Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, "religionists" believe their own rules and rituals and works make them special before God. "Redemptionists" believe in imparted righteousness.

What is what you do, make up rules and rituals to make you special.
You believe that you have to be perfect to be saved so you follow the prescribed ritual of getting up before your group and say a specific formula about how you feel this way and that about your Redeemer, then God instantly makes you special by giving you your righteousness to where all of a sudden you no longer sin.

Righteousness is imputed to us also who believe, Romans 4.

Imputed righteousness is a declared righteousness as a result of a judgment, as described in verse 5:

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

What you are claiming for yourself now, as opposed to what you had in the past claimed (being a "saved" sinner), is the doctrine of imparted righteousness, where a person is given the real, actual same sort of righteousness as Christ to where one moment you are a sinner, then the next, you are holy and without sin.
What I am saying is instead of taking a step towards the light of truth from your former position, you have taken another step backwards by taking on yet another false philosophy and further cutting yourself off from reality and the help of God.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Not true at all. I said we don't need to be baptized to be saved, baptism is what saved people do.

Why?
Why bother if you've already received the "Spirit", which, if acknowledged, leads to the Divine?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Don't listen to what JM says about me, he misrepresents, (I think purposely) virtually everything I say.

Why should I listen to what you say about him? I read everyone's posts equally respectfully (although sometimes I get frustrated, obviously).

I've noticed that in most of your posts, especially to "JM", your first word is "No." (And to me also)
Why is that? Are you not even trying to comprehend the issues that others have with the 'scripture' or 'doctrine'?

I am trying to understand you without interference from any other member, NotUr, but it's extremely difficult (possibly, I think, purposely?).

Do you consider yourself "all done" with inquiring and study and contemplation?
That makes me scratch my head. Every day brings new information, new revelations, new light to these mysteries. I prefer to keep up and pay attention, adjusting my views as my judgment tells me "this seems plausible," or "this seems bogus.." Either way, I look into more information on those points of view to further clarify for myself their basis.

When, may I ask, did you decide, "Okay, that's it! I needn't look any further!" ?
I'm not there yet. I'm over 50 years old, with decades of inquiry, and I'm still not there yet.
How long have you been so confident and positive of your point of view? I am NOT asking to be confrontational, I truly want to know when/how it happened that you stopped investigating all the bejillions of data bits and settled on your "faith."

@ wildtimes
The problem I am finding is being in uncharted territory.
Seems the system is so all air-tight that once you break out of that cocoon, most people have sluffed off so many of their formerly held beliefs that they are caught in a downward spiral where they can't stop themselves and reach a point where it would take longer than a lifetime to reassemble a new system to replace the old.
The point being, as much as I like to read up on issues, I can't find anyone in the same place that i am and can write about it. They are all just on that edge before you break through the bubble and don't ever pass that safety point.
It could be my past experiences have already placed me beyond fear or the ability to loose faith.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The point being, as much as I like to read up on issues, I can't find anyone in the same place that i am and can write about it. They are all just on that edge before you break through the bubble and don't ever pass that safety point.
It could be my past experiences have already placed me beyond fear or the ability to loose faith.

I can relate to this entirely.
I, too, can't find anyone in the same place...and that leads me to repeat the concept I heard once from a clergy member (no idea when or where)..... part of faith is questioning it. Doubt is part of the deal. If you have no doubts, no questions, no misgivings, that is NOT appropriate.

Now, given that God's love and mercy "PASSETH UNDERSTANDING", it seems to me that those of us who admit "I don't really understand, but I'm trying" are indeed on the right path.

You all are far more competent than I at pulling chapter and verse out of your heads. I have no such verbatim memory and confident ability to "quote" scripture (although recently, thanks to all of you, I have a better understanding of Matthew; and of course everyone who's every attended a wedding know Corinthians ?:??,,,The greatest of these is love (charity) )...
having said that, what again is the ch/verse that says "keep searching, keep looking, do not believe anyone else just because they say so" (I know Buddha said that, but I'm fairly certain it's in the Bible too...or maybe not).

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, "religionists" believe their own rules and rituals and works make them special before God. "Redemptionists" believe in imparted righteousness.

