The True Church

[Luke_17:2]

There is absolutely no fear in Love.

Oh, almighty Darkness has spoken, has he? Is that your final declaration?

I know that your statement is crap because my father expected me to fear him, but I knew he loved me and I him. The same way with God: He loves us, but He expects us to fear Him. There is no contradiction. Your earlier reference to I John is referring to Christians loving fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The point in chapter 4 is that if we can't love each other, how can we love God. There are plenty of places in the Bible saying we should fear God:

Job 28:28
Psalm 19:9
Psalm 34:11
Psalm 111:10
Proverbs 1:7
Proverbs 8:13
Proverbs 9:10
Proverbs 10:27
Proverbs 14:26-27
(we'll move from proverbs for a moment)
II Corinthians 7:1
Ephesians 5:21
Hebrews 12:28

Yet, He loves us (just a few examples because I'm sick of remembering all the different verse):

John 3:16
John 15:13
Romans 5:5
Romans 8:39
Titus 3:4
I John 4:19

None of these contradict each other. The same man (Paul) who wrote Romans 8:39 wrote Hebrews 12:28. One says to fear the Lord with a godly fear, the other says He loves us. Did Paul contradict himself? No. We're supposed to fear God; but He loves us (He loves Christians) either way.

That is not what it says. It says God is the saviour of all, but the people believing are somehow special. The believers being special in no way removes the saving from the non-believing.

Yes it does. It does not say especially: it says specially. I've given you the scripture proving that the unsaved are going to hell.

Matthew 25:41 (Concordant Literal New Testament)
'[G]o from Me, you cursed, into the fire eonian, made ready for the Adversary and his messengers.

Jude 1:7 (Concordant Literal New Testament)
As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these committing ultra-prostitution, and coming away after other flesh, are lying before us, a specimen, experiencing the justice of fire eonian.

The Unveiling (Concordant Literal New Testament)
And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also. And they shall be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons.

Galatians 6:7 (Concordant Literal New Testament)
Be not decived, God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall he be reaping also,

This actually implies an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

If you look at it that way, the eye in this case is sin; the eye for recompense is hell. But of course that's not what it means. It means that those who won't repent are going to perish for eternity in everlasting fire. Why? Because God is holy and pure beyond our comprehension, and no impurity can enter into His kingdom. He gives us an oppurtunity to be saved from out sins, and if we reject that, we're screwed. To be clean from sins, the solution is simple.

So, not even this "bible" of yours has not refuted my points. The sinners (everyone whether it be Adolph Hitler or Abraham Lincoln) are going to hell if they are unsaved. That's the BIBLE (i.e. not the literal concordant "new testament").

Christians are blinded by their worship of the Bible. Man (or woman) always wants all the answers lied out in front of him.

Worship of the Bible? Did I miss something? Did I miss the staff meeting?

We worship God, and revere the Bible because it is His word. But we most certainly don't worship.

Man turns the Bible into an Idol, a thing to worship. Christians accuse other Christians of blasphemy when they do not hold the view of Biblical inerrancy.

Again, what are you talking about us worshiping it?

Psalms says that God has set His word above His name -that's why Christians get touchy when it's misinterpreted

But we don't worship it. What gave you that idea?

They cannot see that the Bible has many problems because the death of their Idol would mean the death of their God.

Jesus was not God, per se. He was God manifest in the flesh. God didn't die: the flesh died.

And man is afraid of uncertainty, of figuring out for himself what is good and what is evil.

No, man doesn't like uncertainty.

But, a person's take on morality may differ from the other. One may say that rape, murder, etc. is all wrong: another might say that all those things are the right of those who may choose. A more likely scenario is homosexuality. Some (not exclusively the religious right) says it's immoral. Now, those atheistic conservatives have no basis for what they're saying -but neither does the atheistic liberal. Morality, without God, is subjective. Nonexistent, even.

It is so much easier just to follow the dictates of a book than to think for yourself.

Since I, and other Christians (not all), believe that man is inherently sinful, we don't think his take on morality is worth speaking of. But we do think for ourselves. We've come to the conclusion that God has revealed Himself in the Bible.

 

[Luke_17:2]

You're confusing belief in doctrine with belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

No, I believe you're confusing political correctness for Scripture.

Jesus came in the flesh to reconcile humanity to God.

That's part of it. He did that by dying on the cross, and rising again. His blood shed on the cross is what gives mankind the chance to be reconciled. Not all men will be.

The other part is that He came to reconcile each individual.

I am saved. Because of that knowledge, I am free to live into that reality.

