Featured Love wins -- an Orthodox view of salvation

If I am guessing right he may believe in the Christus Victor view of the atonement and may even deny that hell is eternal.

 

Don't orthodox focus more on Jesus humanity, how he identifies with us, and not so much upon a penal substitutionary death on calvary for our sins?

they don't hold to atonement by that act as we do?

they hold to more a quai sacramental graces you to get yourself purified and thus saved?

 

That is a joke! How many times have I read this line from you? What happens is that others oppose your views and you come roaring back in a very indictive spirit instead of leaving. If you do leave, it is but for a moment and you are right back teaching your atonement heresy that openly denies the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for the remission of sins - Heb. 9:22

 

I thought that was quite good.

It, obviously, isnt a comprehensive treatment, but I liked it.


To the OP...Thanks for sharing. :thumbs:

 

I sincerely hope you do not leave. I really enjoy your contributions and manner in which you post-whether I agree with you or not.

 

Deleted by me (Walter) Not posted in right spirit.

 

Walter he has said the very same thing in the other section more than once while telling everyone he will be attacked (meaning challenged) and sure enough when some one merely challenges him he screams persecution while calling them every name in the book. Sorry, I have no sympathy for that kind of tactic and it is a tactic when it is repeated.

He denies that the blood of Christ had to be shed (Heb. 9:22) and that is absolute complete repudation of the very heart of the atonement.

 

Wouldn't holding to both of those place one outise the "bounds of orthodoxy?"

I mmean orthodoxy in the sense of recogized as necessary Christian doctrine to be held?

 

There you go Readers, what did I tell you. I NEVER called him a single name, just described his methods and told you every time he is confronted with his methods he comes out name calling.

 

"It is right because it is early."
That is your theory.
You must also believe in Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, transubstantiation, etc.
These were all early heresies of Christendom. Origen was a heretic even by RCC standards. Look up some of the things he believed. Some call him the "Father of Arianism." If it is heresy you want to believe, then there was plenty of it floating around in the first thousand years of Christianity. I didn't know that is the way you determined the "correctness" of your doctrine. That is odd.

 

It is anything but "orthodox"! Hebrew 9:22 in context demands that Christ's blood had to be shed or else there is no remission of sins.

In Context, the writer of Hebrews is directly applying Hebrews 9:22 to the day of atonement where the High Priest MUST bring blood into the holiest or else HE DIES and the atonement is REJECTED by God.

Hebrews 9:22 directly applies the phrase "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" DIRECTLY to Christ as our High Preist entering once into the holies of Holies with "HIS OWN BLOOD."

The context of Hebrews 9:22 DOES NOT apply it to Leviticus 5:13 or any unbloody sin offering but directly to the day of atonement and uses the word "NECESSARILY" to demand the shedding of blood in that specific application to Christ.

You can't answer this contextually. You will simply IGNORE the context and apply it according to YOUR TRADITION you obtained from hereitics in church history OR you will personally attack me with more name calling BUT YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE FACTS OF THE CONTEXT - as that is your modus operandi - PROVE ME WRONG IN THIS PREDICTION ABOUT YOUR RESPONSES!!!!

 

Why I am shocked! No answer yet?

 

Yes, His shedding of blood was absolutely necessary ... to be our Substitute!
So was the death of a sinless human being necessary ... to be our Substitute!

What was NOT necessary was this human having to be God! ... What?
'Twas simply an additional bonus ... just an extremely more impressive demonstration of God's love!
Are there any Scriptures which prove that I am wrong?

Seriously ... I'm not trying to instigate any heart attacks!

 

You are definintely wrong. Without the incarnation there could be no salvation at all for a number of reasons:

1. No fallen man from Adam could satisfy the Law's requirements and it required a sinless man and only a sinless God could satisfy that requirement because "ALL" mankind had sinned. Jesus told the rich young ruler "There is NONE GOOD but one, and that is God." Therefore, there is but "ONE" that could do it - God.

2. The condemnation of sin called for ETERNAL death and no finite creature could pay that penalty for himself, muct less one other man beside himself unless he were INFINITE as well as human.

 

IF Jesus was not God in human flesh, then we ALL here are still condemned and hell bound!

 

IF Jesus was just a perfect man, only human, his death would have been useless, as he would have needed no atonement for his own sins, nor could he pay for any one elses!