Comments on: Who Benefits from Salvation?: III http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/ Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:28:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Inclusivism Bloggersation « C. Orthodoxy http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-5060 Inclusivism Bloggersation « C. Orthodoxy Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:32:47 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=175#comment-5060 [...] Continues) ~Ken responded: Inclusivism and Universalism - To Hell With Sin? ~Drew responded: Who Benefits From Salvation? III ~Quixie responded: monitoring a blogologue… ~R.T. Jones has been following the conversation: [...] [...] Continues) ~Ken responded: Inclusivism and Universalism – To Hell With Sin? ~Drew responded: Who Benefits From Salvation? III ~Quixie responded: monitoring a blogologue… ~R.T. Jones has been following the conversation: [...]

]]> By: Michael Halcomb http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-609 Michael Halcomb Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:26:14 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=175#comment-609 Drew, I've tried to clarify: http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2008/02/michael-halcomb-clarified.html Drew,
I've tried to clarify:
http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2008/02/michael-halcomb-clarified.html

]]> By: Michael Halcomb http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-2672 Michael Halcomb Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:26:14 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=175#comment-2672 Drew,<br>I've tried to clarify:<br><a href="http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2008/02/michael-halcomb-clarified.html">http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2008/02/mich...</a> Drew,
I've tried to clarify:
http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2008/02/mich...

]]> By: Drew http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-606 Drew Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:26:34 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=175#comment-606 Michael, "I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn’t saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times." I think this is the issue that I am taking up and following through to see what the distinction between righteousness and salvation means for you when we take into consideration the examples of Abraham and Jesus here. Can someone be righteous and not saved for Paul? That would seem to me to be a contradiction for Romans 3 and thus for the corpus of Romans since I would agree with Byrne that this is the pivotal chapter in Romans that Paul then expands upon in following material. This is why calling Abraham "righteous" is interesting since he is talking about an inheritance to the Kingdom that is given to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think it would be helpful if you gave a bit more on how you would distinguish between the notions of salvation and righteousness here. Mainly what I do with this sort of discussion is draw out the possible conclusions of premises that have been argued. I think this is the main point here with what you have argued thus, and for James it is the issue of baptism. I am really arguing somewhat between the positions both of you are arguing since I see the inherent value and necessity in both for the church. It seems that Paul held both positions to a degree, but in different contexts or on different levels of reality (I am thinking of Torrance's view of knowledge here as a model). But before I continue on that route, the clarification I mention would be helpful indeed. Blessings. Michael,

"I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn’t saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times."

I think this is the issue that I am taking up and following through to see what the distinction between righteousness and salvation means for you when we take into consideration the examples of Abraham and Jesus here. Can someone be righteous and not saved for Paul? That would seem to me to be a contradiction for Romans 3 and thus for the corpus of Romans since I would agree with Byrne that this is the pivotal chapter in Romans that Paul then expands upon in following material. This is why calling Abraham "righteous" is interesting since he is talking about an inheritance to the Kingdom that is given to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think it would be helpful if you gave a bit more on how you would distinguish between the notions of salvation and righteousness here.

Mainly what I do with this sort of discussion is draw out the possible conclusions of premises that have been argued. I think this is the main point here with what you have argued thus, and for James it is the issue of baptism. I am really arguing somewhat between the positions both of you are arguing since I see the inherent value and necessity in both for the church. It seems that Paul held both positions to a degree, but in different contexts or on different levels of reality (I am thinking of Torrance's view of knowledge here as a model). But before I continue on that route, the clarification I mention would be helpful indeed.

Blessings.

]]> By: dtatusko http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-2673 dtatusko Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:26:34 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=175#comment-2673 Michael,<br><br>"I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn’t saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times."<br><br>I think this is the issue that I am taking up and following through to see what the distinction between righteousness and salvation means for you when we take into consideration the examples of Abraham and Jesus here. Can someone be righteous and not saved for Paul? That would seem to me to be a contradiction for Romans 3 and thus for the corpus of Romans since I would agree with Byrne that this is the pivotal chapter in Romans that Paul then expands upon in following material. This is why calling Abraham "righteous" is interesting since he is talking about an inheritance to the Kingdom that is given to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think it would be helpful if you gave a bit more on how you would distinguish between the notions of salvation and righteousness here.<br><br>Mainly what I do with this sort of discussion is draw out the possible conclusions of premises that have been argued. I think this is the main point here with what you have argued thus, and for James it is the issue of baptism. I am really arguing somewhat between the positions both of you are arguing since I see the inherent value and necessity in both for the church. It seems that Paul held both positions to a degree, but in different contexts or on different levels of reality (I am thinking of Torrance's view of knowledge here as a model). But before I continue on that route, the clarification I mention would be helpful indeed.<br><br>Blessings. Michael,

"I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn’t saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times."

