We did communion wrong today.

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18637
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:54 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
As an aside, I want to say that I haven't had such a fruitful, thought provoking discussion like this on theology in a long time. For realz, thanks.
:thumbsup:

——————————————————————————————————————————
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
As an aside, I want to say that I haven't had such a fruitful, thought provoking discussion like this on theology in a long time. For realz, thanks.

To begin, I'm not quiet comfortable saying that "Jesus was saved". To be saved, one needs saving. Jesus is the bringer of, not the one needing, salvation. That said, even though I think it is a very important point to make, I do see where you are going and we can both agree that I affirm that Jesus is intrinsically righteous. So with that in mind, I'll try to follow your track.

1) I affirm that Jesus is intrinsically righteous and that he did not attain or earn his righteousness by his obedience.

2) Jesus, because he is righteous, did keep the law perfectly

3) His perfect obedience indeed is a validation (not an accrual) of his righteousness, and it is his righteousness that is imputed to us, credited to us by faith.

[…]

So I am not comfortable walking a Two Paths of Salvation trail, but I don't believe that I've been on it. I might have been unclear in the past.
Trying to connect the dots, It seems as if you want to posit a "Imputation of Inherent Righteousness". If so, I can't see how this substantially diverges from the Catholic formulation of "Infusion of Inherent Righteousness".

Your putative formula doesn't seem so much hostile to Catholicity as it does conceptually incoherent and redundant. You seem to want to keep imputation while neutralizing its internal logic, and this because Imputation was originally pressed into service precisely to elide Infusion and, in the bargain, [necessarily?] conceived of Christ's righteousness as deriving from "perfect obedience to the letter of the Law". This seems to be the price extracted by adherence to the doctrine of "imputation of an alien righteousness" — which is to say, a wholly forensic (legal), wholly extrinsic righteousness. To me, the willingness to pay this price — the knowing resignation to its logical ineluctability — seems to be the quintessence — the raison d'être, if you will — of the Reformed stream.

Drinking more deeply of this stream so as to further demonstrate this quintessence, it might be profitable to cite A.W. Pink (a quote which also happens to be a threefer, as he calls Jonathan Edwards et al. to the dock) …
Justification, strictly speaking, consists in God’s imputing to His elect the righteousness of Christ […] [t]hese are, the non-imputation of guilt or the remission of sins, and second, of the investing of the believer with a legal title to Heaven. The alone ground on which God forgives any man’s sins, and admits him into His judicial favour …

[…]

The "righteousness of Christ" which is imputed to the believer consists of that perfect obedience which He rendered unto the precepts of God’s Law and that death which He died under the penalty of the law. It has been rightly said that, "There is the very same need of Christ’s obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of His suffering the penalty of the law in our stead in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same reason why one should be accepted on our account as the other …" (Jonathan Edwards).

[…]

The holiness of God requires a positive righteousness to our account—that His Law be perfectly kept. But we are unable to keep it, therefore our Sponsor fulfilled it for us. …

[…]

"It is not enough for a man to be pardoned. He, of course, is then innocent—washed from his sin—put back again, like Adam in Eden, just where he was. But that is not enough. It was required of Adam in Eden that he should actually keep the command. It was not enough that he did not break it, or that he is regarded, through the Blood, as though he did not break it. He must keep it: he must continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. How is this necessity supplied? Man must have a righteousness, or God cannot accept him. Man must have a perfect obedience, or else God cannot reward him" (G. S. Bishop). That necessary and perfect obedience is to be found alone in that perfect life, lived by Christ in obedience to the law, before He went to the cross, which is reckoned to the believer’s account.

[…]
Methinks you will be hard pressed to find historic purchase for an "Imputation of Inherent Righteousness" anywhere in the Reformed tradition. Considering that you firmly eschew the "Two Paths" position, the "Federal Vision" theology might seem to be a possible avenue. Based on my very cursory knowledge, FV seems very close to what you're advocating. But considering that whether FV is orthodox Reformism (let alone conceptually coherent) is up for debate, I'm not sure that this would be any more appealing.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:51 am

infidel wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:59 pm
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
3) His perfect obedience indeed is a validation (not an accrual) of his righteousness, and it is his righteousness that is imputed to us, credited to us by faith.
Is "obedience" the right word here? It seems to imply he could have been disobedient but through some effort was not.
I think it is the right word, or at least an adequate word. Jesus said "But Thy will be done" and that seems pretty obedient. I can see your point though.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:06 am

wosbald wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:54 pm
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
As an aside, I want to say that I haven't had such a fruitful, thought provoking discussion like this on theology in a long time. For realz, thanks.

