The Atonement is the important part - Not the Crusifixion

[James the Persian]

Say what you will, James, If you cannot back your beliefs up with scripture then you have no solid ground for those beliefs.

Firstly I did not say that I cannot, I said I will not. I certainly can and said as much but all it would do is end up with each of us saying the other is interpreting the verses wrongly, because there really is no such thing as the plain meaning of any text. No text, in fact, has any meaning independent of that invested in it by its author and reader - text without tradition is an impossibility. As such any further discussion along these lines would be futile.

As to your saying that it is impossible to have a solid ground for my beliefs without Scripture, that's complete dross. I don't have such without Scripture but I certainly could because my faith isn't based on Scripture, my Church wrote Scripture. The Church pre-dates the Scripture and was filled with people with perfectly solid ground for their beliefs nonetheless. That ground is the Incarnate God and His Body the Church which the Scripture you almost deify itself proclaims to be 'the pillar and ground of the Truth'. My faith and Church would survive just fine if all Scripture turned to ash tomorrow. How would yours fare?

James

 

[joeboonda]

The gift is there, whether we see it or not, whether we can read the tag, or not, whether we open it or not. Grace is not dependent upon what we do. Grace is an impulse of God. When we finally open the gift, we realize it's been ours all along for the taking. I believe the judgment we will experience will not be the judgment of an angry God, begrudgingly doling out salvation to those "deserving." I believe the judgment will be our own wrath at not having discovered and claimed the gift sooner.

Yes, the gift is there, the payment of all the sin of all the world for all time has been made:

"3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" I Cor. 15:3.

Yes, grace is undeserved, unmerited favor from God because of his great love:

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom 5:8.

Yes, the gift has been there all along for the taking, but it is "for the taking" We must accept the gift through faith in Christ:

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2:8-9.

Note it is by grace, through faith, we must believe in Christ, have faith in Christ to receive the gift. The faith is even a gift but we must excercise that gift: We must confess Jesus is Lord and believe God raised him from the dead. Folks who deny Jesus is Lord and the resurrection, who are enemies of the cross ARE NOT SAVED, but the wrath of God abides upon them.

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10

Also, I do not believe God "BEGRUDGINLY doles out salvation to those "deserving"". Nobody is deserving and God does not begrudginly give us salvation. He offers it freely out of love to undeserving sinners the moment they believe in Christ. John says those who do not believe, the wrath of God abides on them--i.e. instead of on his Son, they choose to pay for their sins themselves by rejecting God and continuing in their evil deeds:

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3.

The Bible is clear that we must have believed in Christ to be saved or we are not. It is God's wrath that abides on the unbelieving sinner not their own wrath towards themselves. It is clear:

"38Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." Heb 10.

See here, we believe to the saving of the soul, unlike those who do not believe and go to perdition. As it says:

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I Jn 5:12.

And I am not suggesting that we are saved by our continual belief, but by having truly believed and that God keeps us by his power. It is God who keeps us and gives us faith and keeps us believing. But first, we must believe. No belief is no salvation.

 

[joeboonda]

Firstly I did not say that I cannot, I said I will not. I certainly can and said as much but all it would do is end up with each of us saying the other is interpreting the verses wrongly, because there really is no such thing as the plain meaning of any text. No text, in fact, has any meaning independent of that invested in it by its author and reader - text without tradition is an impossibility. As such any further discussion along these lines would be futile.

As to your saying that it is impossible to have a solid ground for my beliefs without Scripture, that's complete dross. I don't have such without Scripture but I certainly could because my faith isn't based on Scripture, my Church wrote Scripture. The Church pre-dates the Scripture and was filled with people with perfectly solid ground for their beliefs nonetheless. That ground is the Incarnate God and His Body the Church which the Scripture you almost deify itself proclaims to be 'the pillar and ground of the Truth'. My faith and Church would survive just fine if all Scripture turned to ash tomorrow. How would yours fare?


