Bible Code

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:26 pm

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:16 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:43 am
[snipped for tidiness]

When we use the "Priesthood of Believers" to negate the ordained priesthood, we are breaking what God instituted for us over the history of salvation.

When old Melchizedek, King of Salem and "a priest of God Most High," welcomed Abraham and offered "gifts of bread and wine" -- this is a wondrous prophetic foretelling of what our Christian worship would be.
I'm not (& protestants aren't) using the Priesthood of Believers to negate the anything. If anything, a right understanding of it augments the role of the shepherds and what it means to be a priest in the New Covenant. The reformers didn't invent it to negate the Roman priesthood, they stood upon exactly what the Scriptures say, what the Apostles taught, in order to reorient (reform/correct) an error entrenched in the Church. The evidence is as clear as crystal to anyone willing to actually look at how the Apostles wrote about the priesthood in the church. It is always applied to the whole of the believers. Those who are set apart, ordained to lead, are simply that: rulers/shepherds/overseers.

The Protestant has it right because the Protestant has rightly understood the distinction between the sacerdos and the presbyteros in the Holy Writ. (In English it mucks things up even more because we can use the word 'priest' for both.) So it is wrong to translate or understand Peter as saying the "Eldership of believers" because Peter isn't using the word for an overseer but hierateuma, used specifically for the sacerdotal order. No longer in the NT is there a sacerdotal caste. There is no longer any single, special class of sacerdotal priest. According to the apostles, every believer is a sacerdotal priest!

To try to argue against this really is an exercise in pulling the sheets over your head. You don't have to read Luther or Calvin or even trust tuttle. You can get a Greek dictionary and a concordance and do the legwork yourself!
Paul was visiting synagogues and teaching Thessalonians and Corinthians how to do Christian worship before the First Letter to the Thessalonians or any of the Gospels were written. The Apostles spread Christian faith and worship throughout the world for decades before the first words of New Testament were written. We don't need Scripture to tell us how to worship!

In St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he is already telling his Christians that they are doing their worship wrong. Paul wrote his letters to Christians who were already catechized in the ways and meaning of Christian worship.

Of course, Scripture is indispensable in helping us to understand why we worship as they did. Have to have worship right first.

Worship right, faith right, Bible right.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

That's why the crap-cloud surrounding Pachamama and the Amazon Conference is so important to many Catholics.
The Apostles, in the Scriptures, teach the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers. Again, this is undeniable and not even a protestant ploy. Just the cold hard facts.

Are you saying they taught something different to the churches before the Scriptures were written down?
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

User avatar
FredS
King Fredrik
King Fredrik
Posts: 24017
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Bible Code

Post by FredS » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:33 pm

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:16 pm
. . . We don't need Scripture to tell us how to worship!
Take note of this Protestants. It is one of the fundamental differences between your church and the RCC. I'm not saying Catholics reject Scripture - Del wrote "Of course, Scripture is indispensable in helping us to understand why" - just that they don't think one can live by Scripture alone. Absent tradition. The backstory if you will.

Notice also that Del often writes of "Bible Churches". One would assume that includes Brother Jeremiahs Fellowship At The Well Church that opened last month in the empty PetsMart building down at the strip mall, based on nothing more than Brother Jeremiahs bible knowledge and charisma, and any other church that says the Bible is all they need.

This is a fairly fundamental difference and we'd all do well to understand it at the outset.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
Del
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
Posts: 42050
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:49 pm

tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:26 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:16 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:43 am
[snipped for tidiness]

When we use the "Priesthood of Believers" to negate the ordained priesthood, we are breaking what God instituted for us over the history of salvation.

When old Melchizedek, King of Salem and "a priest of God Most High," welcomed Abraham and offered "gifts of bread and wine" -- this is a wondrous prophetic foretelling of what our Christian worship would be.
I'm not (& protestants aren't) using the Priesthood of Believers to negate the anything. If anything, a right understanding of it augments the role of the shepherds and what it means to be a priest in the New Covenant. The reformers didn't invent it to negate the Roman priesthood, they stood upon exactly what the Scriptures say, what the Apostles taught, in order to reorient (reform/correct) an error entrenched in the Church. The evidence is as clear as crystal to anyone willing to actually look at how the Apostles wrote about the priesthood in the church. It is always applied to the whole of the believers. Those who are set apart, ordained to lead, are simply that: rulers/shepherds/overseers.

The Protestant has it right because the Protestant has rightly understood the distinction between the sacerdos and the presbyteros in the Holy Writ. (In English it mucks things up even more because we can use the word 'priest' for both.) So it is wrong to translate or understand Peter as saying the "Eldership of believers" because Peter isn't using the word for an overseer but hierateuma, used specifically for the sacerdotal order. No longer in the NT is there a sacerdotal caste. There is no longer any single, special class of sacerdotal priest. According to the apostles, every believer is a sacerdotal priest!