To begin, I'm not quiet comfortable saying that "Jesus was saved". To be saved, one needs saving. Jesus is the bringer of, not the one needing, salvation. That said, even though I think it is a very important point to make, I do see where you are going and we can both agree that I affirm that Jesus is intrinsically righteous. So with that in mind, I'll try to follow your track.

1) I affirm that Jesus is intrinsically righteous and that he did not attain or earn his righteousness by his obedience.

2) Jesus, because he is righteous, did keep the law perfectly

3) His perfect obedience indeed is a validation (not an accrual) of his righteousness, and it is his righteousness that is imputed to us, credited to us by faith.

[…]

So I am not comfortable walking a Two Paths of Salvation trail, but I don't believe that I've been on it. I might have been unclear in the past.
Trying to connect the dots, It seems as if you want to posit a "Imputation of Inherent Righteousness". If so, I can't see how this substantially diverges from the Catholic formulation of "Infusion of Inherent Righteousness".

Your putative formula doesn't seem so much hostile to Catholicity as it does conceptually incoherent and redundant. You seem to want to keep imputation while neutralizing its internal logic, and this because Imputation was originally pressed into service precisely to elide Infusion and, in the bargain, [necessarily?] conceived of Christ's righteousness as deriving from "perfect obedience to the letter of the Law". This seems to be the price extracted by adherence to the doctrine of "imputation of an alien righteousness" — which is to say, a wholly forensic (legal), wholly extrinsic righteousness. To me, the willingness to pay this price — the knowing resignation to its logical ineluctability — seems to be the quintessence — the raison d'être, if you will — of the Reformed stream.
I don't have time to fully research the Catholic formulation of "Infusion of Inherent Righteousness" so I don't know how much I can agree with your assessment. The difference I think we have is in the mode of how Christ's inherent righteousness is shared with us. In my limited knowledge Infusion, while finding its original source from God alone, works in such a way that the believer, with this aid, must pursue holiness in order to justify himself, or make himself more fully acceptable to God. Imputation is, to me, the obvious mode outlined in the Scriptures, starting with Abraham who believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. I'm not sure how Christ is righteousness matters regarding the mode in which that righteousness is shared. (I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but that the mode--imputation or infusion, etc--deals with how that righteousness is shared rather than being concerned with whether or not Christ's righteousness is inherent or not. Is that clear as mud?)

So in this way I'm not sure how my belief that Christ's righteousness is inherent is neutralized because I believe that righteousness is imputed to believers.

And just to be clear, because honestly I didn't think of it this way until just now and I can see how some might; while I don't mind the phrasing of "Imputation of Inherent Righteousness" I am thinking very specifically of Christ as Inherently Righteous. The imputation of that righteousness does not infuse us with any kind of inherent righteousness of our own, as if Christ inserted inside of us a seed of his own inherent righteousness that now grows or withers within us based on our efforts of holiness.
wosbald wrote:Drinking more deeply of this stream so as to further demonstrate this quintessence, it might be profitable to cite A.W. Pink (a quote which also happens to be a threefer, as he calls Jonathan Edwards et al. to the dock) …
Justification, strictly speaking, consists in God’s imputing to His elect the righteousness of Christ […] [t]hese are, the non-imputation of guilt or the remission of sins, and second, of the investing of the believer with a legal title to Heaven. The alone ground on which God forgives any man’s sins, and admits him into His judicial favour …

[…]

The "righteousness of Christ" which is imputed to the believer consists of that perfect obedience which He rendered unto the precepts of God’s Law and that death which He died under the penalty of the law. It has been rightly said that, "There is the very same need of Christ’s obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of His suffering the penalty of the law in our stead in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same reason why one should be accepted on our account as the other …" (Jonathan Edwards).

[…]

The holiness of God requires a positive righteousness to our account—that His Law be perfectly kept. But we are unable to keep it, therefore our Sponsor fulfilled it for us. …

[…]

"It is not enough for a man to be pardoned. He, of course, is then innocent—washed from his sin—put back again, like Adam in Eden, just where he was. But that is not enough. It was required of Adam in Eden that he should actually keep the command. It was not enough that he did not break it, or that he is regarded, through the Blood, as though he did not break it. He must keep it: he must continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. How is this necessity supplied? Man must have a righteousness, or God cannot accept him. Man must have a perfect obedience, or else God cannot reward him" (G. S. Bishop). That necessary and perfect obedience is to be found alone in that perfect life, lived by Christ in obedience to the law, before He went to the cross, which is reckoned to the believer’s account.

