 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Did Jesus Die To Grow You A New Leg | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 7:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Nonsense? It sounds a little bit like the early church martyrs.
I thought so too. Polycarp comes to mind. And old man urging those who would save his life (for its short time) from the opportunity to be a witness (martyr) for Christ.
quote:
of Polycarp
17:3 Him we adore as the Son of God; but the martyrs, as the disciples and imitators of the Lord, we love according to their deserts, on account of their incomparable love for their King and Teacher, with whom may it be our lot to be partners and fellow-disciples.
... transcribed by Gaius, from the manuscripts of Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who also was a fellow-citizen to Irenaeus.
www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Saints/polycarp.martyr.html
and
quote:
Polycarp was sentenced to be burned. As he waited for the fire to be lighted, he prayed:
Lord God Almighty, Father of your blessed and beloved
child Jesus Christ, through whom we have received knowledge of
you, God of angels and hosts and all creation, and of the whole
race of the upright who live in your presence: I bless you
that you have thought me worthy of this day and hour, to be
numbered among the martyrs and share in the cup of Christ, for
resurrection to eternal life, for soul and body in the
incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit. Among them may I be
accepted before you today, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice,
just as you, the faithful and true God, have prepared and
foreshown and brought about. For this reason and for all things
I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you, through the eternal
heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved child, through
whom be glory to you, with him and the Holy Spirit, now and for
the ages to come. Amen.
The fire was then lit and shortly thereafter a soldier stabbed Polycarp to death by order of the magistrate. His friends gave his remains honorable burial, and wrote an account of his death to other churches. See the Penguin volume, Ancient Christian Writers.
justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/108.html
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 7/27/2004 7:44 AM (GMT -6) | | .
Greetings, Brother:
Do you recall if the NPR program might have been "Speaking of Faith"?
I don't always catch it on the radio, but sometimes try to go back & find certain segments in the archives...
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
might-be-don wrote:
quote:
I heard this on an NPR segment on Sunday morning. I attend church with a missionary that worked in Kenya for a number of years so my ears picked up when I heard the Masai mentioned.
.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/27/2004 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Being a careful, critical reader, though, and not afraid to wonder, I'm grabbed by something that Iconoclast said. I know that Icon liked discussing Deitrich Bonhoeffer's "Ethics" book; yet also held to the "cheep grace" that Bonhoeffer preaches against in his "Cost of Discipleship." That appears to me contradictory.
But for now, I'd like to look hard at Icon's remarks just now:
quote:
"...we must move beyond the "milk" of our early understanding of Christ's death (Christianity) and begin to eat meat - to begin to really comprehend what is going on. ..."
That strikes me as perhaps revealing an underlying heresy.
Did Icon just say that the death and resurrection of Christ was a mere play act, or a fable? Did Icon say that God did not assume humanity and deify it in his flesh? Does Icon mean, when he says "our early understanding of Christ's death (Christianity)" that the suffering and death of Christ is immaturity, and will be replaced? When he says "really. . .going on" does he mean that the Cross is not what is really going on.
PoW
You raise some good questions POW. I hope Iconoclast can expound on what he meant.
1 Cor. 3:1-4 (NIV)
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
Quote from Matthew Henry:
The most simple truths of the gospel, as to man’s sinfulness and God’s mercy, repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, stated in the plainest language, suit the people better than deeper mysteries. Men may have much doctrinal knowledge, yet be mere beginners in the life of faith and experience. Contentions and quarrels about religion are sad evidences of carnality. True religion makes men peaceable, not contentious. But it is to be lamented, that many who should walk as Christians, live and act too much like other men. Many professors, and preachers also, show themselves to be yet carnal, by vain-glorious strife, eagerness for dispute, and readiness to despise and speak evil of others.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 7/27/2004 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | To All:
Are many of you cessationists? Meaning, the belief that the miraculous and the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased after the death of the original 12 Apostles.
I am definitely a believer that holds Jesus the same yesterday, today , and forever. He still moves on the hearts of men and heals spirit, soul, body, emotions...whatever we have that is diseased.
I cannot imagine a sincere searcher who reads a moderate amount and who visits and shares with an average number of Christians that still holds to cessationism. I do have a very good friend who is this way. I also had a pastor 20+ years back who had been to Cambodia. He wrote "Annointed For Burial". He saw the dead raised, the limbs deformed or missing miraculously reappear, knew of people walking on water...crossing rivers to get to ministry opportunities. I believe these are still God's doings and challenge anyone to read from some spirit-filled mission logs and still deny that the miracle of a missing leg or limb reforming. I also still hold that the greatest miracle is one I've personally experienced... the experience of Christ's saving Grace and Indwelling Spirit. My greatest hope is not things changing on earth, but mens hearts becoming sold-out to their Creator God.
