Courtroom or hospital

[Rebel]

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.

Actually, I can, and so can the Eastern Orthodox Church, many Anabaptists, the entire early church, and the church for the first millennium. The legal view of salvation and atonement is a very late development -- 1000 to 1500 years late. If something is totally absent from Christianity for 1000 years, then I consider that to be a false doctrine. It undoubtedly was not taught by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church. The earliest Christians did not see it in scripture, nor did Christians see it for the first 1000 years of church history.

 

[Revmitchell]

Actually, I can, and so can the Eastern Orthodox Church, many Anabaptists, the entire early church, and the church for the first millennium. The legal view of salvation and atonement is a very late development -- 1000 to 1500 years late. If something is totally absent from Christianity for 1000 years, then I consider that to be a false doctrine. It undoubtedly was not taught by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church. The earliest Christians did not see it in scripture, nor did Christians see it for the first 1000 years of church history.

Sorry but you have to read Romans with blinders on. It is full of legal language. The very idea of justification itself is a legal word. You cannot reasonably admit to breaking the law and the expect that that is not a legal term. You cannot admit to being guilty of breaking the law and deny the legality. It in fact was not absent for any amount of time. It is and always has been in scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:


This is legal language.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


To be judged is legal language.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;



More legal language

 

[Rebel]

Sorry but you have to read Romans with blinders on. It is full of legal language. The very idea of justification itself is a legal word. You cannot reasonably admit to breaking the law and the expect that that is not a legal term. You cannot admit to being guilty of breaking the law and deny the legality. It in fact was not absent for any amount of time. It is and always has been in scripture.

The pertinent and crucial question then is this: Why did the early Christians not see that in scripture, and why was it not seen or taught for a millennium, until Anselm in the Catholic Church, and for 1500 years in total, until the Magisterial Reformers? I have not seen any answer to that yet.

 

[Revmitchell]

The pertinent and crucial question then is this: Why did the early Christians not see that in scripture, and why was it not seen or taught for a millennium, until Anselm in the Catholic Church, and for 1500 years in total, until the Magisterial Reformers? I have not seen any answer to that yet.

Says you. You assume because it was not discussed at length that no one believed it. Not so.

The pertinent and crucial question is why is there so much legal language in scripture tied to salvation if it is not so.

 

[Rebel]

Says you. You assume because it was not discussed at length that no one believed it. Not so.

The pertinent and crucial question is why is there so much legal language in scripture tied to salvation if it is not so.

Not discussed at length? That is an assumption on your part. Take those scriptures you quoted. Christians for a thousand years read those same scriptures and others, and yet they did not attach the same meaning to them that you and others do and have. Why not? Because that much later Western interpretation was a product of a particular time and society. As for me, I'll go with the way the early Christians and the churches for the first millennium interpreted those and other relative scriptures.

 

[Rebel]

I'll say one thing: These discussions have clarified something for me, and that is my views make it hard for me to fit into any particular denomination. If our little church folds, I'll probably not join anywhere else.

My ecclesiology is basically Anabaptist/Baptist, but my soteriology is mostly Eastern Orthodox with some Anabaptism thrown in. That's a mix that I don't believe can be found in any current church body.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not discussed at length? That is an assumption on your part. Take those scriptures you quoted. Christians for a thousand years read those same scriptures and others, and yet they did not attach the same meaning to them that you and others do and have. Why not? Because that much later Western interpretation was a product of a particular time and society. As for me, I'll go with the way the early Christians and the churches for the first millennium interpreted those and other relative scriptures.

I'm sorry but there is nothing about this that is true.

 

[BobRyan]

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


.

In Dan 7 God is judge - delivering the saints from persecution.

In [FONT=&quot]John 5:22 the Father, in fact, judges no one but [FONT=&quot]has[/FONT] given [FONT=&quot]all judgment[/FONT] to the [FONT=&quot]Son[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John 12:48 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]48 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Rebel]

I'm sorry but there is nothing about this that is true.

Scholars and church historians disagree.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Romans 2 appears to point to a problem in your model.

In Romans 2 your point is affirmed that each person will stand or fall based on their own choice to accept or reject the Gospel - not because Adam sinned.

But in the Rom 2 example the gentile that is saved in that future judgment... justified in that future legal event...judgment - had to already have been saved, born again, sanctified even before that, or else they never could have shown that New Covenant work already in the heart by the time their name comes up in the future judgment.

In Romans 2 the justification is in a future judgment.
In Romans 5:1 the justification is in a past event "having BEEN justified".

It is "Both AND" --

==================================

[FONT=&quot]Romans 2
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my GOSPEL, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.[/COLOR]

And this Romans 2 Gospel solution includes the New Covenant promise where the Law of God is written on the heart in Romans 2 and the believer is circumcised in HEART - by the Holy Spirit.

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.[/FONT]