That is not Biblical. The Bible says in Romans 10:9: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and will believe in your hear that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." There is nothing about living into reality because of that knowledge.

I'm being saved from my own illusions.

Where does it say that?

It does say that you'll perish if you don't come to repentance.

Jesus comes to receive all humanity.

Oh, no. Not in God's Word. In The Modernistic Christian's Guide to Reconciling Christianity to a Sinful World, maybe. But not in God's word.

I John 3:1 says, "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." The world doesn't even know Christians because it doesn't know God.

The scriptures are part of the word of God.

What's the other part? The Bible, Genesis to Revelation, is the canon: nothing else has ever considered to be the canon.

 

[sojourner]

Since I, and other Christians (not all), believe that man is inherently sinful, we don't think his take on morality is worth speaking of. But we do think for ourselves. We've come to the conclusion that God has revealed Himself in the Bible.

That's one POV. Augustinian, out of the Petrine tradition at its extreme. There is, however, a different Biblical POV. The Johanine tradition, which was championed by Pelagius. If you were truly thinking for yourself, you might weigh one tradition against the other, or at least blend the two to create a much healthier theology.

No, I believe you're confusing political correctness for Scripture.

Political correctness has absolutely nothing to do with it. But when you say that Christians must believe [the following doctrinal statements], you're placing belief in doctrine at the forefront of what it means to be Christian.

That's part of it. He did that by dying on the cross, and rising again. His blood shed on the cross is what gives mankind the chance to be reconciled. Not all men will be.

The other part is that He came to reconcile each individual.

The Incarnation is the Incarnation, and it stands apart from the crucifixion. Evil is never required by God. The crucifixion was not required by God -- it was required by humanity. His very incarnation reconciles us. The Bible says so. Read up on your Orthodoxy.

Oh, I firmly believe that God will save every person. That POV is Biblical, and it is theologically sound.

But, God will save every person. Because we are all part of a family. We are incomplete without everyone present. God's kingdom will remain unfinished and incomplete until all are seated at the banquet table.

That is not Biblical. The Bible says in Romans 10:9: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and will believe in your hear that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." There is nothing about living into reality because of that knowledge.

It's a matter of exegesis. God always acts first, and we respond. God is always the impetus. God is always antecedent to anything we do.

That is not Biblical. The Bible says in Romans 10:9: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and will believe in your hear that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." There is nothing about living into reality because of that knowledge.

Sure there is. Again, it's a matter of good exegesis. When Jesus was baptized, he really had no need to be. But God spoke God's truth anyway, saying that God was well-pleased with him. It was that knowledge that allowed Jesus to turn down the cheap kingdom Satan offered him for the real kingdom.

Where does it say that?

It does say that you'll perish if you don't come to repentance.

Genesis. When God came walking in the garden, Adam was ashamed of himself and felt he couldn't face God. So he lied and tried to hide from God. It was Adam's illusion of himself that caused him to do that.

maybe repentance is our acceptance of the fact that we're not only created good, but created very good, as Genesis says. Maybe the illusion is that we're inherently bad.

Oh, no. Not in God's Word.

Hmmm...
"All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him." (Ps. 22:27)
Try Isaiah 25:6-8, too, as well as Isaiah 45:22-24.
"Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." Matt. 18:14
"All mankind will see God's salvation." Lk. 3:6
"The Son of Man came to seek and save what was lost." Lk. 19:10
I could go on...

What's the other part? The Bible, Genesis to Revelation, is the canon: nothing else has ever considered to be the canon.

What about the parts in between, which are part of the canon -- such as Maccabees, Esdras, Sirach, etc.?
What about the voice of the Saints -- the Church? What about Holy Tradition that isn't written, but still transmitted to the community? What about personal revelation? What about prophecy? What about Jesus (The Bible says that Jesus is the Word)?

Your POV is narrow. That's OK, but don't expect me to buy into it, and don't expect to exclude me from God's party any time soon...

 

[Luke_17:2]

That's one POV. Augustinian, out of the Petrine tradition at its extreme. There is, however, a different Biblical POV. The Johanine tradition, which was championed by Pelagius.

My POV is Biblical doctrine championed by Christ Jesus. -I think my champion outweighs yours.

If you were truly thinking for yourself, you might weigh one tradition against the other, or at least blend the two to create a much healthier theology.

What is your definition of healthy ideaology? Politically correct ideaology? Does it matter as long as it isn't Biblical because that Bible makes Christians unpopular in a world ruled by the devil?