James

My hope is built on nothing less​

Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;​

I dare not trust the sweetest frame,​

But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.​

​

When darkness veils His lovely face,​

I rest on His unchanging grace;​

In every high and stormy gale,​

My anchor holds within the veil.​

​

His oath, His covenant, His blood​

Support me in the whelming flood;​

When all around my soul gives way,​

He then is all my hope and stay.​

​

When He shall come with trumpet sound,​

Oh, may I then in Him be found;​

Dressed in His righteousness alone,​

Faultless to stand before the throne.​

​

Refrain:​

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;​

All other ground is sinking sand,​

All other ground is sinking sand.​

​

—Edward Mote (1797-1874)

I trust alone in Christ alone, I have God's Word on it.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, the gift is there, the payment of all the sin of all the world for all time has been made:

"3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" I Cor. 15:3.

Yes, grace is undeserved, unmerited favor from God because of his great love:

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom 5:8.

Yes, the gift has been there all along for the taking, but it is "for the taking" We must accept the gift through faith in Christ:

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2:8-9.

Note it is by grace, through faith, we must believe in Christ, have faith in Christ to receive the gift. The faith is even a gift but we must excercise that gift: We must confess Jesus is Lord and believe God raised him from the dead. Folks who deny Jesus is Lord and the resurrection, who are enemies of the cross ARE NOT SAVED, but the wrath of God abides upon them.

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10

Also, I do not believe God "BEGRUDGINLY doles out salvation to those "deserving"". Nobody is deserving and God does not begrudginly give us salvation. He offers it freely out of love to undeserving sinners the moment they believe in Christ. John says those who do not believe, the wrath of God abides on them--i.e. instead of on his Son, they choose to pay for their sins themselves by rejecting God and continuing in their evil deeds:

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3.

The Bible is clear that we must have believed in Christ to be saved or we are not. It is God's wrath that abides on the unbelieving sinner not their own wrath towards themselves. It is clear:

"38Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." Heb 10.

See here, we believe to the saving of the soul, unlike those who do not believe and go to perdition. As it says:

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I Jn 5:12.

And I am not suggesting that we are saved by our continual belief, but by having truly believed and that God keeps us by his power. It is God who keeps us and gives us faith and keeps us believing. But first, we must believe. No belief is no salvation.

If we are free to choose whether we believe or not, then we must also recognize God's freedom to choose whom to save. If God desires to save every person (which is borne out in scripture), but God does not save every person,what does that say about God's power? God's power must be limited. God can move mountains, heal the sick, bring military victory, yet God cannot save whom God desires to save?

If the Biblical statement is true that "nothing is impossible with God," then God must be able to save whom God chooses. In the popular senario, we are left with a kind, but feeble God who has no choice but to destroy those whom God loves. Most of us will be cast into the holocaust of Hell, with God standing by, powerless and defeated.

Here we have to draw a distinction between what God wants to do and what God is capable of doing. In this scenario, God is not free. If you defend the freedom of humanity to reject God, you must also defend God's freedom to reject our rejection.

To shackle God in such a way is to twist God into something that is not the God of Jesus. Jesus defied the religious constraints of his own day. He loved and accepted the very people his religion excluded. He embraced the unntouchable, he ate with sinners, he consorted with prostitutes, he talked to Samaritans, he acknowledged the touch of the unclean woman. This radical freedom of Jesus symbolizes God's freedom to love us beyond religious boundaries.

If a child says, "I hate you" to his parents, does it stop his parents from loving him? No. Don't you think that God, the perfect parent, reacts much the same way? Why do we think that we are free to reject God's love? Doesn't the Bible tell us that nothing can separate us from the love of God? don't you think God's commitment to love us prevents God from rejecting us?

