God_Is_Truth
New member
godrulz said:
why should we take "born again" and "redemption" to be metaphors?
Is God Truly All Powerful?
- Thread starter Ninjashadow
- Start date
why should we take "born again" and "redemption" to be metaphors?
God_Is_Truth said:
Spiritual birth is very real. A metaphor is descriptive. It does not mean it is not describing truth or reality. If we take the phrase as a wooden literalism like Nicodemus did, we find Jesus clarifying that spiritual and physical birth are not identical in every sense.
Robert Shank:
1) Physical birth effects the inception of the life of the subject in toto, whereas spiritual birth involves only a transition from one mode of life to another. We are new creatures in Christ, but only within the limits of the total definition of the Scriptures.
2) In physical birth, the subject has no prior knowledge and gives no consent, whereas in spiritual birth, the subject must have a prior knowledge of the Gospel and must give consent.
3) In physical birth, the individual receives a life independent of his parents. They may die, but he lives on. But in spiritual birth, the subject receives no independent life. He becomes a partaker of the life and nature of Him who begets- a participant, by faith, in the eternal life of God in Christ "who is our life."
In view of the obvious differences, it cannot be considered strange that spiritual birth, unlike physical birth, is not irrevocable. It is folly to assume that an equation exists between physical birth and spiritual birth, and that whatever is intrinsic in phys. birth is equally so in spir. birth. They are equally real, but essentially different. While an analogy exists between the two, there is no equation whatever.
So, some argue that being born again is literal and irreversible due to a literal approach. A recognition of a figure of speech (metaphor cf. Jesus being the vine, door, gate, etc.) avoids wrong doctrinal conclusions.
Next post for ransom...
Ransom, redeem, bought with a price, etc. convey truth, but must be understood in light of word studies, first century culture (vs ours), etc. This is sound hermeneutics and is not a denial of spiritual truths (like sozo and lighthouse jumped to conclusions about 'metaphor').
The payment theory/Commercial Transaction Theory/satisfaction theory originated mostly with Anselm. This confuses metaphor with literal understanding. A religious metaphor conveys spiritual truth, but is not to be taken in a literal, physical way. A literal payment or ransom would logically and legally lead to universalism, which is unbiblical. His death is literal, but the meaning of it is debatable (try the Moral Government view on for size e.g. Albert Barnes; Charles Finney; etc. instead of the Commercial theory).
Caleb Burge, Dr. Nathan Beman, and many others rightly recognize the figure of speech, since a literal understanding of these concepts would contradict more explicit teachings on the nature of redemption. The theological understanding of redemption is also deeper than simply assuming it means a literal payment. Others debated who this supposed payment is made to: Satan, Jesus, Father, man, etc.
Beman: "The Scriptures frequently describe the atonement in language of a figurative character; and the literal construction (interpretation) which has been put upon the language has, no doubt, sometimes...misled the honest inquirer....they do not intend to teach that salvation is a pecuniary transaction, regulated according to the principles of debt and credit...Christ prepared the way for our debt to be remitted...He made it consistent and proper and honorable for sin to be forgiven according to the prescribed terms of the Gospel..." (quote was longer explaining why figurative vs literal debt payment is more biblical)."
Burge: "...figurative expressions..they are designed to communicate the idea, that as payment of money as the price of liberty is the ground on which prisoners are released from captivity, so the atonement of Christ is the ground on which sinners are pardoned, or set free from a sentence of condemnation...understood literally, they would contradict other plain declarations of the Word of God. It is evident, therefore, that these are metaphorical expressions, and were never designed to be taken in a strictly literal sense." (again, longer quote would prove the point).
Salvation did cost something, but it is more than a commercial transaction.