Political correctness has absolutely nothing to do with it. But when you say that Christians must believe [the following doctrinal statements], you're placing belief in doctrine at the forefront of what it means to be Christian.

What does it mean to be a Christian?

My definition comes from the Bible. That list in my first post was essential. I left out a lot of denominational doctrine that, though to me is important, I don't believe is vital to being a Christian. If you disagree with, imo, I just don't know...

The Incarnation is the Incarnation, and it stands apart from the crucifixion. Evil is never required by God. The crucifixion was not required by God -- it was required by humanity. His very incarnation reconciles us. The Bible says so. Read up on your Orthodoxy.

This I mostly agree with. The incarnation reconciles mankind, I believe. So though I agree with you there, I don't believe it automatically reconciles every person. And the unsaved world is not reconciled to God; it doesn't know Him. That is Biblical.

Oh, I firmly believe that God will save every person. That POV is Biblical, and it is theologically sound.

He'll save every person who asks forgiveness. Those who don't He'll cast into hell. It is written, and therefore MUST be done.

But, God will save every person. Because we are all part of a family. We are incomplete without everyone present. God's kingdom will remain unfinished and incomplete until all are seated at the banquet table.

Where does it say that in the Bible? The Body of Christ is a spiritual family. The world is dead in spirit; unsaved; lost from God. It's our duty to bring more to this so-called banquet table -but there will always be a "world".

It's a matter of exegesis. God always acts first, and we respond. God is always the impetus. God is always antecedent to anything we do.

When a man commits rape, it God there? When a man lusts, is God there? When a man lies, is God there?

Sure there is. Again, it's a matter of good exegesis. When Jesus was baptized, he really had no need to be. But God spoke God's truth anyway, saying that God was well-pleased with him. It was that knowledge that allowed Jesus to turn down the cheap kingdom Satan offered him for the real kingdom.

Jesus was Jesus: sinless, perfect. We are not Jesus. Apples and oranges, per se.

Genesis. When God came walking in the garden, Adam was ashamed of himself and felt he couldn't face God. So he lied and tried to hide from God. It was Adam's illusion of himself that caused him to do that.

That was in Genesis -before salvation by grace through faith existed.

Secondly, He was hiding from the wrath of God. You're correct, I believe, that it was an illusion that he could hide. But I believe that all you're illusions must be discarded BEFORE you're saved. The illusion that you're righteous enough, that God will let your sins go and admit you to heaven, the belief that you can hide from God (Jonah), etc., must be gone to believe that Jesus is the only one who can save you. So, no. you're not from saved from your illusions. By necessity, they're already gone.

maybe repentance is our acceptance of the fact that we're not only created good, but created very good, as Genesis says. Maybe the illusion is that we're inherently bad.

God created man sinless, but we've sinned. God said that when we were sinless. We're no longer sinless. Everything is no longer "very good".

"All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him." (Ps. 22:27)

Sure. So will the devil.

The world will do this at the end of the tribulation right after the conclusion of the White Throne Judgment: Romans 14:11

Try Isaiah 25:6-8, too, as well as Isaiah 45:22-24.

Doesn't prove your point at all.

"Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." Matt. 18:14

Sheesh.

I can give you another, "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"

What does that imply? That if you don't repent, you'll perish. So, yes, He is not willing; but sin cannot enter heaven, so if you don't repent, you're going to perish

"All mankind will see God's salvation." Lk. 3:6

Yes, all mankind will see. Will all accept?

"The Son of Man came to seek and save what was lost." Lk. 19:10

That's what He came to do; whether or not Man will be found, and saved is up to each person individiually.

I could go on...

Please do.

What about the parts in between, which are part of the canon -- such as Maccabees, Esdras, Sirach, etc.?

All this was written and recorded in the silent years, and is thus uninspired.

It was dropped as uninspired when the Bible was canonized.

What about the voice of the Saints -- the Church? What about Holy Tradition that isn't written, but still transmitted to the community? What about personal revelation? What about prophecy? What about Jesus (The Bible says that Jesus is the Word)?

Prophecy not recorded isn't prophecy.
The voice of the saints is a Biblical idea.
Personal revelation is just that: personal. Not for the Bible.
Jesus is recored in the Bible, first of all, and second of all, as GOD He isn't exactly te same thing.

Your POV is narrow. That's OK, but don't expect me to buy into it, and don't expect to exclude me from God's party any time soon...

Firstly, my POV is Biblical. And if the Bible is narrow by society's definition, then there is something good about being narrow.

Secondly, I didn't exclude you from the Body of Christ? How did you infer that from my posts?