 

[sojourner]

My hope is built on nothing less​

Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;​

I dare not trust the sweetest frame,​

But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.​

When darkness veils His lovely face,​

I rest on His unchanging grace;​

In every high and stormy gale,​

My anchor holds within the veil.​

His oath, His covenant, His blood​

Support me in the whelming flood;​

When all around my soul gives way,​

He then is all my hope and stay.​

When He shall come with trumpet sound,​

Oh, may I then in Him be found;​

Dressed in His righteousness alone,​

Faultless to stand before the throne.​

Refrain:​

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;​

All other ground is sinking sand,​

All other ground is sinking sand.​

—Edward Mote (1797-1874)

I trust alone in Christ alone, I have God's Word on it.

I thought you trusted in the Bible. The Bible is part of Tradition. Therefore, if you trust the Bible, by definition, you are trusting Tradition. Does that mean that Tradition is, perhaps, not the "sinking sand" so many say it is?

 

[joeboonda]

If we are free to choose whether we believe or not, then we must also recognize God's freedom to choose whom to save. If God desires to save every person (which is borne out in scripture), but God does not save every person,what does that say about God's power? God's power must be limited. God can move mountains, heal the sick, bring military victory, yet God cannot save whom God desires to save?

If the Biblical statement is true that "nothing is impossible with God," then God must be able to save whom God chooses. In the popular senario, we are left with a kind, but feeble God who has no choice but to destroy those whom God loves. Most of us will be cast into the holocaust of Hell, with God standing by, powerless and defeated.

Here we have to draw a distinction between what God wants to do and what God is capable of doing. In this scenario, God is not free. If you defend the freedom of humanity to reject God, you must also defend God's freedom to reject our rejection.

To shackle God in such a way is to twist God into something that is not the God of Jesus. Jesus defied the religious constraints of his own day. He loved and accepted the very people his religion excluded. He embraced the unntouchable, he ate with sinners, he consorted with prostitutes, he talked to Samaritans, he acknowledged the touch of the unclean woman. This radical freedom of Jesus symbolizes God's freedom to love us beyond religious boundaries.

If a child says, "I hate you" to his parents, does it stop his parents from loving him? No. Don't you think that God, the perfect parent, reacts much the same way? Why do we think that we are free to reject God's love? Doesn't the Bible tell us that nothing can separate us from the love of God? don't you think God's commitment to love us prevents God from rejecting us?

I have heard this arguement before, but it is not Biblicaly sound. The Saviour loves men and desires all men to be saved and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God is willing, but tragically, man is unwilling. God gives us free choice. While nothing is impossibe he will not act outside his nature, nothing unclean may enter Heaven. While God is patient with us it is our choice. "Would have none of me", and "ye would not", and "refused to hear", "refused to obey","refused to return", are phrases throughout the Bible, along with "choose", "I have stretched out my hands", etc. God giving every man a choice. All people are not God's children, only those who have trusted in Him. I have to go get my children from school. Will reply more tomorrow. This phrase says it all:

"I WOULD--BUT YE WOULD NOT."
(Matthew 23:37; Luke 19:41).​

 

[sojourner]

I have heard this arguement before, but it is not Biblicaly sound. The Saviour loves men and desires all men to be saved and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God is willing, but tragically, man is unwilling. God gives us free choice. While nothing is impossibe he will not act outside his nature, nothing unclean may enter Heaven. While God is patient with us it is our choice. "Would have none of me", and "ye would not", and "refused to hear", "refused to obey","refused to return", are phrases throughout the Bible, along with "choose", "I have stretched out my hands", etc. God giving every man a choice. All people are not God's children, only those who have trusted in Him. I have to go get my children from school. Will reply more tomorrow. This phrase says it all:

"I WOULD--BUT YE WOULD NOT."
(Matthew 23:37; Luke 19:41).​

Oh, it's quite Biblically sound.

See the line I've emboldened. That line says it all. God is patient with us. God searches for us until God finds us. We are also told that We do not choose God -- but God chooses us.

