The Atonement is the important part - Not the Crusifixion

[sojourner]

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.

And yet, the Bible contains factual error...:faint:

 

[slabbey06]

And yet, the Bible contains factual error...:faint:

Oh how I disagree.:no:

 

[wizanda]

If Zechariah 11 it says God will come, and you say God is only worth only 30 pieces of silver and can do no more teaching the kingdom of heaven?...you do not understand Christ!...you understand Christianity.
Balaam teachings are not accepted by Angels...so stop with the lies...Paul, Simon and John are all false....as they say grace comes from the plummet –line which Yeshua condemned, in most of his wording.

 

[Hope]

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."

I'll actually agree with you here.....to an extent.

Tradition did actually play a part in the writing of the Bible. It had to. The passing along of oral tradition played a huge part in the writing of many books of the Bible.

However, it is my belief that the Holy Spirit preserved the accuracy of these traditions, and therefore the Bible is still the inspired Word of God. And as such, accurate. Traditions are not always bad. If they are grounded in truth, and God-breathed, then there is nothing wrong with them.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible is God's inspired Word:

Absolutely. But that doesn't address my point.

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

I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "wrong"...
I think the Biblical POV is wrong when it talks of God being wrathful and impatient with us.

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.

But you cannot deny that he did weigh scripture -- which were the really important parts, and which were not. For example, when he was asked which was the greatest law, he did not say, "They are all equal." He weighed scripture and selected the really important aspects of it: "Love God, love neighbor." In fact, he added the significant footnote that all the Law and the Prophets hinge upon those two.

The significance of God's anger and wrath are far, far outweighed by the significance of God's love for humanity.

Actually, I think it does mean that!

The process of weighing scripture allows for the possibility that some statements about God's character and actions are inaccurate. it's not simply a matter of "doing math," counting up how many times it says this, as opposed to how many times it says that, and accepting whichever POV receives the highest score. Sometimes the less said, the better.

When we weigh the scriptures dealing with condemnation on the scales of grace and love, Which comprise the core message of the Bible (Paul said, "The entire Law is summed up in a single command; 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Gal. 5:14), the messages of wrath and condemnation just don't add up. They cannot. The primacy of love means that we can't accept Joshua's claim that God commanded genocide. A God of love does not murder God's children.

 

[sojourner]

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.

See what I've emboldened? That's a significant statement. God will not always strive with us. One day, we will all recognize that we have been reconciled to God. And God will remain patient with us until that time.

What I said was that if we think God stands by helplessly while we are thrown into Hell, then God is not omnipotent, nor powerful to save. Either God saves, or God does not. I believe that God saves.

 

[Bishka]

Oh how I disagree.:no:

Would you like to prove that when studies have shown otherwise?

 

[sojourner]

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!

So, you're saying that God only speaks to us through the Bible? I don't think you can support that POV.

Are you saying that the Church, itself, is not "god-breathed?" I don't think you can support that POV, either.

Yes, the Bible is authoritative, and is used as a measure for doctrine and faith. That's why it's been canonized. But doctrine and faith are built upon scripture, tradition, and reason, like a stool. If all three legs are not utilized, the stool will topple. Too many heresies have been instigated without a balance of the three. We must also rely on the authority of the Church, and the authority of our sense of reason.

Relying on only one leg of the stool permits the stool to be blown over by the wind of doctrine. It can only stand solid on all its legs.

God's word does not change, but our understanding of it certainly does.

 

[Hope]

And yet, the Bible contains factual error...:faint:

Sojourner.....I am so disappointed!

I have read this thread, hoping for some new revelations and explanations from you in regards to your theological stance. But again, no such luck. And here again is another unsupported claim.

What is this factual error? Please provide it.

Both you and James the Persian are making unsupported claims. If joeboonda, slabbey, myself, and other "traditional" Christians are so un-enlightened as to what the Scriptures mean, or where they came from, or what the early church believed, then please, please provide actual data and proofs to contradict us. Your continued spiels about the reconcilitory love of God being the theme of Scripture, and reliance upon the so-called "tradition of the church," is far from sufficient in backing up your claims. I'd like to see some hard-core evidence and research to support such claims.

 

[slabbey06]

Would you like to prove that when studies have shown otherwise?

Which studies are you referring to?

 

[Ringer]

Sojourner.....I am so disappointed!

I have read this thread, hoping for some new revelations and explanations from you in regards to your theological stance. But again, no such luck. And here again is another unsupported claim.

What is this factual error? Please provide it.

Both you and James the Persian are making unsupported claims. If joeboonda, slabbey, myself, and other "traditional" Christians are so un-enlightened as to what the Scriptures mean, or where they came from, or what the early church believed, then please, please provide actual data and proofs to contradict us. Your continued spiels about the reconcilitory love of God being the theme of Scripture, and reliance upon the so-called "tradition of the church," is far from sufficient in backing up your claims. I'd like to see some hard-core evidence and research to support such claims.