George Otis, Jr. "If we accept the premise that Jesus literally purchased our salvation with His blood, this approach only portrays God as vindictive and bloodthirsty and totally incompatible with biblical forgiveness, it also presents another grave difficulty. If Jesus literally paid for our sins with his blood (a paid debt is no longer a debt),and He died for the sins of the entire world, then we come to only one conclusion, universalism, which means the whole world will be saved. If salvation is basically a legal transaction, then I have no debt or obligation remaining and my ignorance of this situation would not alter the fact." (this is from several chapters of teaching, so do not jump to conclusions out of context)
To try to shore up this error (literal payment), Calvinists revert to limited atonement for the 'elect' (TULIP). The literal payment view is only problematic because many fail to recognize the many metaphors for salvation (cf. , Jesus (door, etc.), the Church (Body), etc.) and press it with a wooden literalism. Recognizing figures of speech avoids contradiction with didactic portions and does not diminish the spiritual truths portrayed by the analogy. Jesus is not a wooden door and salvation is not a mere commercial transaction. This metaphor cannot be divorced from other equally important descriptions of what was and was not accomplished in His death.
The payment theory/Commercial Transaction Theory/satisfaction theory originated mostly with Anselm. This confuses metaphor with literal understanding. A religious metaphor conveys spiritual truth, but is not to be taken in a literal, physical way. A literal payment or ransom would logically and legally lead to universalism, which is unbiblical. His death is literal, but the meaning of it is debatable (try the Moral Government view on for size e.g. Albert Barnes; Charles Finney; etc. instead of the Commercial theory).
Caleb Burge, Dr. Nathan Beman, and many others rightly recognize the figure of speech, since a literal understanding of these concepts would contradict more explicit teachings on the nature of redemption. The theological understanding of redemption is also deeper than simply assuming it means a literal payment. Others debated who this supposed payment is made to: Satan, Jesus, Father, man, etc.
Beman: "The Scriptures frequently describe the atonement in language of a figurative character; and the literal construction (interpretation) which has been put upon the language has, no doubt, sometimes...misled the honest inquirer....they do not intend to teach that salvation is a pecuniary transaction, regulated according to the principles of debt and credit...Christ prepared the way for our debt to be remitted...He made it consistent and proper and honorable for sin to be forgiven according to the prescribed terms of the Gospel..." (quote was longer explaining why figurative vs literal debt payment is more biblical)."
Burge: "...figurative expressions..they are designed to communicate the idea, that as payment of money as the price of liberty is the ground on which prisoners are released from captivity, so the atonement of Christ is the ground on which sinners are pardoned, or set free from a sentence of condemnation...understood literally, they would contradict other plain declarations of the Word of God. It is evident, therefore, that these are metaphorical expressions, and were never designed to be taken in a strictly literal sense." (again, longer quote would prove the point).
Salvation did cost something, but it is more than a commercial transaction.
George Otis, Jr. "If we accept the premise that Jesus literally purchased our salvation with His blood, this approach only portrays God as vindictive and bloodthirsty and totally incompatible with biblical forgiveness, it also presents another grave difficulty. If Jesus literally paid for our sins with his blood (a paid debt is no longer a debt),and He died for the sins of the entire world, then we come to only one conclusion, universalism, which means the whole world will be saved. If salvation is basically a legal transaction, then I have no debt or obligation remaining and my ignorance of this situation would not alter the fact." (this is from several chapters of teaching, so do not jump to conclusions out of context)
To try to shore up this error (literal payment), Calvinists revert to limited atonement for the 'elect' (TULIP). The literal payment view is only problematic because many fail to recognize the many metaphors for salvation (cf. , Jesus (door, etc.), the Church (Body), etc.) and press it with a wooden literalism. Recognizing figures of speech avoids contradiction with didactic portions and does not diminish the spiritual truths portrayed by the analogy. Jesus is not a wooden door and salvation is not a mere commercial transaction. This metaphor cannot be divorced from other equally important descriptions of what was and was not accomplished in His death.