To try to argue against this really is an exercise in pulling the sheets over your head. You don't have to read Luther or Calvin or even trust tuttle. You can get a Greek dictionary and a concordance and do the legwork yourself!
Paul was visiting synagogues and teaching Thessalonians and Corinthians how to do Christian worship before the First Letter to the Thessalonians or any of the Gospels were written. The Apostles spread Christian faith and worship throughout the world for decades before the first words of New Testament were written. We don't need Scripture to tell us how to worship!

In St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he is already telling his Christians that they are doing their worship wrong. Paul wrote his letters to Christians who were already catechized in the ways and meaning of Christian worship.

Of course, Scripture is indispensable in helping us to understand why we worship as they did. Have to have worship right first.

Worship right, faith right, Bible right.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

That's why the crap-cloud surrounding Pachamama and the Amazon Conference is so important to many Catholics.
The Apostles, in the Scriptures, teach the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers. Again, this is undeniable and not even a protestant ploy. Just the cold hard facts.

Are you saying they taught something different to the churches before the Scriptures were written down?
I'm saying that you are using a modern interpretation of Scripture that is not what the Apostles meant when they wrote it.

Just look at all of the different types of ancient Christian Churches and how they worship --
- the Coptics in Egypt, established by St. Mark the Evangelist.
- The Thomasite Christians of India (established by St. Thomas the Apostles, and separated from the West for a thousand years until they were re-discovered by St. Frances Xavier).
-The Syrian Orthodox.
- The Ethiopian Orthodox.
- The Chaldean Church (who still worship in ancient Aramaic, with a strong enthusiasm for preserving the actual words that Jesus spoke.)

Different as they are -- some sundered through the ages by schisms and geopolitical events -- they all have ordained priests and bishops much like the western Catholic Church. That's how the Holy Spirit inspired all of the Apostles to establish their planted Churches, wherever in the world they went.

There is also a great study of history concerning the priesthood in both the East and the West -- mainly disputing the practices of marriage, celibacy, and continence in the early Church. If the Apostles had NOT taught us about a sacramental priesthood that Jesus instituted at the Last Supper -- until some strange appearance after all of the Apostles were dead -- something that traumatic would have left scars that St. Irenaeus would have recorded in his encyclopedia of early church history, Against Heresies.
Off Topic
Hmmmm.... I see at the link that Chapter 3 lists the various Scriptures that the heretics abuse to justify their false teachings. Some of it is gnostic bible codes and stuff. Some of it is fine dicing of words and meanings, as modern biblical scholars do. There's nothing new, and there never was!
"Anyone who knows anything of experts will know one thing for certain; that they will always be disturbing our way of living; and therefore we shall always be disputing their right of governing." - GKC. Feb 11, 1933.

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:12 pm

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:49 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:26 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:16 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:43 am
[snipped for tidiness]

When we use the "Priesthood of Believers" to negate the ordained priesthood, we are breaking what God instituted for us over the history of salvation.

When old Melchizedek, King of Salem and "a priest of God Most High," welcomed Abraham and offered "gifts of bread and wine" -- this is a wondrous prophetic foretelling of what our Christian worship would be.
I'm not (& protestants aren't) using the Priesthood of Believers to negate the anything. If anything, a right understanding of it augments the role of the shepherds and what it means to be a priest in the New Covenant. The reformers didn't invent it to negate the Roman priesthood, they stood upon exactly what the Scriptures say, what the Apostles taught, in order to reorient (reform/correct) an error entrenched in the Church. The evidence is as clear as crystal to anyone willing to actually look at how the Apostles wrote about the priesthood in the church. It is always applied to the whole of the believers. Those who are set apart, ordained to lead, are simply that: rulers/shepherds/overseers.

The Protestant has it right because the Protestant has rightly understood the distinction between the sacerdos and the presbyteros in the Holy Writ. (In English it mucks things up even more because we can use the word 'priest' for both.) So it is wrong to translate or understand Peter as saying the "Eldership of believers" because Peter isn't using the word for an overseer but hierateuma, used specifically for the sacerdotal order. No longer in the NT is there a sacerdotal caste. There is no longer any single, special class of sacerdotal priest. According to the apostles, every believer is a sacerdotal priest!

To try to argue against this really is an exercise in pulling the sheets over your head. You don't have to read Luther or Calvin or even trust tuttle. You can get a Greek dictionary and a concordance and do the legwork yourself!
Paul was visiting synagogues and teaching Thessalonians and Corinthians how to do Christian worship before the First Letter to the Thessalonians or any of the Gospels were written. The Apostles spread Christian faith and worship throughout the world for decades before the first words of New Testament were written. We don't need Scripture to tell us how to worship!

