This is depressing.

[slabbey06]

Trying to grasp how God can be sovereign and man can have free will, and both be true, boggles my mind. Yet I believe that both concepts are taught in the Bible. I guess I figure that God is God and I'm not. So I'm never going to understand how it all works. Can the created ever fully grasp the mind of its creator? Which is one of the reasons I love Him so much. The joys of knowing Him and learning how wonderful He is never cease.

 

[sojourner]

I'm still wrestling with a lot of these issues. The human mind has a difficult time grasping the concepts of free will and the sovereignty of God.

An element no one has mentioned yet is the absolute holiness and purity of God. People keep saying, why does mere unbelief in God qualify me for hell? It seems unfair, and I agree, to an extent. But to talk only about unbelief is just skimming the surface. What truly qualifies us for hell is our sin and filth. Even Satan believes in God, but he sure ain't going to heaven.

God wants, more than anything, intimacy with us. That's a pretty staggering thought, at least to me. But because He is so righteous and pure and holy, the intimacy He desires can only be fulfilled with those whose righteousness, purity, and holiness is like His own. He loves everyone, deeply and unconditionally, but ultimately He can't allow anyone into an intimate relationship with Him unless they are holy and pure too---no matter how much He loves them.

Suppose a well-groomed gentleman meets a young beggar woman. He can easily see she is beautiful, but she is also filthy, smelly, and has atrocious manners and vices. He is a compassionate, kind man, so he tries to help her, and as he does so, learns to care for her deeply, even love her. But unless she begins to bathe regularly, wear clean clothes, and mend her vices, the probability of the young gentleman wanting to pursue an intimate relationship with her is very, very slim. He can love her...certainly; have compassion on her...certainly; but be intimate with her? Who among us can say we would enjoy kissing or cuddling with someone whose very smell makes us nauseous? Whose behavior is crass and vile?

This the closest analogy I can think of in reference to how God sees us. The problem is we have no comprehension of how gross our sin is in comparison to God's holiness and purity. "Being good," by human standards, just doesn't cut it in God's eyes.

God's righteousness and holiness demand justice; and His love doesn't want to "settle" for anything less than intimacy.

In Gen. 2, God "got dirty" in order to create humanity. In Phil. 2, God did not regard his divinity as a thing to be grasped, but "emptied himself" (becoming dirty) taking on human form. In the parable of the leaven, Christ says that the kingdom of God is like leaven which a woman hid in a lump of dough. Leaven was poisonous -- dirty. So God hides dirty humanity in the midst of divinity.

The whole of the new covenant is about reconciliation -- that we, even though by all accounts we be dirty and unacceptable, have been reconciled to God.

The Law served to make human beings holy. When Christ came, according to Galatians 5, the Law, to which we had been captive, was superceded by the faith of Christ. The good news is that, even though we cannot make ourselves acceptable through any effort of ours, we have been found acceptable through Christ.

God has allowed us into an intimate relationship with God, even though we are dirty. God approached us, became dirty for us, and God reconciled us to God's self, just as we are.

If God wants intimacy with us more than anything, and if God is sovereign, don't you think that God has already gotten God's way?

 

[sojourner]

Matthew 7:13-14

13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

God's plan results in the majority receiving destruction and the minority receiving life. It doesn't sound very efficient for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. Surely he could have saved, if not the majority, at least half of us. Why create so many people knowing most of us would be collateral damage?

I find that the Bible is not written for unbelievers. The Bible is written for those who believe. That means that the "stuff we're supposed to do" is written from the perspective of those who have chosen to live life within a certain paradigm. The Law does not define those who do not embrace it, but it does define those who do embrace it. The gospel message is not gospel for those who do not believe, but it is gospel for those who do believe.

To "enter by the narrow gate" is a reminder to those who propose to live by a certain rule. In essence, it says that, "in order for the rule you have embraced to mean anything, you have to follow it and live it."

 

[wizanda]

I find that the Bible is not written for unbelievers. The Bible is written for those who believe. That means that the "stuff we're supposed to do" is written from the perspective of those who have chosen to live life within a certain paradigm. The Law does not define those who do not embrace it, but it does define those who do embrace it. The gospel message is not gospel for those who do not believe, but it is gospel for those who do believe.

To "enter by the narrow gate" is a reminder to those who propose to live by a certain rule. In essence, it says that, "in order for the rule you have embraced to mean anything, you have to follow it and live it."

