Progressive Disenchantment Atonement

[VladtheDestroyer]

The theological framework of my interlocutors appears to share significant structural similarities with Islam, particularly in its emphasis on material and national outcomes.

Nonsense. You are the one who is focusing on the material.

 

[Clete]

The theological framework of my interlocutors appears to share significant structural similarities with Islam, particularly in its emphasis on material and national outcomes. The primary distinction lies in their focus on Israel's elevation rather than its subjugation. From a traditional Christian perspective, however, this remains a materialistic interpretation of faith. Christianity is fundamentally a spiritual religion centered on grace and redemption, whereas your approach seems to reduce faith to a literalistic hermeneutic that reads Scripture primarily through a political and terrestrial lens. I respectfully invite the participants to consider the teachings of Christianity as an alternative to their current faith.

I read the scripture like it is written in normal human language that means what it plainly states unless good contextual or grammatical reasons are given to do otherwise.

If whatever it is you are doing with it were valid, there'd be no way to falsify any wild-eyed doctrine any crank wanted to propose. All he'd have to do is find the right "lens" through which to read the Scripture and voilà, anything you want to believe becomes "scriptural".

 

[Nick M]

• God exists.
• He is the Creator of all things and He is holy, perfect and just.
• We have, by doing evil things, rebelled against God.
• We, having rebelled against the God who gave us life, deserve death.
• God, being unwilling that all should perish, provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ and who is God Himself become flesh.
• Jesus, being Himself innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

I will add one bullet point.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise

• OSAS

 

[Right Divider]

The theological framework of my interlocutors appears to share significant structural similarities with Islam, particularly in its emphasis on material and national outcomes.

Hogwash!

The primary distinction lies in their focus on Israel's elevation rather than its subjugation.

Hogwash!

From a traditional Christian perspective, however, this remains a materialistic interpretation of faith.

Hogwash!

Christianity is fundamentally a spiritual religion centered on grace and redemption, whereas your approach seems to reduce faith to a literalistic hermeneutic that reads Scripture primarily through a political and terrestrial lens. I respectfully invite the participants to consider the teachings of Christianity as an alternative to their current faith.

You could not possibly be more full of crap.

You are not a Christian if you believe that what we say is not Christian.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Maybe try to actually respond rather than just copy/pasting stuff from a favorite teacher?

He seems to be adapting his own papers/articles to this discussion. Definitely something that needs to be addressed, given our rules.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The theological framework of my interlocutors appears to share significant structural similarities with Islam, particularly in its emphasis on material and national outcomes. The primary distinction lies in their focus on Israel's elevation rather than its subjugation. From a traditional Christian perspective, however, this remains a materialistic interpretation of faith. Christianity is fundamentally a spiritual religion centered on grace and redemption, whereas your approach seems to reduce faith to a literalistic hermeneutic that reads Scripture primarily through a political and terrestrial lens. I respectfully invite the participants to consider the teachings of Christianity as an alternative to their current faith.

Several of your posts appear to be copied or closely adapted from your prewritten Progressive Disenchantment Atonement material. TOL is for dialogue, not for repeatedly importing article material into threads without directly answering the specific objections raised. Going forward, please answer the argument you are quoting directly, in your own words, and keep replies concise. If you are copying or closely adapting material from your own papers, articles, or previous writings, you need prior approval from TOL staff. Again, TheologyOnline is for dialogue, not for republishing essays in thread format.

 

[MWinther]

Several of your posts appear to be copied or closely adapted from your prewritten Progressive Disenchantment Atonement material. TOL is for dialogue, not for repeatedly importing article material into threads without directly answering the specific objections raised. Going forward, please answer the argument you are quoting directly, in your own words, and keep replies concise. If you are copying or closely adapting material from your own papers, articles, or previous writings, you need prior approval from TOL staff. Again, TheologyOnline is for dialogue, not for republishing essays in thread format.

That is incorrect. When I reference Herrick, for example, it is because I recently read his book. I also cite his work in a recent article, though phrased differently. If I choose to discuss my own theory of atonement, which I've written about, it is natural for the wording to resemble my article. However, nothing has been copied and pasted.

 

[Clete]

I will add one bullet point.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise

• OSAS

Well, that list is intended to be the "gospel proper". It is a list of the doctrines one must believe in order to be an actual saved Christian. It is not necessary to believe in OSAS in order to be saved and so it wouldn't quite fit on that particular list.

 

[Clete]

He seems to be adapting his own papers/articles to this discussion. Definitely something that needs to be addressed, given our rules.

I don't care about the rule book.

