• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Courtroom or hospital

R

Rebel

Active Member
Since Anselm and later the Protestant Reformers, God has been seen as a feudal lord or judge, man as a criminal, and issues of salvation as taking place in a legal setting, a legal sense, as in a courtroom. The early Christians saw God as a physician, man as a sick patient, and salvation issues as taking place in a hospital -- that is, with salvation as medicine for the soul and body.

So, which is a more accurate and scriptural picture? If you say it's the picture of God, man, and salvation that Anselm and the Protestant Reformers had, why was this view not held for 1000 - 1500 years after Jesus Christ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There are multiple views of man's salvation in scripture.


In Genesis Jesus is seen as the sacrificial Lamb

In Exodus Jesus is seen as the deliverer

In Ruth Jesus is seen as the Kinsman redeemer

In Isaiah Jesus is seen as the suffering servant

In Matthew Jesus is seen as the Messiah

In both Thessalonians Jesus is seen as the King to return soon

In Hebrews Jesus is seen as the providing the blood that washes away our sin

In Revelation Jesus is seen as the King of all Kings


I do not have time to go through them all but you get the point. Trying to portray one single view as being the only view of God in relation to man and our salvation is myopic and unorthodox. What has traditionally been held to is a plethora of views of God as God has chosen to reveal Himself that way. Riding this one horse pony of some singular view of God and His atoning work on mans behalf is just absurd. I do not say that to be rude but to express the level of ridiculousness to try to do what you are wanting to do. I suggest you study the word more with an exegetical mindset rather than an eisegetical one.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Revmitchell said:
There are multiple views of man's salvation in scripture.


In Genesis Jesus is seen as the sacrificial Lamb

In Exodus Jesus is seen as the deliverer

In Ruth Jesus is seen as the Kinsman redeemer

In Isaiah Jesus is seen as the suffering servant

In Matthew Jesus is seen as the Messiah

In both Thessalonians Jesus is seen as the King to return soon

In Hebrews Jesus is seen as the providing the blood that washes away our sin

In Revelation Jesus is seen as the King of all Kings


I do not have time to go through them all but you get the point. Trying to portray one single view as being the only view of God in relation to man and our salvation is myopic and unorthodox. What has traditionally been held to is a plethora of views of God as God has chosen to reveal Himself that way. Riding this one horse pony of some singular view of God and His atoning work on mans behalf is just absurd. I do not say that to be rude but to express the level of ridiculousness to try to do what you are wanting to do. I suggest you study the word more with an exegetical mindset rather than an eisegetical one.
Click to expand...

And I am asking why was this later view not held or taught in the churches for a century and more after Christ. If it is to be found in the scriptures, why did no one see it for 1000 years? Can you explain that? It is more than coincidence that this view came into being at the same time as medieval feudalism.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
just-want-peace said:
Trying to pigeon-hole God gives rise to the Benny Hinns, Joel Osteens, et al that are so prevalent today!
Click to expand...

You could directly address the issue.

And those you mentioned have no more in common with the early churches in this matter than medieval Roman Catholicism or the Magisterial Reformers do.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Fairly recently, I have come to see that Eastern Christianity is right on many things. But unfortunately it's wrong on other things, like baptism, it's definition of apostolic succession, and Mary's ever-virginity.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Revmitchell said:
So let me get this straight, it is your position that we are not ever guilty of sin?


I am just asking for clarification.
Click to expand...

No, my position is that we are guilty only of our own personal sins, not Adam's sin. We suffer the consequences of his sin, just as all creation does -- that is, weakness, disorder, a damaged will and spirit, decay, and death. But we are not guilty because of what Adam did.

I don't believe in total depravity, as it is understood in Protestantism. But neither do I believe the RCC view. I think the Anabaptists, many of them, are closest to the early church view in this regard.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
No, my position is that we are guilty only of our own personal sins, not Adam's sin. We suffer the consequences of his sin, just as all creation does -- that is, weakness, disorder, a damaged will and spirit, decay, and death. But we are not guilty because of what Adam did.

I don't believe in total depravity, as it is understood in Protestantism. But neither do I believe the RCC view. I think the Anabaptists, many of them, are closest to the early church view in this regard.
Click to expand...

First protestantism is not all consumed with total depravity. I certainly do not hold to it. Now, lets deal with one another not what everyone else believes.


