We are saved from WHAT?

[Paidion]

From one monist to another (or better, from one disciple to another), thank you, Jeremiah, for your excellent post. I think you explained salvation from sin, and the healing of our sin-sick souls (selves) better than I.
I appreciate your rational explanations, and your respectful approach.

[Homer]

Jeremiah,

You wrote:

in paul's writings it is not the literal human body nor the literal human flesh that is sinful.

It seems to me to be both the flesh and the mind. Otherwise sexual criminals would not be castrated, which not only affects ability, but also the desire.

if without God, we are slaves to sin, and with God we are freed from sin, how is that not also seamlessly parallel to a sick man that has been healed.

I think the parallel may be with that of a person who is chronically ill and is on maintenance medication which puts the person into remission as long as they stay on their medication (Jesus). Which perhaps you alluded to in your "in a sense" remark?

but yield the members of our body (which are now healed in a sense) as instruments of righteousness unto God.

it is called the gospel, or great news, not the great warning.

But it is full of warnings. Jesus gave many of them, and they seem relevant to us.

[jriccitelli]

You are right Jeremiah the metaphors are all anthropomorphisms of spiritual realities, on that we agree.
Bless you Jeremiah, but I am no more Gnostic than I am a Manichean. I did say “we must die first”, and “we are declared righteous if we die to ourselves and we are raised with Him”, the operative word being ‘we’ and ‘ourselves’. So I am not talking literally about the body as flesh nor the body as sinful (no more than Paul did) God said he created man and it was good. It was our decisions, and the thoughts of our mind (heart) that were only evil (continually)

Thanks Homer, The Gospel sure is relevant to millions, I look to the Cross and see a man who died in my place, my Savior, my Creator, my Lord, my King, but wait! He is no longer on a cross (or tree as you put it Paidion) but He is Risen, He overcame death and defeated death (the consequence of sin) because He is Righteous (not me) and He is my Life, IF I DIE in Him;
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me’ (Gal 2:20)

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Rom 5:8-10)

Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with [Him], in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 6:6-11)

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. (Romans 8:9-11)

The operative word here is ‘dead’, death to ‘self’ (whatever you think self is). The bad news is we must die, but that becomes a ‘good’ thing because in knowing Christ and His resurrection we are Glad to die with Him and be raised with Him. So our death is made good rather than what it would be without believing the Goodnews. It is still bad, really bad, if you do not repent and believe though, the operative idea being 'if'.

[jriccitelli]

Present your body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable…

The Cross itself is good news and bad, MacDonald sure thinks there is 'something' wrong with an innocent man dying, so isn’t there ‘something’ bad about the crucifixion of Christ?

‘To be saved from these consequences, would be no deliverance; it would be an immediate, ever deepening damnation. It is the evil in our being (no essential part of it, thank God!) ---this is that from which He came to deliver us --- not the things we have done, but the possibility of doing such things anymore. As this possibility departs, and we confess to those we have wronged, the power over us of our evil deeds will depart also, and so shall we be saved from them’ (MacDonald)

MacDonald makes light of any need to pay for sins already committed, and he seems to be sure that the consequences of possibilities of not doing them anymore will eliminate the need to have to pay for our sins committed future.

Salvation and deliverance are two different things, we are saved from the penalty, and raised up in righteousness, we don’t deny one for the other, and the first 'must' happen before the second.
Does Mr. MacDonald really believe sins did not have a price, or do I need to read more of your works Mr. MacDonald?

[Paidion]

MacDonald makes light of any need to pay for sins already committed, and he seems to be sure that the consequences of possibilities of not doing them anymore will eliminate the need to have to pay for our sins committed future.

He doesn't make light of it; rather he doesn't believe in it. No one can pay for his past sins. Let's say you put Jim Schlim in prison in order to pay for his sin of stealing Joe Bloe's $40G automobile and wrecking it. Joe has no accident insutance. Supposedly Jim's time in prison pays his "debt to society." For society has a legal criminal code, and when someone acts contrary to the criminal code, he is guilty, and "owes a debt to society" which he "pays" by spending time in prison. But the fact is, Joe has no automobile! Jim gets out of prison, but doesn't he still owe Joe for the automobile? His prison sentence has not atoned for his debt to Joe. Now he could pay Joe 40G and settle his debt—if he is able. But what if he cannot pay anywhere near that amount? Is there any other possibility of settling with Joe? Yes, if Jim is truly repentant, and goes to Joe expressing his remorse, and offering to pay what he can—a mere 5G, Joe might forgive him the rest of his debt. This forgiveness is a response to Jim's repentance (as all true forgiveness is). But let's say Jim's friend Wayne Shane pays the whole debt for him. Then no forgiveness from Joe is necessary.