In St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he is already telling his Christians that they are doing their worship wrong. Paul wrote his letters to Christians who were already catechized in the ways and meaning of Christian worship.

Of course, Scripture is indispensable in helping us to understand why we worship as they did. Have to have worship right first.

Worship right, faith right, Bible right.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

That's why the crap-cloud surrounding Pachamama and the Amazon Conference is so important to many Catholics.
The Apostles, in the Scriptures, teach the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers. Again, this is undeniable and not even a protestant ploy. Just the cold hard facts.

Are you saying they taught something different to the churches before the Scriptures were written down?
I'm saying that you are using a modern interpretation of Scripture that is not what the Apostles meant when they wrote it.
We can continue the conversation into history after this is addressed. First things are first.

In no way am I using a modern translation. I literally provided the Greek word...

Here's 1 Peter 2:5 in the Latin Vulgate:
et ipsi tamquam lapides vivi superaedificamini domus spiritalis sacerdotium sanctum offerre spiritales hostias acceptabiles Deo per Iesum Christum
I don't know how I can be more clear. What do you think Peter meant when he wrote it?
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

User avatar
Del
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
Posts: 42050
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:12 pm

tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:12 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:49 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:26 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:16 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:43 am
[snipped for tidiness]

When we use the "Priesthood of Believers" to negate the ordained priesthood, we are breaking what God instituted for us over the history of salvation.

When old Melchizedek, King of Salem and "a priest of God Most High," welcomed Abraham and offered "gifts of bread and wine" -- this is a wondrous prophetic foretelling of what our Christian worship would be.
I'm not (& protestants aren't) using the Priesthood of Believers to negate the anything. If anything, a right understanding of it augments the role of the shepherds and what it means to be a priest in the New Covenant. The reformers didn't invent it to negate the Roman priesthood, they stood upon exactly what the Scriptures say, what the Apostles taught, in order to reorient (reform/correct) an error entrenched in the Church. The evidence is as clear as crystal to anyone willing to actually look at how the Apostles wrote about the priesthood in the church. It is always applied to the whole of the believers. Those who are set apart, ordained to lead, are simply that: rulers/shepherds/overseers.

The Protestant has it right because the Protestant has rightly understood the distinction between the sacerdos and the presbyteros in the Holy Writ. (In English it mucks things up even more because we can use the word 'priest' for both.) So it is wrong to translate or understand Peter as saying the "Eldership of believers" because Peter isn't using the word for an overseer but hierateuma, used specifically for the sacerdotal order. No longer in the NT is there a sacerdotal caste. There is no longer any single, special class of sacerdotal priest. According to the apostles, every believer is a sacerdotal priest!

To try to argue against this really is an exercise in pulling the sheets over your head. You don't have to read Luther or Calvin or even trust tuttle. You can get a Greek dictionary and a concordance and do the legwork yourself!
Paul was visiting synagogues and teaching Thessalonians and Corinthians how to do Christian worship before the First Letter to the Thessalonians or any of the Gospels were written. The Apostles spread Christian faith and worship throughout the world for decades before the first words of New Testament were written. We don't need Scripture to tell us how to worship!

In St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he is already telling his Christians that they are doing their worship wrong. Paul wrote his letters to Christians who were already catechized in the ways and meaning of Christian worship.

Of course, Scripture is indispensable in helping us to understand why we worship as they did. Have to have worship right first.

Worship right, faith right, Bible right.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

That's why the crap-cloud surrounding Pachamama and the Amazon Conference is so important to many Catholics.
The Apostles, in the Scriptures, teach the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers. Again, this is undeniable and not even a protestant ploy. Just the cold hard facts.

Are you saying they taught something different to the churches before the Scriptures were written down?
I'm saying that you are using a modern interpretation of Scripture that is not what the Apostles meant when they wrote it.
We can continue the conversation into history after this is addressed. First things are first.

In no way am I using a modern translation. I literally provided the Greek word...

Here's 1 Peter 2:5 in the Latin Vulgate:
et ipsi tamquam lapides vivi superaedificamini domus spiritalis sacerdotium sanctum offerre spiritales hostias acceptabiles Deo per Iesum Christum
I don't know how I can be more clear. What do you think Peter meant when he wrote it?
Peter was saying that we all participate in the munera of Christ -- priest, prophet, and king. Specifically, we participate as members of the priestly household of Christ.

