1) Billardsball said : (# 281)
“Sorry, I just reread this post. I'm not trying to duck the Ephesians issue, Eph 4:30 comes to mind and the nature of kingly seals being open-able only by kings or there designated representatives... ...Which brings to mind the difference regarding atonement theory in Christianity... Jesus isn't merely a scapegoat or atonement but a king over a kingdom. A king has wide-ranging power to make treaties or war and more on behalf of his people. I understand Orontes's concern about the illogic of penal substitution among peers, but not among a king who ordains the lives of his subjects. Even the high priest (unwittingly) prophesied of the expedience of the king Jesus dying for Israel. “
Billiardsball,
I like the direction of your considerations here since I think there is some validity to them. I also believe that there is a moral connection inside the atonement between the Messiah and his adherents, that exists by virtue of his relationship to us and which caused him certain responsibility for us and which is an operative principle of his atonement which he and God agreed upon.
For example, If I, as a 3 year old, accidently break a neighbors window with a rock, I cannot actually pay for the window (I have no source of money) nor do I yet have a mechanism to pay this debt. My Father (or a “caretaker”) may pay the debt that I cannot pay and may then set conditions creating a different mechanism to satisfy my debt to him who paid my debt (i.e. to make amends.)
In this case however, it is not a frank “punishment” such as in a penal model that is being described, but rather an objective “settling” of moral accounts between child who is not yet completely morally competent and another, morally competent and able caretaker who acts as a mediator to the third party (or moral system) to whom the moral debt is owed.
As a partial parallel, in early Christian tradition, the Messiah pays for moral damage we do while we are gaining moral competency. His responsibility to us occurs in his role as the rightful-heir, the "κληρονομος" who inherits a kingdom from his Father (with us as subjects) and who himself, becomes the king of a kingdom in the early textual traditions.
For example, in abbaton (387 a.d.), when the resurrected Jesus is teaching his disciples about the discussion he was having with God, his Father, as God was about to put Adams spirit into Adams’ body, the controversy centers upon the fact that if God the Father places Adams spirit into the body he made for him and carries out the Fathers plan to inhabit the earth with the rest of the spirits of mankind, then “
very many sins shall come forth … and many fornications, and slanderous abuse, and jealousy, and hatred and contention shall come forth from his hand, and many murders and sheddings of blood shall come forth from his hand….”. That is, much evil was expected to be done upon the earth if God continued with this plan to embody and educate the spirits of mankind upon the earth. (This is what did, in fact, happen)
Jesus explained to his apostles :"
And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”
In this mechanism, Jesus is agreeing, even volunteering to serve as an advocate and mediator who agrees to pay the price for moral damages that are both dreaded, and anticipated will happen as part of the moving forward of God the Fathers’ plan.
It is partly this moral payment which the pre-mortal Jesus agreed to, which allows him to mediate between mankind and which qualifies him to modify the strict moral judgment that would befall mankind when they are brought to judgment.
The modification of strict justice is described in this early christian text thusly. The resurrected Jesus, at the Judgment, “
shall look upon all My clay [mankind], and when I see that he is going to destruction I shall cry out to My Father, saying, “My Father, what profit is there in My Blood if he goeth to destruction?” And straightway the voice of My Father shall come unto Me from the seventh heaven, and none shall hear it except Myself, for I and My Father are one, saying “Power belongeth unto Thee, O My Son, to do whatsoever Thou pleaseth with Thy clay." ("thy clay : "at this point, mankind is under the authority of Jesus and his Kingdom. They are "his" "clay".)
Thus, in this model, the son of God, as the inheritor, determines the outcome for those who accept his new covenant and his kingdom.
2) Billiardsball said : #280
I see no need, still, to discuss in the Greek what does not exist in the English.
Historians discuss the Greek because the original biblical text does not exist in English and English translations all inadvertently (and some intentionally) add to AND subtract from original meanings. Koine Greek has the most accurate meaning in Koine greek. Readers have already seen multiple examples where the English differs from the Greek text in many important ways. You, yourself have given readers multiple examples of mistakes in interpretation caused by your reliance on English translations.
You claim to have training in Greek. If you will use your training and read the greek versions, you will better see the need to use your training in Greek.
3) Billiardsball said # 280
The English does not say "momentary" in Romans 3. It also does not say anything regarding "sincerity".
Yes, this was my point as well. Neither the English NOR the greek allow you to insert the meaning of “momentary” to a greek text concerning faith, yet the Greek of your example verse in Romans 3:22
DOES indicate the existence of faith (rather than a prior faith lost). This is what I meant when I asked you :
#276
Why would any of these verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation” when “πιστεθοντας” in vs 22 itself does not reference a temporary or momentary noun, nor is there any adjective that makes it so in this sentence? In fact, once they do not have faith, then, by definition, they are not πιστεθ-οντας. (existence of faith)
These questions from post # 257 and again in post # 276 have still not been answered. WHY do you think these verses you offered show rapists and murderers and torturers of children will go to heaven by virtue of having had a momentary faith which they then refused and defied God and chose Satanic worship instead?
4) Regarding your comment that “…
Thanda's concept (if I understand it) that faith has to be 27/7 or it cannot be salvific faith.”
I cannot speak to Thanda’s understanding, but I think Thanda is pointing out that the development of ever-greater and ever more perfect faith is
a process that will be reached at some point in the process of achieving salvation and becoming more perfect in these principles.
Good journey Billiardsball
Clear
φιειφυσεω
Deathbed conversion is a kind of a tricky subject. Apparently the thief who hung next to the Savior on the cross experienced a conversion of this sort, although we can't really know all of the facts concerning his background or possible exposure to Jesus' teachings prior to his death. I would say that the condition of someone's heart is what really makes the difference, and the condition of a person's heart is something only God can really know. Along this same line, I just love a quote by LDS Apostle Dieter F. Uchtdorf. He said, "The more we learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the more we realize that endings here in mortality are not endings at all."