You defy Christ on every word and don't mean to over step the mark, yet you really are making me depressed...
God found villains, robbers, prostitutes to work for him and you say that is a book written for those who believe?
Christ went to the poor and villains and you say those who believe?

So when Christ came for “sinners and not righteous”, as he knew that the righteous of another has no value...
Noah, Daniel, Job saves none other then them self, Christ said he couldn't and only God chooses....
Yet when i ask you, how God doesn't like hurting anything, you tell me God does and God is bad....
So explain you’re self?
As you are not explaining the Bible and i will if allowed try and maintain respect, unlike i hear from everyone else about something i see as very precious...both the holy books of the world and the life’s of our prophets...

 

[sojourner]

You defy Christ on every word and don't mean to over step the mark, yet you really are making me depressed...
God found villains, robbers, prostitutes to work for him and you say that is a book written for those who believe?
Christ went to the poor and villains and you say those who believe?

So when Christ came for “sinners and not righteous”, as he knew that the righteous of another has no value...
Noah, Daniel, Job saves none other then them self, Christ said he couldn't and only God chooses....
Yet when i ask you, how God doesn't like hurting anything, you tell me God does and God is bad....
So explain you’re self?
As you are not explaining the Bible and i will if allowed try and maintain respect, unlike i hear from everyone else about something i see as very precious...both the holy books of the world and the life’s of our prophets...

Hold on, Tex! I never said "God is bad." I said that there are numerous Biblical examples of God "getting dirty" for the sake of humanity.

The people that God found to work for God were common people, all of whom believed in God. I didn't say that God only works through the righteous. I said that the Bible was written by believers for believers. And many, many believers are dirty people who know that they are acceptable to God, in spite of their warts.

Christ came to call sinners -- those who were outside the Law. Those who were unclean. He spent his time among those who were dirty. They were his apostles and disciples. He loved a prostitute. He ate with sinners. Those acts embody a great example of the gospel message: That we do not have to be "acceptable" of our own doing, because God has chosen to find the very least of us acceptable through Christ.

In what specific, lucid, and succinct way am I defying Christ here?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Fear not:

In the Baha'i view, God has revealed Himself and His teachings to humanity throughout time and will always continue to do so!

So we've received ample guidance (through what now constitutes all the great religions), and always will!

The key is thus very simple: responding positively to this!

Best,

Bruce

 

[Hope]

In Gen. 2, God "got dirty" in order to create humanity. In Phil. 2, God did not regard his divinity as a thing to be grasped, but "emptied himself" (becoming dirty) taking on human form. In the parable of the leaven, Christ says that the kingdom of God is like leaven which a woman hid in a lump of dough. Leaven was poisonous -- dirty. So God hides dirty humanity in the midst of divinity.

The whole of the new covenant is about reconciliation -- that we, even though by all accounts we be dirty and unacceptable, have been reconciled to God.

The Law served to make human beings holy. When Christ came, according to Galatians 5, the Law, to which we had been captive, was superceded by the faith of Christ. The good news is that, even though we cannot make ourselves acceptable through any effort of ours, we have been found acceptable through Christ.

God has allowed us into an intimate relationship with God, even though we are dirty. God approached us, became dirty for us, and God reconciled us to God's self, just as we are.

If God wants intimacy with us more than anything, and if God is sovereign, don't you think that God has already gotten God's way?

You are right....mostly. But what you fail to mention is why we are found acceptable through Christ. It's because He is the only human being to walk this planet unstained by sin. He is perfect, and it's only through His perfect sacrifice we are made clean. If even one speck of sin had found been found in Him, it would have disqualified Him. I don't believe when it says He emptied Himself that it means He became "dirty." At least not spiritually, which is what it sounds like you mean.

Certainly He became dirty in a literal sense. He took on human flesh, and lived in a human world, where getting dirty couldn't be avoided. But didn't Jesus Himself say that it isn't what goes in a man that defiles him, but what comes out? I'm not talking about literal dirt or germs here, I'm talking about the filth of sin. It's not what's on the outside that repulses God....it's what's on the inside. And the only way we can be reconciled to God, to attain that intimacy with Him, is through faith in His perfect, sinless Son. He was tempted in all things, yet without sin.

We are not reconciled to God "just as we are"----we are reconciled only by the blood of Jesus, which doesn't leave us the "way we are."