Just as every Israelite participated in the temple sacrifices. The imagery is all right there in the Old Testament. Not all are priests, but all participate in the priestly sacrifices.
==================================

This was a radical notion to the ancient world. In Roman temples, the outside of the building was ornate -- but the inside altar was a greasy butcher shop. No one went in there except the priests. The people did not "participate" in the Judeo-Christian sense of having a relationship with our God.

When Christians were free to build churches (early 4th century, under Constantine), they did the exact opposite. The outside of the church looked like a warehouse. But the inside was full of gold, porphyry, marble, mosaics and icons. It looked like heaven. They passed through running water baptismal fonts and entered into the sanctuary, where the altar was light with lamps and candles in precious metals. The altar was gleaming marble, ornately carved and polished.

The idea was clear: This is where the people of God, the royal priesthood, the holy nation come to meet their God in worship.

(It wasn't until the Renaissance that Romans started decorating the outsides of churches.)
"Anyone who knows anything of experts will know one thing for certain; that they will always be disturbing our way of living; and therefore we shall always be disputing their right of governing." - GKC. Feb 11, 1933.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22278
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by wosbald » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:21 am

tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:42 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:27 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:56 am
coco wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:04 pm
Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. That is to say, if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.
How is God said to be Sovereign if Creation can so box-him-in by Sin that, if he wants to forgive, he's only left with one "out"?
The funny quirk about being Sovereign is the ability to design Creation in whatever way the Sovereign desires. Every artist limits his creation in some form or another to achieve their purpose. A painter doesn't use song to create his image. He's stuck himself with paint and he sees his creation through. So it's the other way around. He boxed Creation in and is pleased to work with and in what he made.

In a real way, God didn't leave himself with one 'out' (though I don't have a problem saying that) but he left us with only one 'out'. A very narrow way.
First off, I don't have any problem with the highlighted text as being a general theological principle.

But when you apply said principle to this situation, you seem to imply that Sin/Evil is part of the Natural Order — a rational element which is "baked into" Creation by God — such that he cannot forgive Sin any way he so chooses in exactly the same way as he can't create a square-circle or create a mammal without creating air for it to breathe.
Not sure where to go with this one …
That's a first. :wink:

But srsly, does this mean that …
  1. … you see the problem with having God "baking-in" SIn into the fabric of the Universe — such that God authors Sin in the same way he authors any other rational element, from the harmonies of the mathematical order to those of biological — but are left flummoxed for an answer due to being hogtied by the Scriptural text?
  2. … you've got no problem with the "bake-in" from the get-go? What's the fuss? Bring on the Sinnamon Rolls, baby!
Or maybe something else?

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:50 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:42 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:27 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:43 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:56 am
coco wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:04 pm
Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. That is to say, if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.
How is God said to be Sovereign if Creation can so box-him-in by Sin that, if he wants to forgive, he's only left with one "out"?
The funny quirk about being Sovereign is the ability to design Creation in whatever way the Sovereign desires. Every artist limits his creation in some form or another to achieve their purpose. A painter doesn't use song to create his image. He's stuck himself with paint and he sees his creation through. So it's the other way around. He boxed Creation in and is pleased to work with and in what he made.

In a real way, God didn't leave himself with one 'out' (though I don't have a problem saying that) but he left us with only one 'out'. A very narrow way.
First off, I don't have any problem with the highlighted text as being a general theological principle.

But when you apply said principle to this situation, you seem to imply that Sin/Evil is part of the Natural Order — a rational element which is "baked into" Creation by God — such that he cannot forgive Sin any way he so chooses in exactly the same way as he can't create a square-circle or create a mammal without creating air for it to breathe.
Not sure where to go with this one …
That's a first. :wink:
:bacon:
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:21 am
But srsly, does this mean that …
  1. … you see the problem with having God "baking-in" SIn into the fabric of the Universe — such that God authors Sin in the same way he authors any other rational element, from the harmonies of the mathematical order to those of biological — but are left flummoxed for answer due to being hogtied by the Scriptural text?
  2. … you've got no problem with the "bake-in" from the get-go? What's the fuss? Bring on the Sinnamon Rolls, baby!
Or maybe something else?
I guess I'm hesitant on one hand because I'm wary of your approach. Typically people ask front door questions. Your questions tend to come in by descending from the ceiling on a wire. I'm trying to figure out how you got there before anything else.

The other reason is that I'm trying to stick my supposals/theories with what Scripture reveals about God as a Creator and God as Sovereign (and do so on the fly!). The options you give are essentially answers to the problem of evil. Did God author sin or did God author the allowance of sin, etc. The Scriptures themselves often leave us with a mystery we can't quite resolve, such as the Romans passage above. God created objects wrath specifically for destruction? And did so in order to contrast it with his vessels of mercy? That's heavier than anything I was attempting to attribute to God.

