The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Tarsonis]

I don't think this is really about the criteria by which our Churches recognize as saints. This has to do with the mechanics of salvation. Scripture has declared Christ a sin offering to God, by which humans are redeemed of their sins by the blood payment of the law . Parkus, is denying this, and as such espousing egregious pelegianist heresy.

"they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement[e] by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;"

"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit"

In his ferver, to condemn the Catholics, he's lost sight of truth.

It's nothing to do with pelegianism. It's just about rejecting Anselm's theory of atonement, which is totally foreign to us (which Arch would agree with).

St Anselm is correct, you are not.

Saying Christ's sacrifice wasn't about satisfying his own honor, doesn't mean the sacrifice didn't satisfy the law or that it's not vital for us.

Except it does. You've called his sacrifice meaningless. Under your system Christ didn't have to die, it serves no real purpose except symbolic. Hence, Pelagius.

[Tarsonis]

Passover had nothing to do with placating God, and that is being referenced in the verse about him passing over our sins

...How could you read about Passover and not understand its significance in the Bible?!

Frankly because he doesn't understand he Mosaic Law, if he thinks sin offerings had nothing to do with making restitution.

[The Parkus Empire]

Passover had nothing to do with placating God, and that is being referenced in the verse about him passing over our sins

It's still an act of redemption. It's word for word in the Bible you deny scripture.

You have said in your own words that one can Sin their entire lives and as long as they don't judge anyone they will not face judgement. You have said essentially said that Christ did not need to die, as the forgiveness of our sins is not done on his sacrifice. You've undone the entirety of Christianity.

How God judges is his busines, and how all that works is mystical. I do not much think about how God will judge othes, nor should I. I am concerned how he will judge ME. It is actually a common affirmation in Orthodoxy that all others will be pardoned, only I face judgement. I certainly can't presume any judgement of non-Christians. I cannot preempt Christ's judgement.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's nothing to do with pelegianism. It's just about rejecting Anselm's theory of atonement, which is totally foreign to us (which Arch would agree with).

St Anselm is correct, you are not.

Saying Christ's sacrifice wasn't about satisfying his own honor, doesn't mean the sacrifice didn't satisfy the law or that it's not vital for us.

Except it does. You've called his sacrifice meaningless. Under your system Christ didn't have to die, it serves no real purpose except symbolic. Hence, Pelagius.

Christ's death and resurrection are crucial, and we participate in both. They are what free us from the law and Hades.

[The Parkus Empire]

...How could you read about Passover and not understand its significance in the Bible?!

Frankly because he doesn't understand he Mosaic Law, if he thinks sin offerings had nothing to do with making restitution.

Do you think penance is restitution?

[Tarsonis]

Frankly because he doesn't understand he Mosaic Law, if he thinks sin offerings had nothing to do with making restitution.

Do you think penance is restitution?

Do you think scripture is invalid?

[The Parkus Empire]

Do you think penance is restitution?

Do you think scripture is invalid?

No, I think it's infallible, and that Psalm 51 makes it clear that sacrifice is repentance. Heck, John Climacus says to think of sacrifice here as fasting.

[The Parkus Empire]

That's not Christ's sacrifice per se, by the way, but when Paul said because of Christ, all have died and that we are to die with Christ, that includes dying to sin and passion; a sacrifice of ourselves.

[Tarsonis]

Do you think scripture is invalid?

No, I think it's infallible, and that Psalm 51 makes it clear that sacrifice is repentance. Heck, John Climacus says to think of sacrifice here as fasting.

The law clearly states that the sacrifices make atonement for sins. Penance are personal acts of contrition.

Penance:

""Leviticus when you have sinned and realize your guilt, and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, 5 or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add one-fifth to it. You shall pay it to its owner when you realize your guilt. "


Atonement

6 And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. 7 The priest shall make atonement on your behalf before the Lord, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and incur guilt thereby.


Scripture says you're wrong.

Further more.



Psalm 51 was written during the diaspora, when the temple was destroyed and they couldn't make sacrifices. It even says it at the end. It's like you don't even know deuteronismist Theology... oh of course you don't, cause that's required academia



18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem,
19 then you will delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

[Tarsonis]

That's not Christ's sacrifice per se, by the way, but when Paul said because of Christ, all have died and that we are to die with Christ, that includes dying to sin and passion; a sacrifice of ourselves.

Romans 3:

they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement[e] by his blood, effective through faith.


Leviticus 6

6 And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. 7 The priest shall make atonement on your behalf before the Lord, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and incur guilt thereby.



