RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ

[Jonathan Hughes]

Jonathan:  First let me say thank you to David for participating in this discussion.  We appreciate it.   Bill Taylor wrote: > Many, many children have died in infancy before giving > or even being able to give any indication that they are > in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yet you agree with > me that these children are not destined for damnation. > They are safe and will "go to heaven."  The question is, > why are they safe?   David:  Simple.  They have not sinned.   Jonathan:  For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  This ‘all’ word seems to give you problems.  Are you saying that this sin that Paul speaks of is not enough sin to condemn us? Note that I do not believe that babies are condemned as I am approaching it in the same fashion as Bill here.     David:  I believe that the judgment is based upon works.    Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. (2 Corinthians 5:9-11 KJV)   Jonathan: A light bulb just clicked on for me.  This helps me understand why you put so much primacy on works instead of the work done by Jesus Christ.   Bill Taylor wrote: > If "faith" and "repentance" (and on and on) are > the conditions which must be met on our end in > order to be saved, then we can only speculate as > to how anyone can be saved in the absence of these > things -- even though we may know intuitively that > our God is not a god that would send infants to hell.   David: You don't seem to make a distinction between the person who has committed sins deserving of death and the infant who has committed no sins.  The former needs a way out of his problem, whereas the latter does not.   Jonathan:  This sounds much like how the RCC makes a difference between mortal and venal sin.  How many categories of sin do you have?  Some sins are worthy of death and others are not?  Is there such a thing as a ‘white’ lie?  Are there different levels of sin?  Where is the line that states one is now due judgment?  When is a sin not a sin?     Bill Taylor wrote: > What I want to know, is IF this first Gospel is > present and set forth in the Bible, where do we > find the second gospel, the one that explains WHY > kids don't need these things? It's one thing to > believe THAT they don't (even if this is true); > it is another to explain WHY they don't.   David:  The why is EASY.  The wages of sin is death.  Infants have not sinned. The why is answered.   There is no need for any "second gospel."  The gospel is for those who have found themselves sinners, those who have heard the law and have been convinced of their deserving damnation.  Infants don't need any gospel, either first or second.   Jonathan:  Please note that it appears to me that you do have a second gospel.  It would be the condition of faith (something the infant did not have).  But I think you are saying here that infants do not need the gospel (meaning that they do not require Christ to do anything for them?).   Bill Taylor wrote: > There is much more to Christ's atoning work than > the Protestant theory of substitutionary atonement > can explain. This theory in and of itself is incapable > of addressing certain questions (the one regarding infants > in particular).   David:  It seems to me that all the problems you perceive were caused by Calvin, and if you would completely ditch the Reform theology, you would easily come to a much more clear and simple theology that answers all these questions.    Bill Taylor wrote: > Torrance gets us through this problem. He finds in > Scripture through the examples of atonement in the > OT several other aspects of atonement besides just > a penal substitution. As I have stated before, one > of these aspects is realized through the go'el. > What Christ did in his flesh he did in all flesh > because he is our Kinsmen Redeemer.   David: Do you think this teaching is original with Torrance?  I have heard this Kinsman Redeemer thing preached in church from the pulpit of a non-denominational church by someone I am fairly certain never heard of Torrance.   Jonathan:  This teaching is original to orthodoxy :) Although I believe this to be true, note that I am jesting here.   David:  As I think more and more about this, I don't think the problem has much to do with Torrance's view of the Atonement.  The problem is in understanding how that Atonement is applied to us.  Is it applied through us being born a human?  The problem with that idea, in my way of thinking, is similar to the problems created by making baptism a replacement for circumcision.  It is a way of making a spiritual covenant carnal again.  The law was of the flesh, but the covenant of grace is of the spirit.  We partake of it by faith, not by being born as a human being.    Jonathan:  This is where the vicarious humanity of Christ comes into play.  Taking that which is carnal, cleansing it and returning it to the Father.  We need to be careful with the flesh/spirit dualism that you have created here.  I believe it is more appropriate to speak of humanity being born again, not just the spirit (or body).     Bill Taylor wrote: > He is our blood relative, the one who through his > lineage is qualified to represent us all; thus > when he defeats sin, death, and the devil, in his > flesh he defeats these things in all flesh. All > humanity is included in his humanity. When he died, > we died. When he was raised we were raised. When > he ascended we ascended. Our ontological status > is in Christ Jesus:   David:  Amen!  This is Bible.  No problem with this view at all.  I have preached this for decades.  How do we get in Christ Jesus?  By faith. We come into Adam by natural birth.  We come into Christ by spiritual faith.   Jonathan:  I must disagree with you here.  I very much doubt that this is what you have preached for decades.  You add the condition of faith to what Bill said.  That addition is huge and completely changes what Bill said as well as your preaching.  I think that you would rewrite it to state all who by faith accept Christ are included in his humanity.  That is radically different (and not Bible).  Let me confess something here.  I have (as I would think most others have as well, at least any that I have spoken to about the subject) a stereotype of what a street preacher is like.  Works and judgment and as much fear as possible are all wrapped up within the gospel that most who hear it are unable to see it.  It does not appear as good news to them since there are a rare few in society that think that judgment and works are good news.  There are two major doctrines that run through scripture: justification and adoption.  The western church has given primacy to justification, leading to its demise in my opinion.  Adoption always comes first (tis grace).  I think you would put justification first as well. 2 Cor 5:19 states: "For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them.  This is the wonderful message he has given us to tell others."  This is what Torrance is talking about, the gospel.   Peace and joy,   Jonathan