| Author |
Message |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1181
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2011 - 11:54 pm: |     |
Jeremy,
I was typing post 1178 while you were posting #3722. So while it may have looked like I was ignoring your clarification in post 3722, I had not seen it yet when I was writing 1178. So the order that the posts appear makes my words look a little different than they actually occurred. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3727
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2011 - 11:56 pm: | |
Rick,
Understood. I thought maybe that was the case and I shouldn't have been so hasty in writing my next post (3724). I apologize.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 01, 2011) |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:02 am: | |
Separating fact and fiction.
quote:That is not true. You specifically accused me of 1, 2, and 3 in my above post. I did not assume that you were accusing me of those things. You stated it specifically in post 1177.
Let me continue setting the record straight with specific quotes.
from post 1177
quote:I, and others on this thead, have objected from the start that the view you presented in which Christ did not actual take on our sins in the sense of these being imputed to Him nor did He actually experience what should have been the punishment for our sins strikes at the very heart of the substitionary atonement. I don't know how anyone can be more clear than that.
When I said that I objected from the start, I am referring to the third post on this thread which included the following statement in reply to the article that you linked included this criticism:
quote:7) it limits the cross to fulfilling symbols and prophecy so that Jesus could serve as our High Priest, I didn't see any mention of a substitutionary death or a credited righteousness resulting from His death.
My response, from the start, was to the content in the article that you posted. To the degree that you have separated yourself from parts of that article, that criticism may or may not apply also to you. But look at where that criticism was addressed before you assume that it was made towards you.
Perhaps my words "view that you presented" wasn't sufficiently clear to indicate that it was the "view that you presented in the link". If that led to confusion on your part, I am sorry. I thought that it was more clear when I wrote it. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3728
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:06 am: | |
The reason I took it as applying to me was not only that wording you used, but also the fact that you said:
"...strikes at the very heart of the substitionary atonement."
And earlier you said: "It seems that to support this pet doctrine of yours so far we have trampled to important doctrines, the substitutionary atonement and the infallibility of Scripture."
I took that to mean me/my belief/my "trampling".
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 01, 2011) |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:15 am: | |
quote:P.S. To clear up any confusion, I believe Rick is actually accusing me of denying penal substitution, not substitutionary atonement
You are correct in using the more technical term of penal atonement; although I believe that the viewpoint expressed in the article that you linked did not cover any form of substitutionary atonement, but rather viewed Christ's death simply as the perfect sacrificial animal with no substitution involved. You have clarified that you do not concur with a merely sacrificial view of the crucifiction; however, the article that you linked at the start of this thread bases her argument firmly in this viewpoint. So perhaps you could benefit from revisiting the link you provided and incorporating some of the discussion from this thead in re-evaluating the statements made. You may agree with her conclusions, because they propose a solution to some of the problems about the nature of God, but if you can't agree with the steps that she takes in order to reach these conclusions you should probably continue looking for a more carefully crafted explanation that doesn't create more problems than it solves. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3729
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:21 am: | |
Rick, you may be right about her article--I did not notice that, but perhaps she simply didn't specifically mention substitution and yet does believe it. The article I also linked to on here by Bob Passantino probably is a better crafted and more succinct explanation.
Jeremy |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:22 am: | |
Jeremy,
I think that the article you put forth tramples on the nature of the atonement. I really do hope that you will revisit it in light of what we have discussed here.
I really am concerned about your responses in regards to how accurate the words of Scripture are in conveying the truth. That is not empty rhetoric on my part. If God could not completely convey exactly what He intended through the language available in Scripture, where does that leave us in regards to the truth? Are we left to decipher which parts of Scripture were completely accurate and which parts of Scripture could have been explained better if only God had these other words available to use? This is a dangerous and slippery slope. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:26 am: | |
In all fairness "pet doctrine" was a low blow, and in hindsight I wish I had selected a different description. My apologies for making that more personal than it should have been.
It is getting really late out east, although I am in Chicago for the night. But the morning wakeup call will still come far too soon. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3730
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:31 am: | |
quote:This indicates to me that you think Scripture needs to be decoded, that the literal words of Scripture can not be completely trusted in every case, but instead we need to realy on properly "interpreting" those words to tease out what they really mean.
