|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| Double Crucifixion. Part I - Introduction |
The writers of scripture sometimes used a form of argumentation by which a wrong line of reasoning was shown to be absurd by following that reasoning to its logical and inescapable conclusion. This form of argumentation is popular enough that it has its own fancy Latin name, "reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to the absurd).
Paul, for example, in 1 Corinthians 15, is by no means suggesting that there is no resurrection from the dead, but is showing that if we follow the premise that there is no resurrection from the dead we come to the inescapable conclusion that Christ could not have been resurrected. The absurdity of that conclusion is shown in that if it were actually so, then all of Christianity would be bunk. Paul could have taken the reader through an extended expository survey of the OT scriptures to make the same point, but instead chooses to use the form of argumentation we just described - dismissing incorrect doctrine by demonstrating that when one follows that doctrine they eventually come to an impossible conclusion.
Thus when I ask: How many times can Jesus be crucified for your "all" sins? I expect only two answers, either, "once", or "more than once", and because I plan to use that particular form of argument to show that a believer will not (and cannot) lose his or her salvation and thereafter be saved all over again, I shall explore the idea that a believer can be saved more than once, and therefore that Jesus can die for their sins more than once.
I don't plan to flog around the bushes with much showmanship and little to show for the effort either; that is, I am not asking the question in order to provide a pleasant and pointless theological meditation; but ask the question as an apologetic starting place in articulating what I believe scripture teaches: the eternal security of the believer.
Anticipating an abysmal deficiency in attention spans, I will break this post up into several bite size pieces, and post it over a few days.Labels: Double Crucifixion |
posted by Daniel @
10:46 AM
 
|
|
| 3 Comments: |
-
Just to follow that line of reasoning through (skipping many, many steps here), then Christ's death was only for the elect and there was no well meant offer?
Do I have to go back and show my work, or do you follow? ;)
Really quickly (And I mean really, quickly, still skipping things):
Christ's death actually dealt with all a person's sin --> Once that death happened the sin was dealt with --> Scripture tells us not everyone will have their sin dealt with --> Their sin therefore wasn't dealt with on the cross --> Therefore not everyone can have their sin dealt with --> There can be no offer of salvation to some.
Sorry, I know it's offer topic, but it's been on my mind of late.
Oh, and your reductio ad absurdum (Which is probably the most powerful type of argument out there)only works if all parties agree on the substitionary theory of the atonement, as well as some other background stuff. The only way to beat a reductio is to disagree with definitions (well not the only if the reductio itself can be shown to be inconsistent). It's like in any of Plato's works, the first time a poor soul says yes to Socrates he's finished.
-
Bryan, I think you correctly anticipate me, though my understanding of the atonement is not the classical "substitutionary" model. You are correct as well in understanding that an argument that is reduced to the absurd is only as convincing as the premises upon which it is built - but such is every argument no?
I believe that Socrates was poorly depicted in Bill and Ted's excellent adventure.
-
Although I disagree with the Socrates that Plato portrays at a decent number of points, he is by far my favorite philosopher to read and I do believe that no one since has had the skills of argumentation that he had. After Plato give my Augustine (Although I consider him more a theologian), and then any ancient philosopher. The modern/post-moderns have their bright spots and many are quite interesting to read (George Berkley, Nietzsche, Vico and TS Kuhn all come to mind as interesting to read), but on a whole are far below those who came before them.
As for Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, it may not portray him well, but man is that ever a great movie!
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
Just to follow that line of reasoning through (skipping many, many steps here), then Christ's death was only for the elect and there was no well meant offer?
Do I have to go back and show my work, or do you follow? ;)
Really quickly (And I mean really, quickly, still skipping things):
Christ's death actually dealt with all a person's sin --> Once that death happened the sin was dealt with --> Scripture tells us not everyone will have their sin dealt with --> Their sin therefore wasn't dealt with on the cross --> Therefore not everyone can have their sin dealt with --> There can be no offer of salvation to some.
Sorry, I know it's offer topic, but it's been on my mind of late.
Oh, and your reductio ad absurdum (Which is probably the most powerful type of argument out there)only works if all parties agree on the substitionary theory of the atonement, as well as some other background stuff. The only way to beat a reductio is to disagree with definitions (well not the only if the reductio itself can be shown to be inconsistent). It's like in any of Plato's works, the first time a poor soul says yes to Socrates he's finished.