[…]
Methinks you will be hard pressed to find historic purchase for an "Imputation of Inherent Righteousness" anywhere in the Reformed tradition. Considering that you firmly eschew the "Two Paths" position, the "Federal Vision" theology might seem to be a possible avenue. Based on my very cursory knowledge, FV seems very close to what you're advocating. But considering that whether FV is orthodox Reformism (let alone conceptually coherent) is up for debate, I'm not sure that this would be any more appealing.
Like I said elsewhere and I'll expand upon it here, if the bulk of the Reformed stream believes that Christ gained his righteousness via the Law or that Christ was not inherently righteous, then I'm okay disagreeing with them, even if I agree with them that His righteousness is imputed to the faithful.

I've heard rumblings of Federal Vision theology, but like you, only have a cursory knowledge, and even less than you, because I had no idea what they taught about imputation. I'll check it out though.

And, again, please don't mistake my views as speaking for the Reformed in general. The 'orthodox Reformists' will look upon me and my baptistic bent and my hardy belief in the New Covenant actually being New as being a little out of bounds in what they consider truly Reformed. If we live in the same house, they probably wonder why I keep leaving the basement.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:10 am

As I was scanning the internet I actually came across a blog article from this guy who more or less articulates the exact same thing I've been discussing. I don't know who he is, nor do I follow his blog, and have only done a brief look-over the statement of faith he has on his site. He may be a pretty solid dude, or a kook, and if a kook, I don't endorse anything on his site that is kooky. But he hit the nail on just what we were discussing here. Kind of wild actually.

The Eternal Inherent Righteousness Of Christ Was Imputed To Us
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18637
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:58 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:06 am
Like I said elsewhere and I'll expand upon it here, if the bulk of the Reformed stream believes that Christ gained his righteousness via the Law or that Christ was not inherently righteous, then I'm okay disagreeing with them, even if I agree with them that His righteousness is imputed to the faithful.

I've heard rumblings of Federal Vision theology, but like you, only have a cursory knowledge, and even less than you, because I had no idea what they taught about imputation. I'll check it out though.

And, again, please don't mistake my views as speaking for the Reformed in general. The 'orthodox Reformists' will look upon me and my baptistic bent and my hardy belief in the New Covenant actually being New as being a little out of bounds in what they consider truly Reformed. If we live in the same house, they probably wonder why I keep leaving the basement.
Honestly, I'm a bit floored by the blithe facility with which you're able to throw them under the bus, especially since, at the very least, Piper and Sproul if not Pink et al. seem pretty unabashed in implying — if not explicitly — proclaiming steadfast in their common formulation of the issue in question as being the absolute heart, the reified core , the non-negotiable pearl-of-great-price of the Gospel.

Kinda makes me wonder whether — beyond the negative content of Just Sayin' No to the "Romish" blandishment — you ascribe any positive content to faith. Which is to say, content which can't simply be jettisoned at need.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Regardless, that was a good conversation and all very interesting. Yes, I'm honestly appreciative for it, and maybe this general line-of-discussion can be fruitfully continued at some point.

On another note, what's really caught my eye over the last page or so is the balking at the notion that Jesus needs saving.
infidel wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:19 am
Jesus is saved? Saved from what? Huh? :egor:
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
To begin, I'm not quiet comfortable saying that "Jesus was saved". To be saved, one needs saving. Jesus is the bringer of, not the one needing, salvation.
Assuming that we're still working under the "positive content" that Jesus Christ is true man — like us in all things but sin — and that AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible which says that man — whether with or without sin — doesn't need saving, I'm kinda wondering from whence the squirming and backflips are coming.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:30 pm

wosbald wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:58 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:06 am
Like I said elsewhere and I'll expand upon it here, if the bulk of the Reformed stream believes that Christ gained his righteousness via the Law or that Christ was not inherently righteous, then I'm okay disagreeing with them, even if I agree with them that His righteousness is imputed to the faithful.

I've heard rumblings of Federal Vision theology, but like you, only have a cursory knowledge, and even less than you, because I had no idea what they taught about imputation. I'll check it out though.

And, again, please don't mistake my views as speaking for the Reformed in general. The 'orthodox Reformists' will look upon me and my baptistic bent and my hardy belief in the New Covenant actually being New as being a little out of bounds in what they consider truly Reformed. If we live in the same house, they probably wonder why I keep leaving the basement.
Honestly, I'm a bit floored by the blithe facility with which you're able to throw them under the bus, especially since, at the very least, Piper and Sproul if not Pink et al. seem pretty unabashed in implying — if not explicitly — proclaiming steadfast in their common formulation of the issue in question as being the absolute heart, the reified core , the non-negotiable pearl-of-great-price of the Gospel.