No, that is not what I'm saying, but I do have to chuckle as that seems to be what you're doing with my words. 
All I was saying was that if we do need more information, then the author (inspired by the Holy Spirit) gives us that information (such as giving us the original Aramaic, in addition to the Greek, in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34). The Scriptures are completely sufficient, accurate, and inerrant, and I never intended to imply otherwise.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 01, 2011) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3731
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:34 am: | |
Rick,
Apologies accepted, and sorry for keeping you up so late!
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3732
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 12:47 am: | |
And River, yes we do sometimes sleep in Arizona.
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 12713
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 2:54 am: | |
Thanks for apologizing, Rick and Jeremy. I've been drowning in great controversy stuff and haven't been able to check in.
Time for a rest!
Colleen |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 7283
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 5:20 am: | |
This is reminiscent of what happened recently on the forum, it went from fair weather to fowl and feelings were hurt.
The problem with communications is communications. Being a fiction writer (For three yeas at least, no writing before that) I should have know better to write what I did and I learned a hard lesson from it. I feel I isolated Leigh Anne from me(which I would never in this world wish to happen) and I communicated to Rick something that was never in my heart in the first place.
What I am learning from writing books is that communication is difficult at best and disastrous at worst. What we write doesn’t necessarily communicate what we mean nor does it reveal our beliefs or our heart.
A reviewer who read ‘Preperation Day’ made this statement right off the bat in all caps.
WARNING: BOOK IS VERY RELIGIOUS
In spite of this the reader gave the book three stars. If the reviewer had given it one star it would still have been a good review, because to a writer, no review is a bad review, because having been read, it leaves the writer in obscurity.
What I am trying to say is, our silence makes for a bad thread, that’s the only bad thread I have ever seen on this forum is when people remain silent.
So Jeremy, I never want you to feel that your thread was useless. It was thought provoking and it made me do more prayer and searching for truth and I appreciate you so much.
And Rick, I want to remind you as a brother in the Lord, that you don’t have to wrestle everybody to the ground, I say this in all thoughtfulness and gentleness with love, but feel I needed to say it. I hope you take it the way it was meant for you, it is just a gentle reminder and if it’s wrong, then ignore it and proceed on. I appreciate you so much too.
This is a fellowship and at the end of the long day we must let love prevail. I asked my pastor one day, “Pastor, how do I keep going when I feel so low?” He said, “By putting one foot down in front of the other.”
Many Former Adventists have felt that they are drowning in obscurity, forsaken by family in many cases and we on this forum must not let that happen, and if we don’t continue to write it will happen.
This is our forum, God gave it, and Satan tries to destroy it and us, and we have to be on the lookout for him and his attacks. He looks for weak spots to go after the soft underbelly.
These are just some things on my heart I wanted to write down.
River |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 8:16 am: | |
Thank you River  I have felt like I was sitting here just wringing my hands while reading this thread.. not knowing what to say to "make it better" (the Mom in me I guess) and yet, finding it hard to stay silent out of the fear that someone new to the forum just might stumble onto this thread and be afraid that the forum is a place of confusion and bickering instead of a place of friendship and answers. Now, I feel at peace because if they were to hang in here to the end they will see that those on the forum may argue their points strongly, but will, in the end come together in friendship and love.
Francie |
Philharris
Registered user
Username: Philharris
Post Number: 2494
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2011 - 9:43 am: | |
Thank you River for sharing from your heart.
Thank you Skeeter for being like a mom for all of us.
Thank you Richard and Colleen for holding us all together even though it must seem like hurding chickens let loose out of their pen.
Thank you for those like Rick and Jeremy who motivate each of us to dig deeper into understanding God's word.
I to at times feel isolated since this is a very rural location on the western side of the Puget Sound. On the bright side, as I have said before, the local SDA church is so small it reminds me of a latte stand that doesn't serve espresso. River is a three hour trip south of me and Seekinglight is almost as far to the north of me. So, the only ones I have regular contact with who understand who I am are those here on the forum.
Fearless Phil
(Message edited by philharris on July 01, 2011) |
|