 

[Hope]

Christ came to call sinners -- those who were outside the Law. Those who were unclean. He spent his time among those who were dirty. They were his apostles and disciples. He loved a prostitute. He ate with sinners. Those acts embody a great example of the gospel message: That we do not have to be "acceptable" of our own doing, because God has chosen to find the very least of us acceptable through Christ.

Again, I agree. However, it's easy to misconstrue Christ's love for sinners as approval of or disregard for their sin. Such is not the case. What did he tell that prostitute that he saved from stoning? "From now on sin no more." He didn't just show her love and mercy and compassion. He also very succinctly let her know that her sin still needed to be dealt with.


But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Some go one way, stressing Christ's love and forgiveness to the point of forgetting about His holiness, and others go the opposite direction, becoming self-righteous, legalistic, and condemning like the Pharisees. Ironically, Jesus Christ is the only one who demonstrates the capability of not falling into either distorted camp. He associates with sinners, but doesn't sin Himself; He loves sinners, but hates sin; He shows mercy, but also demands repentance; He is perfect and righteous, but doesn't seclude Himself from those that aren't.

As He said, He came for the sick, the sinners. But He didn't just come to love the sinners, and leave them the way they were....like a doctor, He came to heal and restore. But the only way a doctor can do that, is if the sick person acknowledges his sickness, his need for the physician, and demonstrates a desire to do whatever necessary to get well.

 

[logician]

Why would an omnipotent being care a whit whether you believed in it or not?

 

[Hope]

Why would an omnipotent being care a whit whether you believed in it or not?

Because the very fact that an omnipotent being, who certainly doesn't need puny us to believe in Him, actually cares whether we do or not, shows He is worth believing in. An omnipotent being who doesn't care whether I believe in him is not worth my time of day. Apathy shows lack of love. Pretty evident.

 

[sojourner]

You are right....mostly. But what you fail to mention is why we are found acceptable through Christ. It's because He is the only human being to walk this planet unstained by sin. He is perfect, and it's only through His perfect sacrifice we are made clean. If even one speck of sin had found been found in Him, it would have disqualified Him. I don't believe when it says He emptied Himself that it means He became "dirty." At least not spiritually, which is what it sounds like you mean.

Certainly He became dirty in a literal sense. He took on human flesh, and lived in a human world, where getting dirty couldn't be avoided. But didn't Jesus Himself say that it isn't what goes in a man that defiles him, but what comes out? I'm not talking about literal dirt or germs here, I'm talking about the filth of sin. It's not what's on the outside that repulses God....it's what's on the inside. And the only way we can be reconciled to God, to attain that intimacy with Him, is through faith in His perfect, sinless Son. He was tempted in all things, yet without sin.

We are not reconciled to God "just as we are"----we are reconciled only by the blood of Jesus, which doesn't leave us the "way we are."

Unfortunately this statement only makes sense if one espouses the doctrine of substitutionary atonement ... which I do not.

This is why I stated that the Bible was written by believers for believers. It assumes that the reader already believes and is working on the problem of attaining or accepting one's own righteousness.

 

[sojourner]

Again, I agree. However, it's easy to misconstrue Christ's love for sinners as approval of or disregard for their sin. Such is not the case. What did he tell that prostitute that he saved from stoning? "From now on sin no more." He didn't just show her love and mercy and compassion. He also very succinctly let her know that her sin still needed to be dealt with.


But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Some go one way, stressing Christ's love and forgiveness to the point of forgetting about His holiness, and others go the opposite direction, becoming self-righteous, legalistic, and condemning like the Pharisees. Ironically, Jesus Christ is the only one who demonstrates the capability of not falling into either distorted camp. He associates with sinners, but doesn't sin Himself; He loves sinners, but hates sin; He shows mercy, but also demands repentance; He is perfect and righteous, but doesn't seclude Himself from those that aren't.

As He said, He came for the sick, the sinners. But He didn't just come to love the sinners, and leave them the way they were....like a doctor, He came to heal and restore. But the only way a doctor can do that, is if the sick person acknowledges his sickness, his need for the physician, and demonstrates a desire to do whatever necessary to get well.

The problem with your logic here is that, while Christ was able to be among sinners and remain sinless (because he was fully divine), we are not able to do that. Hence, the whole reason for the Incarnation, in order to reconcile us to God. What we need to do is accept our own divinity and act the part. And whenever we do sin, repent.

