Comments on: Fighting the Devil or Suppressing the Mind http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/ Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Theodore A. jones http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-85998 Theodore A. jones Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:33:11 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-85998 Hasn't a man said "You swallow a camel and strain at a gnat?" and all of you swallowed the same camel. Wonderful! But according to him only a few ever find the perfected small narrow Way into the kingdom of God. Fellows you are missing a link. PSA's theory by being aligned to the logic of the OT sacrificial system summarily, but in error, concludes that the crucifixion of Jesus has perfected the OT sacrificial system's logic. This is the camel you fellows have swallowed. The gnat you are straining at is that belief systems and religious practices which preceded Jesus' crucifixion are in the record as proof of concepts and practice that have no possibility of being able to become perfected by sacrificing an animal or a man as a substitute. The teaching of John the Baptist preceded Jesus' crucifixion for the same reason of eliminating it. For there to be only one small narrow gate into the kingdom of God perfected by Jesus' crucifixion all other gates were first eliminated. No one is going to be given any wiggle room to argue with God about the Way Jesus has perfected for you to become one with God i.e. born of God. Xinidaxis is right "God cannot punish someone else for our sin(s)" nor did he. For the sacrifice of an animal unlike the crucifixion of Jesus is NOT a sin even though the animal looses it's life by bloodshed God cannot demand an accounting. Which is why he was not satisfied with the blood of bulls and goats. Therefore the sacrifice of an animal, it not being a sin, cannot have caused one additional word to be added to the law of God because of bloodshed. However relative to the crucifixion of Jesus since his life was taken by bloodshed by crucifying him one word has been added to the law but only relative to the sin of Jesus' crucifixion. Which is why Jesus said "When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin." Therefore the only possible Way the Acts 2:38 command can be obeyed is by the faith of repenting of the one sin of Jesus' murder to be forgiven of all sins. No other way can be perfected for an entry point into the kingdom of God for God demands an accounting whenever a male human's life is taken by bloodshed. Jesus by his authority added the word Repent to the law by his crucifixion so that it is only by the faith of repenting of sin of his crucifixion that remission is obtained from the penalty of eternal death. There is no other way of escape. It is best not to neglect it. (Howdy quirky Kirk. I see you as full of b/s as ever before.) Hasn’t a man said “You swallow a camel and strain at a gnat?” and all of you swallowed the same camel. Wonderful! But according to him only a few ever find the perfected small narrow Way into the kingdom of God. Fellows you are missing a link.
PSA’s theory by being aligned to the logic of the OT sacrificial system summarily, but in error, concludes that the crucifixion of Jesus has perfected the OT sacrificial system’s logic. This is the camel you fellows have swallowed. The gnat you are straining at is that belief systems and religious practices which preceded Jesus’ crucifixion are in the record as proof of concepts and practice that have no possibility of being able to become perfected by sacrificing an animal or a man as a substitute. The teaching of John the Baptist preceded Jesus’ crucifixion for the same reason of eliminating it. For there to be only one small narrow gate into the kingdom of God perfected by Jesus’ crucifixion all other gates were first eliminated. No one is going to be given any wiggle room to argue with God about the Way Jesus has perfected for you to become one with God i.e. born of God.
Xinidaxis is right “God cannot punish someone else for our sin(s)” nor did he. For the sacrifice of an animal unlike the crucifixion of Jesus is NOT a sin even though the animal looses it’s life by bloodshed God cannot demand an accounting. Which is why he was not satisfied with the blood of bulls and goats. Therefore the sacrifice of an animal, it not being a sin, cannot have caused one additional word to be added to the law of God because of bloodshed. However relative to the crucifixion of Jesus since his life was taken by bloodshed by crucifying him one word has been added to the law but only relative to the sin of Jesus’ crucifixion. Which is why Jesus said “When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin.” Therefore the only possible Way the Acts 2:38 command can be obeyed is by the faith of repenting of the one sin of Jesus’ murder to be forgiven of all sins. No other way can be perfected for an entry point into the kingdom of God for God demands an accounting whenever a male human’s life is taken by bloodshed. Jesus by his authority added the word Repent to the law by his crucifixion so that it is only by the faith of repenting of sin of his crucifixion that remission is obtained from the penalty of eternal death. There is no other way of escape. It is best not to neglect it.

