But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
We participate in his resurrection by being born again -- that is, by the Spirit calling us, and helping us to believe and confess Jesus as LORD (Eph 2). His death provided the atonement for our sin; His resurrection provides the means for our resurrection. He was the first fruits of what is to come. Without His resurrection we find forgiveness but death remains the end for us. The cross neither completed our freedom. It gave us a pardon, while still leaving us dead. In Jesus, now we have life, and life to the fullest, exactly as he prophesied (John 10:10).
Regarding the arguments concerning Universalism, it appears, just as the Israelites, we have a bend toward wanting a god that we can control, one in our image, one that we can dictate who and what He is, instead of just letting Him be God. His love is not to the exclusion of his wrath and justice. Without wrath and justice, how would we know His love? "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--"John 1:12
There is just no articulation from Jesus, the Apostles or the Prophets that "if you don't love and serve Him now, it's okay because you will whether you like it or not." Like the Garden, we have the option of death or life. (Deut 30:19)
What was the purpose/need? Why was bloodshed needed, God's Son needed for us to experience physical healing in this life?
(My struggle with "healing in the atonement")
I also struggle with "healing in the atonement" - at least as it is applied frequently in the "here and now." I see the healing coming at the time of the eschaton, the last thing.
The atonement is intended to allow us to have a place with God in eternity and to reopen the path to the Tree of Life that had been closed by sin. The healings in the days of the ministry of Jesus Christ were a sort of "foretaste" of the eternal healing that we shall receive. The healings ministered to us by the gifts of the Spirit (both before and after the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ) are another "foretaste" - however, I would argue that they are not the same as the healings performed by Jesus Christ Himself.
I see the "purpose/need" for "healing in the atonement" in the grander scheme of eternal life. I do not associate physical healing with the salvation from sin that we experience today.
I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong about this. I have a standing invitation for anyone to meet me at a Children's Hospital anywhere in North America so that they can show me that I'm wrong. No takers, so far.
Your point is that unless you believe like Adino you arent very bright. THAT is your point.
the problem is your brightness has blinded you. Who in their right mind disagrees that the price was paid by Jesus at the cross?
No Preacher in pentecost who believes the Acts 2:38 message disagres with that.
your OP is a strawman designed to make you feel smart. epic fail.
the issue is and has always been was does the individual appropreate remission?
Adino's a nice guy, Ferdando. He enjoys writing and talking about things and he certainly hasn't shown himself to be so "bright" that he is no longer capable of being wrong and admitting it. You just have to show him where he's wrong.
As to the "issue" that you mention here - "When does the individual appropriate remission?" - for me, it's pretty clear that the Bible teaches that the remission of sins is to be found when we turn to God in faith.
Paul repeatedly used the life of Abraham as an example (Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6). Abraham believed that God's promises were true and was called "righteous" by God at that point (Genesis 15:6).
After that, we have Abraham trying to "help" God fulfill His promises (the events involving Hagar in Genesis 16). It was after the thing with Hagar the the Lord appeared again and told Abraham, "I will make my covenant between me and thee..." and introduce an "outward sign" of Abraham's inward faith.
Abraham was still called "righteous" by God, even though he did considerably complicate his life by trying to "help" God instead of allowing God Himself to work out his own promises. And remember, Abraham was called "righteous" before God had even made the Abrahamic covenant. However, at the point of the covenant, now Abraham and all of his people (the men) were required to be circumcised. Anyone who was not circumcised was not considered "one of the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham" (Genesis 17:14) and were to be cut off from the family.
There is no mention telling us whether a hypothetical uncircumcised member of Abraham's household would be "damned for all eternity" here. We're just told that they wouldn't receive the promises (the land of Canaan, etc).
The key point here concerning the "issue" you have identified is that God calls a man "righteous" when that man (or woman) turns to God and with faith believes God's promises are true. Watching their life closely we may find them sort of wobbling a bit like Abraham did in Genesis 16, but we still know that Abraham "had remission" and was declared "righteous" by God Himself when Abe "believed God."
Ferd is taking note that the poster is saying forgiveness of sins happened at the Cross. When in fact forgiveness of sins typically happens at repentance according to the Bible.
Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out (acts 3:19)
The doctrine of the early church was forgiveness of sins took place at repentance due to the propitiation of the cross. Repentance without the cross doesn't do anything to remove sins. Repentance is where the act of the cross is enforced upon our lives. We have to accept that act before it can apply to us.
Hence saved by grace through faith. Baptism is the "cap" of the response, the answer of a good conscience toward God. We aren't talking about that though but are talking about when a person is actually forgiven. Our sins were paid for on Calvary but Jesus said except you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.
While the poster assures that its the sin of unbelief that we are condemned for, according to Romans and Galatians, its the sin of the flesh. The flesh reveals our sin and we repent.
__________________ To be able to unite in difference carries more weight than all the opinions the universe can hold
If he became sin, taking on our sins, and the cross was accepted as justice by God vis-à-vis the resurrection, then it is clear the remission of sins happened at the cross.
However, and I acknowledge this is a fine theological point and I could be wrong, but we access that "hiddenness in Christ" when we become heirs into the family. It's remitted for us, but to have access, we must be born into the family. This is why He is "the Way." And the "way in" is the same way Abraham got in -- by grace, through faith (Rom 4).
Ferd is taking note that the poster is saying forgiveness of sins happened at the Cross. When in fact forgiveness of sins typically happens at repentance according to the Bible.
Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out (acts 3:19)
The doctrine of the early church was forgiveness of sins took place at repentance due to the propitiation of the cross. Repentance without the cross doesn't do anything to remove sins. Repentance is where the act of the cross is enforced upon our lives. We have to accept that act before it can apply to us.
Hence saved by grace through faith. Baptism is the "cap" of the response, the answer of a good conscience toward God. We aren't talking about that though but are talking about when a person is actually forgiven. Our sins were paid for on Calvary but Jesus said except you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.
While the poster assures that its the sin of unbelief that we are condemned for, according to Romans and Galatians, its the sin of the flesh. The flesh reveals our sin and we repent.
I'd be interested in seeing some references as to the early church teaching that. Especially the part about the propitiation of the cross. Thanks
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Ferd, if you don't want to figure it all out then what's your problem with us as long as we still say repentance is important, baptism is important and receiving the Holy Ghost is important?
soup is important when you have a bad cold, but you can survive without it.
Even still I don't have a problem with you. I had a problem with the openeing post in this thread. It created a false arugment that neither represented the postion of us evil baptizers, nor of the poster making the charge.
we have already discussed this. it has become obtuse.
I recomend Vietnamese Pho when sick. Stick with the rare round steak. most American folk arent conditioned for the more hearty fat brisket, tendon, and bible tripe.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Adino's a nice guy, Ferdando. He enjoys writing and talking about things and he certainly hasn't shown himself to be so "bright" that he is no longer capable of being wrong and admitting it. You just have to show him where he's wrong.
As to the "issue" that you mention here - "When does the individual appropriate remission?" - for me, it's pretty clear that the Bible teaches that the remission of sins is to be found when we turn to God in faith.
Paul repeatedly used the life of Abraham as an example (Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6). Abraham believed that God's promises were true and was called "righteous" by God at that point (Genesis 15:6).
After that, we have Abraham trying to "help" God fulfill His promises (the events involving Hagar in Genesis 16). It was after the thing with Hagar the the Lord appeared again and told Abraham, "I will make my covenant between me and thee..." and introduce an "outward sign" of Abraham's inward faith.
Abraham was still called "righteous" by God, even though he did considerably complicate his life by trying to "help" God instead of allowing God Himself to work out his own promises. And remember, Abraham was called "righteous" before God had even made the Abrahamic covenant. However, at the point of the covenant, now Abraham and all of his people (the men) were required to be circumcised. Anyone who was not circumcised was not considered "one of the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham" (Genesis 17:14) and were to be cut off from the family.
There is no mention telling us whether a hypothetical uncircumcised member of Abraham's household would be "damned for all eternity" here. We're just told that they wouldn't receive the promises (the land of Canaan, etc).
The key point here concerning the "issue" you have identified is that God calls a man "righteous" when that man (or woman) turns to God and with faith believes God's promises are true. Watching their life closely we may find them sort of wobbling a bit like Abraham did in Genesis 16, but we still know that Abraham "had remission" and was declared "righteous" by God Himself when Abe "believed God."
Pelathais, I we have not been on the same side of any of these discussions... but I remember some years ago you making a statment about something being two sides of one coin.
that stuck with me. I dont even remember the full context. some things are inseperable.
like Abraham and his belief in God. It was his belief that was counted to him for righteousness but his belief made him leave his home and go to a land he did not know.
belief without the "going" is dead. "going" without belief is just a vaction in the desert.
I do appreciate our exchanges. even the ones where i just read and dont exchange.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
soup is important when you have a bad cold, but you can survive without it.
Even still I don't have a problem with you. I had a problem with the openeing post in this thread. It created a false arugment that neither represented the postion of us evil baptizers, nor of the poster making the charge.
we have already discussed this. it has become obtuse.
I recomend Vietnamese Pho when sick. Stick with the rare round steak. most American folk arent conditioned for the more hearty fat brisket, tendon, and bible tripe.
You keep imposing this on yourself, reading far into the post, which is, in fact, a discussion of "when we are saved" -- quite a popular topic on AFF over the years.
Ferd is taking note that the poster is saying forgiveness of sins happened at the Cross. When in fact forgiveness of sins typically happens at repentance according to the Bible.
Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out (acts 3:19)
The doctrine of the early church was forgiveness of sins took place at repentance due to the propitiation of the cross. Repentance without the cross doesn't do anything to remove sins. Repentance is where the act of the cross is enforced upon our lives. We have to accept that act before it can apply to us.
Hence saved by grace through faith. Baptism is the "cap" of the response, the answer of a good conscience toward God. We aren't talking about that though but are talking about when a person is actually forgiven. Our sins were paid for on Calvary but Jesus said except you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.
While the poster assures that its the sin of unbelief that we are condemned for, according to Romans and Galatians, its the sin of the flesh. The flesh reveals our sin and we repent.
Adino's opening post appeared to me to contrast the concepts of "remission at baptism" and "remission at the cross." I took the rest of the thread to be flowing from that dichotomy.
"At the cross" was perhaps the phrase that troubled Ferd. He seemed to be asking, (to paraphrase with too much liberty perhaps) "What about me today? What about the believer or the believer-to-be today? How do we obtain the benefit of the cross's work in remitting sin..."
In Adino's original dichotomy there was just "The Cross" and "The Baptism of the Believer," nothing about repentance" and nothing even about "belief." Subsequent discussion has demonstrated that Adino's theology of The Cross does show that a person believes God (today!) and receives the benefits of the Cross prior to his/her water baptism.
Linear Mode