 

[Scuba Pete]

My POV is Biblical doctrine championed by Christ Jesus. -I think my champion outweighs yours.

No, it's not. Show me ONE SCRIPTURE where Jesus puts the use of scripture over love. Just one. It's statements like this that attempt to throw Christianity BACK into legalism, WORSE than the Pharisees had done to the Old Testament in the First Century! I find such attitudes to be COUNTER to the Gospel both in Spirit and principle.

 

[Luke_17:2]

No, it's not. Show me ONE SCRIPTURE where Jesus puts the use of scripture over love. Just one.

Psalms 138:2 says that the Lord has exalted His word above His name -let alone above love.

You get far too caught up in love. You kinda forget that God is God, and is therefore balanced. He's not all love.

It's statements like this that attempt to throw Christianity BACK into legalism, WORSE than the Pharisees had done to the Old Testament in the First Century! I find such attitudes to be COUNTER to the Gospel both in Spirit and principle.

There's no need to get nasty.

 

[sojourner]

My POV is Biblical doctrine championed by Christ Jesus. -I think my champion outweighs yours.

Your POV is your particular take on Biblical doctrine -- not shared by many Biblical scholars or theologians. "The Bible" wasn't around when Jesus was on earth. Jesus cannot have "championed the Bible."

What is your definition of healthy ideaology? Politically correct ideaology? Does it matter as long as it isn't Biblical because that Bible makes Christians unpopular in a world ruled by the devil?

I didn't say, "ideology." I said, "theology." A healthy theology is one that is not based upon human shame and innate depravity. A healthy theology celebrates the inherent goodness of humanity, while acknowledging that sin is part of the human equation and must be approached from a stance of humility and repentance.
I don't think Christians are unpopular. I think Christianity is the largest world religion. I don't think the world is "ruled by Satan." That completely dismisses God's kingdom among us, which is symbolized in the Incarnation.

What does it mean to be a Christian?

A Christian is one who professes to follow Christ.

That list in my first post was essential. I left out a lot of denominational doctrine that, though to me is important, I don't believe is vital to being a Christian. If you disagree with, imo, I just don't know...

As a matter of fact, I do disagree with you. None of this is essential to being a Christian. It's essential only if being a Christian is predicated upon espousing a certain doctrine, which it clearly is not.

I don't believe it automatically reconciles every person. And the unsaved world is not reconciled to God; it doesn't know Him. That is Biblical.

Yes, it did reconcile humanity to God. Much of the world may not know God -- at least not as you or I would recognize God -- but it will, because that's the way God desires it. That is Biblical.

He'll save every person who asks forgiveness. Those who don't He'll cast into hell. It is written, and therefore MUST be done.

I don't predicate salvation upon our asking for forgiveness. I predicate it upon the faith of Christ. it is written, and therefore MUST be done.

Where does it say that in the Bible? The Body of Christ is a spiritual family. The world is dead in spirit; unsaved; lost from God. It's our duty to bring more to this so-called banquet table -but there will always be a "world".

There are plenty of universalist themes in scripture, which is supported by valid theology. The world was found when God became human and dwelt among us. All are invited to the banquet, and it will not begin until all the guests are seated.

When a man commits rape, it God there? When a man lusts, is God there? When a man lies, is God there?

Ah, the great questions of theodicy...
God is everywhere. The problem is that we cover up God, or look past God, when we sin.

Jesus was Jesus: sinless, perfect. We are not Jesus. Apples and oranges, per se.

I disagree. Jesus became human -- one of us -- not one like us -- one of us. Just because the orange is blemished does not make it less of an orange. We contain the breath of God, just as Jesus contained the breath of God.

That was in Genesis -before salvation by grace through faith existed.

Salvation is salvation, and it is always by grace, no matter the timeline.

But I believe that all you're illusions must be discarded BEFORE you're saved. The illusion that you're righteous enough, that God will let your sins go and admit you to heaven, the belief that you can hide from God (Jonah), etc., must be gone to believe that Jesus is the only one who can save you. So, no. you're not from saved from your illusions. By necessity, they're already gone.

I disagree. It's when your illusions are discarded that you are saved. It's the process of letting go of them that allows salvation to come. it is they that keep salvation hidden.

God created man sinless, but we've sinned. God said that when we were sinless. We're no longer sinless. Everything is no longer "very good".

What's created is created. Humanity cannot upset God's order for ever.

The world will do this at the end of the tribulation right after the conclusion of the White Throne Judgment: Romans 14:11

Huh. If you believe in that sort of eschatology...