(Howdy quirky Kirk. I see you as full of b/s as ever before.)

]]> By: David Xinidakis http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-69315 David Xinidakis Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:31:09 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-69315 Peter, I realize that to make a truth claim neccessarily implies antithesis. But I do not do so bull-headedly (if that's even a word!). I am open to sound reason, and if it can be shown that the position I hold is not the scriptural teaching, then I want to move away from it towards that which is the truth of God's Word. But to be truly "open" one must first have a position. For being open implies believing something to be true, but being willing to change one's view upon plain reason and evidence against it. In this sense (and in this sense only) I am open to other views. But having no view of the truth of what the scripture teaches, no position one holds to be true, is not really openness but, well, sort of...nothingness (in the sense that there is nothing I really hold to be true). Peter, I realize that to make a truth claim neccessarily implies antithesis. But I do not do so bull-headedly (if that’s even a word!). I am open to sound reason, and if it can be shown that the position I hold is not the scriptural teaching, then I want to move away from it towards that which is the truth of God’s Word. But to be truly “open” one must first have a position. For being open implies believing something to be true, but being willing to change one’s view upon plain reason and evidence against it. In this sense (and in this sense only) I am open to other views. But having no view of the truth of what the scripture teaches, no position one holds to be true, is not really openness but, well, sort of…nothingness (in the sense that there is nothing I really hold to be true).

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-69197 Peter Kirk Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:34:32 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-69197 <i>I do not believe that the scripture teaches substitution to be A metaphor, or THE metaphor, but that it teaches substitution as literal, and therefore the truth and no metaphor at all.</i> David, at this point I must part company from you. "Metaphor" may not be the ideal word, "model" or "description" may be better. But I reject your attempt to claim that PSA is literally true, with the implication that other metaphors or models are literally false. I do not believe that the scripture teaches substitution to be A metaphor, or THE metaphor, but that it teaches substitution as literal, and therefore the truth and no metaphor at all.

David, at this point I must part company from you. “Metaphor” may not be the ideal word, “model” or “description” may be better. But I reject your attempt to claim that PSA is literally true, with the implication that other metaphors or models are literally false.