What is what you do, make up rules and rituals to make you special.
You believe that you have to be perfect to be saved so you follow the prescribed ritual of getting up before your group and say a specific formula about how you feel this way and that about your Redeemer, then God instantly makes you special by giving you your righteousness to where all of a sudden you no longer sin.

Umm, I've actually never said any of that nonsense at any time. You can't just make things up then debunk the things you yourself made up. That's a fallacy.

What you are claiming for yourself now, as opposed to what you had in the past claimed (being a "saved" sinner), is the doctrine of imparted righteousness, where a person is given the real, actual same sort of righteousness as Christ to where one moment you are a sinner, then the next, you are holy and without sin.

He took our sin, and not ours only but the entire world, and imputes His righteousness. He became cursed of God so that we could be blessed of God. That's why Peter proclaims we also have a "like precious faith" as do the apostles. We all stand justified in Christ before God. It's the "imputed righteousness" David was prophesying about.

What I am saying is instead of taking a step towards the light of truth from your former position, you have taken another step backwards by taking on yet another false philosophy and further cutting yourself off from reality and the help of God.

The same things are said on the Adventist.org website, which even though you say you're an Adventist they are likewise wrong about everything.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Not true at all. I said we don't need to be baptized to be saved, baptism is what saved people do.

Why?
Why bother if you've already received the "Spirit", which, if acknowledged, leads to the Divine?

It's something we do to identify with His burial and resurrection. Every instance of baptism after Christ they are baptizing believers, nowhere do they baptize people who don't believe. Baptism should always be by immersion and after someone professes trust in Christ.

reply to post by wildtimes

I've noticed that in most of your posts, especially to "JM", your first word is "No." (And to me also)
Why is that?

I already said why that is, he "misrepresents virtually everything I say", and I believe it's purposely done because I've corrected him no less than half-a-dozen times.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Every instance of baptism after Christ they are baptizing believers, nowhere do they baptize people who don't believe. Baptism should always be by immersion and after someone professes trust in Christ.

Well, I guess that elucidates jmdewey's impression that you "hate" baptism.
NOWHERE do they baptize people who don't believe??
Are you serious???

I was baptized as an infant, 53 years ago. My great-niece was baptized as an infant just a few weeks ago. My brothers also were baptized as infants. All of my cousins, my brothers' children. My daughter as well.

The tradition for that is based on the antiquated "babies are born with sin, and must be baptized right away in case they die of the plague or whatever other horrible thing can happen to babies".....
it comes from the 500+year old belief that without baptism, the soul goes to limbo.

Sheesh.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The same things are said on the Adventist.org website, which even though you say you're an Adventist they are likewise wrong about everything.

It seems like to me that the only theology you know is the crack-pot variety where a wealthy former business-man retires and produces a bunch of YouTube videos pretending to be a preacher.
There are two things involved here and it comes from Reformation theology of the likes of Martin Luther. One is Imputed Righteousness, and the other is Imparted Righteousness. Imputed is a legal term where you are that by proclamation of Judgement. It happens in court today where someone can plead No Contest and the judge will hear the case and reach a decision and he will say, "I adjudicate you guilty" or he will say the opposite of that, where by decree, you are that thing, whether you actually were guilty or not, it is decided. That is imputed to you.
Imparted righteousness is what we develop through the help of the spirit to be a certain way in our actions.
Now I can see how you might jump on the instantaneous theory of imparted righteousness since you have already been indoctrinated by this rapture idea where Jesus takes sinners and changes then instantly into non-sinners. So once you buy into that, then it is not too difficult to think maybe Jesus can do the same thing to us right now.
The Seventh Day Adventists being Protestants believe in both those concepts, of Imputed Righteousness and Imparted Righteousness but not this rapture style instant righteousness but something you develop over time before you can be completely without sin, and then, not something you can sustain for any long period of time, and maybe something not reached in your lifetime.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Umm, I've actually never said any of that nonsense at any time. You can't just make things up then debunk the things you yourself made up. That's a fallacy.

