Doubt on Christian basics

[rrowell]

I don't buy what the Church is selling - even though I go to church and take an active role in the service. And my church does not understand me so I can accept that others find it difficult to follow my line of thought.

Now why does that not surprise me?

 

[ivdavid]

Permitting the fall of mankind is not equivalent to directly causing it, wouldn't you say?

That is not the point, the issue is why are we suffering due to Adam's sin?

This is only my reply clarifying a specific point raised in post#11. You'd find my response to your question in post#6.

In short, we are suffering not due to Adam's transgression but due to the effects of sin(corruption) itself - which entered the world through Adam, but just as likely could have entered through any other created man in the world, hence denoting Adam as our federal head representative. We are just as culpable as him in that we would have chosen just as he chose in his position. As I've stated before, this is not a comment on an individual's choice as much as it is a comment on the futility of the flesh to resist corruption - thereby concluding that we each necessarily require God's nature in us to sustain us wholly.

 

[ivdavid]

Sinners are not necessarily those who have broken some law

I am of the orthodox view, in that I subscribe to the forensic understanding of Scripture. Having said that, I'd like to know on what basis you have rejected the same. Consider Gal 4:1-2 - the child is no longer a servant under tutors and governors after the time appointed by the father, not because of the decay/corruption of the tutors but because the fullness of time has come for the child to be treated differently unto a new purpose, the earlier purpose having been fulfilled, finished and no longer needed. Similarly, cannot one perceive the law to be such - one that was necessary until the fullness of time came - after which it was no longer necessary, its purpose having been fulfilled. Why must one be forced to conclude that the law was removed only due to its decay/corruption?

Also, principles, ideals and concepts cannot decay. They are binary in moral nature - either they are good or they are bad. Good principles can be distorted into bad ones by man - but the conclusion lies not in declaring the principle itself 'bad' because of its unintended application by man, rather its good must be restored by removing the distortions. So, either Jesus commented on the principle of sacrifice itself being corrupt or He was referring only to its distorted effects. If the latter case, it speaks nothing wrong about the principle itself. But if it's the former case, what has led you to such a conclusion?

You also seem to believe that the sacrificial system was not instituted by God at all - and I may be completely wrong here(I'm supposing this, given that you attributed the sacrificial system primarily to Moses and not God directly). Could you clarify the same - according to you, was the sacrificial system and the law, instituted by God Himself or not? And what is the 'theology' of the sacrificial system, as you've understood it?

And how are we to understand the forensic references throughout the new testament - justification, righteousness, transgression, condemnation, wrath, mercy, judgement etc. in light of a 'sinner' not necessarily having broken any law?

 

[wayseer]

I am of the orthodox view, in that I subscribe to the forensic understanding of Scripture. Having said that, I'd like to know on what basis you have rejected the same. Consider Gal 4:1-2 - the child is no longer a servant under tutors and governors after the time appointed by the father, not because of the decay/corruption of the tutors but because the fullness of time has come for the child to be treated differently unto a new purpose, the earlier purpose having been fulfilled, finished and no longer needed. Similarly, cannot one perceive the law to be such - one that was necessary until the fullness of time came - after which it was no longer necessary, its purpose having been fulfilled. Why must one be forced to conclude that the law was removed only due to its decay/corruption?

Have you got a better reason?

I think Paul wrestled with the same issue and his response was that Jesus was the Messiah that can rightfully be called King and Lord in that he did what the sacrificial system could not.

Also, principles, ideals and concepts cannot decay. They are binary in moral nature - either they are good or they are bad. Good principles can be distorted into bad ones by man - but the conclusion lies not in declaring the principle itself 'bad' because of its unintended application by man, rather its good must be restored by removing the distortions. So, either Jesus commented on the principle of sacrifice itself being corrupt or He was referring only to its distorted effects. If the latter case, it speaks nothing wrong about the principle itself. But if it's the former case, what has led you to such a conclusion?

Again, see Paul. There was nothing 'wrong' with the system. What was 'wrong' was human manipulation of the system for personal gain and political power.

You also seem to believe that the sacrificial system was not instituted by God at all - and I may be completely wrong here(I'm supposing this, given that you attributed the sacrificial system primarily to Moses and not God directly). Could you clarify the same - according to you, was the sacrificial system and the law, instituted by God Himself or not? And what is the 'theology' of the sacrificial system, as you've understood it?

... without writing a book?

And how are we to understand the forensic references throughout the new testament - justification, righteousness, transgression, condemnation, wrath, mercy, judgement etc. in light of a 'sinner' not necessarily having broken any law?