Blessings All! | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/27/2004 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Brandon, like Matt. 21:37-39?
Well, while Iconoclast is at it? Here are some more objections to the penal substitutionary/Anselm view.
1. If a perfect being needed to "take upon himself" the sins of others, why couldn't God (god) just do it himself?
2. If Jesus, assuming the debt, has the right to forgive it, why doesn't the original debtholder? Why not just be efficient and cut out the middleman (which is, literally, what the "mediator" is)?
3. Why can this omnipotent deity forgive AFTER being crucified but not BEFORE?
4. How does Jesus' torture give an omnipotent God more power to forgive than he already had?
5. If Jesus "paid" a "ransom" for our sins, WHO DID HE PAY IT TO? Is it to the Devil, who owns our souls because we are imprisoned in sin (Satan has "kidnapped" our souls) -- would God pay off a ransom to a criminal? Or does Jesus pay this "ransom" to God -- the supreme judge of the eternal court? Does God extort the payment of ransoms like a common kidnapper? If Jesus is God, is he paying the ransom to himself?
6. Secondly, DID HE PAY the ransom? The Bible says "The wages of sin is death" [Romans 6:23]. The consequence of sin is HELL [Matt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; Mk 9:43, 47; Rev 20:14-15 and many more]. Did Jesus die? Well, he was killed on the cross. But, in that sense, ALL humans die -- so, if that is what pays the price of sin, we ALL pay for our sins, so why do we need a surrogate to pay it for us? Did he die in some other sense? Is he dead? No! The Christians tell us that HE LIVES! He is NOT DEAD, and he is NOT IN HELL -- he is at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD! He did NOT pay the price that we would have had to pay without his supposed sacrifice.
7. There is simply NO LOGICAL CONNECTION between an innocent man hanging painfully on an old wooden cross, and the eradication of evil thoughts, motives, or behavior from those who can only do so through a change of heart and attitude through the experience of kindness, love and compassionate joy.
8. Even the analogy of "paying the debt" is inappropriate. It would be more applicable to a civil debt, where as the commission of sin is more akin to a criminal violation. While we might appreciate that one person can pay the debt of another, we would not tolerate innocent people being punished for guilty ones. If a convicted serial murder/rapist plead guilty to multiple counts of murder and rape, would we allow his law-abiding mother to volunteer to step in and serve his prison time (or be executed) in his stead? Following that "satisfaction of justice," would we then tolerate allowing the murder/rapist to be turned back onto the streets?
It is in part due to these objections that some of the more liberal theologians say that the “true kernel” of the gospel is not a bloody sacrifice for the atonement of sin but rather “a consistent message of universal compassion – (which has) provided the means for overcoming sin.” However, if we believe in a trinity then I don't see that objection number 8 is really a problem.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Brandon, like Matt. 21:37-39?
Well, while Iconoclast is at it? Here are some more objections to the penal substitutionary/Anselm view.
Some more objections (from a friend):
quote:
For a "new" theory of atonement that is really a return to the original theory of atonement before Anselm invented the profoundly problematic substitution theory of vicarious atonement (i.e., Jesus as infinite payment to the Father of the infinite debt/offense), read the study "I See Satan Fall From the Heavens" by Rene Girard (French Reformed). Its theme is violence: fallen human history is an on-going self-destructive one of violence that the cross, death, and resurrection breaks -- AND THAT -- the Anselmian theory misunderstands in the true meaning of the cross in such a way as to turn the whole meaning of the violence of the cross inside out and make it and God a radical continuation of the violence rather than its break. This is one book of several from this author (Biblical scholar and anthropologist) and his school.