Kinda makes me wonder whether — beyond the negative content of Just Sayin' No to the "Romish" blandishment — you ascribe any positive content to faith. Which is to say, content which can't simply be jettisoned at need.
I don't disagree with them about the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. And I doubt that any of them would disagree that Christ is inherently righteous. Our disagreement would arrive at the point when/if they would say that Christ attained his righteousness via the law. Insofar as that goes, I'd say I'm hardly throwing them under the bus.
wosbald wrote: Regardless, that was a good conversation and all very interesting. Yes, I'm honestly appreciative for it, and maybe this general line-of-discussion can be fruitfully continued at some point.

On another note, what's really caught my eye over the last page or so is the balking at the notion that Jesus needs saving.
infidel wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:19 am
Jesus is saved? Saved from what? Huh? :egor:
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
To begin, I'm not quiet comfortable saying that "Jesus was saved". To be saved, one needs saving. Jesus is the bringer of, not the one needing, salvation.
Assuming that we're still working under the "positive content" that Jesus Christ is true man — like us in all things but sin — and that AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible which says that man — whether with or without sin — doesn't need saving, I'm kinda wondering from whence the squirming and backflips are coming.
Like us in all things but sin. Again, if he is truly man and is truly without sin (which, by the way, doesn't make him any less man), then what does he need to be saved from? The Bible is rife with the idea that we are in need of saving because of our sin. Christ, the the righteous one, took our place, destroying sin by becoming sin is the very way in which he accomplished the imputation of our righteousness. Martin Luther speaks of the wedding ring of faith, uniting the two in one, so that he takes the place of his bride. This is how she can be washed clean and be found justified.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

I'm curious as to why you think he, as true man without sin, needed to be saved, and how it was accomplished.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18637
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:42 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:30 pm
wosbald wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:58 pm
On another note, what's really caught my eye over the last page or so is the balking at the notion that Jesus needs saving.
infidel wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:19 am
Jesus is saved? Saved from what? Huh? :egor:
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
To begin, I'm not quiet comfortable saying that "Jesus was saved". To be saved, one needs saving. Jesus is the bringer of, not the one needing, salvation.
Assuming that we're still working under the "positive content" that Jesus Christ is true man — like us in all things but sin — and that AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible which says that man — whether with or without sin — doesn't need saving, I'm kinda wondering from whence the squirming and backflips are coming.
Like us in all things but sin. Again, if he is truly man and is truly without sin (which, by the way, doesn't make him any less man), then what does he need to be saved from? The Bible is rife with the idea that we are in need of saving because of our sin. Christ, the the righteous one, took our place, destroying sin by becoming sin is the very way in which he accomplished the imputation of our righteousness. Martin Luther speaks of the wedding ring of faith, uniting the two in one, so that he takes the place of his bride. This is how she can be washed clean and be found justified.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

I'm curious as to why you think he, as true man without sin, needed to be saved, and how it was accomplished.
Considering the general requirements of Sola Scriptura, I'm not sure that I'm the one that needs to justify my position (though perhaps, there is merely some terminological confusion over the word "saved"). Regardless, I'm wondering where it says in the Bible that man-sans-sin is is no need of grace. That, for example, prelapsarian Adam was fully equipped and ready-to-go, able to appropriate the Divinity at will.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:12 pm

wosbald wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:42 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:30 pm
wosbald wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:58 pm
On another note, what's really caught my eye over the last page or so is the balking at the notion that Jesus needs saving.
infidel wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:19 am
Jesus is saved? Saved from what? Huh? :egor:
tuttle wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:28 pm
To begin, I'm not quiet comfortable saying that "Jesus was saved". To be saved, one needs saving. Jesus is the bringer of, not the one needing, salvation.
Assuming that we're still working under the "positive content" that Jesus Christ is true man — like us in all things but sin — and that AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible which says that man — whether with or without sin — doesn't need saving, I'm kinda wondering from whence the squirming and backflips are coming.
Like us in all things but sin. Again, if he is truly man and is truly without sin (which, by the way, doesn't make him any less man), then what does he need to be saved from? The Bible is rife with the idea that we are in need of saving because of our sin. Christ, the the righteous one, took our place, destroying sin by becoming sin is the very way in which he accomplished the imputation of our righteousness. Martin Luther speaks of the wedding ring of faith, uniting the two in one, so that he takes the place of his bride. This is how she can be washed clean and be found justified.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