Some days I feel more comfortable with one answer over another, but nothing close to watertight. But I do feel like my assumption was valid. If you're asking those questions of my assessment of God's sovereignty, then I can only assume you have the same questions of Paul. (Not that I'm trying to put myself par with Paul, far be it! but more just riffing on what he's revealed.)
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:15 am

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:12 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:12 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:49 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:26 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:16 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:43 am
[snipped for tidiness]

When we use the "Priesthood of Believers" to negate the ordained priesthood, we are breaking what God instituted for us over the history of salvation.

When old Melchizedek, King of Salem and "a priest of God Most High," welcomed Abraham and offered "gifts of bread and wine" -- this is a wondrous prophetic foretelling of what our Christian worship would be.
I'm not (& protestants aren't) using the Priesthood of Believers to negate the anything. If anything, a right understanding of it augments the role of the shepherds and what it means to be a priest in the New Covenant. The reformers didn't invent it to negate the Roman priesthood, they stood upon exactly what the Scriptures say, what the Apostles taught, in order to reorient (reform/correct) an error entrenched in the Church. The evidence is as clear as crystal to anyone willing to actually look at how the Apostles wrote about the priesthood in the church. It is always applied to the whole of the believers. Those who are set apart, ordained to lead, are simply that: rulers/shepherds/overseers.

The Protestant has it right because the Protestant has rightly understood the distinction between the sacerdos and the presbyteros in the Holy Writ. (In English it mucks things up even more because we can use the word 'priest' for both.) So it is wrong to translate or understand Peter as saying the "Eldership of believers" because Peter isn't using the word for an overseer but hierateuma, used specifically for the sacerdotal order. No longer in the NT is there a sacerdotal caste. There is no longer any single, special class of sacerdotal priest. According to the apostles, every believer is a sacerdotal priest!

To try to argue against this really is an exercise in pulling the sheets over your head. You don't have to read Luther or Calvin or even trust tuttle. You can get a Greek dictionary and a concordance and do the legwork yourself!
Paul was visiting synagogues and teaching Thessalonians and Corinthians how to do Christian worship before the First Letter to the Thessalonians or any of the Gospels were written. The Apostles spread Christian faith and worship throughout the world for decades before the first words of New Testament were written. We don't need Scripture to tell us how to worship!

In St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he is already telling his Christians that they are doing their worship wrong. Paul wrote his letters to Christians who were already catechized in the ways and meaning of Christian worship.

Of course, Scripture is indispensable in helping us to understand why we worship as they did. Have to have worship right first.

Worship right, faith right, Bible right.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

That's why the crap-cloud surrounding Pachamama and the Amazon Conference is so important to many Catholics.
The Apostles, in the Scriptures, teach the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers. Again, this is undeniable and not even a protestant ploy. Just the cold hard facts.

Are you saying they taught something different to the churches before the Scriptures were written down?
I'm saying that you are using a modern interpretation of Scripture that is not what the Apostles meant when they wrote it.
We can continue the conversation into history after this is addressed. First things are first.

In no way am I using a modern translation. I literally provided the Greek word...

Here's 1 Peter 2:5 in the Latin Vulgate:
et ipsi tamquam lapides vivi superaedificamini domus spiritalis sacerdotium sanctum offerre spiritales hostias acceptabiles Deo per Iesum Christum
I don't know how I can be more clear. What do you think Peter meant when he wrote it?
Peter was saying that we all participate in the munera of Christ -- priest, prophet, and king. Specifically, we participate as members of the priestly household of Christ.

Just as every Israelite participated in the temple sacrifices. The imagery is all right there in the Old Testament. Not all are priests, but all participate in the priestly sacrifices.
I think that's a stretch, a bit of shoehorn and a sidestep of what I've been saying, but it's the closest answer you've given thus far so I'll take what I can get! I still don't get how one can come away from any of the passages like 1 Peter (and Rev 5) with 'not all are priests', but I know that this virtually upends Roman Catholicism, so I'm not expecting agreement. I was just wanting a fair reading. But of course my fair reading is likely not quite fair in other eyes.

I'm happy to keep pointing right at the answer, but it would probably get pretty exasperating! It's okay if we let this one go til the next time it crops up.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

User avatar
Del
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
Posts: 42050
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:47 am

tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:15 am
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:12 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:12 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:49 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:26 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:16 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:43 am
[snipped for tidiness]

When we use the "Priesthood of Believers" to negate the ordained priesthood, we are breaking what God instituted for us over the history of salvation.