God_Is_Truth
New member
godrulz said:
thank you for sharing that perspective godrulz. i do have a comment about this statement. spiritual life is a gift, eternal life is something God has given to us. Paul states that the gifts of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11
29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
thus, our life was given to God, sustained by God and will never be taken away. his gifts are irrevocable.
i did not mean to suggest that spiritual birth equaled physical birth identically. i meant that both are real births. I see no reason to think that the spiritual birth was something metaphorical and not a literal birth. there are obvious differences between physical and spiritual births, but this doesn't mean one is thus taken literally while one is metaphorically.
it is irrevocable because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:26).
God_Is_Truth
New member
godrulz said:
godrulz, i appreciate the time you took to find those quotes, i found them an interesting read. however, when i said "redemption", i did not mean to convey the idea of the literal payment. in my mind, that's not what redemption is. can we both agree that in Christ we are redeemed?
God_Is_Truth said:
The context of Romans 11 is not about individual salvation and eternal life. One cannot even make an application by way of principle. You are stringing unrelated contexts together based on the word gift. All uses of 'gift' in the entire Bible cannot be extrapolated to fit the proof text of Rom. 11. The context of Rom. 9-11 is about the corporate election of national Israel. It is about the chosing of a nation for a specific purpose. Despite their rebellion, God did not revoke their gift as a nation to bring forth the Law and the Messiah.
MInistry gifts in the church are not irrevocable to an individual if the person sins and fails to fulfill the intended gift. If a leader denies sound doctrine or fails on character issues, they are disciplined and removed from responsibility. They may or may not be restored depending on repentance and credibility issues. Likewise, a person cannot claim to be walking in the light as He is in the light (I Jn.) while living like the devil. If someone renounces Christ in favor of Buddhism, they cannot claim on the judgment day that eternal life is a gift, irrevocable, so it does not matter what one does or believes after initial saving faith. Johannine and Pauline writings link the free gift of eternal life with being in the Son (conditional). If one is not in the Son (whether they once were or not), they do not have life. Eternal life is not a literal 'thing' that is deposited in our hearts at conversion and sealed with a lock and key. It is linked with ongoing trust in Christ (relationship) that goes on forever. It is the life of Christ in us, which is Him living in and through us. It is not an impersonal thing that God cannot surgically remove. The life is in Christ, not inherently in our genes. If Christ is not in us (due to unbelief before or after conversion), then eternal life is not 'in us' either.
The conditional nature of initial salvation (repentant faith) and perseverance (continuing in the faith) as well as the urgent warnings about the possibility of apostasy/falling away steer me away from OSAS. It is fair to say that if we are in Christ, we are eternally secure. If we are not in Christ or no longer in Christ (implies right relationship, not just a metaphysical change), then we do not have eternal life (which is in Him, not inherent in us...it would only be inherent and irreversible if it was a physical thing/change).
Last edited:
God_Is_Truth said:
The literal payment theory seems to be the most common lay understanding of the death of Christ thanks to preachers who have not thought the issue through or just heard it uncritically from another TV evangelist. Historically, it was viewed as a problematic, controversial view.
In Christ we are redeemed. He is the Redeemer. He certainly has freed us from the penalty (justification), power (sanctification), and presence (glorification) of sin.
Obviously, there are various views on what redemption is and is not. The various words used to describe the saving work of Christ are a mosaic of a multifactorial work (i.e. it involves relational, justice, mercy, governmental, love, holiness, transformation, etc. issues).
Either you're nailed to the cross, or you're not. End of story.
lighthouse said:
Are we literally nailed to the cross or is that descriptive of a spiritual truth?
Is that like you are either pregnant or you are not?
Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross. This made our redemption possible. We are to die to Self and rise to newness of life in Him. The key is to be in Him, not to have stigmata.