I'm curious as to why you think he, as true man without sin, needed to be saved, and how it was accomplished.
Considering the general requirements of Sola Scriptura, I'm not sure that I'm the one that needs to justify my position (though perhaps, there is merely some terminological confusion over the word "saved"). Regardless, I'm wondering where it says in the Bible that man-sans-sin is is no need of grace. That, for example, prelapsarian Adam was fully equipped and ready-to-go, able to appropriate the Divinity at will.
I don't know if I trust your assessment of 'general requirements of Sola Scriptura' :lol: And for the record, I wasn't looking for you to justify your position, I was just asking an honest question. This is the first I've ever heard from anyone that Jesus needed to be saved.

Christ is the savior. How can the Savior save people from their sins if he himself is in need of the same kind of salvation? How is it that Christ, full of grace and truth, is in need of grace? I don't know how else to put it. My spidey-sense is tingling that there's a trap around the corner :lol:
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6480
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by infidel » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:44 pm

tuttle wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:12 pm
wosbald wrote:Considering the general requirements of Sola Scriptura, I'm not sure that I'm the one that needs to justify my position (though perhaps, there is merely some terminological confusion over the word "saved"). Regardless, I'm wondering where it says in the Bible that man-sans-sin is is no need of grace. That, for example, prelapsarian Adam was fully equipped and ready-to-go, able to appropriate the Divinity at will.
I don't know if I trust your assessment of 'general requirements of Sola Scriptura' :lol: And for the record, I wasn't looking for you to justify your position, I was just asking an honest question. This is the first I've ever heard from anyone that Jesus needed to be saved.

Christ is the savior. How can the Savior save people from their sins if he himself is in need of the same kind of salvation? How is it that Christ, full of grace and truth, is in need of grace? I don't know how else to put it. My spidey-sense is tingling that there's a trap around the corner :lol:
Does it have anything to do with His baptism?
But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18637
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:56 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:12 pm
wosbald wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:42 pm
Considering the general requirements of Sola Scriptura, I'm not sure that I'm the one that needs to justify my position (though perhaps, there is merely some terminological confusion over the word "saved"). Regardless, I'm wondering where it says in the Bible that man-sans-sin is is no need of grace. That, for example, prelapsarian Adam was fully equipped and ready-to-go, able to appropriate the Divinity at will.
I don't know if I trust your assessment of 'general requirements of Sola Scriptura' :lol: And for the record, I wasn't looking for you to justify your position, I was just asking an honest question. This is the first I've ever heard from anyone that Jesus needed to be saved.

Christ is the savior. How can the Savior save people from their sins if he himself is in need of the same kind of salvation? How is it that Christ, full of grace and truth, is in need of grace? I don't know how else to put it. My spidey-sense is tingling that there's a trap around the corner :lol:
I wouldn't say that it's a "trap" exactly, though I will say that this question seems quite closely related to our preceding convo. We can broach this at need, but please indulge me in putting it aside for the moment.

Your highlighted question puts a little bow on the issue. Since we agree that Christ is true man, then the question become whether man — with or, more pointedly, without sin — is in need of grace. Whether or not prelapsarian, sinless Adam was in need of grace. Whether or not man, always and everywhere, needs grace.

I would say that you risk nothing by admitting that Jesus, as true man, was in need of grace and that this simple truth holds whether or not you immediately qualify it with the affirmation that Jesus was "full of grace". Otherwise, you risk saying that man-without-sin does not need grace. Unless this is a row you want to hoe, I don't think saying that Jesus needed grace is particularly controversial.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am

wosbald wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:56 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:12 pm
wosbald wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:42 pm
Considering the general requirements of Sola Scriptura, I'm not sure that I'm the one that needs to justify my position (though perhaps, there is merely some terminological confusion over the word "saved"). Regardless, I'm wondering where it says in the Bible that man-sans-sin is is no need of grace. That, for example, prelapsarian Adam was fully equipped and ready-to-go, able to appropriate the Divinity at will.
I don't know if I trust your assessment of 'general requirements of Sola Scriptura' :lol: And for the record, I wasn't looking for you to justify your position, I was just asking an honest question. This is the first I've ever heard from anyone that Jesus needed to be saved.