When old Melchizedek, King of Salem and "a priest of God Most High," welcomed Abraham and offered "gifts of bread and wine" -- this is a wondrous prophetic foretelling of what our Christian worship would be.
I'm not (& protestants aren't) using the Priesthood of Believers to negate the anything. If anything, a right understanding of it augments the role of the shepherds and what it means to be a priest in the New Covenant. The reformers didn't invent it to negate the Roman priesthood, they stood upon exactly what the Scriptures say, what the Apostles taught, in order to reorient (reform/correct) an error entrenched in the Church. The evidence is as clear as crystal to anyone willing to actually look at how the Apostles wrote about the priesthood in the church. It is always applied to the whole of the believers. Those who are set apart, ordained to lead, are simply that: rulers/shepherds/overseers.

The Protestant has it right because the Protestant has rightly understood the distinction between the sacerdos and the presbyteros in the Holy Writ. (In English it mucks things up even more because we can use the word 'priest' for both.) So it is wrong to translate or understand Peter as saying the "Eldership of believers" because Peter isn't using the word for an overseer but hierateuma, used specifically for the sacerdotal order. No longer in the NT is there a sacerdotal caste. There is no longer any single, special class of sacerdotal priest. According to the apostles, every believer is a sacerdotal priest!

To try to argue against this really is an exercise in pulling the sheets over your head. You don't have to read Luther or Calvin or even trust tuttle. You can get a Greek dictionary and a concordance and do the legwork yourself!
Paul was visiting synagogues and teaching Thessalonians and Corinthians how to do Christian worship before the First Letter to the Thessalonians or any of the Gospels were written. The Apostles spread Christian faith and worship throughout the world for decades before the first words of New Testament were written. We don't need Scripture to tell us how to worship!

In St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he is already telling his Christians that they are doing their worship wrong. Paul wrote his letters to Christians who were already catechized in the ways and meaning of Christian worship.

Of course, Scripture is indispensable in helping us to understand why we worship as they did. Have to have worship right first.

Worship right, faith right, Bible right.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

That's why the crap-cloud surrounding Pachamama and the Amazon Conference is so important to many Catholics.
The Apostles, in the Scriptures, teach the sacerdotal priesthood of all believers. Again, this is undeniable and not even a protestant ploy. Just the cold hard facts.

Are you saying they taught something different to the churches before the Scriptures were written down?
I'm saying that you are using a modern interpretation of Scripture that is not what the Apostles meant when they wrote it.
We can continue the conversation into history after this is addressed. First things are first.

In no way am I using a modern translation. I literally provided the Greek word...

Here's 1 Peter 2:5 in the Latin Vulgate:
et ipsi tamquam lapides vivi superaedificamini domus spiritalis sacerdotium sanctum offerre spiritales hostias acceptabiles Deo per Iesum Christum
I don't know how I can be more clear. What do you think Peter meant when he wrote it?
Peter was saying that we all participate in the munera of Christ -- priest, prophet, and king. Specifically, we participate as members of the priestly household of Christ.

Just as every Israelite participated in the temple sacrifices. The imagery is all right there in the Old Testament. Not all are priests, but all participate in the priestly sacrifices.
I think that's a stretch, a bit of shoehorn and a sidestep of what I've been saying, but it's the closest answer you've given thus far so I'll take what I can get! I still don't get how one can come away from any of the passages like 1 Peter (and Rev 5) with 'not all are priests', but I know that this virtually upends Roman Catholicism, so I'm not expecting agreement. I was just wanting a fair reading. But of course my fair reading is likely not quite fair in other eyes.

I'm happy to keep pointing right at the answer, but it would probably get pretty exasperating! It's okay if we let this one go til the next time it crops up.
What we know for certain is that Jesus established a New Priesthood for His New Covenant. This is what the Apostles were inspired to teach and spread. The first thing that the new Christians learned was how to do the Lord's Supper, with a priest and an altar and bread and wine.

With this Liturgy firmly in the face of his readers, St. Peter referenced the Old Testament and reminded his listeners that they are the New Israel. They are "a holy people, a royal priesthood, a people set apart."

This makes sense when they are seeing an active priesthood celebrating a holy sacrifice. Their job is to receive Christ and to take Him out to the rest of the world.

This is how the early Christians understood it, and this is how modern Apostolic Christians still understand it.

Part of the Protestant tradition still holds this too -- the Lutheran/Anglican/Methodist branch. Everyone Christian who believes that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, with Christ as the Victim, and some sort of Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
"Anyone who knows anything of experts will know one thing for certain; that they will always be disturbing our way of living; and therefore we shall always be disputing their right of governing." - GKC. Feb 11, 1933.