]]> By: David Xinidakis http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-69059 David Xinidakis Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:06:38 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-69059 Dear Henry, Your'e welcome. I also sympathize with your feelings about careless wording. I know that I myself have not been diligent enough in studying out a more precise and accurate wording of the biblical teaching we are discussing. Of course we both know that any proposed model or theory of the atonement must be a biblical one to be true. I think everyone agrees that what the Bible teaches is true and that the question is not about models or theories, but about what the Bible says, because it is God's Word. The problem with models and theories, and metaphors, is that amoungst such discussion, the topic can become academic and we can lose sight that the truth that we are handling has to do not with mere debate and argurment, but men and women's eternal souls. There is a truth about the atonement taught in scripture, and while it may be debated upon, that truth is never 'up for debate'. We cannot lose sight of the fact that our topic is not academic. There are satanic forces which blind men from understanding the gospel (II Cor 4:4). The meaning of the truth of the gospel is that which Satan blinds men to at the peril of their soul's and is therefore no small matter. I do not believe that the scripture teaches substitution to be A metaphor, or THE metaphor, but that it teaches substitution as literal, and therefore the truth and no metaphor at all. The scripture does, however, use some metaphorical language in describing the objective, literal truth of PSA, such as Jesus' saying that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood (Jn 6), and His further institution of bread and wine (I Cor 11). But the objective fact of substitution is what the scripture teaches. We cannot be content to remain in the realm of debate about the very center or truth and reality, about the truth of the gospel when such a high price is placed upon the souls of men. We mustn't take our cues from culture or philosophy but from the Spirit and the Word. If the very heart of the gospel is up for debate, then ultimately we are like Martin Luther after climing Pilate's stairs, kissing them with Pater Nosters, and proclaiming, "who knows if it is true?" Others have found the gospel to be that which they gave their lives for. Satan opposes it to the eternal destruction of men and women. Leaving this truth up for debate is leaving God's glory and men's souls up for debate also. I realize that my tone is zealous, but none gives their life for theories, models and metaphors, but for truth. There is a great distinction between those who are learning and are unsure, and those who, having clearly been explained the truth of God's Word and understand its communication, and yet reject it and teach the opposite. And even those in such a condition, those truly false teachers, should be prayed and wept over, but not permitted to be called a Christian and hold a position in a Church as a teacher. If the apostle Peter is not above being rebuked as a hypocrite for his actions which took away from the gospel, why is it such a hard thing for us to make similar stands about truth? I think we've grown more comfortable and timid, don't you? I mean, it's not as if we're talking about dress codes in local churches or whether or not infants should be baptized, but the very heart of the faith. Dear Henry,
Your’e welcome. I also sympathize with your feelings about careless wording. I know that I myself have not been diligent enough in studying out a more precise and accurate wording of the biblical teaching we are discussing. Of course we both know that any proposed model or theory of the atonement must be a biblical one to be true. I think everyone agrees that what the Bible teaches is true and that the question is not about models or theories, but about what the Bible says, because it is God’s Word. The problem with models and theories, and metaphors, is that amoungst such discussion, the topic can become academic and we can lose sight that the truth that we are handling has to do not with mere debate and argurment, but men and women’s eternal souls. There is a truth about the atonement taught in scripture, and while it may be debated upon, that truth is never ‘up for debate’. We cannot lose sight of the fact that our topic is not academic. There are satanic forces which blind men from understanding the gospel (II Cor 4:4). The meaning of the truth of the gospel is that which Satan blinds men to at the peril of their soul’s and is therefore no small matter. I do not believe that the scripture teaches substitution to be A metaphor, or THE metaphor, but that it teaches substitution as literal, and therefore the truth and no metaphor at all. The scripture does, however, use some metaphorical language in describing the objective, literal truth of PSA, such as Jesus’ saying that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood (Jn 6), and His further institution of bread and wine (I Cor 11). But the objective fact of substitution is what the scripture teaches. We cannot be content to remain in the realm of debate about the very center or truth and reality, about the truth of the gospel when such a high price is placed upon the souls of men. We mustn’t take our cues from culture or philosophy but from the Spirit and the Word. If the very heart of the gospel is up for debate, then ultimately we are like Martin Luther after climing Pilate’s stairs, kissing them with Pater Nosters, and proclaiming, “who knows if it is true?” Others have found the gospel to be that which they gave their lives for. Satan opposes it to the eternal destruction of men and women. Leaving this truth up for debate is leaving God’s glory and men’s souls up for debate also.
I realize that my tone is zealous, but none gives their life for theories, models and metaphors, but for truth. There is a great distinction between those who are learning and are unsure, and those who, having clearly been explained the truth of God’s Word and understand its communication, and yet reject it and teach the opposite. And even those in such a condition, those truly false teachers, should be prayed and wept over, but not permitted to be called a Christian and hold a position in a Church as a teacher. If the apostle Peter is not above being rebuked as a hypocrite for his actions which took away from the gospel, why is it such a hard thing for us to make similar stands about truth? I think we’ve grown more comfortable and timid, don’t you? I mean, it’s not as if we’re talking about dress codes in local churches or whether or not infants should be baptized, but the very heart of the faith.

]]> By: Henry Neufeld http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-68958 Henry Neufeld Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:17:14 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-68958 Just a quick point here .... I personally like your particular form of expressing this doctrine. I am saying, however, that I know people who would regard it as heretical. My problem with PSA, or rather with its advocates, is that they are often careless with their wording and then also require others to see PSA as <b>the</b> metaphor, rather than as <b>a</b> metaphor for the atonement. As you express it, it has great meaning for me. Thanks for taking the time. Just a quick point here …. I personally like your particular form of expressing this doctrine. I am saying, however, that I know people who would regard it as heretical.