Christ is the savior. How can the Savior save people from their sins if he himself is in need of the same kind of salvation? How is it that Christ, full of grace and truth, is in need of grace? I don't know how else to put it. My spidey-sense is tingling that there's a trap around the corner :lol:
I wouldn't say that it's a "trap" exactly, though I will say that this question seems quite closely related to our preceding convo. We can broach this at need, but please indulge me in putting it aside for the moment.

Your highlighted question puts a little bow on the issue. Since we agree that Christ is true man, then the question become whether man — with or, more pointedly, without sin — is in need of grace. Whether or not prelapsarian, sinless Adam was in need of grace. Whether or not man, always and everywhere, needs grace.

I would say that you risk nothing by admitting that Jesus, as true man, was in need of grace and that this simple truth holds whether or not you immediately qualify it with the affirmation that Jesus was "full of grace". Otherwise, you risk saying that man-without-sin does not need grace. Unless this is a row you want to hoe, I don't think saying that Jesus needed grace is particularly controversial.
The only men-without-sin was Adam (and Eve) and Christ. (Although, it strikes me now that this may be about something else**).

So the only risk anyone would run in saying man-without-sin are not in need of grace applies only to those individuals. And even then, Adam and Eve fell, and were given grace, so we're really ultimately talking only about Christ. Now I'm not saying flat out that Christ or the non-Christ hypothetical man-without-sin does not need grace mostly because that is something that isn't revealed in Scripture. What I do know is that Christ was full of grace and truth and that he came to save sinners by taking their sin upon himself. So if Christ came as truly man and was in need of any grace, all the grace he needed was in full supply. How? I don't know. But that's what has been revealed by the Holy Spirit.

That said and in contrast to the above, standing firm upon the idea (rather than merely speculating) that Jesus needed grace and in particular that Jesus needed to be saved, is quite controversial, unless a reasonable argument be made for that idea. Left alone, its leads one to think, What grace did Jesus lack and does this in anyway discount the statement that he was indeed full of grace, and What did Jesus need saved from? The Scriptures are replete with the concept that grace is given to sinners and that salvation is offered to sinners. And it is clear that Jesus was sinless. The juxtaposition of those two ideas leads to the natural conclusion that Jesus did not need grace or salvation in the same way sinners do, and since Scripture is silent about man-without-sin needing grace or salvation, we are only left at best to either speculate about prelapsarian, sinless Adam, or be content to leave it a mystery. Any hard line taken in the affirmation of sinless man needing grace and salvation is going to need some back up from the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying it isn't there simply because I may not have seen it. But I haven't seen it so far.




**Is all this really about Mary? I feel like this is about Mary. If Mary is not seen as sinless then I'm having a hard time understanding why the concept of man-without-sin needing grace/salvation is needed.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18637
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:08 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
The Scriptures are replete with the concept that grace is given to sinners …
Now, yer hittin' on it.

So, if …
  1. Grace is given to sinners
    and if
  2. Prelapsarian Adam is not a sinner
    then
  3. does that mean that Prelapsarian Adam did not need grace?
————————————————————–
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
And even then, Adam and Eve fell, and were given grace …
Where does Scripture say that Prelapsarian Adam was given grace? Cuz I don't think that it does. At the least, it seems pretty certain that it doesn't say so in the Edenic narrative.

—————————————————————
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
Is all this really about Mary? I feel like this is about Mary.
No, this is not about Mary. Well, I'm sure it could be made to do so in a roundabout way, but Mary was not on my mind here. Rather, Sproul was on my mind, as he strongly implies, in at least one of his writings, that Prelapsarian Adam did not need grace.

Actually, Sproul fudges a bit on this question, since he does throw a bone to the theological obligation that Prelapsarian Adam needed grace. So, I don't want to misrepresent him, here. But he almost immediately marginalizes this concern, as he plows ahead expositing a "Covenant of Works". However, I had wanted to hold off mining this material until we'd established the common baselines which seemed necessary before unpacking it.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 36593
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by Del » Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:36 pm

You all know the difference between righteousness and salvation, right?

And you know that justification = righteousness, right?

Christ restored us to righteousness, so we could our salvation could be possible.

And salvation means that our sins are forgiven, so we can start our new life restored in Christ and with the hope of Heaven.
=========================================
St. Paul says that we are justified by faith in Christ, which makes sense after some long study. (Romans 5:1. This is Paul's theme through much of Galations and Romans.)

But I hear modern Christians saying, "We are saved by faith" -- and that's not biblical at all. Even Martin Luther would have chafed at that, and I suspect that Calvin would dispute it also.

