The sinfulness of his adopted humanity, basically: how do you understand it? I have further thoughts but which direction are you thinking in?

In a similar vein of perfect action by him, what sort of repentance did he make at his baptism of repentance by john the Baptist, whose baptism was exclusively for repentance?

I don't like that paragraph either...: it opened the way for me to question the conclusion's strength, after reading the article, too. What is your concern with it, or just what you're aware of poor examples in the Christian community?

I'm not sure who said the above, other than Colin posted it, I think. I'm just providing this for context. Beneath the above, you (teresaq) wrote:




I'm finding this a bit cryptic. Please clarify: What is "this quote"? What is the conclusion presented, and what is contradicting the conclusion.

on rereading this i can see the confusion, and i wrote it.

colin was responding to boyds comment and i was responding to colins question. i was pointing out that we say "sins" but we dont seem to really know what that entails. what sins are we talking about? do we know what sin really is, or do we have an extremely limited view of what sin is? or we so busy discussing how its done and dont actually think about what....

i believe that boyd made it clear whether he believed in "dying to sin itself" in the second quote by him above. unless we arent clear about sanctification.

boyds second quote above is a very real reality for much of the christian world as well as for some of us in the church.

Ok, so you were doing two things. One was pointing out an ambiguity (not having to do with Boyd), and the other was you were agreeing with Boyd's point in regards to the disconnect between profession and reality.

What I like about the Christus Victor theme (which we know as "The Great Contoversy") is that everything ties together. The SOP says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. This agrees with Boyd's formulation of things, as he points out His purpose was to defeat the enemy, which was done by His "outrageous love."

bump

One of the pains about moving is losing stuff. An upside is finding something you thought had been lost.

I came across "Christus Victor" by Gustaf Aulen, who is responsible for bringing this view of the atonement back into public view, so am re-reading it, a great joy, since I was afraid it had been lost. Despite the fact that it was the dominant view of the atonement for nearly a thousand years (the first thousand years, following Christ's death), it had been lost sight of, and, even today, most people generally think in terms of only two atonement models, one objective (penal substitution) and the other subjective (moral influence theory). There's a third model which combines the best points of both the objective and subjective model, while avoiding their flaws (this is Aulen's premise, at any rate!).

I'll be trying to share some things from the book, time allowing.

I'll just check again what Boyd says for himself on dying to self and J&S, not forgetting that true Christian witness isn't at its best yet!

What is sin....: sin principally is both "lawlessness" and "transgression of the law". It's also selfish pride and selfishness altogether. To glory in Christ is healthy pride, so there's the true version! Sin also mental as well as active, of course. It's even spiritual, making oneself the whole of one's realm of interest and importance, shutting out anyone or anything external: that is dead spirituality since it doesn't connect but it is spiritual, all the same.

On specifics: sinfulness for us in both our nature and our sinful character. Our nature is a sinful being; our lives and actions are sinful choices. Therefore, as you may have heard before, it's not the case that "we sin because we're sinners; we're sinners because we sin", since this prevents us from chosing not to sin. Truth: "we sin because we're sinful; we're sinners because we sin." Human nature is sinful, but we are sinful also by actions.

Jesus took the former, but refused the latter. He daily died to the former, and completed that with his death on the cross. He also died for sin, since that's what the law requires, since Adam had to sacrifice that first lamb by faith in the promised Messiah's sacrifice for sin, once and for all. He died for us, for sin and gave us the righteous example of dying to sin, which we experience by our living faith in him.

Ok, that hasn't actually answered your question, has it, or was it alright?

hello, my brother, what a conciliatory move!! my quick skim through boyds thoughts as presented there seemed very much in line with the sop as i understand it. it seems to me we should go through his thoughts and establish what we know to be right and then pick at what we believe to be error.



ok, i can agree with that for the moment. its a little technical and i dont know that the average joe i run into could understand the nuances, which is always my concern. the way i would state it is, we are going to sin from the moment we are born.

also, do you think we could allow the other person to see things differently no matter how bad we might think that teaching to be? i mean, i disagree with you on antitrinitarianism but should i do to you what you did to tom? should anyone treat you that way?

maybe stating, i disagree with --------because-------and leave it there? which could give the other an opportunity to clear up those particular issues if possible.

Still have to study Boyd again, thanks, and yes, keep the good and not the bad.

On sin, Teresa, that bit you put in red simply means: we're sinful by nature, we're not sinners by nature - we're sinners by choice.

On "Tom", agreeing to disagree wasn't happening from his end, that I could see, while everyone else could see our definitions were different for the same words we were using. Tom avoided this fact all he could, seeming to claim it wasn't relevant, as he supported a short paragraphed, voted statement, which had zero detail in it. That he didn't give the chapter, explaining the short #9 FB "note", any validity as being the proper explanation of what is believed by the church under FB #9, really ended the discussion. That's what dragged it on as far as it did.

If he doesn't follow my wording 75% of the time or more, it also drags the discussion on forever! A difference on the meaning of Christ's death changes understandings on virtually everything, despite a few similar points.