Doesn't prove your point at all.

"Those who have ears had better listen..."

What does that imply?

It implies that God is not willing that any should be lost. I believe that God will ultimately get God's way. It's God's creation, after all.

Yes, all mankind will see. Will all accept?

Of course. That's how God wants it.

That's what He came to do; whether or not Man will be found, and saved is up to each person individiually.

Oh, I think God's a big enough boy to ferret us all out in due time.

Please do.

I think I've made my point. "Those who have ears to hear had better listen..."

All this was written and recorded in the silent years, and is thus uninspired.

BZZZZZZT! I'm sorry. Your answer is incorrect. But thanks for playing our game, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

It was dropped as uninspired when the Bible was canonized.

No it wasn't. The Protestants dropped some books 1000 years after the canon was closed.
The Eastern Church has always included books that the Western Church has not. And the Ethiopians have the largest corpus of canon scripture.

Prophecy not recorded isn't prophecy.

Oh? What did Ezekiel do before things were written down? Eat magic mushrooms and smoke weed?

The voice of the saints is a Biblical idea.

The voice of the saints predates the written scripture.

Personal revelation is just that: personal. Not for the Bible.

So, experience doesn't count. At all. nah.

Jesus is recored in the Bible, first of all, and second of all, as GOD He isn't exactly te same thing.

Not until years after his death.
So, John's wrong about Jesus being the Word of God?

Firstly, my POV is Biblical. And if the Bible is narrow by society's definition, then there is something good about being narrow.

Very Narrowly Biblical -- so narrow, in fact, that you are dismissing much of the forest.
something good about narrow. That's right! The world isn't good. God's kingdom has no place here. Christ is always against culture, and never within culture. Holy crap!

Secondly, I didn't exclude you from the Body of Christ? How did you infer that from my posts?

Apparently, according to your posts, I can't belong to the Body if I don't believe these particular things ... which I don't. Therefore, I'm excluded from the Body. Good Grief!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Psalms 138:2 says that the Lord has exalted His word above His name -let alone above love.

You have yet to show that Word = Scripture. John 1 tells WHO the Word of God is.

You get far too caught up in love. You kinda forget that God is God, and is therefore balanced. He's not all love.

Dude, God IS love. We LOVE because he first LOVED us. I find your brand of Christianity which seems to relegate love to being optional as completely IMBALANCED and it destroys the cause of Christ. It makes me want to spew!

There's no need to get nasty.

Your words have done that already. There is nothing "nastier" than a Christian who does not put love FIRST. Without love a Christian is no more than a clanging gong: loud and with no substance. Read I Corinthians 13 for some corroboration there.

 

[Luke_17:2]

You have yet to show that Word = Scripture. John 1 tells WHO the Word of God is.

Psalms was written before John. The Son was there when Psalms was written, but the concept of Him being the word hadn't been put forward by God yet, so whether or not you believe the Bible is the word of God (I do), your comment doesn't work.

Dude, God IS love. We LOVE because he first LOVED us.

Of course He is. Just remember that love is not God. Also remember He is balanced. The Bible calls Him a consuming fire.

I find your brand of Christianity which seems to relegate love to being optional as completely IMBALANCED and it destroys the cause of Christ. It makes me want to spew!

Do you say that with Christian charity and love?

I didn't say that love is optional. I said merely that you should be balanced.

Your words have done that already. There is nothing "nastier" than a Christian who does not put love FIRST.

Where did I say that? I merely said be balanced. Remember that God is not all love. Remember that Jesus rebuked pharisees quite bluntly.

Without love a Christian is no more than a clanging gong: loud and with no substance. Read I Corinthians 13 for some corroboration there.

1. I Corinthians 13 refers to charity in the KJV

 

[Scuba Pete]

Psalms was written before John. The Son was there when Psalms was written, but the concept of Him being the word hadn't been put forward by God yet, so whether or not you believe the Bible is the word of God (I do), your comment doesn't work.

Are you saying Jesus wasn't there from the beginning? Again, I would refer you to John 1.

Of course He is. Just remember that love is not God. Also remember He is balanced. The Bible calls Him a consuming fire.

Are we even reading the same scriptures? Here's some "Godly Balance" for you:

I John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. NIV

Do you say that with Christian charity and love?

If I didn't love you, I would let you continue in this error without comment.

I didn't say that love is optional. I said merely that you should be balanced.

Please find this ANYWHERE in scriptures. Let's play "fill in the blank" here! "They will know you are my disciples by the ________ you have for one another!" Here's a hint, the word ain't "balance"

Where did I say that? I merely said be balanced. Remember that God is not all love. Remember that Jesus rebuked pharisees quite bluntly.