All people are not God's children??? Didn't God create us all? Did God not give each one of us a soul? Did not God breathe into each of us God's Spirit? Your model presents a God who is very conditional -- not at all the God presented by Jesus.

 

[Ringer]

If we are free to choose whether we believe or not, then we must also recognize God's freedom to choose whom to save. If God desires to save every person (which is borne out in scripture), but God does not save every person,what does that say about God's power? God's power must be limited. God can move mountains, heal the sick, bring military victory, yet God cannot save whom God desires to save?

If the Biblical statement is true that "nothing is impossible with God," then God must be able to save whom God chooses. In the popular senario, we are left with a kind, but feeble God who has no choice but to destroy those whom God loves. Most of us will be cast into the holocaust of Hell, with God standing by, powerless and defeated.

Here we have to draw a distinction between what God wants to do and what God is capable of doing. In this scenario, God is not free. If you defend the freedom of humanity to reject God, you must also defend God's freedom to reject our rejection.

To shackle God in such a way is to twist God into something that is not the God of Jesus. Jesus defied the religious constraints of his own day. He loved and accepted the very people his religion excluded. He embraced the unntouchable, he ate with sinners, he consorted with prostitutes, he talked to Samaritans, he acknowledged the touch of the unclean woman. This radical freedom of Jesus symbolizes God's freedom to love us beyond religious boundaries.

If a child says, "I hate you" to his parents, does it stop his parents from loving him? No. Don't you think that God, the perfect parent, reacts much the same way? Why do we think that we are free to reject God's love? Doesn't the Bible tell us that nothing can separate us from the love of God? don't you think God's commitment to love us prevents God from rejecting us?

It seems to me that you're projecting your idea of God's love into something that I don't think has a biblical backbone for. I know you've used the verse about God reconciling the world to himself. You also commonly use the line, "God gets what God wants". I think it goes without question that God desires a relationship with us but unless you accept the gift he has offered, how meaningful of a relationship can you have? Instead of giving us your opinion on God's love and what you think it means, I'd like it very much if you back up your statements biblically and not use conjecture. Yes Jesus did rub shoulders with the lowest of the low and showed unparalleled love that even the religious were not accustomed to. But I think His love would be translated to saying, " I have made you in My image, you are a sinner but my death on the cross will nullify your sin. Accept My gift of salvation, enter into a relationship with me and you will have eternal life". I'm trying hard to see things from your point of view but I'm finding that it's more of your interpretation of God's love and what you think it should be as opposed to what's biblical. So, as I stated earlier, I'd like for you to show me a few more biblical scriptures that back your claims.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus asked, what parent, when his children ask for a fish, would hand them a snake, instead? If we earthly parents know how to love our children when they err, without giving up on them, how much more perfectly does God love us when we err?

I'm not going to start pulling out Bible verses. The whole overarching theme of the Bible is God's mitigatory love for humanity. God searches for us until... God is with us always... God's wrath is continually turned aside. That's the message the Biblical writers hope to get across -- the unconditional state of God's love.

Most of the Biblical "heroes" were devious malcontents -- not paragons of virtue.
Therefore, we have to assume, when reading Biblical stories, that the themes offered to us time and again have some real meaning to the authors, that they hope to convey. If God works through the rotten filth of humanity to accomplish God's purposes, then God's puroposes will always be accomplished, God always makes lemonade from our lemons.

Notice the theme pervading Just Genesis, and continuing on through Exodus, etc. Notice that the writers always turn aside the law of primogeniture, preferring, instead, to have it be the younger son who is blessed: Abel, not Cain. Isaac, not Ishmael, Jacob, not Esau, Joseph, not Rueben, Joseph's younger son, not his elder. Always, the son who was supposed to inherit nothing, inherits all. Even so, God always blesses the one turned aside.

Don't you suppose it's the same with Jesus? He forgave the thief, but not the Pharisees. He praised the publican, not the righteous one. "He who would be king must be servant of all." This is one of the basic, basic themes of the Biblical epic.