My problem with PSA, or rather with its advocates, is that they are often careless with their wording and then also require others to see PSA as the metaphor, rather than as a metaphor for the atonement.

As you express it, it has great meaning for me. Thanks for taking the time.

]]> By: David Xinidakis http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-68952 David Xinidakis Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:06:38 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-68952 Thank you Henry, I have asked the Lord for sharper words and believe the that he will give them to me. however, it comes down to this: as long as I look upon Christ and see an innocent person dying, He and I are seperate from each other, and I must still face God's just wrath and be punished for my sins. But when by faith, I look upon Christ and see not an innocent man dying, but MYSELF dying, being punished for my sin, then the Holy Spirit has baptized me into Christ by faith, and God's justice is upheld, for He does not punish the innocent on the cross, but the guilty. "When I see this by faith without me", said John Bunyan, "through the opreation of the Spirit within me", "I am safe". Thank you Henry,
I have asked the Lord for sharper words and believe the that he will give them to me. however, it comes down to this: as long as I look upon Christ and see an innocent person dying, He and I are seperate from each other, and I must still face God’s just wrath and be punished for my sins. But when by faith, I look upon Christ and see not an innocent man dying, but MYSELF dying, being punished for my sin, then the Holy Spirit has baptized me into Christ by faith, and God’s justice is upheld, for He does not punish the innocent on the cross, but the guilty. “When I see this by faith without me”, said John Bunyan, “through the opreation of the Spirit within me”, “I am safe”.

]]> By: Henry Neufeld http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-68880 Henry Neufeld Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:37:01 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-68880

Just Curious…what exactly would you say it is that others may find heretical abot the explanation I have given?

Well, I think Peter has pointed out how it could happen from the conservative side. Remember, however, that liberals also have convictions, and they might well think your particular view is heretical as well.

But the fact that you have been misunderstood means that you can be misunderstood. Rarely do those declared heretics believe they have been properly read. (And I suspect they’re generally right!)

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-68450 Peter Kirk Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:23:30 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-68450 David, maybe I did take your words to some extent out of <a href="http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=167#comments" rel="nofollow">their context</a>. But surely that is precisely how the guardians of orthodoxy work: they find a statement which they disagree with and condemn its author often without even reading the context. When such people read "God cannot punish someone else for our sin" they understand this as a denial of PSA, and once they have that idea about you nothing you say will ever convince them that you are orthodox. David, maybe I did take your words to some extent out of their context. But surely that is precisely how the guardians of orthodoxy work: they find a statement which they disagree with and condemn its author often without even reading the context. When such people read “God cannot punish someone else for our sin” they understand this as a denial of PSA, and once they have that idea about you nothing you say will ever convince them that you are orthodox.

]]> By: David Xinidakis http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-68279 David Xinidakis Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:09:50 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-68279 Hello Henry; I agree whole heartedly about being "excessively tense". Just Curious...what exactly would you say it is that others may find heretical abot the explanation I have given? Hello Henry;
I agree whole heartedly about being “excessively tense”. Just Curious…what exactly would you say it is that others may find heretical abot the explanation I have given?

]]> By: Henry Neufeld http://henrysthreads.com/2007/07/fighting-the-devil-or-suppressing-the-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-68275 Henry Neufeld Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:51:45 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=809#comment-68275 But some people would regard your explanation as heretical. I understand that you like it, and to be honest, I like your expression as <em>a</em> metaphor (not the one and only) for the atonement. I'm also not suggesting that there should be no standards in a seminary. But I think we should be extremely careful not to be excessively tense about it as well. The texts you quote are relevant, but so are the stories of God's tolerance of weakness in his messengers, and the example of Jesus in his treatment of the theologically tense. But some people would regard your explanation as heretical. I understand that you like it, and to be honest, I like your expression as a metaphor (not the one and only) for the atonement.

I’m also not suggesting that there should be no standards in a seminary. But I think we should be extremely careful not to be excessively tense about it as well. The texts you quote are relevant, but so are the stories of God’s tolerance of weakness in his messengers, and the example of Jesus in his treatment of the theologically tense.

]]>