I think this is the issue that I am taking up and following through to see what the distinction between righteousness and salvation means for you when we take into consideration the examples of Abraham and Jesus here. Can someone be righteous and not saved for Paul? That would seem to me to be a contradiction for Romans 3 and thus for the corpus of Romans since I would agree with Byrne that this is the pivotal chapter in Romans that Paul then expands upon in following material. This is why calling Abraham "righteous" is interesting since he is talking about an inheritance to the Kingdom that is given to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think it would be helpful if you gave a bit more on how you would distinguish between the notions of salvation and righteousness here.

Mainly what I do with this sort of discussion is draw out the possible conclusions of premises that have been argued. I think this is the main point here with what you have argued thus, and for James it is the issue of baptism. I am really arguing somewhat between the positions both of you are arguing since I see the inherent value and necessity in both for the church. It seems that Paul held both positions to a degree, but in different contexts or on different levels of reality (I am thinking of Torrance's view of knowledge here as a model). But before I continue on that route, the clarification I mention would be helpful indeed.

Blessings.

]]> By: Michael Halcomb http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-603 Michael Halcomb Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:54:12 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=175#comment-603 Drew, Good thoughts, though I disagree with the overall conclusion. Just to clarify, on that quote of James', that is off. I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn't saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times. Instead, I've been trying to show that Paul wasn't trying to make an argument that Abe was saved. Instead, Paul was simply saying he was righteous, which I see as two different things. I think, in fact, this is the more natural reading for James if anyone. I think Paul is clear on the fact that there are righteous persons outside of Christ. Lest we forget that Abe was a Gentile, the point Paul is making--at least in part--is that God made a promise to Abe. The promise, though, focuses not on Abe but one of Abe's descendants, namely, Jesus Christ. The whole reason Paul mentions Abe then, is as a means to an end, to eventually end up saying: What God promised back then--the uniting of all persons to Himself--has now come to fruition in Jesus (and Jesus alone!). Drew,
Good thoughts, though I disagree with the overall conclusion. Just to clarify, on that quote of James', that is off. I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn't saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times. Instead, I've been trying to show that Paul wasn't trying to make an argument that Abe was saved. Instead, Paul was simply saying he was righteous, which I see as two different things. I think, in fact, this is the more natural reading for James if anyone. I think Paul is clear on the fact that there are righteous persons outside of Christ. Lest we forget that Abe was a Gentile, the point Paul is making–at least in part–is that God made a promise to Abe. The promise, though, focuses not on Abe but one of Abe's descendants, namely, Jesus Christ. The whole reason Paul mentions Abe then, is as a means to an end, to eventually end up saying: What God promised back then–the uniting of all persons to Himself–has now come to fruition in Jesus (and Jesus alone!).

]]> By: Michael Halcomb http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/25/who-benefits-from-salvation-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-2674 Michael Halcomb Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:54:12 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=175#comment-2674 Drew,<br>Good thoughts, though I disagree with the overall conclusion. Just to clarify, on that quote of James', that is off. I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn't saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times. Instead, I've been trying to show that Paul wasn't trying to make an argument that Abe was saved. Instead, Paul was simply saying he was righteous, which I see as two different things. I think, in fact, this is the more natural reading for James if anyone. I think Paul is clear on the fact that there are righteous persons outside of Christ. Lest we forget that Abe was a Gentile, the point Paul is making--at least in part--is that God made a promise to Abe. The promise, though, focuses not on Abe but one of Abe's descendants, namely, Jesus Christ. The whole reason Paul mentions Abe then, is as a means to an end, to eventually end up saying: What God promised back then--the uniting of all persons to Himself--has now come to fruition in Jesus (and Jesus alone!). Drew,
Good thoughts, though I disagree with the overall conclusion. Just to clarify, on that quote of James', that is off. I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn't saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times. Instead, I've been trying to show that Paul wasn't trying to make an argument that Abe was saved. Instead, Paul was simply saying he was righteous, which I see as two different things. I think, in fact, this is the more natural reading for James if anyone. I think Paul is clear on the fact that there are righteous persons outside of Christ. Lest we forget that Abe was a Gentile, the point Paul is making–at least in part–is that God made a promise to Abe. The promise, though, focuses not on Abe but one of Abe's descendants, namely, Jesus Christ. The whole reason Paul mentions Abe then, is as a means to an end, to eventually end up saying: What God promised back then–the uniting of all persons to Himself–has now come to fruition in Jesus (and Jesus alone!).

]]>