I assume that grace is like that. The Magnificat assures us that God scatters the proud in their conceit and lifts the lowly.

Why do you find my premise without Biblical value? Does God not always have the freedom to love outside the constraints of religion? Is this not shown time and time again in the Biblical epic?

Fact is, we have no need to "enter a relationship" with God. We already have a relationship with God. We have the old covenant -- we have the new covenant. God always works first to establish relationship. That relationship is always open, no matter our reaction to it. That relationship becomes meaningful for us when we realize it for what it is and embrace it. But God does not take it away, simply because we don't see it. And whenever we do see it, God will run to meet us and embrace us, as the father ran to embrace the prodigal.

 

[Ringer]

Jesus asked, what parent, when his children ask for a fish, would hand them a snake, instead? If we earthly parents know how to love our children when they err, without giving up on them, how much more perfectly does God love us when we err?

I'm not going to start pulling out Bible verses. The whole overarching theme of the Bible is God's mitigatory love for humanity. God searches for us until... God is with us always... God's wrath is continually turned aside. That's the message the Biblical writers hope to get across -- the unconditional state of God's love.

Most of the Biblical "heroes" were devious malcontents -- not paragons of virtue.
Therefore, we have to assume, when reading Biblical stories, that the themes offered to us time and again have some real meaning to the authors, that they hope to convey. If God works through the rotten filth of humanity to accomplish God's purposes, then God's puroposes will always be accomplished, God always makes lemonade from our lemons.

Notice the theme pervading Just Genesis, and continuing on through Exodus, etc. Notice that the writers always turn aside the law of primogeniture, preferring, instead, to have it be the younger son who is blessed: Abel, not Cain. Isaac, not Ishmael, Jacob, not Esau, Joseph, not Rueben, Joseph's younger son, not his elder. Always, the son who was supposed to inherit nothing, inherits all. Even so, God always blesses the one turned aside.

Don't you suppose it's the same with Jesus? He forgave the thief, but not the Pharisees. He praised the publican, not the righteous one. "He who would be king must be servant of all." This is one of the basic, basic themes of the Biblical epic.

I assume that grace is like that. The Magnificat assures us that God scatters the proud in their conceit and lifts the lowly.

Why do you find my premise without Biblical value? Does God not always have the freedom to love outside the constraints of religion? Is this not shown time and time again in the Biblical epic?

Fact is, we have no need to "enter a relationship" with God. We already have a relationship with God. We have the old covenant -- we have the new covenant. God always works first to establish relationship. That relationship is always open, no matter our reaction to it. That relationship becomes meaningful for us when we realize it for what it is and embrace it. But God does not take it away, simply because we don't see it. And whenever we do see it, God will run to meet us and embrace us, as the father ran to embrace the prodigal.

I guess I just have a difficult time to biblically justify your idea of God's love. You seem to think that justice and love are two mutually exclusive ideas while in actuality they are different sides to the same coin. I would go as far to say that God could not be love if he didn't show justice and Hell is one of the ways he deals out justice. Secondly, how can you ignore the numerous bible verses in which Jesus talks about Hell? I don't think I have a need to post them since many have already been posted in this thread. Was Jesus just trying to scare people into believing? You seem to take stuff out of the bible that you believe supports your claims but manage to leave out or ignore verses that emphatically contradict what you are saying. The thought of Hell is not one that is popular with non-believers (and apparently believers too) but it's not something I'm willing sugar coat and manipulate in order for my views to be popular to everyone. You have every right to pick and choose what you wish to believe but I'd do that at your own peril.

P.S. --> Where does "He who would be king must be servant of all." come from anyway?

 

[Angelfire]

The scriptures you quoted only affirm that he needed to die for the world, that he died on the cross, and that's how he woudl die ect... ect... but it is proven that he took upon the sins of the world and suffered before then.