How do you see it? I gave you you make take.

But I sense you are fishing for a certain answer so I am somewhat cautious in responding.

 

[ivdavid]

Consider Gal 4:1-2 - cannot one perceive the law to be such - one that was necessary until the fullness of time came - after which it was no longer necessary, its purpose having been fulfilled. Why must one be forced to conclude that the law was removed only due to its decay/corruption?

Have you got a better reason?

I have mentioned my reasons above. I don't believe the sacrificial system was removed because of some insufficiency attributed to it per se - the sacrificial system and in the larger picture, the law of works itself, were sufficient to fulfill the entire purpose of what they were intended for. They were removed since they had fulfilled their purposes in pointing us to the next dispensation, if you will, and were no longer thus necessary. Rather than view man's corruption as being the cause of the system's end - I see the system itself being intended to result in man's corruption without causing it, this result signalling the fullness of time for Christ to come and save. So again, why must one conclude that they were removed only because of the decay/corruption in their interpretation and application - and not because of their having fulfilled the purposes they were intended for? But I guess the answer to this question lies in your following statement -

I think Paul wrestled with the same issue and his response was that Jesus was the Messiah that can rightfully be called King and Lord in that he did what the sacrificial system could not.

What the sacrificial system could not? What was it expected to do that it couldn't and that Jesus did in its stead? From your choice of words, I'd assume that it was "giving us access to God" - and not necessarily a forensic atonement of transgressions against the law of God. Correct me if I've gotten it wrong.

But why couldn't the sacrificial system give access to God - is it because the system itself was flawed in principle or because its usage by man had become flawed. To which you answer - it's the latter.
wayseer - "There was nothing 'wrong' with the system. What was 'wrong' was human manipulation of the system for personal gain and political power. "

So, if the sacrificial system was flawed unto the purpose of giving access to God, only in its usage by man and not in principle itself - then are you stating that the sacrificial system and the overall law of works actually did give access to God when they were applied in their intended interpretation without distortion/corruption? If so, then why didn't Jesus choose to restore the sacrificial system and the law of works to their correct interpretation instead of bypassing them? Note, you have identified 3 'systems', so to speak, involved in this granting us access to God - 1) the sacrificial system and the law of works as given by God through Moses, 2) the distorted representation of this 1st system, corrupted by man and 3) Jesus Christ Himself.

We both agree that the system 2) here cannot give access to God at all. You seem to be saying that system 1) itself was sufficient unto giving us access until it was corrupted into system 2) - and that the solution now lies in Jesus Christ Himself. But why not a return or a restoration to system 1) instead of bypassing it completely?

I ask this because I do not hold the law of works to be sufficient to grant us access to God - though I hold it necessary. It is necessary to point us to Christ who alone is sufficient to grant us access to God - in this sense, the sacrificial system is not bypassed, rather it is ended after it has fulfilled its intended purpose - that of handing us over to Christ.

How do you see it[ the forensic references throughout the new testament ]?

I see it in plain forensic terms. I have already mentioned that I am of the orthodox view - I believe sinners are those that transgress God's law and that Christ fulfilled the sacrificial system to grant forensic atonement for our transgressions. But this can't be new to you - you would most probably categorize this under 'Churchianity'. In fact, this isn't about the orthodox beliefs at all - since most anyone can find out what they are. But your beliefs are unorthodox and hence I ask you how you interpret various doctrines that so far have been held to be answered consistently by the orthodox worldview. And just so you know where I come from, I hold all the orthodox beliefs in place without accepting the legality that you are against too.

But I sense you are fishing for a certain answer so I am somewhat cautious in responding.

Caution in response? I am not interrogating you and if I could somehow find a silly smiley to express my current inquisitive yet not interrogative mood, I'd do it. I don't know what your worldview is and I'm seeking to ascertain what it is - as simple as that. There isn't any fishing for something - I don't even know what I'm supposed to be fishing for, that you've somehow sensed. No trick questions - simple questions that require 2 sets of data - 1) the premises of your worldview and 2) the basis for your inferences/conclusions ie your reasoning. And I'm willing to answer any question on my beliefs or the reasoning behind them - you've simply got to ask. Is that clarification enough?

 

[wayseer]

I have mentioned my reasons above. I don't believe the sacrificial system was removed because of some insufficiency attributed to it per se - the sacrificial system and in the larger picture, the law of works itself, were sufficient to fulfill the entire purpose of what they were intended for. They were removed since they had fulfilled their purposes in pointing us to the next dispensation, if you will, and were no longer thus necessary. Rather than view man's corruption as being the cause of the system's end - I see the system itself being intended to result in man's corruption without causing it, this result signalling the fullness of time for Christ to come and save. So again, why must one conclude that they were removed only because of the decay/corruption in their interpretation and application - and not because of their having fulfilled the purposes they were intended for?