It's just boring! The man needs to use his own mind and have a actual conversation with people.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't care about the rule book.

It's just boring! The man needs to use his own mind and have a actual conversation with people.

On that much we agree.

 

[MWinther]

Well, that list is intended to be the "gospel proper". It is a list of the doctrines one must believe in order to be an actual saved Christian. It is not necessary to believe in OSAS in order to be saved and so it wouldn't quite fit on that particular list.

Some Christians mistakenly translate faith into "believing the right doctrines." But biblically, faith is not assent to a list of propositions. Faith is trust, fidelity, and dependence on Christ. Doctrines articulate that faith, but they do not create it. When salvation is tied to doctrinal correctness, faith is reduced to an intellectual achievement rather than the gift of the Spirit.

In doing so, they collapse the divine into a list of propositions instead of a living reality. What they end up with is simply works‑righteousness in intellectual disguise: "Get the doctrines right and God will accept you."

 

[Right Divider]

Some Christians mistakenly translate faith into "believing the right doctrines."

Well, then it's good that we don't do that. Isn't it?

But biblically, faith is not assent to a list of propositions.

Nobody has made that claim. But faith does require some set of beliefs.

For example, someone can say that they "believe in Jesus". But unless they agree that Jesus is the Lord from heaven (i.e., the Creator, God, etc. etc) then that "faith" is meaningless.

Faith is trust, fidelity, and dependence on Christ.

What "fidelity"?

fidelity /fĭ-dĕl′ĭ-tē, fī-/

noun​

1. Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances.
2. The condition or behavior of engaging in sex only with one's spouse or only with one's partner in a sexual relationship.
3. Exact correspondence with fact or with a given quality, condition, or event; accuracy.
   "the fidelity of the movie to the book."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

Doctrines articulate that faith, but they do not create it.

Duh, thanks for the amazing insight.

When salvation is tied to doctrinal correctness, faith is reduced to an intellectual achievement rather than the gift of the Spirit.

It is not "intellectual achievement" to believe the truth.

In doing so, they collapse the divine into a list of propositions instead of a living reality.

Nonsense. We respect the Lord as the living God.

What they end up with is simply works‑righteousness in intellectual disguise: "Get the doctrines right and God will accept you."

You are truly hilarious. You're not the first pompous sounding "corrector" here on TOL.

 

[MWinther]

Well, then it's good that we don't do that. Isn't it?

Nobody has made that claim. But faith does require some set of beliefs.

For example, someone can say that they "believe in Jesus". But unless they agree that Jesus is the Lord from heaven (i.e., the Creator, God, etc. etc) then that "faith" is meaningless.

What "fidelity"?

fidelity /fĭ-dĕl′ĭ-tē, fī-/

noun​

1. Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances.
2. The condition or behavior of engaging in sex only with one's spouse or only with one's partner in a sexual relationship.
3. Exact correspondence with fact or with a given quality, condition, or event; accuracy.
   "the fidelity of the movie to the book."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik


Duh, thanks for the amazing insight.

It is not "intellectual achievement" to believe the truth.

Nonsense. We respect the Lord as the living God.

You are truly hilarious. You're not the first pompous sounding "corrector" here on TOL.

Instead of climbing a ladder of good deeds, one climbs a ladder of correct ideas. But the ladder is the same. The pride is the same, and the bondage is the same.

Faith, however, is not an achievement. It is the Spirit's creation, the heart's surrender, the creature's dependence on the One who saves. Doctrine serves that faith; it does not generate it. When doctrine becomes the condition of acceptance rather than the witness to grace, it ceases to be Christian doctrine at all.

But I have a suggestion for you. If what you really want is a religion of rules, then choose a religion that openly defines itself that way. Choose a system where salvation is explicitly tied to correct performance and where the path to divine approval is spelled out in meticulous prescriptions.

Christianity, however, is not one of them. Christian faith is not a technique for earning divine favour. Christianity is the opposite: it is the collapse of all such systems. It is the end of rule‑based righteousness, the end of the fantasy that human beings can secure their own standing before God by correct performance, whether moral, ritual, or intellectual.

So if someone insists on a religion where acceptance by God is achieved by following the right procedures, then yes, there are religions built on that logic. But Christianity is not. Christianity is the death of that logic. It is the announcement that God has acted, that grace precedes all human effort, and that salvation is not the reward for correct behaviour but the gift that creates a new life.

 

[Right Divider]

Instead of climbing a ladder of good deeds, one climbs a ladder of correct ideas. But the ladder is the same. The pride is the same, and the bondage is the same.

False accusations from you... again and again...