The point is, it doesn't matter how he died, the fact that he did die is what mattered, and the prophets of old before him prophesied that is how he would die. But, the actual suffering of the Atonement happened in the garden, The pain and sufferign on the cross was merely the pain and suffering of being crusified (which is a horrible way to die) but it was a VERY common public showing of execution back then.


XXXXX
Christians put emphasis on the cross and none on the actual atonement. which is sad, because the atonement is what mattered, HOW he was martyred does not matter.

This made me cross, no pun intended. IT MATTERS VERY MUCH TO ME HOW HE DIED.
XXXXX. This just total hogwash. What planet do you come from?







peace

 

[joeboonda]

I thought you trusted in the Bible. The Bible is part of Tradition. Therefore, if you trust the Bible, by definition, you are trusting Tradition. Does that mean that Tradition is, perhaps, not the "sinking sand" so many say it is?

I trust in Christ. To me, the Bible is God's inspired Word containing the Gospel, the good news of how we may be freely saved by trusting Christ, and the epistles which tell us how to walk in this grace. (and much more). I consider tradition something of man. Tradition is fine if it is in line with God's Word as is doctrine if it harmonizes with God's Word. Christ is the rock, the Bible, I consider God inspired and authoritative, tradition, I consider man-made and is okay if it lines up with God's Word. I'm not big on tradition, though, but I am big on Christ and God's Word which leads us to him.

 

[sojourner]

I guess I just have a difficult time to biblically justify your idea of God's love. You seem to think that justice and love are two mutually exclusive ideas while in actuality they are different sides to the same coin. I would go as far to say that God could not be love if he didn't show justice and Hell is one of the ways he deals out justice. Secondly, how can you ignore the numerous bible verses in which Jesus talks about Hell? I don't think I have a need to post them since many have already been posted in this thread. Was Jesus just trying to scare people into believing? You seem to take stuff out of the bible that you believe supports your claims but manage to leave out or ignore verses that emphatically contradict what you are saying. The thought of Hell is not one that is popular with non-believers (and apparently believers too) but it's not something I'm willing sugar coat and manipulate in order for my views to be popular to everyone. You have every right to pick and choose what you wish to believe but I'd do that at your own peril.

P.S. --> Where does "He who would be king must be servant of all." come from anyway?

many people are uncomfortable with what you call "throwing out the scriptures." I can understand that, especially if one holds to sola scriptura and a more literalistic approach to the Bible. However, the scriptures must always be read, I think, in light of one's conviction of what makes sense -- what resonates with one's sense of who God is.

There are many pericopes and passages that do resonate with me -- and there are many that do not. Sometimes, the Bible is just, to be quite blunt, wrong. Even Jesus engaged in selectivity when it came to scripture. Many times he is quoted as saying: "It is written...but I tell you..." For instance, it is written, 'an eye for an eye,' but I tell you to love your enemies. While the "eye-for-an-eye" approach to law is mitigatory, Jesus takes that mitigation even further. He disagrees with scripture when it does not resonate with truth. So do I.

I don't think it's dangerous -- I think it's necessary to engage in scriptural discernment if we are to remain healthy Christians. What's dangerous in my estimation, is to always take the Bible at face value and never question, never adapt, never keep the Biblical precepts alive for us.

Second, I'd just like for you to chew on this: What's just about eternal condemnation? That tips the scales in favor of penalization. But God is a God of forgiveness. Even we imperfect humans don't condemn our criminals eternally. They serve their sentence and we let them go. Even with captital punishment, once they're dead, they've paid their debt and are square with the house again. If we, in our imperfection, do not overpenalize, how much less will God, who is perfect, overpenalize?

Truth is, there is no justice in unconditional love. With justice, the scales must balance: "an eye for an eye." But with God, the scales are always tipped in favor of love, mercy, forgiveness, forbearance, long suffering. "It is written: 'an eye for an eye.' But I tell you to love your enemies..."