So, you think you can take yourself down off that cross? Or is it that you think you can take Jesus off the cross?
servent101
New member
Lighthouse
Sorry for the harshness of the post, I am just trying to get through to you, that what you claim is the reason for your attitude is not acceptable - Christians are True to the Lord, no matter how other people treat them. We overcome evil with Good; we do not repay evil for evil. Whatever I did to offend you, you probably don’t even remember, you just take whatever I say and lambaste it, without thinking about what you are doing, or Who you claim to serve.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
- you just admitted that I was the reason for your attitude, not Christ, so something is WRONG in your relationship with your God. Have you ever considered that you are wrong, that your attitude does not represent a person who is a follower of the Lord - this just for starters, and after that, consider that it is you who deny God for your own little personal version of who you want God to be. There is no substance to your posts, just mindless innuendoes and insults, showing clearly that you are attracted to a God because this gives you opportunity to maintain a familiar mood - to spout off in anger and try to hurt other people - this seems to be why you are attracted to be a Christian, no other reason - you simply like to strike out in anger, which a real Christian does not do – have you ever read anything about self control, meekness, gentleness?
Sorry for the harshness of the post, I am just trying to get through to you, that what you claim is the reason for your attitude is not acceptable - Christians are True to the Lord, no matter how other people treat them. We overcome evil with Good; we do not repay evil for evil. Whatever I did to offend you, you probably don’t even remember, you just take whatever I say and lambaste it, without thinking about what you are doing, or Who you claim to serve.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
servent101
New member
Godrulz
To me there is the work - that we have doors opened for us, information placed in our path, but we still have to digest the information, open the doors, seek, knock, pray, give God the Glory, help others, be as wise as foxes, gentle as doves - but that God helps us to find the straight and narrow path - and the reason God does is that Jesus is our Lord, that we follow the Lord, which is in and of itself one of the many things God provides for us - that is a part of our redemption. Once saved we are then given opportunity to do and accomplish, we simply do not go on holidays.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
To me there is the work - that we have doors opened for us, information placed in our path, but we still have to digest the information, open the doors, seek, knock, pray, give God the Glory, help others, be as wise as foxes, gentle as doves - but that God helps us to find the straight and narrow path - and the reason God does is that Jesus is our Lord, that we follow the Lord, which is in and of itself one of the many things God provides for us - that is a part of our redemption. Once saved we are then given opportunity to do and accomplish, we simply do not go on holidays.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
lighthouse said:
I was never on a literal wooden cross. Jesus was taken off the cross, buried, and rose again. He ascended to heaven and will return again.
Romans and Galatians would be helpful to understand what it means to be crucified with Christ, identifying with His death and resurrection.
Wrong. The reason is because of Christ in me.serpent101 said:
And I was a Christian way before I became the way I am. I used to be a lot nicer. But then I realized that God didn't want me to be that nice, and since I was already His, I submitted to His will.
I know what it means. You are the one who needs to understand it.godrulz said:
godrulz said:
I've been away from this thread for a few days and have lost track of the flow of the discussion so forgive me if this is completely off the topic at this point but I want to ask you a question since you've brought up the book of Romans.
How do you deal with Romans chapter 8? It would seem that the entire chapter is about the security of our salvation.
It begins with...
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
and ends with...
37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Clete said:
Romans 6-8 is about sanctification. The verses are not proof texts for OSAS. Those who are IN Christ and do not walk after the flesh are saved. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. These texts do not negate the other verses that show a conditionality to being in Christ or the possibility of falling away (apostasy). If we are in Christ, we are secure. If WE remove ourselves from His love and grace through willful renunciation of the Faith and return to selfish rebellion, false religion, enmity with God, etc., then the person is not 'in Christ' but is an unbeliever walking after the flesh and not the Spirit.
Just as God's will, purposes, and grace can be resisted before salvation, so it is theoretically possible for us to spurn the grace of God and keeping ministry of the Spirit after salvation. To not be able to do so, before or after conversion, means that salvation is coerced or determinstic. This would undermine the nature of love, freedom, relationship, reconciliation, etc.