 

[Hope]

Unfortunately this statement only makes sense if one espouses the doctrine of substitutionary atonement ... which I do not.

This is why I stated that the Bible was written by believers for believers. It assumes that the reader already believes and is working on the problem of attaining or accepting one's own righteousness.

Well, it's no wonder we don't agree! Now I understand your position.

However, isn't substitutionary atonement the backbone of the Christian faith? I've never been taught any other gospel, nor read of any other in the Scriptures.

 

[Hope]

The problem with your logic here is that, while Christ was able to be among sinners and remain sinless (because he was fully divine), we are not able to do that. Hence, the whole reason for the Incarnation, in order to reconcile us to God. What we need to do is accept our own divinity and act the part. And whenever we do sin, repent.

My logic is quite intact, thank you.

I think perhaps, there is a misunderstanding on your part. Of course we are not able to be completely sinless like Christ. I never claimed this. This is where belief in a substitutionary atonement is key. I don't buy into the New Age version of Christianity that says we are "divine." It goes against everything in Scripture. We are certainly made in His image, but that doesn't equate with divinity. Apart from substitutionary atonement, however, one has to fall back on man's innate goodness and supposed divinity in order to explain reconciliation with God.

Here's the deal: when we put our faith in Christ, believing in His redemptive work on the cross, He then indwells us with His Spirit. It's His Spirit in us that propels us to flee from sin. Not our own strength. "Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, sayeth the Lord." However, when we do sin, the blood of Jesus cleanses us. And the only reason it cleanses us is because Christ's sacrifice was substitutionary. It makes no sense otherwise. God looks at us, and instead of seeing our sin, sees Christ. Because Christ dwells within us, in all His perfection and purity, God is able to accept us and reconcile us to Himself. He cannot accept us due to our own merit. His holiness won't allow Him to. As Paul said, "our righteousness is as filthy rags." Only the righteousness of Christ indwelling us makes us able to stand in the presence of God and have intimacy with Him. And the only way that is possible is through substitutionary atonement.

May I ask what you believe the point of Christ's sacrifice is, if you don't believe in substitutionary atonement? I'm genuinely curious here.

 

[wizanda]

My logic is quite intact, thank you.

I think perhaps, there is a misunderstanding on your part. Of course we are not able to be completely sinless like Christ. I never claimed this. This is where belief in a substitutionary atonement is key. I don't buy into the New Age version of Christianity that says we are "divine." It goes against everything in Scripture. We are certainly made in His image, but that doesn't equate with divinity. Apart from substitutionary atonement, however, one has to fall back on man's innate goodness and supposed divinity in order to explain reconciliation with God.

Here's the deal: when we put our faith in Christ, believing in His redemptive work on the cross, He then indwells us with His Spirit. It's His Spirit in us that propels us to flee from sin. Not our own strength. "Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, sayeth the Lord." However, when we do sin, the blood of Jesus cleanses us. And the only reason it cleanses us is because Christ's sacrifice was substitutionary. It makes no sense otherwise. God looks at us, and instead of seeing our sin, sees Christ. Because Christ dwells within us, in all His perfection and purity, God is able to accept us and reconcile us to Himself. He cannot accept us due to our own merit. His holiness won't allow Him to. As Paul said, "our righteousness is as filthy rags." Only the righteousness of Christ indwelling us makes us able to stand in the presence of God and have intimacy with Him. And the only way that is possible is through substitutionary atonement.

May I ask what you believe the point of Christ's sacrifice is, if you don't believe in substitutionary atonement? I'm genuinely curious here.

Mar 4:17
(17) And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

 

[sojourner]

Well, it's no wonder we don't agree! Now I understand your position.

However, isn't substitutionary atonement the backbone of the Christian faith? I've never been taught any other gospel, nor read of any other in the Scriptures.

No. The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is a Protestant doctrine. The Church existed for 1500 years without it, and has always continued in the East without it.

 

[sojourner]

My logic is quite intact, thank you.

I think perhaps, there is a misunderstanding on your part. Of course we are not able to be completely sinless like Christ. I never claimed this. This is where belief in a substitutionary atonement is key. I don't buy into the New Age version of Christianity that says we are "divine." It goes against everything in Scripture. We are certainly made in His image, but that doesn't equate with divinity. Apart from substitutionary atonement, however, one has to fall back on man's innate goodness and supposed divinity in order to explain reconciliation with God.