These folks refer to Ephesians 2:8-9:
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
The thinking goes thus: "I have faith, so I now am saved and assured of heaven. I know I have faith because I prayed the Sinners Prayer in public, which is not a 'work' at all, no matter what it looks like. Anyhow, I wrote the date I got saved in my Bible, right here see?"

And I just say that the whole of Scripture does not show us that justification, salvation, judgment, and heaven do not occur in the same instant.

Evangelical Christians are much closer to the biblical truth when they speak of their "walk with Christ" -- a phrase that is not in the Bible, but it sums up the work of Scripture very well.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Skip
Everything in Moderatoration
Everything in Moderatoration
Posts: 24182
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Slightly East of Pepik
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by Skip » Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:01 pm

Delsplaining is alive and well.
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Winner of the CPS Award: "Most Likely to be Found Without Pants at Any Given Moment"

2017 Curmudgeon of the Year

"No man is peer to Skip, peasant." -A_Morley

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 36593
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by Del » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:27 pm

Skip wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:01 pm
Delsplaining is alive and well.
Look at me with your pixelly eyes and tell me that they have the basics under control here.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:00 am

During the holidays I took time off of CPS. Sorry for the delay in response.
wosbald wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:08 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
The Scriptures are replete with the concept that grace is given to sinners …
Now, yer hittin' on it.

So, if …
  1. Grace is given to sinners
    and if
  2. Prelapsarian Adam is not a sinner
    then
  3. does that mean that Prelapsarian Adam did not need grace?
I'm beginning to wonder what you mean by grace. When I said that the Scriptures are replete with the concept that grace is given to sinners, I'm specifically thinking of passages such as Del pointed out: "It is by grace that you have been saved". That is, God gave grace to those in need of salvation because this salvation is unable to be achieved/attained without it. In this sense I think one can hardly be faulted for speculating that prelapsarian Adam was not in need of this kind of grace.
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
And even then, Adam and Eve fell, and were given grace …
Where does Scripture say that Prelapsarian Adam was given grace? Cuz I don't think that it does. At the least, it seems pretty certain that it doesn't say so in the Edenic narrative.
It doesn't say anywhere that Prelapsarian Adam was given grace. Postlapsarian Adam, on the other hand, was in the same state the rest of humanity finds itself in (fallen), and it was to the Postlapsarian Adam and Eve that God pronounced the protoevangelium, thus ushering in the concept of sinners in need of salvation.
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
Is all this really about Mary? I feel like this is about Mary.
No, this is not about Mary. Well, I'm sure it could be made to do so in a roundabout way, but Mary was not on my mind here. Rather, Sproul was on my mind, as he strongly implies, in at least one of his writings, that Prelapsarian Adam did not need grace.

Actually, Sproul fudges a bit on this question, since he does throw a bone to the theological obligation that Prelapsarian Adam needed grace. So, I don't want to misrepresent him, here. But he almost immediately marginalizes this concern, as he plows ahead expositing a "Covenant of Works". However, I had wanted to hold off mining this material until we'd established the common baselines which seemed necessary before unpacking it.
We don't have to go to Mary here, but I only mentioned her in this context because of the Roman Catholic teaching that Mary was sinless. It seemed to me that if Mary were sinless, yet needed salvation, then it would be this door that was opened which led to the idea that sinless Jesus was also in need of salvation. But as I'm not sure yet what you mean by Jesus needing to be saved, I'll leave this for now.

I'm only peripherally aware of Sproul on this subject so I'm unaware of his arguments or his conclusions, however I'm not wholly convinced that any theory thrown around about Prelapsarian Adam is one that we can claim as a hard and fast doctrine. That is to say I don't think we can move beyond mere speculation because ultimately Adam fell. He did not remain sinless.

What I'm more interested in from this conversation is the idea you put forward that a sinless Christ is in need of salvation. I'm still not sure what that means exactly. I outlined my concern in my post above from Dec 23rd.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
gaining_age
What's-his-name - President: Devo Fan Club Intl
What's-his-name - President: Devo Fan Club Intl
Posts: 15374
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: sun soaked Arizona

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by gaining_age » Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:02 am

I've always appreciated the definition of grace: The power God gives to do His will.
Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18637
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:29 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:00 am
I'm beginning to wonder what you mean by grace. When I said that the Scriptures are replete with the concept that grace is given to sinners, I'm specifically thinking of passages such as Del pointed out: "It is by grace that you have been saved". That is, God gave grace to those in need of salvation because this salvation is unable to be achieved/attained without it. In this sense I think one can hardly be faulted for speculating that prelapsarian Adam was not in need of this kind of grace.
Grace is the Free (read: "Sovereign") initiative of God bridging the infinite gap that obtains between the Creature and the Creator.