JR, your understanding of salvation seems to be based on divine legality. God has a divine sin code, and when you break it you are guilty and must be punished. You cannot pay your own debt for your wrongdoing, and so Jesus paid your complete debt for you through His death on the cross. If that is the case, you don't need forgiveness, just as Jim would not need forgiveness of his debt, if his whole debt were paid.

But the fact is no one, either ourselves or someone else can pay for past crime or sin. Since Jim's imprisonment did not pay for stealing and wrecking Joe's car, neither can any punishment we receive, whether eternal torment or annihilation, pay for our sin. Nor can the death of an innocent man pay for our sin. As MacDonald says, God doesn't hold us accountable for our past sins—rather He is interested only in our present character. If that character is corrupt, then it must be healed, and only when it is healed can we have a relationship with God. We can then walk on the difficult road (or narrow road) which leads to life. This walk is a process; we can get off this road, and not end up with life after all. Jesus died to provide the enabling grace to be healed of our sin sickness, and to overcome sin while walking that difficult road which leads to life.

Salvation and deliverance are two different things

Not so. The two have precisely the same meaning.

Here is the #1 definition of "σωτηρια" (sōtāria) according to the Online Bible Greek lexicon:
deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation

The NAS Greek Lexicon:
deliverance, preservation ,salvation

Strong's Greek Lexicon
deliver, health, salvation, save, saving

Abott-Smith Greek Lexicon
deliverance, preservation, salvation, safety

Louw & Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
deliverance, salvation(state), salvation(event)

William D. Mounce, The Analytical Greek Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (first three definitions)
a saving, preservation, deliverance

It can be observed that all of these definitions define the Greek noun "σωτηρια" (sōtāria) both as "deliverance" and "salvation" or "a saving".

If salvation and deliverance were two different things as you affirm, surely there would be two different Greek words to express them.

[jeremiah]

hello john,

Bless you Jeremiah, but I am no more Gnostic than I am a Manichean.

either i'm misunderstanding you now, or you misunderstood me then. i explicitly told you i was not accusing you of being a gnostic, so i don't think you are. if you would, please go back and read my post again. i was probably not as thorough as i could have been, but my hope was that we might start to flush out a surprising amount of agreement. especially from your last post (the one addressed to me), i don't think there is too much difference between what we are saying, and perhaps it's only a matter of emphasis. maybe an irreconcilable difference of emphasis in your mind, but i don't think it is.

i know there are exceeding grave warnings embedded in the gospel and i have no wish to silence them, i take, like yourself, a conditionalist view of the lake of fire. but that's just it, i think in all our back and forth about the nature of eternal fire, non-UR's make a massive mistake of thinking christian universalists such as paidion take the fact of the eternal fire, which will consume the enemies of God, less seriously than you or i. i know this example a little off of the topic of this thread. i don't mean to imply that agreement i think we can flush out regarding our sanctification now, is just as probably present regarding our views of hell. only that the mistake i think i see made towards universalists, too often becomes a catalyst which disables some to clearly see what another is saying about the nature of sanctification now (or some other general theological point). as if we think, well, they believe thus and so about that, then they must be talking way out there on this one too.

i'm not 'preaching' peace for peace' sake here and saying, lets just all hold hands. i know that apparently, salvation from sin, or salvation from hell seems like two different languages. what i think i'm observing is two abridged versions of the same reality being spoken with only differing accents of one and the same tongue.

i know that what i posted, if not more specifically understood or grounded can look to some like works righteousness, it's not. if that is one's conclusion, then they can be sure they misunderstood what i'm saying. i've read to much of the scriptures to imagine i can produce anything eternal apart from the grace given to me by the eternal creator.

i have to get home, and only intended to say much less. i hope to continue this in the next few days.

you said:

...I look to the Cross and see a man who died in my place, my Savior, my Creator, my Lord, my King,...

i know. i've seen the passion with which you defend your beliefs and fully appreciate that passion.

grace and peace...

[steve7150]

Salvation and deliverance are two different things



Not so. The two have precisely the same meaning.

Here is the #1 definition of "σωτηρια" (sōtāria) according to the Online Bible Greek lexicon:
deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation

The NAS Greek Lexicon:
deliverance, preservation ,salvation

Strong's Greek Lexicon
deliver, health, salvation, save, saving












Paidion in light of the above definitions of salvation why do you think Jesus had to suffer and die to save us from our sins? Why couldn't he just live a perfect life and be an example for us re what God wants from us or for us?