But as soon as I am blunt, you doubt my love? Amazing!

1. I Corinthians 13 refers to charity in the KJV

Yet another reason to use a MODERN translation. Here is the NIV of that passage, which is written in the English you currently speak, and not 400 years out of date English.

I Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. NIV

A church based only on Scripture is a hollow thing indeed. LOVE is how you identify God's people. Not by doctrine, not by mission statements or creeds, but by LOVE.

Philippians 2:1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross! NIV

 

[sojourner]

The Son was there when Psalms was written,

??? Could someone show me a timeline, please?

Just remember that love is not God.

Of course it is! if God is love, then that would make love ... let's see ... God.

Also remember He is balanced.

Balanced between love and ... what? Hate? Ambivalence? Evil?

The Bible calls Him a consuming fire.

You've never been in love, have you?

I didn't say that love is optional. I said merely that you should be balanced.

Balanced between love and what else? You seem to think that love needs or demands balance. Love is balance.

Remember that God is not all love.

so...God isn't everywhere? What kind of love does not show forth God?

Remember that Jesus rebuked pharisees quite bluntly.

Because they were doing what you're doing -- placing legalism above love.

1. I Corinthians 13 refers to charity in the KJV

The KJV isn't the most accurate. The NRSV says, "love." It's a much better translation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. I Corinthians 13 refers to charity in the KJV

And at the time the KJV was written, the word "charity" had a meaning that was closer to our modern definition of "love" (i.e. deep affection) than to our modern definition of "charity" (i.e. kindliness).

Have a look at the Online Etymology Dictionary if you want more information on the origins and past meanings of the word "charity".

The KJV isn't the most accurate. The NRSV says, "love." It's a much better translation.

It was accurate when it was written, but the English language is a dynamic thing that has changed over the centuries since then.

 

[Darkness]

Oh, almighty Darkness has spoken, has he? Is that your final declaration?

No, it is the Bible's declaration.

There are plenty of places in the Bible saying we should fear God:

Job 28:28
Psalm 19:9
Psalm 34:11
Psalm 111:10
Proverbs 1:7
Proverbs 8:13
Proverbs 9:10
Proverbs 10:27
Proverbs 14:26-27
(we'll move from proverbs for a moment)
II Corinthians 7:1
Ephesians 5:21
Hebrews 12:28

Again, you start with a conclusion (the Bible cannot contradict) and then use it to prove your point. I do not care what the Psalmist said. I care what John wrote. And what John wrote is inconsistent with the rest of those Bible verses.

It does not say especially: it says specially.

Especially and Specially are virtually the same thing and changing between the two would make no difference.

Because God is holy and pure beyond our comprehension, and no impurity can enter into His kingdom.

I just love what people try to justify. Oh, hey, I have one. "Adolf Hitler was not an evil man, he was trying to purify the Earth for the return of Jesus Christ."

So, not even this "bible" of yours has not refuted my points. The sinners (everyone whether it be Adolph Hitler or Abraham Lincoln) are going to hell if they are unsaved. That's the BIBLE (i.e. not the literal concordant "new testament").

In the Concordant Translation of the Bible, Hell is not eternal.

We worship God, and revere the Bible because it is His word. But we most certainly don't worship.

Obviously, I am being metaphorical.

But we don't worship it. What gave you that idea?

You treat it like it is God.

Morality, without God, is subjective. Nonexistent, even.

Why?

We've come to the conclusion that God has revealed Himself in the Bible.

Exactly! Now, if you would simply carry your reason a little further and question the Authority of God.

God demands that we believe everything that he tells us, and that we do everything that he says without questioning. Destroy a tribe including the women, children and animals down to last one? (Joshua 6.21). Why of course. Wait a minute, this doesn't seem very nice. SILENCE FOOL. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME. I AM GOD AND YOU MUST OBEY ME WITHOUT QUESTIONING. ACCEPT WHAT I SAY ON FAITH. BURN THOSE WHO DARE QUESTION MY WORD. DESTROY THEIR BOOKS. SHUT DOWN THEIR SCHOOLS. TELL THEM THAT DISOBEDIENCE MEANS THAT THEY WILL BURN FOREVER AND EVER, IN UNIMAGINABLE AGONY FOR ALL ETERNITY, AND REMEMBER THAT YOU WILL SUFFER THE SAME UNLESS YOU GO OUT AND TELL THEM THIS. Yes Sir, God Sir, whatever you say. See, here I am burning their books, pulling out their nails, torturing them for questioning Church dogma, banning the use of anaesthetic in child-bearing (since the pain is their just punishment for the acts of Adam and Eve). Help! I thought an improper thought! Help me to blind my mind God, help me to not see what my reason tells me. Let me repress thoughts of sexual desire, doubts about you and your orders, feelings of tolerance.