Faith, however, is not an achievement.

Again, nobody has made that claim. That is YOUR straw-man.

It is the Spirit's creation, the heart's surrender, the creature's dependence on the One who saves.

Can you be saved if you do not believe that God exists?

Doctrine serves that faith; it does not generate it.

Again, nobody is making that claim. You are beating up a straw-man.

When doctrine becomes the condition of acceptance rather than the witness to grace, it ceases to be Christian doctrine at all.

Again, what does it take to be saved? Some vague "faith"? Some vague "belief"?

But I have a suggestion for you. If what you really want is a religion of rules,

NO, I do NOT... you continue to make FALSE accusations. You are a liar.

then choose a religion that openly defines itself that way.

NO, I do NOT... you continue to make FALSE accusations. You are a liar.

Choose a system where salvation is explicitly tied to correct performance and where the path to divine approval is spelled out in meticulous prescriptions.

None of those things that Clete listed are performative.

Christianity, however, is not one of them.

Your claims to "define" Christianity are utter nonsense.

Christian faith is not a technique for earning divine favour.

Wow... you are really beating the crap out of that STRAW-MAN!

Christianity is the opposite: it is the collapse of all such systems. It is the end of rule‑based righteousness, the end of the fantasy that human beings can secure their own standing before God by correct performance, whether moral, ritual, or intellectual.

Those thing that you claim are "rules" are no such thing.

So if someone insists on a religion where acceptance by God is achieved by following the right procedures, then yes, there are religions built on that logic. But Christianity is not. Christianity is the death of that logic. It is the announcement that God has acted, that grace precedes all human effort, and that salvation is not the reward for correct behaviour but the gift that creates a new life.

Blah, blah blah.... your vague "faith" is meaningless.

Again, do you think that someone can be saved by a God that they don't even believe exists?

 

[MWinther]

False accusations from you... again and again...

Again, nobody has made that claim. That is YOUR straw-man.

Can you be saved if you do not believe that God exists?

Again, nobody is making that claim. You are beating up a straw-man.

Again, what does it take to be saved? Some vague "faith"? Some vague "belief"?

NO, I do NOT... you continue to make FALSE accusations. You are a liar.

NO, I do NOT... you continue to make FALSE accusations. You are a liar.

Not of those things that Clete listed are performative.

You're claims to "define" Christianity are utter nonsense.

Wow... you are really beating the crap out of that STRAW-MAN!

Those thing that you claim are "rules" are no such thing.

Blah, blah blah.... your vague "faith" is meaningless.

Again, do you think that someone can be saved by a God that they don't even believe exists?

You keep returning to the idea that faith means believing that God exists. But that is not faith. In fact, it is through faith that God manifests, just as in Paul.

The Holy Spirit is the mediating Spirit, the One through whom angelic and spiritual communication has traditionally been understood. Yet the Church grew suspicious of personal or pneumatic revelation and shifted its focus almost entirely to Christ and Scripture. Without a concept of relative or personal divine illumination, it could only conceive revelation as universally binding. In this way, the Spirit's broader mediating role was gradually pushed to the margins.

Christians should recognize that their personal religious experience is valid for them, even if it cannot be fully communicated. They must not allow their church's depreciation of the Holy Spirit to weaken their own relation to God. Or else they will gradually turn into Muslims.

 

[Right Divider]

You keep returning to the idea that faith means believing that God exists.

It's the starting point. How can you have faith in someone that you don't even believe exists?

Is logical reasoning completely foreign to you?

Heb 11:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:6) But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

​

But that is not faith. In fact, it is through faith that God manifests, just as in Paul.

More mystic nonsense, per your usual.

I'm going to stick with ideas that can be validated from the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is the mediating Spirit, the One through whom angelic and spiritual communication has traditionally been understood. Yet the Church grew suspicious of personal or pneumatic revelation and shifted its focus almost entirely to Christ and Scripture.

Christ and Scripture seems like a pretty good foundation to me.

What do you even mean by "personal or pneumatic revelation"?

Do you really think that you can make claims to receive information directly from the Holy Spirit when we have the complete Word of God as our ultimate reference?

Without a concept of relative or personal divine illumination,

God has given me personal divine illumination that you do not know what you're talking about.

it could only conceive revelation as universally binding. In this way, the Spirit's broader mediating role was gradually pushed to the margins.

Again, you can make claims of the "Spirit's broader mediating role", but that does not help your case in the slightest... because I will make the same claim.

Christians should recognize that their personal religious experience is valid for them, even if it cannot be fully communicated.

Gee... I guess that we can never come to any conclusion because "our personal religious experience is valid for us".