(re: Paul Tournier's book, "The Violence Within"
and
quote:
Anselm is rejected in the east. It never was the theory of atonment of the early Church nor of the eastern Church -- where it is seen as a theological monstrosity (a Frankish warlord theory). Christ did not pay alone. Christ and the Father paid. But not in the sense that there was a debt owed to anyone. Rather, to follow the original Greek the beetter translation is not payment (a western distortion) but cost. To rescue us from our self-destructive violence, God and Christ knew it was going to cost them the life of Christ at our murderous hands. They knew we were so violently self-destructive that we would murder our rescuer. We would commit deicide. But not even our act of violent deicide God would not allow to separate us from his love. The love that would not abandon us and that we killed was resurrected for no power under heaven and earth, not even our violent deicide, would separate God love from us. The Anselmian theory has been considered to be devilish idea to be pronounced heresy. It makes God as violent as we are. It makes a mockery of the idea of Image: in violence let us create them after our image and likeness (blood thirsty). NO! No one got "paid" even though God the Father and Christ paid dearly.
and
quote:
An earlier post referred to the so-called "wrath of the Lamb" and "wrath of the Father" in Revelations. Again, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective which is that of our original Greek (the West has a long history of forming its theology without being fluent in the original Greek that the East has always been), this is a mistranslation. The word in Greek is thymos. It occurs five times in the New Testament writings of St. Paul, once in Hebrews, twice in the Gospel according to Luke, and 10 times in Revelations. In general, thymos is the courageous power of the warrior and a part of the soul in Greek thought. It is also means to boil up and is a force that breaks bonds and obstacles. Thymos, even in Homer and Plato and the Bible, is the courage to overcome the fear of death. Thymos is means passion. The "passion of the Lamb" is how the Greek reads. Tou theou (so-called "wrath of God") is the "passion of God". If any of you know your early Church doctrinal history about the controversy of whether or not the "Father suffered"? Its scriptural basis was this expression in Revelations "tou theou" -- the "passion of God" (NOT "wrath of God") because everyone in the early Church read it as "passion of God" which is what the Greek means. Its the western mistranslations that screws up the west here. The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
and
quote:
Simple. The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness. Thus in the active form, orgizo means God's actions/interventions makes people angry as does the noun form parorgisma (provocation to anger). Thus, God's protection of Israel from other nations fills them with vexation (orge) as does God's commitment to justice fills an astray Israel with vexation (ogre). In Genesis, God allows fallen humanity to have its way (give them enough rope to hang themselves) which vexes humanity (ogre). The Holiness of God vexes (ogre) unjust sinners. Thus, the justice of God (dikaiokrisis) has the effect of ogre on humans. Ogre is the effect on sinners of God's dikaiokr!
isis and ekdikesis (Lk, 21:22 and Rom. 2:5). Again, thymos = passion; ogre, orgizo, parorgizo, and parorgisma (provoked to anger and vexation -- royally "pissed off" following the Hebrew word "to pee in another's well") is the effect God has on others. Thus the numerous genitive constructions orge tou thymou (the vexation/anger provoked by God's passion) or orge thymoutai (the angry effect of God's passion). Thus, the justice, love, and holiness of God's passion is "vexful" for Israel (Mt: 3:7; Lk 21:23) and all sinners (Eph. 2:3), the rich and powerful (Rev. 6:15), and His salvation, symbolized by the Cup, "stupefies" (Rev. 14:8); ogre is the "feedback" of attempting to block or oppose God or despising God's love/justice.
and
quote:
Its a shame that the shift in metaphors resulting from the Latin translation of the Bible and its subsequent descendents distorts meaning. For example, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek sense of justice is medical in metaphorical connotation. The organic integrity and harmony of the healthy body is the meaning of the concept of justice in the Hebrew and Greek; the Latin (and descendents) conveys the Roman legalistic sense of justice being law and payback. Now to "foreknowledge"; the original Greek is "prognosis". Based on His diagnosis, God's prognosis of the human condition is ....
All that from a friend, and not from me.
WELL, THAT IS SLOPPY. BUT THERE'S SOME GOOD STUFF THERE! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | 
from: THE THIRD SUNDAY IN LENT
THE ADORATION OF THE PRECIOUS AND LIFE-GIVING CROSS
ON SATURDAY EVENING at GREAT VESPERS
quote:
Shine, Cross of the Lord, with the bright darting rays of your grace on the hearts of those who honour you, and with love inspired by God, embrace you, O desire of all the world. Through you our tears of sorrow have been wiped away; we have been delivered from the snares of death and have passed over to unending joy. Show us the splendour of your beauty, granting to us your servants the reward of our abstinence, for we entreat with faith your rich protection and great mercy.
Hail, life-giving Cross! the fair Paradise of the Church, Tree of incorruption that blossoms for us with the enjoyment of eternal glory. Through you the hosts of demons are driven back, the companies of the Angels rejoice with one accord and the congregations of the faithful keep the feast. You are an invincible weapon, an unbroken stronghold; you are the victory of kings and the glory of priests. Grant us also now to draw near to the Passion of Christ and to His Resurrection.