Indeed. I've been waiting for such a thing also but instead am getting a POV that supposedly has more authority than scripture. I'm not willing to base my salvation and for that matter anyone elses over my take on God's love. I don't believe our understanding of the bible has changed as much as Sojourner probably thinks. The clarity of scripture and the content provided can be read the same today as it was 500+ years ago. If you are a Christian than hopefully you believe the bible contains truth. Truth by definition is unchangeable no matter what time frame you look at it.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner.....I am so disappointed!

I have read this thread, hoping for some new revelations and explanations from you in regards to your theological stance. But again, no such luck. And here again is another unsupported claim.

What is this factual error? Please provide it.

Both you and James the Persian are making unsupported claims. If joeboonda, slabbey, myself, and other "traditional" Christians are so un-enlightened as to what the Scriptures mean, or where they came from, or what the early church believed, then please, please provide actual data and proofs to contradict us. Your continued spiels about the reconcilitory love of God being the theme of Scripture, and reliance upon the so-called "tradition of the church," is far from sufficient in backing up your claims. I'd like to see some hard-core evidence and research to support such claims.

There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was ever a large contingent of Hebrews in Egypt. Egyptian historical records do not bear this out, either.

There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was ever a military invasion of a different culture into Canaan around 1250 b.c.e. There is some evidence that the "invasion" was a peasant uprising from within the existing culture.

There are two bits of factual error for you to chew on.

Joeboonda, Slabbey, yourself are "traditional" Christians? What could be more "traditional" than the Orthodox (which is what James is)??? Even my own Anglican backround carries more tradition than the Protestant and Restorationist movements.

 

[sojourner]

Indeed. I've been waiting for such a thing also but instead am getting a POV that supposedly has more authority than scripture. I'm not willing to base my salvation and for that matter anyone elses over my take on God's love. I don't believe our understanding of the bible has changed as much as Sojourner probably thinks. The clarity of scripture and the content provided can be read the same today as it was 500+ years ago. If you are a Christian than hopefully you believe the bible contains truth. Truth by definition is unchangeable no matter what time frame you look at it.

I have shown time and time again the Biblical precepts that form the basis for my theological stance. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. Most do not. If you don't want to see it, that's really your problem to live with.

BTW, the argument isn't "the authority of scripture" vs. "Soj's opinion." You're giving us a red herring here. The argument is Biblical interpretation. Mine happens to differ from yours, but you can't provide any higher authority for your interpretation than I can for mine. We just differ. What kind of "proof" are you looking for, other than what I've provided? Some kind of evangelical guru, like James Dobson, agreeing with me? I could name several seminary professors who are universalists, but that's all beside the point. The "my dad's bigger than your dad" argument doesn't hold up.

In the end, either you believe and trust in the love of God and in God's ultimate power to save, or you do not. One wonders if you would be so quick to defend your elitist POV, if you were not one of the elite...

 

[sojourner]

Your continued spiels about the reconcilitory love of God being the theme of Scripture, and reliance upon the so-called "tradition of the church," is far from sufficient in backing up your claims.

Perhaps James can provide the Othodox POV with regard to the reconciliatory nature of God's love, along with the Tradition that supports that particular area of theology.

 

[Ringer]

One wonders if you would be so quick to defend your elitist POV, if you were not one of the elite...

Well we can always talk about election and reprobation from a biblical perspective. Something tells me that it would be an interesting argument .

 

[Hope]

There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was ever a large contingent of Hebrews in Egypt. Egyptian historical records do not bear this out, either.

That only depends on certain interpretations of Egyptian records. I have read otherwise.

There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was ever a military invasion of a different culture into Canaan around 1250 b.c.e. There is some evidence that the "invasion" was a peasant uprising from within the existing culture.

There are two bits of factual error for you to chew on.

Ok, fair enough. I've heard this. However, this in itself is not overwhelming enough evidence to contradict the Bible.

Joeboonda, Slabbey, yourself are "traditional" Christians? What could be more "traditional" than the Orthodox (which is what James is)??? Even my own Anglican backround carries more tradition than the Protestant and Restorationist movements.

I only use the term "traditional" in a very loose sense. Traditional as in Bible-believing.

 

[Hope]

Perhaps James can provide the Othodox POV with regard to the reconciliatory nature of God's love, along with the Tradition that supports that particular area of theology.

Cool. I'd love to hear his POV.

 

[sojourner]

I only use the term "traditional" in a very loose sense. Traditional as in Bible-believing.

Except that's not just a "loose" usage. It's a misleading usage. The "Bible-believing" stance only has about 500 years of history, whereas the catholic stance has 2000 years of history. Which do you think carries the greater weight of "tradition?"

 

[sojourner]

Cool. I'd love to hear his POV.

Me too.

 

[sojourner]

Ok, fair enough. I've heard this. However, this in itself is not overwhelming enough evidence to contradict the Bible.

What more do you need to be "overwhelmed?" The Bible says one thing that clearly is not borne out by the facts, yet you still say that the Bible is not contradicted by that evidence? Contradiction is contradiction.