God and his Godists hate Lucifer's call for rationality. Critical thinking digs at the very roots of God's and their power over our minds. Independent thinkers do not make good slaves. Lucifer is the Prince of Lies because he is an expert at helping us to be rational. He shows us how to use our intelligence and how to take responsibility for ourselves. We should emulate him in encouraging this trend in ourselves and in others. He needs help since he is working against the laziness and neuroticism of many humans. It's so much easier to just not try to think, to sit back and let other people tell you what you should do, what to believe, and where to give your money. Why, if I had to think for myself I would have to face the fact that I might be wrong. Horrors! I would have to think carefully about my life and the reality that I live in carefully and that would take a lot of work. No, it's much easier to have faith, to accept, to believe, to obey. -- In Praise of the Devil

 

[Luke_17:2]

??? Could someone show me a timeline, please?

Jesus is the Word, and the Son, and both were there at the beginning.

What I was saying is that "your word" in Psalms referred to the Bible, not to Jesus.

Of course it is! if God is love, then that would make love ... let's see ... God.

No. The Bible is a book, that doesn't mean a book is the Bible. God is love. Not vice-versa. Saying so is unbiblical.

Balanced between love and ... what? Hate? Ambivalence? Evil?

"Balanced" was not the correct term. I was merely suggesting that we be instant in season and out of season: ready to rebuke and retort.

You've never been in love, have you?

What?

Balanced between love and what else? You seem to think that love needs or demands balance. Love is balance.

The Bible calls God love (just read the epistles of John to know that); Hebrews calls Him a consuming fire. He's called, in the new testament, a God of War -and a God of Peace.

God is balanced -which means that though He is love, there is more to Him. Not hate; the Bible never equates Him with hate.

so...God isn't everywhere? What kind of love does not show forth God?

What warped thought caused you to say the above?

Because they were doing what you're doing -- placing legalism above love.

I'm just saying what the Bible says about God. If you think discussion of the Bible is legalism, then I think you best get yourself straigtened out. Everything we know about God comes from the Bible: the Bible is His relevation of Himself. Thus, the Bible isn't legalism; it's all that matters in a theological discussion.

Love is most important for believers. Love that is manifested in compassion -what makes us want to lead people to the Lord; set people straight in His word.

The KJV isn't the most accurate. The NRSV says, "love." It's a much better translation.

How is it a much better translation?

You see, they're not the same thing. They're actually quite different. Charity is a much deeper word, with much deeper meaning.

 

[Darkness]

God is love. Not vice-versa. Saying so is unbiblical.

If God is love than love is God. Can you not see this simple truth? Let's try this in mathematics. If God = Love than Love = God. See how easy it is.

1 John 4 does not say God is loving does he? No! He says GOD IS LOVE.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Are you saying Jesus wasn't there from the beginning? Again, I would refer you to John 1.

Yes, the Son was there at the beginning. What I was saying is that the Word is mentioned until the New Testament, which means that "your word" in the Old Testament refers to God's literal word.

Are we even reading the same scriptures? Here's some "Godly Balance" for you:

I John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

You're wasting your time. I believe that God is love. I never denied that. He's demonstrated that love through dying on the cross for our sins. By becoming a little lower then the angels, and becoming sins. Who can deny His undying love?

What I'm saying is that there's more to Him. Hebrews 12:29 calls Him a consuming fire.

NIV If I didn't love you, I would let you continue in this error without comment. Please find this ANYWHERE in scriptures. Let's play "fill in the blank" here! "They will know you are my disciples by the ________ you have for one another!" Here's a hint, the word ain't "balance"But as soon as I am blunt, you doubt my love? Amazing!Yet another reason to use a MODERN translation. Here is the NIV of that passage, which is written in the English you currently speak, and not 400 years out of date English.

I Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. NIV

As I said, charity. There is a difference.

Here is the NIV of that passage, which is written in the English you currently speak, and not 400 years out of date English.

It doesn't matter if it's not English that's used anymore. Aside from the fact that that time was the peak of the English language (Shakespear, AV Bible, etc.,), it doesn't change the meaning.

A church based only on Scripture is a hollow thing indeed. LOVE is how you identify God's people. Not by doctrine, not by mission statements or creeds, but by LOVE.