Hail, life-giving Cross! unconquerable trophy of the true faith, door to Paradise, succour of the faithful, rampart set about the Church. Through you the curse has utterly destroyed, the power of death swallowed up, and we are raised from earth to heaven: invincible weapon, adversary of demons, glory of martyrs, true ornament of holy monks, haven of salvation bestowing on the world great mercy.
Come, first-fashioned pair, who fell from the choir on high through the envy of the murderer of humankind, through the bitter pleasure of tasting from the tree. See, the Tree, revered by all, draws near! Run with haste and embrace it joyfully, and cry to it with faith: O all-honoured Cross, you are our succour; partaking of your fruits we have gained incorruption; we are restored once more to Eden, and we have received great mercy.
quote:
O Christ our God, of your own will you accepted Crucifixion, for the common restoration of humankind. Taking the reed pen of the Cross, out of love for humankind, in the red ink of royalty with bloody fingers you signed our absolution. Do not forsake us, who are in danger once again of being parted from you. Take pity on your people in distress, for you alone are longsuffering. Rise up and fight against our enemies, as you are all- powerful.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2004 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: I have no idea why you say this but it certainly does not reflect my view.
POW: Glad to hear it. Posting the standards I'd judge by helped I think. And it provided a focus for further discussion.
It appeared that you were saying that the suffering and crucifixion of Christ was immature religion, to be replaced. The second day it didn't seem that way; but something in the various themes you were raising in the same paragraph paralleled that concept, reenforcing what I thought you meant.
I'm glad that you could set me straight!
PoW
P.S., What really got me wondering, Iconoclast, is how you said: "And thus God offers us this understanding to us. But it is no different than explaining to a child what the moon is or what gravity is. We do not expect the child to continue in their childlike understanding as they grow up - we expect them move beyond their early understanding. This is why Paul says that we must move beyond the "milk" of our early understanding of Christ's death (Christianity) and begin to eat meat - to begin to really comprehend what is going on." When you said that God offered an 'understanding' and an 'explanation' it just seems that your attention is on a kind of object lesson and not something really salvific. Your following paragraph says: "God seeks to break through this by first..." And that doesn't reassure me either. BUT, to say "beyond the 'milk' of our early understanding of Christ's death (Christianity) and begin to eat meat" if that 'early' understanding is unbiblical is good.
I keep the emphasis on the CROSS and what Christ actually did. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/27/2004 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | might-be-don
While you offer Paul's milk as a way of pointing to our lack of understanding about the "real" issue, can you point to Old Testament stories that shadow this understanding? The sacrifice language is quite pervasive, are we really that bad off? ( stupid question, huh )
Iconoclast
Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the first “sacrifice” we see in the Bible. It is the offering of Cain and the offering of Abel.
Genesis 4:1-7
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
It seems clear from the story that this offering has nothing to do with appeasing an angry God because of sin. In fact, sin came about because Cain’s offering was not respected by God and this invited Cain to become angry and jealous. It was out of this anger and jealousy that Cain then sinned.
But why didn’t God respect Cain’s offering? Isn’t is obviously because Cain was not giving out of a heart full of love for His creator. Isn’t it because Abel knew God’s love and reciprocated it but Cain did not know God’s love and did not reciprocate it – but rather sought to “buy” his favor by trying to be “good” enough?
In my view, it is the very presupposition that we need to make an offering, a sacrifice in order to appease an angry God or gain His favor that is the genesis of sin. Isn’t this what the story means?
Don, how about throwing back some verses that seem to contradict this view and then perhaps we can try to interpret them through each lens (the legal view and the love view) to see what they look like – to see which are more consistent with God dying on the cross for us.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/27/2004 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Were the early church martyrs acting out of a sense of justice or out of love? Were they operating out of the legal view or the love view?
Is it justice for God to allow us to torture and murder Himself? Or is it unfathomable love?
LOVE, LOVE and LOVE.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/27/2004 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast, what does the following verse mean to you?
1 Cor. 2:15 (NIV)
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
Peace,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 7/27/2004 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Originally posted by Iconoclast
quote:
Were the early church martyrs acting out of a sense of justice or out of love? Were they operating out of the legal view or the love view?
Is it justice for God to allow us to torture and murder Himself? Or is it unfathomable love?
.
sparknheart responded:
quote:
.
LOVE, LOVE and LOVE.