Here's the deal: when we put our faith in Christ, believing in His redemptive work on the cross, He then indwells us with His Spirit. It's His Spirit in us that propels us to flee from sin. Not our own strength. "Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, sayeth the Lord." However, when we do sin, the blood of Jesus cleanses us. And the only reason it cleanses us is because Christ's sacrifice was substitutionary. It makes no sense otherwise. God looks at us, and instead of seeing our sin, sees Christ. Because Christ dwells within us, in all His perfection and purity, God is able to accept us and reconcile us to Himself. He cannot accept us due to our own merit. His holiness won't allow Him to. As Paul said, "our righteousness is as filthy rags." Only the righteousness of Christ indwelling us makes us able to stand in the presence of God and have intimacy with Him. And the only way that is possible is through substitutionary atonement.

May I ask what you believe the point of Christ's sacrifice is, if you don't believe in substitutionary atonement? I'm genuinely curious here.

Humanity has been reconciled to God through the very Incarnation, that is, God becoming one of us. Since we are reconciled to God, we get to share in God's Divine nature. One does not have to "fall back on one's innate goodness" (although I believe that we are innately good -- God created us good) because God's work of redemption has already taken place. We were created good and God has reconciled us to God's self. God did the work of redemption for us and restored us to our true nature. That's the good news.

Here's the deal. When God "took on the form of a slave" in the incarnation, God reconciled humanity. The gulf that had heretorfore separated humanity from God was closed. Because God approached us and became one of us, that made us one with God. In that Christ event, God's righteousness overcame our sinfulness. That's the message of the cross -- that death, which is a consequence of sin (and the thing that makes us mortal), no longer has any power over us. That is, we are no longer defined by it. It has no meaning for us any longer. It has nothing to do with atonement. It has everthing to do with grace, which, based in love, is unconditional.

We are able to claim that reality for ourselves through our belief in Christ.

 

[Hope]

No. The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is a Protestant doctrine. The Church existed for 1500 years without it, and has always continued in the East without it.

And the Protestant doctrine is the one found in the Bible, and because I believe in the Bible, I prefer to believe the Protestant doctrine. If you can show me Scriptures that support your view, you might have an argument. Saying the teachings of the church (and you mean the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches only, apparently) are the valid basis for rejecting substitutionary atonement holds no water. It's backward reasoning. The church's beliefs should be based on the Word of God, not the other way around.

 

[sojourner]

And the Protestant doctrine is the one found in the Bible, and because I believe in the Bible, I prefer to believe the Protestant doctrine. If you can show me Scriptures that support your view, you might have an argument. Saying the teachings of the church (and you mean the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches only, apparently) are the valid basis for rejecting substitutionary atonement holds no water. It's backward reasoning. The church's beliefs should be based on the Word of God, not the other way around.

That's all well and good, but the Bible was written from the theological understanding of those who wrote it. In other words, the scriptures were based upon the beliefs of the writers. Since the Church existed before the Bible did, we can only conclude that the Bible arose out of the understanding of the Church.

There are many more Christians who would disagree that Protestant doctrine "is the one found in the Bible" than there are those who would agree with you.

 

[Hope]

That's all well and good, but the Bible was written from the theological understanding of those who wrote it. In other words, the scriptures were based upon the beliefs of the writers. Since the Church existed before the Bible did, we can only conclude that the Bible arose out of the understanding of the Church.

There are many more Christians who would disagree that Protestant doctrine "is the one found in the Bible" than there are those who would agree with you.

The church only existed before the New Testament. And the first Christians were actually Jews, who relied upon the Old Testament, which is still Scripture. So your statement is only half-way right. It was the very first Christians' knowledge of Scripture that opened up their eyes to Who Jesus really was, and what He had done for them. The Old Testament was a foreshadowing of Jesus, it prophesied Jesus, and they realized this. It's not a coincidence the Jews practiced substitutionary atonement in their sacrifice of animals. These sacrifices were but a foreshadowing of the perfect and ultimate substitutionary atonement of Christ.

So I think the very first Christians---some of whom then proceeded to write what we now call the New Testament----had the clearest understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore their writings are the most trustworthy. It wasn't until later that the teachings became distorted. So, no, still don't buy into your argument.

And it really doesn't matter to me how many professing Christians today share your opinion. Popularity does not equal validity. I don't buy into that argument either.

Peace...