. On the contrary, it was God’s “Plan A” from the beginning.

Scotus’ viewpoint has gained prominence in recent times. It has been adopted by such notable Catholic thinkers as Gerard Manley Hopkins, the Jesuit poet; Thomas Merton, the Trappist writer; and Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit-priest-anthropologist. “Christ is not an afterthought in the divine place,” writes Chardin. “He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all things.”​

Many believe that adam and his fall was all part of Gods plan and I have countered that with Jesus Christ is and always was the plan. now I just might have to read a little more of this Duns Scotus

 

[mkgal1]

If I've learned one thing from these forums, it's that Wright was right; modern western thought has indeed infiltrated first-century Jewish culture.

I'm sorry to be so picky about semantics, but this has me a bit confused. Do you mean something like: "modern western thought has revised first-century Jewish culture"? It can't "infiltrate" it - can it - since that culture is in the past.

 

[mkgal1]

Many believe that adam and his fall was all part of Gods plan and I have countered that with Jesus Christ is and always was the plan. now I just might have to read a little more of this Duns Scotus

Great minds thinking alike.....right (yours and John Duns Scotus's)?

PSA theory never really sat right with me.....I don't think I ever actually "embraced" it, but for so many years it was the ONLY option I'd heard of. When I read about what the Franciscan's believe - it all fell into place and I could genuinely love ALL of God (all that's been revealed). I had trouble with the whole idea of a "loving God" that punished and tortured His own son "for us". I don't really appreciate "gifts" like that.

 

[Residential Bob]

I'm sorry to be so picky about semantics, but this has me a bit confused. Do you mean something like: "modern western thought has revised first-century Jewish culture"? It can't "infiltrate" it - can it - since that culture is in the past.

Yes, infiltrate. We inject our culture into the New Testament, and so as Paul says, we are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." (2 Tm 3:7)

Such is our modern scholarship.

 

[mkgal1]

Why would Jesus have obtained the church with his blood? Why would he have died for the church?

To my mind......I believe He demonstrated His love for us in that way as that's what our minds recognize as love:

John 15:13 ~There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.​

​

 

[mkgal1]

Yes, infiltrate. We inject our culture into the New Testament, and so as Paul says, we are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tm 3:7)

Such is our modern scholarship.

Okay.....gotcha

I agree. It's difficult to remove our presumptions and bias, but absolutely necessary.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So, what is the Gospel? That is, what is the kingdom?

Where Yahweh Rules.

John 3:19 And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world ...
John 3:19 And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.
And the judgment is based on this fact: God's light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.

Revelation 9:20 Now the rest of mankind who were not killed by these ...
Revelation 9:20 Now the rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands. They did not stop worshiping demons and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk.
The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, ...

 

[mkgal1]

Okay, clear something up for me. If only the Israelites were subject to the Law. And the Law brings knowledge of sin. And where there is no law, there is no sin. How were everyone else held accountable?

Romans 2:14-15 ~ Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. ​

 

[LightLoveHope]

Not so.

Only Israelites were subject to the law. And not since the Cross.

If one looks at salvation, Jesus is the fulfilment of the law, not its removal.
Paul goes on to say love fulfils the law.
He puts this point, live by the Spirit, in love and you gain eternal life.
Live by the passions of this world you gain death and destruction.

Before Jesus showed the deeper reality of love and the Kingdom of God reigning in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, with hearts purified, cleansed and made Holy, you had to be an Israelite to be saved. If not you were judged for you sin, and condemned to perish.

The law described what it meant to please God. The sacrifices were there to cover the sin, that easily comes as we walk the road of sanctification.

Jesus was the cornerstone, the foundation, the very centre of the building of Gods Kingdom, and the law has not gone away. It has changed in its form, because we now have communion with God which was not possible before Jesus.

If one wants a purely dispensational faith, this is what is being expressed above.
But how could pagans be saved? Some would say by honestly following their own faith, whatever that was. The problem is this from human sacrifice, child sacrifice, to worshiping trees, the sky and whatever took your fancy.

 

[mkgal1]

I agree with most of what you posted, LightLoveHope, but I'm not so sure about these points:

you had to be an Israelite to be saved.

Was Rahab an Israelite? Since she is considered to have "betrayed her people" by assisting the Israelites - I would take that to mean she *wasn't* an Israelite...correct? Yet these passages seem to suggest that she was "saved" (the text says " considered righteous" "by faith") - she was even privileged to be included in Jesus' family tree.

Hebrews 11:31
James 2:25

It has changed in its form, because we now have communion with God which was not possible before Jesus.

I wouldn't say the law has actually changed - just that in the fulfillment of the law it was made more clear what the purpose was. IOW.....God's nature was revealed in Jesus (but there were some that God's nature was revealed to prior to Jesus - like David for instance).

 

[Pneuma3]

Great minds thinking alike.....right (yours and John Duns Scotus's)?

My mom would say and ....fools seldom differ....lol
So maybe me and Scotus's (my name is Scott by the way)are just fools for Christ. lol

PSA theory never really sat right with me....

A.P. Adams has some good thought's on this that you might enjoy but I can't seem to fined the link.