You really have, I'm not making it up.
Now if you want to repudiate what you have formerly said, that is something you can do at any time. No one is interested in holding you to a specific position on anything and no one is going to ridicule you for changing your mind. I admit I change my position a lot, not so much in the past, but over the last two years, yes.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He took our sin, and not ours only but the entire world, and imputes His righteousness. He became cursed of God so that we could be blessed of God. That's why Peter proclaims we also have a "like precious faith" as do the apostles. We all stand justified in Christ before God. It's the "imputed righteousness" David was prophesying about.

No one is arguing with you over those points.
But that is not what you have been talking about for the last two days.
You have been talking about instantaneous imparted righteousness.
Notice a slightly different spelling.
Imputed.
Imparted.
Means two different things.
You are all of a sudden, probably because of a recent viewing of a new YouTube video, talking about instantly becoming the equivalent of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

I've noticed that in most of your posts, especially to "JM", your first word is "No." (And to me also)
Why is that?

I already said why that is, he "misrepresents virtually everything I say", and I believe it's purposely done because I've corrected him no less than half-a-dozen times.

I have a problem finding old posts but you did say it, that you are against all the sacraments of the church and classify then as religion where you hate all religion, without distinction, as being man made and actually harmful.
If you want to retract those, then you have the opportunity to do so.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Every instance of baptism after Christ they are baptizing believers, nowhere do they baptize people who don't believe. Baptism should always be by immersion and after someone professes trust in Christ.

Well, I guess that elucidates jmdewey's impression that you "hate" baptism.
NOWHERE do they baptize people who don't believe??
Are you serious???

I'm sorry that was confusing, the implication was "nowhere" in scripture are unbelievers baptized.

reply to post by jmdewey60

been indoctrinated by this rapture idea where Jesus takes sinners and changes then instantly into non-sinners.

That's not at all what the rapture is about.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Umm, I've actually never said any of that nonsense at any time. You can't just make things up then debunk the things you yourself made up. That's a fallacy.

You really have, I'm not making it up.
Now if you want to repudiate what you have formerly said, that is something you can do at any time. No one is interested in holding you to a specific position on anything and no one is going to ridicule you for changing your mind. I admit I change my position a lot, not so much in the past, but over the last two years, yes.

No, you're being deceptive. Ive never claimed any of that at any time.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

He took our sin, and not ours only but the entire world, and imputes His righteousness. He became cursed of God so that we could be blessed of God. That's why Peter proclaims we also have a "like precious faith" as do the apostles. We all stand justified in Christ before God. It's the "imputed righteousness" David was prophesying about.

No one is arguing with you over those points.
But that is not what you have been talking about for the last two days.
You have been talking about instantaneous imparted righteousness.
Notice a slightly different spelling.
Imputed.
Imparted.
Means two different things.
You are all of a sudden, probably because of a recent viewing of a new YouTube video, talking about instantly becoming the equivalent of Jesus Christ.

No I've not, I've purposely said 'Impute' because that's the word the Bible uses. "Impute". you're the one who's been saying "imparted", I even pointed it out earlier. Impute is a good enough word if the Bible uses it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

I've noticed that in most of your posts, especially to "JM", your first word is "No." (And to me also)
Why is that?

I already said why that is, he "misrepresents virtually everything I say", and I believe it's purposely done because I've corrected him no less than half-a-dozen times.

I have a problem finding old posts but you did say it, that you are against all the sacraments of the church and classify then as religion where you hate all religion, without distinction, as being man made and actually harmful.
If you want to retract those, then you have the opportunity to do so.

I hate religion, but I've never said anything bad about baptism or communion, two things we do to remember God. But they are not "sacraments", we don't have to do them to be saved, they are things saved people do.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

you're the one who's been saying "imparted"

You have, maybe not by name, but that is what you were describing.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I admit I change my position a lot, not so much in the past, but over the last two years, yes.

Which, like I said earlier, means you are closer to the truth. I change mine also.

Yet, still we have no answer to the question I asked earlier that I asked NotUr:

When, may I ask, did you decide, "Okay, that's it! I needn't look any further!" ?
I'm not there yet. I'm over 50 years old, with decades of inquiry, and I'm still not there yet.
How long have you been so confident and positive of your point of view? I am NOT asking to be confrontational, I truly want to know when/how it happened that you stopped investigating all the bejillions of data bits and settled on your "faith."

Yeah, it's possible I missed the answer, but just from looking, I didn't see it.