User avatar
FredS
King Fredrik
King Fredrik
Posts: 24017
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Bible Code

Post by FredS » Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:12 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:21 am
Bring on the Sinnamon Rolls, baby!
I don't want Wos to think this gem went unappreciated. :wavey:
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22278
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by wosbald » Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:37 am

+JMJ+
FredS wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:12 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:21 am
Bring on the Sinnamon Rolls, baby!
I don't want Wos to think this gem went unappreciated. :wavey:
Image

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22278
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by wosbald » Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:22 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:50 am
I guess I'm hesitant on one hand because I'm wary of your approach. Typically people ask front door questions. Your questions tend to come in by descending from the ceiling on a wire. I'm trying to figure out how you got there before anything else.

[…]
Like you just said in another thread, "I'm thinking more along the lines of how it impacts theology and doctrine."

I see the progression of the convo pretty clearly:
  1. Del said that Christ's death wasn't necessary for God to forgive Sin.
  2. To counter, Coco quoted Scripture. To this, he added his gloss that Sin limits God's Just operation in forgiving it.
  3. I asked Coco how his gloss (i.e. Creation's Sin tying God's hands regarding his options of forgiving it) impacts God's Sovereign Freedom.
  4. You offered that God's options are limited by the way he wisely structured Creation.
  5. I responded that such implies Sin to be part of God's rational ordering of Creation.
  6. You said, "And? Yer point?"
  7. I said, " :huh: "

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm

I'mma pulla DLJake
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:22 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:50 am
I guess I'm hesitant on one hand because I'm wary of your approach. Typically people ask front door questions. Your questions tend to come in by descending from the ceiling on a wire. I'm trying to figure out how you got there before anything else.

[…]
Like you just said in another thread, "I'm thinking more along the lines of how it impacts theology and doctrine." Fair enough

I see the progression of the convo pretty clearly:
  1. Del said that Christ's death wasn't necessary for God to forgive Sin.
  2. To counter, Coco quoted Scripture. To this, he added his gloss that Sin limits God's Just operation in forgiving it. Here is where I probably misread you. I did not interpret his gloss as how you just described.
  3. I asked Coco how his gloss (i.e. Creation's Sin tying God's hands regarding his options of forgiving it) impacts God's Sovereign Freedom.
  4. You offered that God's options are limited by the way he wisely structured Creation.
  5. I responded that such implies Sin to be part of God's rational ordering of Creation.
  6. You said, "And? Yer point?" Because I didn't say anything that Scripture doesn't say, or says even in a heavier way than I said it. Thus revealing that if your question isn't answered by the Scriptures in the way you're looking for, how could I answer it?
  7. I said, " :huh: "
Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

Or at least I'd need some unpacking before I go along with it. I don't see how you can jump on that statement without also jumping on the Scripture "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin". That is to say, your questions reside with the Scriptures, not with coco or tuttle. That's why I'm like, 'dunno, that's just what the Scriptures are saying, and we're not told if Sin was baked in or otherwise'.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

User avatar
Del
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
The Royal Order of the Holy Mackarel
Posts: 42050
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by Del » Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:54 pm

tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
I'mma pulla DLJake
wosbald wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:22 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:50 am
I guess I'm hesitant on one hand because I'm wary of your approach. Typically people ask front door questions. Your questions tend to come in by descending from the ceiling on a wire. I'm trying to figure out how you got there before anything else.

[…]
Like you just said in another thread, "I'm thinking more along the lines of how it impacts theology and doctrine." Fair enough

I see the progression of the convo pretty clearly:
  1. Del said that Christ's death wasn't necessary for God to forgive Sin.
  2. To counter, Coco quoted Scripture. To this, he added his gloss that Sin limits God's Just operation in forgiving it. Here is where I probably misread you. I did not interpret his gloss as how you just described.
  3. I asked Coco how his gloss (i.e. Creation's Sin tying God's hands regarding his options of forgiving it) impacts God's Sovereign Freedom.
  4. You offered that God's options are limited by the way he wisely structured Creation.
  5. I responded that such implies Sin to be part of God's rational ordering of Creation.
  6. You said, "And? Yer point?" Because I didn't say anything that Scripture doesn't say, or says even in a heavier way than I said it. Thus revealing that if your question isn't answered by the Scriptures in the way you're looking for, how could I answer it?
  7. I said, " :huh: "
Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

Or at least I'd need some unpacking before I go along with it. I don't see how you can jump on that statement without also jumping on the Scripture "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin". That is to say, your questions reside with the Scriptures, not with coco or tuttle. That's why I'm like, 'dunno, that's just what the Scriptures are saying, and we're not told if Sin was baked in or otherwise'.
Maybe we should hold the Bible sideways and read the acrostics.
"Anyone who knows anything of experts will know one thing for certain; that they will always be disturbing our way of living; and therefore we shall always be disputing their right of governing." - GKC. Feb 11, 1933.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22278
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by wosbald » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am

wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"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: 22278
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by wosbald » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:44 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
If God "deems" in one way, is he not Sovereignly Free to Justly deem otherwise?