[jriccitelli]

I’m sorry Jeremiah I was just assuring anyone reading that I was of neither of the two philosophies, although I knew you left me the benefit of a doubt. In the same way I wasn’t sure if your reference to ‘peace’ was an allusion to Paidion’s emphasis on peace, but I am going to assume you meant a peace between the view different views.

I appreciate you can see the ‘grave warnings’ in the goodnews, It is bad news if you don’t accept the Gospel (accept His Sacrifice for sins), and it is goodnews if you accept. Death is our sentence, or you could bring a sacrifice (which was a command), and to believe the Gospel is a Command.
What I noticed in rereading your post is that twice you say Paul is ‘not’ saying put this body to death;

the new testament scriptures do not say, "put this body to death" paul says,
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. for he that is dead, is freed from sin

But that is exactly what Paul means, Paul uses the word death in his teachings repeatedly and goes into great detail. Paul does ‘know’ we must die physically, but he sees that God has made a way to remain in the body of death and yet live, and that is by living through His Spirit in us. Remember Paul has in mind the paradox and accepts the reality of the dilemma;
May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (Romans 6:3-)
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. (Rom 7:24)
The law of the flesh is death, so as we are crucified with Christ, we are to take up His Cross and follow Him. All this also tied to the concept of the ‘new man’, the first creation is passing away and the New creation is coming, the new man. You correctly identified the difference between death and what we are to become as being for us now as ‘sanctification’.

Although if for the time being we must live in this body, we must separate ourselves mentally and spiritually from the flesh now, until the time comes when we will get a new body, an immortal body.
Homer was right when he alluded to some having to cut off the body parts in order to keep from sinning, and that is exactly what God, Jesus, and the Bible have been alluding to; in order to kill sin you must kill the body. Circumcision of the flesh alludes to it, although God implored them to see the significance of its metaphor to mean circumcise your mind and hearts.
Death is the only way to end sin, and we are happy to die to sin because we accept and believe sin is wrong (repent) and additionally we believe he made a way to die and be raised again to life by His resurrection.

if without God, we are slaves to sin, and with God we are freed from sin, how is that not also seamlessly parallel to a sick man that has been healed. or as peter puts it, ...that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Healed is metaphoric here, we know Christ died, it is just a contrast between wounds and healing, as in being beaten and being loved. Sin is not a ‘wound’, sin is fatal. Sin is not ‘just a sickness’ sin is fatal.

[jriccitelli]

Sorry Paidion if you thought I was using deliverance as a biblical term, I was referring to the context of the MacDonald quote only. My point was that MacDonald is talking about two different things;
Sacrifice/Sanctification - Dying/Resurrection - Having our sins covered/Learning how to not sin again. Two different things.

I see this as mixing up sanctification references with the pre-sanctification requirement – death.

You don’t need to make an analogy about the fact that sin cannot be righted, that is a given, and this is precisely why the penalty for sin is death. There is no real way to undo what you did in history.
Scripture says we had better control the body or it will get cut off. Cut off the flesh, cut off the hand and pluck out the eye, it is impossible for man to stop sinning, we would have to cut off all the members of our body to completely defeat sin – and that is the biblical point.
We put no confidence in the flesh, but we can put all our confidence in Him who was obedient even to death. It is His righteousness.

Out of curiosity, does Mr. MacDonald agree with the premise that he is a sinner?

(I have a suspicion that he may define sin differently than the theology books on my shelf, although he does refer to sin as an evil 'within' us, we do act on the temptation and the result is sin. Sin becomes a action committed)
(I use the Baker dictionaries, Zondervan/Colin Brown dictionaries, Torrey, Luther, Packer, Hodge, Finney, Ryrie, Macmillian, etc..)

[Paidion]

Paidion in light of the above definitions of salvation why do you think Jesus had to suffer and die to save us from our sins? Why couldn't he just live a perfect life and be an example for us re what God wants from us or for us?

Steve, people who believe in penal substitution constantly ask me that question (I'm not saying that you believe in it, Steve). I think the same question can be asked of those who proclaim penal substitution. Why did Jesus have to die and suffer in our place to save us from hell? If people can continue to sin and still have eternal life with God, then why can't God simply give all people that eternal life without Christ having died? Why can't He simply forgive them outright for their past sins?

I must admit, Steve, that I don't understand the logistics of our salvation from sin. I cannot tell you how it works. I only know that it does as the scriptures affirm. When you look up the passages which tell us why Christ died, you find the following (You must all be tired of seeing me post them over and over!)

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

But where do you find that Christ suffered and died in our place so that we wouldn't have to suffer, but could get off scott free?
And where do you find that Christ suffered and died in order to appease the wrath of an angry God?