They must not allow their church's depreciation of the Holy Spirit to weaken their own relation to God. Or else they will gradually turn into Muslims.

What nonsense you spout.

 

[Right Divider]

Personal or pneumatic revelation is the claim that God provides specific information, instructions, or truths to an individual through the Holy Spirit apart from the written Bible. The term pneumatic comes from the Greek word pneuma, which means spirit. When you hear someone describe a pneumatic revelation, they are referring to a message they believe was delivered directly to their mind or spirit.
Proponents of this idea believe the Holy Spirit communicates through internal voices, strong impressions, visions, or external signs. They use these messages to make personal decisions or to establish new doctrines.
However, you should consider that the scriptures describe a point where revelation from God reached its conclusion. Paul writes about his specific role in this process in Colossians 1:25:

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;"

To fulfil the word of God means to complete it. Because the word of God is now complete, new revelations are not part of God's current interaction with you. The Holy Spirit works through the completed text of the Bible rather than through new, private messages.
You can see the sufficiency of the written word in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

If the scripture makes you perfect and throughly furnished for every good work, then pneumatic revelations are unnecessary. Relying on personal impressions can lead to confusion because those impressions often contradict the written word. You have everything God intended for you to know within the pages of the Bible.

 

[MWinther]

Personal or pneumatic revelation is the claim that God provides specific information, instructions, or truths to an individual through the Holy Spirit apart from the written Bible. The term pneumatic comes from the Greek word pneuma, which means spirit. When you hear someone describe a pneumatic revelation, they are referring to a message they believe was delivered directly to their mind or spirit.
Proponents of this idea believe the Holy Spirit communicates through internal voices, strong impressions, visions, or external signs. They use these messages to make personal decisions or to establish new doctrines.
However, you should consider that the scriptures describe a point where revelation from God reached its conclusion. Paul writes about his specific role in this process in Colossians 1:25:

To fulfil the word of God means to complete it. Because the word of God is now complete, new revelations are not part of God's current interaction with you. The Holy Spirit works through the completed text of the Bible rather than through new, private messages.
You can see the sufficiency of the written word in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

If the scripture makes you perfect and throughly furnished for every good work, then pneumatic revelations are unnecessary. Relying on personal impressions can lead to confusion because those impressions often contradict the written word. You have everything God intended for you to know within the pages of the Bible.

Karl Barth (CD I/2 §17) maintains that human beings continually construct conceptual and ritual "ladders" to heaven. Whenever we place our own images (whether carved statues or philosophical abstractions) in the place of God, religion becomes a substitute for revelation. Hence his stark conclusion that "religion is faithlessness" (Unglaube). In this sense, Barth issues a sweeping theological critique of all human religious striving, Christianity included (ch. 2).

For Barth, religion functions as a defensive posture against divine grace. It is the stance and activity directly opposed to faith. Because human beings seek self‑justification and self‑sanctification through their own works (rites, moral systems, doctrinal constructions) he identifies the essence of religion as works‑righteousness, the attempt to engineer one's own salvation.

Thus the situation to which he points is grim: religion has become a bulwark against God, perhaps now more than ever. Whether his diagnosis is fully correct is open to debate, but it is difficult to deny that it captures something true. This much, I think, is evident from our exchange. Still, I would rather diagnose the pathology of religion as a defensive posture against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Right Divider]

Karl Barth (CD I/2 §17) maintains that human beings continually construct conceptual and ritual "ladders" to heaven.

I don't really care what Karl Barth says.

Whenever we place our own images (whether carved statues or philosophical abstractions) in the place of God, religion becomes a substitute for revelation.

We have a wonderful revelation from God... it's called THE BIBLE.

Hence his stark conclusion that "religion is faithlessness" (Unglaube). In this sense, Barth issues a sweeping theological critique of all human religious striving, Christianity included (ch. 2).

Blah blah blah... Again, I don't care what Karl Barth says. I do care what God's Word says.

For Barth,

What does the BIBLE say?

Thus the situation to which he points is grim: religion has become a bulwark against God, perhaps now more than ever.

That is why true religion is so important.

Whether his diagnosis is fully correct is open to debate,

Wow... thanks for leaving a little room.

but it is difficult to deny that it captures something true.

I also oppose false religion, like much of the hokum you're selling.

This much, I think, is evident from our exchange. Still, I would rather diagnose the pathology of religion as a defensive posture against the Holy Spirit.

I noticed that you did not respond to my previous post (#96). Instead you want to bring another "authority figure" into the discussion.

Sound reasoning seems to be a concept that it completely out of your reach.