Either Prelapsarian Adam needed it (in order to bridge the gap) or he did not (cuz there was no gap to bridge).

To me, it seems like fudging to say that Prelapsarian Adam was not in need of "this kind" of grace whilst leaving hanging the question of just which kind he might be in need. That is, assuming that he needed any at all.

—————————————————————————————————
EDIT:
tuttle wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:00 am
What I'm more interested in from this conversation is the idea you put forward that a sinless Christ is in need of salvation. I'm still not sure what that means exactly. I outlined my concern in my post above from Dec 23rd.
I thought that you'd already dealt with this (and IMO, adequately, from a Catholic POV) here …
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
So if Christ came as truly man and was in need of any grace, all the grace he needed was in full supply.
(Other than the somewhat niggling concern of hedging with the word "if"), I've got no problems with this statement. As true Man (as Creature), Christ was always and everywhere in need of grace. As true God (as Creator), he had it in full supply.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12446
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:19 pm

wosbald wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:29 pm

tuttle wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:00 am
What I'm more interested in from this conversation is the idea you put forward that a sinless Christ is in need of salvation. I'm still not sure what that means exactly. I outlined my concern in my post above from Dec 23rd.
I thought that you'd already dealt with this (and IMO, adequately, from a Catholic POV) here …
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
So if Christ came as truly man and was in need of any grace, all the grace he needed was in full supply.
(Other than the somewhat niggling concern of hedging with the word "if"), I've got no problems with this statement. As true Man (as Creature), Christ was always and everywhere in need of grace. As true God (as Creator), he had it in full supply.
I also don't have qualms with that statement, but how do you affirm that statement with the idea that Jesus 'needed to be saved'?

I guess I should ask, did Christ, as true man, need to be saved as other men, as outlined in the Scriptures? Because as much as I agree that grace is the free initiative of God bridging the infinite gap between creature and creator, I'm hard pressed to find where the Scriptures do not link the idea of 'salvation' and 'from sins'. I might be able to get on board with the supposal that Prelapsarian Adam was in need of this bridging grace, and therefore in the same way sinless Christ, but only so far. Only because Scripture doesn't speak of the grace that is given in this way.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18637
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:03 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:19 pm
wosbald wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:29 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:00 am
What I'm more interested in from this conversation is the idea you put forward that a sinless Christ is in need of salvation. I'm still not sure what that means exactly. I outlined my concern in my post above from Dec 23rd.
I thought that you'd already dealt with this (and IMO, adequately, from a Catholic POV) here …
tuttle wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:54 am
So if Christ came as truly man and was in need of any grace, all the grace he needed was in full supply.
(Other than the somewhat niggling concern of hedging with the word "if"), I've got no problems with this statement. As true Man (as Creature), Christ was always and everywhere in need of grace. As true God (as Creator), he had it in full supply.
I also don't have qualms with that statement, but how do you affirm that statement with the idea that Jesus 'needed to be saved'?

I guess I should ask, did Christ, as true man, need to be saved as other men, as outlined in the Scriptures? Because as much as I agree that grace is the free initiative of God bridging the infinite gap between creature and creator, I'm hard pressed to find where the Scriptures do not link the idea of 'salvation' and 'from sins'. I might be able to get on board with the supposal that Prelapsarian Adam was in need of this bridging grace, and therefore in the same way sinless Christ, but only so far. Only because Scripture doesn't speak of the grace that is given in this way.
Lemme preface by addressing your semantic reticence regarding the term "Salvation" by suggesting that, perhaps, you try substituting "Glorification". It really matters not, from a Catholic POV.

Getting back to bidniz, I would respond by saying that the proper locus for identifying that which is at issue (and which is also the locus where Sproul, Piper et al. go off the rails) is precisely in the Edenic state. All the issues are distilled there.

Now, once one cross-references the Edenic state with the Creature/Creator Distinction, then — unless one wants to embrace the "Two Paths" option (one path to Glory for Prelapsarian Adam/Jesus and a separate path to Glory for Postlapsarian Adam and the rest of us) — it would seem that one must affirm that there is only one universal Path to Glory, viz., the Path of Grace. One Path which holds for all men, due to Man's status as Creature.

Yes, this would undermine Sproul's "Covenant of Works vs. Covenant of Grace" distinction, but since you've already eschewed the "Two Paths" option earlier in the thread, abandoning Covenant Theology on this point should be no biggie.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

Post Reply