With regard to your last question, take a look at Mark 9:35, Mark 10:44, Matt. 20:27 and Matt. 23:11. Here we have a case of multiple attestation of the same quote between Mark and Matt. Also, Mark and Matt. both provide a doublet of the quotation within their own gospels.

 

[slabbey06]

I trust in Christ. To me, the Bible is God's inspired Word containing the Gospel, the good news of how we may be freely saved by trusting Christ, and the epistles which tell us how to walk in this grace. (and much more). I consider tradition something of man. Tradition is fine if it is in line with God's Word as is doctrine if it harmonizes with God's Word. Christ is the rock, the Bible, I consider God inspired and authoritative, tradition, I consider man-made and is okay if it lines up with God's Word. I'm not big on tradition, though, but I am big on Christ and God's Word which leads us to him.

I agree. If the Bible was just a normal book written by man, then we'd be "trusting in tradition." But all Scripture is inspired by God. So using it as our authority for living isn't following traditions, it's obedience to the Lord!

 

[sojourner]

I agree. If the Bible was just a normal book written by man, then we'd be "trusting in tradition." But all Scripture is inspired by God. So using it as our authority for living isn't following traditions, it's obedience to the Lord!

The Bible was written by the Church, for the Church. It's part of the Church's Tradition. It is not the Bible that is the final authority, but Christ, through his Church. To disavow Tradition is to disavow the Bible. The two cannot be separated, for they are, in essence, the same thing. sometimes Tradition is written, sometimes it's oral, sometimes it's action, sometimes it's myth, sometimes it's belief, sometimes it's theology.

Do you really think the Bible "fell out of the sky?" I can assure you that it did not. The Bible is a collection of human writing, written, we believe, under inspiration of the Spirit of God. But it still is part of the human Tradition. Why? Because Christ gave us authority to carry on as his Body on earth. Since we are the Body of Christ, we act on Christ's behalf. Since we are, essentially, one with Christ, we do what Christ does, and Christ does what we do. Therefore, following the Tradition of the Church is also "obedience to the Lord."

 

[joeboonda]

Oh, it's quite Biblically sound.

See the line I've emboldened. That line says it all. God is patient with us. God searches for us until God finds us. We are also told that We do not choose God -- but God chooses us.

All people are not God's children??? Didn't God create us all? Did God not give each one of us a soul? Did not God breathe into each of us God's Spirit? Your model presents a God who is very conditional -- not at all the God presented by Jesus.

God is patient with us, true. The Bible says if WE search for God with all our heart we will find him. If WE humble ourselves, (resist the Devil and he will flee from us) and draw near to God, God will draw near to us. It says God will not always strive with us. God chose all of us to be saved but gave us freewill. You said God is not weak and helpless to watch men he created go to Hell. But everyday we see men (ourselves, too) sin and rebel and turn from God. This does not make him weak and powerless over sin, it just means he gives us a choice--life or death. Just as he is not weak and powerless just because men openly rebel against him all their lives, he cannot be considered so because men choose death. Because he did not make us 'robots' we have a choice to make, and sadly, many choose rebellion and pride and selfishness and reject God's love and gift of salvation.

As far as being God's children, I understand what you mean, God created Adam and Eve and they procreated us and God loves all of us. However, the BIble does distinguish between Children of Light and Children of Darkness. When we have accepted the free gift of salvation we are translated into the Kingdom of Light, and adopted into God's family as sons and daughters of God. However before that, the Bible calls us children of wrath, children of disobedience, and children of darkness. It tells us that we were such but are now children of God. (I think I have shared that with all the verses before) I did a word search on "the wicked" the other day. Hmm, let me paste a few verses:

Job 21:30
That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.
Job 31:3
Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity?
Psalm 7:11
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Psalm 9:17
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
Psalm 11:6
Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
Psalm 36:1
The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.
Psalm 119:155
Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.
Proverbs 10:30
The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.
(the righteous shall inherit the earth, perhaps the New Earth of eternity future?)
Isaiah 3:11
Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.
Isaiah 13:11
And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity
Isaiah 48:22
There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.
Matthew 13:49-50
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Okay, well there are hundreds more, but that is enough. Suffice it to say as terrible as eternal punishment sounds, it IS throughout the Bible. We cannot ignore it no matter how nice a theory we develop:

Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Isaiah 33:14
The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: "Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"
Jeremiah 23:40
I will bring upon you everlasting disgrace—everlasting shame that will not be forgotten." (doom of false prophets)
Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power
Jude 1:13
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Mathew 13
37He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mathew 25
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[slabbey06]

The Bible was written by the Church, for the Church. It's part of the Church's Tradition. It is not the Bible that is the final authority, but Christ, through his Church. To disavow Tradition is to disavow the Bible. The two cannot be separated, for they are, in essence, the same thing. sometimes Tradition is written, sometimes it's oral, sometimes it's action, sometimes it's myth, sometimes it's belief, sometimes it's theology.

Do you really think the Bible "fell out of the sky?" I can assure you that it did not. The Bible is a collection of human writing, written, we believe, under inspiration of the Spirit of God. But it still is part of the human Tradition. Why? Because Christ gave us authority to carry on as his Body on earth. Since we are the Body of Christ, we act on Christ's behalf. Since we are, essentially, one with Christ, we do what Christ does, and Christ does what we do. Therefore, following the Tradition of the Church is also "obedience to the Lord."

Obviously I didn't make myself too clear. Because I do believe that the Bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that they wrote down without error what He wanted them to.

 

[joeboonda]

Sometimes, the Bible is just, to be quite blunt, wrong. Even Jesus engaged in selectivity when it came to scripture. Many times he is quoted as saying: "It is written...but I tell you..." For instance, it is written, 'an eye for an eye,' but I tell you to love your enemies.

The Bible is God's inspired Word:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Bible is NEVER WRONG: It is God-breathed.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

When Jesus was tempted, or when refuting the religious leaders, or teaching, he used scripture. When he said ...but I tell you...it was to give a further understanding of the essence behind the law AND bringing us into the transition into the Age of Grace. Just because we are in this wonderful Age of Grace, or the Church Age, does not mean eternal punishment to the wicked has been done away with. Jesus himself warned of Hell more than he taught of Heaven and died to protect all who would believe from it.

 

[joeboonda]

The Bible was written by the Church, for the Church. It's part of the Church's Tradition. It is not the Bible that is the final authority, but Christ, through his Church. To disavow Tradition is to disavow the Bible. The two cannot be separated, for they are, in essence, the same thing. sometimes Tradition is written, sometimes it's oral, sometimes it's action, sometimes it's myth, sometimes it's belief, sometimes it's theology.

Do you really think the Bible "fell out of the sky?" I can assure you that it did not. The Bible is a collection of human writing, written, we believe, under inspiration of the Spirit of God. But it still is part of the human Tradition. Why? Because Christ gave us authority to carry on as his Body on earth. Since we are the Body of Christ, we act on Christ's behalf. Since we are, essentially, one with Christ, we do what Christ does, and Christ does what we do. Therefore, following the Tradition of the Church is also "obedience to the Lord."

Again, the Bible is not part of tradition. Tradition is of men, the Bible is God-breathed and profitable for all things pertaining to doctrine, reproof, etc. thoroughly furnishing us for all things. When we leave the divine authority of the Bible we are open to any wind of doctrine that comes along. When people come along to "restore" God's "real" word saying the Bible is "corrupt", they always bring in damnable heresies and grave doctrinal error. I rest my beliefs and my salvation on God's Holy Word, which cannot and does not and has not changed, EVER!

 

[slabbey06]

I rest my beliefs and my salvation on God's Holy Word, which cannot and does not and has not changed, EVER!

Amen!I'd frubal you, but I think I've given you too many lately, so I have to spread the love.