If not, then who's the one "limiting God" now?

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:03 am

wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:44 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
If God "deems" in one way, is he not Sovereignly Free to Justly deem otherwise?

If not, then who's the one "limiting God" now?
God deems. Get over it? :lol:

I mean, honestly. God's deeming is all over the Scriptures.

One might theoretically say that he can do whatever he pleases, set up the table today and then flip the table tomorrow, so to speak. But he's made it clear that his deeming, his limiting (and creating at all must include limiting, no?), his plan of redemption, his wrath even, is all done according to his own will and his own good pleasure. He does what he pleases. Why would he do what he pleases only to do that which he isn't pleased to do?

I guess if you want to argue that God is sovereignly schizophrenic, but that's rather dangerous. The Scriptures reveal he's sovereign and he deems, and that He doesn't change, and reveals this is all according to his will, his desire, his good pleasure, for his glory. So again, if God deemed for his good pleasure that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, and if he was pleased to crush his Son, it sounds rather priggish to debate if he could forgive in any other way. Not only are we then slighting his sovereignty but we're in greater danger of calling into question his impeccable taste.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

User avatar
Jester
Brother of Tuttle
Brother of Tuttle
Posts: 2370
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Bible Code

Post by Jester » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:21 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:03 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:44 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
If God "deems" in one way, is he not Sovereignly Free to Justly deem otherwise?

If not, then who's the one "limiting God" now?
God deems. Get over it? :lol:

I mean, honestly. God's deeming is all over the Scriptures.

One might theoretically say that he can do whatever he pleases, set up the table today and then flip the table tomorrow, so to speak. But he's made it clear that his deeming, his limiting (and creating at all must include limiting, no?), his plan of redemption, his wrath even, is all done according to his own will and his own good pleasure. He does what he pleases. Why would he do what he pleases only to do that which he isn't pleased to do?

I guess if you want to argue that God is sovereignly schizophrenic, but that's rather dangerous. The Scriptures reveal he's sovereign and he deems, and that He doesn't change, and reveals this is all according to his will, his desire, his good pleasure, for his glory. So again, if God deemed for his good pleasure that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, and if he was pleased to crush his Son, it sounds rather priggish to debate if he could forgive in any other way. Not only are we then slighting his sovereignty but we're in greater danger of calling into question his impeccable taste.
Not throwing wrenches but I would replace every use of deem in this conversation with decree.
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"It's funny how Big-Pharma was so evil until now." -Norm MacDonald

User avatar
tuttle
Tomnoddy Attercop
Tomnoddy Attercop
Posts: 15321
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Bible Code

Post by tuttle » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:27 am

Jester wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:03 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:44 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:35 am
wosbald wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:37 pm
[…]

Maybe we backtrack to number 2. I disagree that this statement...
coco wrote:if God forgave sins without regard to the sacrifice made by Christ, he would not be just.


...is saying that Sin Limits God's Just operation in forgiving it or sin tying God's hands regarding his options.

[…]
FTR, yer maintaining that these two are not equivalent?
  • "God forgiving Sin in any other way would not be Just."
  • "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it."

To further illustrate, would you say that the following are also not equivalent?
  • "God squaring a circle would not be Just."
  • "Circularity limits God from Justly squaring it."
Correct. I agree that they would not be equivalent because the issue is with who or what is doing the limiting. Each statement places something/someone different which/who is doing the limiting.

If God deemed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, that in no way equals "Sin limits the way in which God can Justly forgive it". Because who/what the limiter is has been shifted.
If God "deems" in one way, is he not Sovereignly Free to Justly deem otherwise?

If not, then who's the one "limiting God" now?
God deems. Get over it? :lol:

I mean, honestly. God's deeming is all over the Scriptures.

One might theoretically say that he can do whatever he pleases, set up the table today and then flip the table tomorrow, so to speak. But he's made it clear that his deeming, his limiting (and creating at all must include limiting, no?), his plan of redemption, his wrath even, is all done according to his own will and his own good pleasure. He does what he pleases. Why would he do what he pleases only to do that which he isn't pleased to do?

I guess if you want to argue that God is sovereignly schizophrenic, but that's rather dangerous. The Scriptures reveal he's sovereign and he deems, and that He doesn't change, and reveals this is all according to his will, his desire, his good pleasure, for his glory. So again, if God deemed for his good pleasure that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, and if he was pleased to crush his Son, it sounds rather priggish to debate if he could forgive in any other way. Not only are we then slighting his sovereignty but we're in greater danger of calling into question his impeccable taste.
Not throwing wrenches but I would replace every use of deem in this conversation with decree.
Image
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

Post Reply