.
I could not agree with you more.
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 7/28/2004 3:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by IconoclastWell, the first thing that comes to mind is the first “sacrifice” we see in the Bible. It is the offering of Cain and the offering of Abel.
Interesting that you would pull out Cain and Abel, I have been considering them for a few days now.
It's interesting that I could find no reference that Adam, therefore teaching his sons, was asked, required, or even hinted at that a offering was needed. On the surface it seems something we dreamed up.
Here's my head for the block...
The picture in my mind of producing a required sacrifice for a god has always been a Tarzan movie. You see the natives bowing down, then raising their hands before an idol of their own making. The thing that has disturbed me about this is that I find little to no difference in this idol worship and what I see in churches today. We seem to still look to a god that will give us good crops and plentiful rain. We may call it graditude today, but we are only thankful that lightning hasn't struck us dead.
I will look up some verses to consider and call on others to supply some we could consider. Like our old buddy Mephi2K did back in the beginning of his journey on this board, I want to be able to understand this view that has been so different from the one I grew up with.
peace, don
"Life is a gift from God, but the years have weight in them."
Terry Scott Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/28/2004 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast, I believe you will understand what I am going to write. Over the past few years, since you and Semeia began your series on the knowledge of good and evil, my eyes have been opened more to the world around me. I have stepped outside of the religious matrix. I have prayed that God would reveal truth to me because I can get so confused. On the one hand I hear what the "traditional" church teaches about sin and on the other hand I listened to and read Dr. Boyd's series on Repenting of Religion. I have cried out to God "What is TRUE"
Now I am working with people who are in dire situations. I work along side and with Buddhists, homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, Catholics, and Christians. I have come to love all of these people and have come to accept them for who THEY are not for what they do or believe. I have friends who are divorced and remarried, friends who are living with another person, friends who are gay, and friends who have a different world view from my own. The thing I have come to believe is that if I a mere mortal can love and accept these folks right where they are at without trying to shove MY beliefs on them than how much more the Lord must do this.
Christ died for EVERY sin. We ALL sin and might I say everyday. If I am consistent with what I read in the bible I find that divorce and remarriage is often times a sin, gluttony is a sin, gossip is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, lying is a sin, not loving my neighbor is a sin. Actually, I believe Jesus spent the most time addressing that last one -- not loving our neighbor. I believe this is indeed the reason Jesus came and died -- to love us and walk among us and die for us.
I have been thinking about the reason for a sacrifice in the Old and New Testaments and I think you're on. God required a sacrifice in order to speak to us on our level. Now we have grace because the ultimate sacrifice has been made. God no longer wants our sacrifice for our sins, God wants us just as we are. If God loves us just as we are, right where we are at then in order to follow through with what Jesus taught and spent the majority of time hitting on shouldn't we all spend our time loving our neighbor right where they are at? Seems logical to me.
Thank you for offering this idea of the legal view verses the love view. It is once again thought provoking! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2004 5:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
I have been thinking about the reason for a sacrifice in the Old and New Testaments and I think you're on. God required a sacrifice in order to speak to us on our level. Now we have grace because the ultimate sacrifice has been made. God no longer wants our sacrifice for our sins, God wants us just as we are. If God loves us just as we are, right where we are at then in order to follow through with what Jesus taught and spent the majority of time hitting on shouldn't we all spend our time loving our neighbor right where they are at? Seems logical to me.
Quest, I agree with much of what you wrote. But I also believe that it is WE who needed the "sacrifice", or rather the "offering" of Christ's death and resurrection. A question asked of that offering is "who or what was it to?" and men have given many different answers.
What is your understanding of this?
Sincerely, PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/28/2004 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | POW, through what Iconoclast posted my understanding of a sacrifice has changed (thank goodness!) I never could comprehend why it was that the Old Testament is full of sacrifices.
In my understanding the Old Testament sacrifice is similar to the act that Catholics participate in after confession -- they pay for their sin in order to be made right with God. God needed a way to communicate with people and ease their guilt so he offered them the opportunity to pay for their sin -- atonement through a ritual sacrifice.
Jesus came to demonstrate God's unending love and grace. Jesus told the sinner their sin was forgiven and required nothing more of them in repayment that sin. God forgives us when we ask and forgets our sin forever. The sacrifice is about love and relationship. Jesus died to communicate to us the depth and height and lenth of his love for us by stretching out his arms and saying out loud "Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing."
POW, this is my understanding. Help me understand yours. Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
| 166 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|