Since you claim to be guilty of sin and you acknowledge that you are in fact guilty can you show me from scripture that you are guilty?
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Revmitchell said:
First protestantism is not all consumed with total depravity. I certainly do not hold to it. Now, lets deal with one another not what everyone else believes.


Since you claim to be guilty of sin and you acknowledge that you are in fact guilty can you show me from scripture that you are guilty?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking. The reason I am guilty of sin is because I have personally sinned -- the sin is mine. I am not guilty of Adam's sin.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
I'm not sure what you're asking. The reason I am guilty of sin is because I have personally sinned -- the sin is mine. I am not guilty of Adam's sin.
Click to expand...

I am not looking for the reason why you are guilty I am looking for you to show me where in scripture you learned you were guilty and I would also like to know your view of just what we are guilty of specifically and where in scripture you find that.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Revmitchell said:
I am not looking for the reason why you are guilty I am looking for you to show me where in scripture you learned you were guilty and I would also like to know your view of just what we are guilty of specifically and where in scripture you find that.
Click to expand...

Sin is rebelling against God, and breaking God's laws. That is found all through scripture. Romans 3:23 affirms that all have sinned. "All" means all who are capable of sinning. That does not include infants. Infants, as well as all creation, suffer the consequences of Adam's and Eve's sin. But they are not guilty of that sin.

This idea of inherited guilt is a Western invention.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
Sin is rebelling against God, and breaking God's laws.
Click to expand...

The reason I am asking is that you said in the op:

"God has been seen as a feudal lord or judge, man as a criminal, and issues of salvation as taking place in a legal setting, a legal sense, as in a courtroom."

Then you basically objected to this idea of a legal setting with regard to salvation. However, you answers to my questions have all been using legal terminology (ie guilty; breaking God's laws).

So how do you square using such legal type terminology given you opposition to "issues of salvation.....taking place in a legal setting"?

That is found all through scripture. Romans 3:23 affirms that all have sinned. "All" means all who are capable of sinning. That does not include infants. Infants, as well as all creation, suffer the consequences of Adam's and Eve's sin. But they are not guilty of that sin.

This idea of inherited guilt is a Western invention.
Click to expand...

Ok you need to go argue with Calvinists about that. Just so you know the biblical understanding of salvation issues in a legal setting does not travel with inherited guilt or original sin. These are two separate issues but both related to salvation.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Revmitchell said:
The reason I am asking is that you said in the op:

"God has been seen as a feudal lord or judge, man as a criminal, and issues of salvation as taking place in a legal setting, a legal sense, as in a courtroom."

Then you basically objected to this idea of a legal setting with regard to salvation. However, you answers to my questions have all been using legal terminology (ie guilty; breaking God's laws).

So how do you square using such legal type terminology given you opposition to "issues of salvation.....taking place in a legal setting"?



Ok you need to go argue with Calvinists about that. Just so you know the biblical understanding of salvation issues in a legal setting does not travel with inherited guilt or original sin. These are two separate issues but both related to salvation.
Click to expand...

I used the word "guilt" because of your question. To say that all will eventually sin does not equate to being guilty of Adam's sin. When we personally sin, we have done something wrong, and we fall short of what God intended for us, and for man in the beginning. I think one can use the word "guilt" to describe such without also attaching to it a legal view of salvation.

No with regard to salvation, I also reject legal definitions of that also, as you undoubtedly know. Such things include a forensic view of justification and all Western views of the atonement.

I'm enjoying discussing this with you without it getting personal. I once would not have believed that possible -- at least not for long. But I think we have come some distance, and for that I am glad.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
I used the word "guilt" because of your question. To say that all will eventually sin does not equate to being guilty of Adam's sin.
Click to expand...

Ok Adam's sin has nothing to do withe anything I am saying. I have already told you that I do not hold to original sin. If we are going to continue this conversation then you need to drop the original sin issue. It is not in view here.


Further you not only used the word guilt but also used the words "broke God's laws." All of those words are in fact legal issues. In fact we get our sense of justice, right and wrong, and legality from God. And it is tied to salvation specifically.

You are right, we have broken God's laws. We know this because God has told us this in His word. That crime against God has to have a penalty. Jesus took on our penalty so that we would not have to. You cannot read Romans and understand justification without a legal view. You cannot look at the cross see the suffering and death while understanding that it was because we broke God's laws and not see the legal aspect of salvation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top