Philippians 2:1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross! NIV

The bold part is a pretty rediculous thing to say. The church must be based on Scripture. Why? Because that's the only way we know what to base anything on! You get your idea that the church must be based on love by referring to the BIBLE.

But the Church is based on Jesus; the love of Jesus; the grace of Jesus; faith in Jesus. Love plays probably the most important role after Jesus. But, of course, His love is what allows there to be a church in the first place.

In the end though, your above statement is incredibly contradictory.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It doesn't matter if it's not English that's used anymore.

Especially if you are not keen on the masses understanding it. Before this they kept the services in Latin for the same reasons. Pretty sad.

Aside from the fact that that time was the peak of the English language (Shakespear, AV Bible, etc.,), it doesn't change the meaning.

Peak? I dare say that MORE people speak English than at any other point in history. That would make THIS point in time English's zenith, and there may be more to come!

The bold part is a pretty rediculous thing to say.

What is "ridiculous" is the absence of the Spirit when you EXCLUSIVELY use the Scriptures.

 

[Darkness]

You get your idea that the church must be based on love by referring to the BIBLE.

I enjoy reading Nietzsche's writings, but I do not believe everything I read.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter if it's not English that's used anymore. Aside from the fact that that time was the peak of the English language (Shakespear, AV Bible, etc.,), it doesn't change the meaning.

So... are you trying to say that a 400-year-old translation, when read as if the words have the meanings that they do today and not as 400 years ago, is more accurate and faithful to the intended message than a direct translation from the original text into modern English?

The bold part is a pretty rediculous thing to say. The church must be based on Scripture. Why? Because that's the only way we know what to base anything on! You get your idea that the church must be based on love by referring to the BIBLE.

There are other things to base things on, but gnosticism has gone out of fashion recently, Holy Tradition hasn't been the preferred method for a large subset of Christianity since shortly after Luther, and Quaker-style "let God tell us what He wants to as He wills" hasn't really caught on with the mainstream denominations.

 

[sojourner]

What I was saying is that "your word" in Psalms referred to the Bible, not to Jesus.

There was no "Bible" at the time the Psalms were written. Again...Timeline.

No. The Bible is a book, that doesn't mean a book is the Bible. God is love. Not vice-versa. Saying so is unbiblical.

Your logic doesn't work here. I didn't say that God is one aspect of love (as the Bible is one of many books). I said that God is love (a closer analogy on your part might be that scripture is truth).

"Balanced" was not the correct term. I was merely suggesting that we be instant in season and out of season: ready to rebuke and retort.

In what way do rebuke and retort "balance out" love?

Hebrews calls Him a consuming fire.

That's why I surmised that you'd never been in love. Love can most certainly be a consuming fire. Anyone who's experienced deep love has experienced that aspect of love.

God is balanced -which means that though He is love, there is more to Him. Not hate; the Bible never equates Him with hate.

What more can there be? What is **more** than love?

What warped thought caused you to say the above?

What's warped about that? Can you think of an aspect of love, or an act of love that does not show forth God??? If you think there is, then you have a warped sense of what love is.

I'm just saying what the Bible says about God.

No. You're saying what you think the Bible says about God. You're saying your interpretation of what the Bible says about God.

If you think discussion of the Bible is legalism, then I think you best get yourself straigtened out.

I'm not saying that discussion of the Bible is legalism. I'm saying that your treatment of the Bible is legalistic.

Everything we know about God comes from the Bible: the Bible is His relevation of Himself.

Not everything we know about God comes from the Bible. What do you suppose early believers did before things were written down? How do you suppose illiterate people come by their revelation of God? How does God reveal God's self to prophets?

Thus, the Bible isn't legalism; it's all that matters in a theological discussion.

it's not all that matters in a theological discussion, since theology is about relationship. Theology should also include revelation about humanity, as well as God.

Love is most important for believers. Love that is manifested in compassion -what makes us want to lead people to the Lord; set people straight in His word.

Altruism will get you nowhere. "Setting people straight" isn't an acgt of compassion. It's an act of hubris.

How is it a much better translation?

Primarily because it takes advantage of better scholarship in the translation process. The texts used are much older, actually, than the texts used to translate the KJV. The NRSV comes largely from the LXX, (supplemented by other ancient texts). The KJV used the Masoretic text, which was much newer than the LXX. Developoments in cultural anthropology and etymology have enabled translation to be both tighter and more reader-friendly.

Charity is a much deeper word, with much deeper meaning.

That's a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.