Which is basically what I said - or so I had thought.

What the sacrificial system could not? What was it expected to do that it couldn't and that Jesus did in its stead? From your choice of words, I'd assume that it was "giving us access to God" - and not necessarily a forensic atonement of transgressions against the law of God. Correct me if I've gotten it wrong.

Both.

So, if the sacrificial system was flawed unto the purpose of giving access to God, only in its usage by man and not in principle itself - then are you stating that the sacrificial system and the overall law of works actually did give access to God when they were applied in their intended interpretation without distortion/corruption? If so, then why didn't Jesus choose to restore the sacrificial system and the law of works to their correct interpretation instead of bypassing them?

Good question. My response would be that God decided that he had to do something to make a system that was already 'good' - 'better'. He did away with the system by having satisfied the whole purpose of the system once and for all and extended that process into the future - for all time. It is no mistake that Matthew correctly noted the tearing of the Temple curtain at the time of Jesus' death signaling that access to God is not through a curtain but though faith.

Is that clarification enough?

Indeed - and my apologies.

 

[ivdavid]

Which is basically what I said - or so I had thought.

Yes, you have written nothing contrary to it. But see it from my perspective - you state a conclusion that's the opposite of what I myself hold - that "Sinners are not necessarily those who have broken some law". Since there is a difference in each of our worldviews here, I'm trying to trace where exactly that difference lies. And over the last few posts, I find that we basically are saying the same things - this only implies that there is a semantic difference. And semantic differences could be grouped into two types - 1) where we use different words to mean the same thing or 2) where we use the same words to mean different things. I don't try and inquire further into the first type of semantic differences - since in essence, we hold the same worldview. I do, however, try to inquire into the first premises and reasoning behind the second type of semantic differences. From your other replies in the previous post, it seems that this is a type-1 semantic difference - where you actually meant that "Sinners are not necessarily those who have broken some law - it means this and more". Would this be a correct representation of your position? If so, then I have nothing further to discuss on this. If not, and I'm not currently inclined to believe this to be the case, then I'd like to know why you don't hold this as true?

Indeed - and my apologies.

Please, you did not offend me at all. The fault lies with neither of us - the medium of communication over an online forum does not easily permit us to express our own moods and intrinsic intent. We are then required to clarify further, which must not be taken personally. If anything, I was only eager to lay your mind at rest unto my intent. See, I could hold diametrically opposite beliefs to yours and yet wish to inquire upon your beliefs and the reasoning behind them with sincerity. I would probably ask how you reconcile seemingly conflicting beliefs within your worldview - and yet the intent there is not to gain a one-up on you by 'proving' some kind of a contradiction/flaw in your worldview - it's simply what it is, the desire to fill in the gaps of my understanding of your worldview. I need not accept your worldview as true, and I could still like to know how you did construct it - what the various basis were, what the first premises are, what semantic differences there are etc. Again, your statements against "churchianity" - I seem to perceive them as being against "orthodoxy" - are you actually against it and if so, why - or are you against only the current distortion/corruption of the 'good orthodox system'?

 

[wayseer]

... you actually meant that "Sinners are not necessarily those who have broken some law - it means this and more". Would this be a correct representation of your position?

No. What I said is exactly what I said and nothing more. Having re-read my post #40 I find I can add nothing further.

Please, you did not offend me at all. The fault lies with neither of us - the medium of communication over an online forum does not easily permit us to express our own moods and intrinsic intent. We are then required to clarify further, which must not be taken personally. If anything, I was only eager to lay your mind at rest unto my intent. See, I could hold diametrically opposite beliefs to yours and yet wish to inquire upon your beliefs and the reasoning behind them with sincerity. I would probably ask how you reconcile seemingly conflicting beliefs within your worldview - and yet the intent there is not to gain a one-up on you by 'proving' some kind of a contradiction/flaw in your worldview - it's simply what it is, the desire to fill in the gaps of my understanding of your worldview. I need not accept your worldview as true, and I could still like to know how you did construct it - what the various basis were, what the first premises are, what semantic differences there are etc. Again, your statements against "churchianity" - I seem to perceive them as being against "orthodoxy" - are you actually against it and if so, why - or are you against only the current distortion/corruption of the 'good orthodox system'?

Psychological destruction is not my thing. I am actually more orthodox than you seem to think.