God's love and faithfulness are solid and indisputable. The problem is with the fickleness and faithlessness of man. The gift of free will is a double edged sword. You will object that this makes salvation of man or legalistic. Given the nature of the conditions of salvation and our responsibility to respond to God and continue to abide, I would disagree. Salvation is of God, but not without us being recipients or participants in His grace.
So we have the power to remove ourselves "from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord", in spite of the fact that the Bible explicitly states that "neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to" do so? Is this text some sort of figure of speech or what? How is it that we do not fit into the category of "any other created thing?godrulz said:
See above.
I'm not sure why you would ever think to make this argument when addressing me. You should now as well as anyone that I am very strongly on the free will side of the theological fence. I am not suggesting anything that resembles Calvinism in the slightest. Very few Calvinists would hesitate to remove me from their fellowship for holding the position that I hold on this issue; it is utterly incompatible with predestination. As I said in a previous post, you are not saved because you have and maintain a relationship with God; you have a relationship with God because you are saved. So I agree with you that our actions and the beliefs we have affect our relationship with God but they do not affect our salvation. If it did we would be under the law for the law is what teaches us what it is to live a righteous life.
You are operating your Christian life exactly backward from what you should be. You ARE identified in Christ because God has placed you in Him, not because you maintain a relationship. This is the very context in which your relationship with God exists and functions in the first place, and it is precisely the faith in (the reckoning of) the truth of this Biblical fact which enables you to live the life which you are so keen to live. It CANNOT be done the other way around godrulz! You cannot DO anything! You MUST rest in Him if you ever want to see any real, permanent, spiritual growth in the Christian life. Any growth gained by any other means will be burned up at the judgment seat of Christ.
Which is why He crucified our flesh on the cross! I so badly wish I could persuade you to leave it hanging there.
Salvation is of the Lord whether it is by the law or by grace but you are definitely on the legalism side of the fence on this one.
You would've made a terrific Messianic Jew! :nono:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
servent101
New member
Clete
Good idea, but how, we all want to leave our "old self" behind, but exactly "how" - your suggestion is to me void of any practical meaning or instruction. The most benefit on the "how" has been from the Book Bondage Breaker, and Victory over the Darkness, as well as purports on Buddhists writings on how to deal with the monkey mind.
All in all if it could be said, salvation is something that we all have available to us, that God opens doors to us because Jesus made His Will known to the Father, that He wants us all to be drawn close to God... somehow I just do not buy the legality of understanding exactly what the people who determine what is and how and when we are to receive salvation, or if salvation could be ever considered a doctrine that is conclusive from the New Testament, and solely the domain of the Christian God to give through Christ - not that anyone who is Spiritual ever rejects Christ, it just is that when you put into dogma who is and who is not going to ascend to heaven well we simply make up too much conjecture and ill thought out consequences... we try to judge too much with too little information – the Bible was never written as the definitive source of all Spiritual knowledge, but it seems that is the way people are trying to impose the collection of individual letters, written for purposes that are taken completely out of context.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Good idea, but how, we all want to leave our "old self" behind, but exactly "how" - your suggestion is to me void of any practical meaning or instruction. The most benefit on the "how" has been from the Book Bondage Breaker, and Victory over the Darkness, as well as purports on Buddhists writings on how to deal with the monkey mind.
All in all if it could be said, salvation is something that we all have available to us, that God opens doors to us because Jesus made His Will known to the Father, that He wants us all to be drawn close to God... somehow I just do not buy the legality of understanding exactly what the people who determine what is and how and when we are to receive salvation, or if salvation could be ever considered a doctrine that is conclusive from the New Testament, and solely the domain of the Christian God to give through Christ - not that anyone who is Spiritual ever rejects Christ, it just is that when you put into dogma who is and who is not going to ascend to heaven well we simply make up too much conjecture and ill thought out consequences... we try to judge too much with too little information – the Bible was never written as the definitive source of all Spiritual knowledge, but it seems that is the way people are trying to impose the collection of individual letters, written for purposes that are taken completely out of context.
With Christ's Love
Servent101