You're wrong .

[The Parkus Empire]

No, I think it's infallible, and that Psalm 51 makes it clear that sacrifice is repentance. Heck, John Climacus says to think of sacrifice here as fasting.

The law clearly states that the sacrifices make atonement for sins. Penance are personal acts of contrition.

Penance:

""Leviticus when you have sinned and realize your guilt, and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, 5 or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add one-fifth to it. You shall pay it to its owner when you realize your guilt. "


Atonement

6 And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. 7 The priest shall make atonement on your behalf before the Lord, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and incur guilt thereby.


Scripture says you're wrong.

Further more.



Psalm 51 was written during the diaspora, when the temple was destroyed and they couldn't make sacrifices. It even says it at the end. It's like you don't even know deuteronismist Theology... oh of course you don't, cause that's required academia



18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem,
19 then you will delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

Psalm 51 was written by David in response to his terrible fall. His murder is the "bloodguilt" referred to. At most, the last two verses were added later. Also see Psalm 50.

[Tarsonis]

The law clearly states that the sacrifices make atonement for sins. Penance are personal acts of contrition.

Penance:

""Leviticus when you have sinned and realize your guilt, and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, 5 or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add one-fifth to it. You shall pay it to its owner when you realize your guilt. "


Atonement

6 And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. 7 The priest shall make atonement on your behalf before the Lord, and you shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and incur guilt thereby.


Scripture says you're wrong.

Further more.



Psalm 51 was written during the diaspora, when the temple was destroyed and they couldn't make sacrifices. It even says it at the end. It's like you don't even know deuteronismist Theology... oh of course you don't, cause that's required academia



18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem,
19 then you will delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

Psalm 51 was written by David in response to his terrible fall. His murder is the "bloodguilt" referred to. At most, the last two verses were added later. Also see Psalm 50.

No. You're side stepping the main point to tip at the after thought, we can debate who wrote the psalms till the cows come home.

Leviticus clearly states the sin sacrifices are guilt offerings for the atonement of sins.

You're wrong

[Stonok]

Is making jokes about someone else's appearance a sin?

[The Parkus Empire]

Psalm 51 was written by David in response to his terrible fall. His murder is the "bloodguilt" referred to. At most, the last two verses were added later. Also see Psalm 50.

No. You're side stepping the main point to tip at the after thought, we can debate who wrote the psalms till the cows come home.

Leviticus clearly states the sin sacrifices are guilt offerings for the atonement of sins.

You're wrong

They are in the sense of the law demanding blood and death to repay for sin. They aren't in the sense of God being given restitution, which God himself says is a ridiculous idea in Psalm 50: 9-10

[The Parkus Empire]

Is making jokes about someone else's appearance a sin?

It can be. I don't think friendly banter is though.

[Tarsonis]

No. You're side stepping the main point to tip at the after thought, we can debate who wrote the psalms till the cows come home.

Leviticus clearly states the sin sacrifices are guilt offerings for the atonement of sins.

You're wrong

They are in the sense of the law demanding blood and death to repay for sin. They aren't in the sense of God being given restitution, which God himself says is a ridiculous idea in Psalm 50: 9-10

And who is that payment being made to? If a repayment is being made, that means there is a transaction being made, between two parties. Who is getting the repayment?

[Tarsonis]

No. You're side stepping the main point to tip at the after thought, we can debate who wrote the psalms till the cows come home.

Leviticus clearly states the sin sacrifices are guilt offerings for the atonement of sins.

You're wrong

They are in the sense of the law demanding blood and death to repay for sin. They aren't in the sense of God being given restitution, which God himself says is a ridiculous idea in Psalm 50: 9-10

You're also twisting Psalm 50.

22 “Consider this, you who forget God,
or I will tear you to pieces, with no one to rescue you:
23 Those who sacrifice thank offerings honor me,
and to the blameless[d] I will show my salvation.”


Nowhere does it say "stop sacrifices they have no value"

[The Parkus Empire]

They are in the sense of the law demanding blood and death to repay for sin. They aren't in the sense of God being given restitution, which God himself says is a ridiculous idea in Psalm 50: 9-10

And who is that payment being made to? If a repayment is being made, that means there is a transaction being made, between to parties. Who is getting the repayment?

