quote:

mushhead,
You are showing your hand. Either prove your assertions or keep quiet. Stop trying to belittle a person's education just because you disagree.
You know nothing of my approach to scripture and for you to assert that a person's feeling toward the historicity of Sodom as it pertains to this topic is to declare how one "approaches scripture" is sophmoric. Oh, I dont mean that to be insulting - it is just the truth.

quote:

mush-
Do you really need to be instructed about Plato's hold on Western thought and philosophy? The idea that spirit is good and matter is evil and that salvation can only come from escaping this physical realm is Plato through and through. Sue's assertion that this world will be destroyed (matter is bad) is Plato, not biblical. Your asking me to prove that 2+2= 4. If you don't believe me go read Plato for yourself.

quote:

As for penal sub you have to be joking. What seminary did you go to? Good grief. The satisfaction theory was invented by Anselm and the Reformers added the penal sub portion to the overall theory. That is simple historical fact. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

quote:

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5,6)

...by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 5:11b)

For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12b)

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (1Peter 2:24)

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit... (1Peter 3:18)

quote:

that is if you believe the Bible is literally true and inerrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: emerging

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

quote:

mushhead,
You are showing your hand. Either prove your assertions or keep quiet. Stop trying to belittle a person's education just because you disagree.
You know nothing of my approach to scripture and for you to assert that a person's feeling toward the historicity of Sodom as it pertains to this topic is to declare how one "approaches scripture" is sophmoric. Oh, I dont mean that to be insulting - it is just the truth.

Emerging,
You are the one who made the original, and I might add, unsubstantiated, claim of platonic origins. I called on you to prove your assertion. Please do so. I'm still seeking a list of names of evangelicals that teach as you claimed way back in the original thread of this discussion. I'll be happy to see some evidence that penal-sub theory is the new kid on the block as well. You really can't expect us to believe something simply because you say it is true. Until you are able to back up your assertions and provide answers to the questions asked of you, I don't think you have any standing to challange me or anyone else.

Oh yeah! I'm not belittling your education, I'm just making an observation. You have cited your education on more than one occasion. Your methods are not sound and your conclusions are inaccurate, incomplete, or simply wrong. I'm assuming the two are related.

mush-
Do you really need to be instructed about Plato's hold on Western thought and philosophy? The idea that spirit is good and matter is evil and that salvation can only come from escaping this physical realm is Plato through and through. Sue's assertion that this world will be destroyed (matter is bad) is Plato, not biblical. Your asking me to prove that 2+2= 4. If you don't believe me go read Plato for yourself.

As for penal sub you have to be joking. What seminary did you go to? Good grief. The satisfaction theory was invented by Anselm and the Reformers added the penal sub portion to the overall theory. That is simple historical fact. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

By the way - is Christos Victor just a theory? You are the first educated person I ever in my life
\heard say that penal sub is not a theory. You talk as though you speak for God himself. Talk about arrogance.

quote:

quote:

So, God didn't really destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

Maybe, maybe not.

quote:

It is the new kid on the block. Sorry, but a fact is a fact.

quote:

I don't think I'm using Ghandi to interpret the bible. That's turning the world upside down, don't you think?

quote:

Ghandi's writings on non-violent protest are extremely instructive. Laid next to the bible, I can clearly see how they serve biblical purposes.

quote:

Obviously, if I find things in Ghandi that are contrary to the bible I would reject Ghandi and focus on the bible.

quote:

If Ghandi offers me a successful example of how to pursue social change, and those ideas aren't contradicted in the bible, why wouldn't you listen? I don't get that. It's excessively narrow.

quote:

If a non-Christian source gives me an idea, and I can take that idea and measure it against biblical principles to reach a conclusion, what's the issue? You do this everyday in your own life at work, at home, at play.

quote:

Don't put words in my mouth, no where have I said that matter is bad

quote:

Our image of God as the all-powerful, removed, holy king is really much more influenced by Zeus and other gods than by the story of our faith.
Doug Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 100

If we buy into the Greek version of god, and therefore the Greek version of sin and humanity, we are left with terrible consequences. There's an internal logic here that few of us talk about but that many of us live by all the same. If we believe that God is reachable only when we are fully changed, we're stuck with an afterlife-focues faith.
Doug Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 113

So any attempt to talk about God being close, involved, and integrated with humanity smacks of taking the deity right out of God, of turning God into little more than a really great guy. As if that weren't enough, the language of integration also brings with it concerns of glorifying humanity, of ignoring our supposed filth and sin and brokenness that goes along with the idea of the pure, unsullied God. Perhaps that's why Christians tend to get a little weirded out by the suggestion that God might be something other than up and out.
Doug Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing, p. 108

quote:

ORIGINAL: emerging

quote:


I attend seminary, and I can attest that almost if not all the professors here will hold to some form of Substitutionary Atonement (including Penal Atonement). And I am fairly sure that I can say that about the 5 others seminaries in my denomination, as well as places like Bethel Seminary (Mn), Masters Seminary (Ca), Covenant Seminary (PCA seminary in STL), should I go on?

Who doesn't hold to some form of substitionary view of atonement? You guys are getting your ideas all jumbled. No one, not me at least, is saying there is no substitution Of course there is! Christ is our substitute. The "theories" revolve around the question: in what way is he a substitute? Of course your professors hold to sub atonement - that is very bibilical and they ought to. As to PENAL sub THEORY, that is another thing altogether. Whether it be Christus Victor, Ransom, Satisfaction, Penal, Incarnational or anything else the fact remains Christ is our substitute. Each of the "theories" help spell out in what way that happens and to what ends.

quote:

As for the "maybe maybe not" comment...In even suggesting that the events surrounding Sodom and Gomorrah did not happen, it really shows a lot of what you think of the bible. It is quite clear you hold to a non-literal view of interpretation, and I would be hard pressed not to assume you do not hold to a inerrent view of the bible as well. For if God's word is inerrant and infallible, then what it says MUST be right (agreed our interpretation of what "Right is" could be different).

I'd love to get into a conversation about biblical inerrancy with you but that may steer us off topic. I will say, however, that I affirm the bible to be God's holy and inspired Word. I see no need to add words to describe what scripture is that scripture itself does not use (nor anyone for the first 1700 years of Christian thought, for that matter. Words like "inerrant" and "infallible" are modern inventions)

peace.

quote:

thanks for the Pagitt quotes. That's good stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: emerging
I am not trying to "disprove" penal sub theory. I am merely stating the facts that it is simply one theory among 5 (or 6, depending on if you accept a very compelling Eastern view of Incarnation).

quote:

what do you think?