Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's another excellent framework question, and I'm sure my answer will probably incite more criticism.Why would Jesus have died for the church?
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.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"
Not so.
Only Israelites were subject to the law. And not since the Cross.
And now the controversy begins. Or it would if I were to answer, but that's not the subject of this thread.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.
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: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.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?
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 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).
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.”
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.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.
Great minds thinking alike.....right (yours and John Duns Scotus's)?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
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)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.
To my mind......I believe He demonstrated His love for us in that way as that's what our minds recognize as love:Why would Jesus have obtained the church with his blood? Why would he have died for the church?
Okay.....gotchaYes, 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.
Where Yahweh Rules.So, what is the Gospel? That is, what is the kingdom?
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?
Not so.
Only Israelites were subject to the law. And not since the Cross.
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.you had to be an Israelite to be saved.
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).It has changed in its form, because we now have communion with God which was not possible before Jesus.
Great minds thinking alike.....right (yours and John Duns Scotus's)?
PSA theory never really sat right with me....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?