No one precisely. The sacrifice is made to God, but it's basically an eye for an eye. God is not being "compensated" (although an eye for an eye later came to be just that for the victim when restitution replaced mutilation), since as he points out, he doesn't eat meat and all the animals are his anyway. Sin is a disease and only death can cure it. That is why Paul stresses that Christ's sacrifice is not external to us but something we must participate in. Then be raised anew, cured of sin. Animal sacrifice is a signifier of this, but of course it can't actually save you. The law does nothing, it's a penal law for the condemned. In Orthodoxy, Christ saved whomever wanted to go when he harrowed hell.

[Tarsonis]

And who is that payment being made to? If a repayment is being made, that means there is a transaction being made, between to parties. Who is getting the repayment?

No one precisely. The sacrifice is made to God, but it's basically an eye for an eye. God is not being "compensated" (although an eye for an eye later came to be just that for the victim when restitution replaced mutilation), since as he points out, he doesn't eat meat and all the animals are his anyway. Sin is a disease and only death can cure it. That is why Paul stresses that Christ's sacrifice is not external to us but something we must participate in. Then be raised anew, cured of sin. Animal sacrifice is a signifier of this, but of course it can't actually save you. The law does nothing, it's a penal law for the condemned. In Orthodoxy, Christ saved whomever wanted to go when he harrowed hell.

If the sacrifice is made to God than restitution is made to God. It's not hard.

[The Parkus Empire]

They are in the sense of the law demanding blood and death to repay for sin. They aren't in the sense of God being given restitution, which God himself says is a ridiculous idea in Psalm 50: 9-10

You're also twisting Psalm 50.

22 “Consider this, you who forget God,
or I will tear you to pieces, with no one to rescue you:
23 Those who sacrifice thank offerings honor me,
and to the blameless[d] I will show my salvation.”


Nowhere does it say "stop sacrifices they have no value"

They have value as other forms of repentance do, so of course not. But they must be expressions of a broken heart, not just legalistic

[The Parkus Empire]

No one precisely. The sacrifice is made to God, but it's basically an eye for an eye. God is not being "compensated" (although an eye for an eye later came to be just that for the victim when restitution replaced mutilation), since as he points out, he doesn't eat meat and all the animals are his anyway. Sin is a disease and only death can cure it. That is why Paul stresses that Christ's sacrifice is not external to us but something we must participate in. Then be raised anew, cured of sin. Animal sacrifice is a signifier of this, but of course it can't actually save you. The law does nothing, it's a penal law for the condemned. In Orthodoxy, Christ saved whomever wanted to go when he harrowed hell.

If the sacrifice is made to God than restitution is made to God. It's not hard.

. An eye for an eye was not originally restitution, just equipoise.

[The Parkus Empire]

Debt is the metaphor for owing God in Christ's parables. There is no suggestion in any of them about him as a substitute payment

[Tarsonis]

If the sacrifice is made to God than restitution is made to God. It's not hard.

. An eye for an eye was not originally restitution, just equipoise.

Hamarabi's code is irrelevant. An eye for an eye is not restitution or atonement, it's "punishment" losing an eye isn't atonement for taking another eye, it's punishment. A ransom, was an amount one could pay instead of receiving the due punishment. Sacrifices are akin to ransom, not punishment.

Leviticus says the sacrifices are made in atonement for your sins. They repay/make recompense/ etc for your sins. It's "making it up to God". When Christ sacrificed his life he made restitution for all time, the perfect sacrifice. This is straight biblical teaching .

[Tarsonis]

Debt is the metaphor for owing God in Christ's parables. There is no suggestion in any of them about him as a substitute payment

Christ's parables are about how we should act, not about the specific mechanics of salvation. St. Paul is the one who explains how the sacrifice is the fullfillent of the old law, and as I've repeatedly shown, Paul explains that Christ is offered up as a sin offering, to make atonement for the sins of mankind, in accordance with the law.

Restitution is paid, amends made, in accordance with the Law. So perfect is his sacrifice that we are set free from said law.

You've repeatedly attempted to obfuscate this by either ignoring it, or appealing to irrelevant false equivalencies.

[The Parkus Empire]

. An eye for an eye was not originally restitution, just equipoise.

Hamarabi's code is irrelevant. An eye for an eye is not restitution or atonement, it's "punishment" losing an eye isn't atonement for taking another eye, it's punishment. A ransom, was an amount one could pay instead of receiving the due punishment. Sacrifices are akin to ransom, not punishment.

Leviticus says the sacrifices are made in atonement for your sins. They repay/make recompense/ etc for your sins. It's "making it up to God". When Christ sacrificed his life he made restitution for all time, the perfect sacrifice. This is straight biblical teaching .

Salvific ransom (God ransomed the Jews from Pharaoh, and humanity from the devil) is obviously not restitution.