 |
| 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
|
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/29/2004 11:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Wrath = Passion, very interesting POW. Is this similar to Christ’s passion, does God suffer as a result of our sin? Is it, this is going to hurt me more then you, type of punishment.
Spark, please READ what was quoted. It did not say that we should take our word "wrath" and equate that with "passion". What it DID say was that we should take the greek word that WRONGLY GOT TRANSLATED AS THE LATIN EQUIVALENT OF "WRATH" and accept what it meant in the original Greek. OK? And THAT definition, that it always had and the Greek speaking part of the Church always read it to say says "zeal/passion."
quote:
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.
Sorry POW, it is not clear to my finite mind. The original quote also said that the “Father suffered” the “passion of God”. So what exactly does God’s wrath translate to? I highlighted three different definitions that were quoted. If it is to mean suffer, then I was right when I said "this is going to hurt me more then it's going to hurt you" type of punishment. Regardless, how did such important doctrine get so whacked?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi QFT,
I certainly don't deny that Christians retain the ability to sin. However, the verses I posted seem to directly contradict the commonly held Christian dogma/mantra that "we all HAVE to sin daily, in word, thought, and deed."
I also agree that all sin consists in not loving as we ought. If we steal, we obviously do not love our neighbor whom we steal from. If we lie, we obviously do not love our neighbor whom we lie to.
If we are not merciful, we will not receive mercy, according to Jesus. Yes, being merciful is part of being truly loving as God is loving.
My understanding is that sin is almost always a voluntary transgression of a known law. The only possible exception would be sins committed in ignorance, as Leviticus 4 & 5 discuss. This particular class of sin is to be repented of as soon as one is aware of it, and is atoned for in the same manner as all other sins, according to Lev. 4 & 5.
It is not clear to me how one can affirm that everyone ought to do something that they simply cannot do, or that God condemns man for that which is unavoidable.
I certainly agree that "we love Him because he first loved us," and that "the love of God has been poured out abundantly in our hearts" by the grace we have received.
Sincerely,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/29/2004 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
quote:
Not that things stay the same on the surface over time. But the "ortho-doxy" (right worship) is an unfolding of what is there all the time; not a "change" or "development" as the RCC has sometimes done. "They" (the Orthodox) "say" this is true; and after all the research I've done I'd say they are telling the truth.
POW, can you say develop this a little more? I've always thought that development and the "unfolding" were the same.
I'm just expressing things badly. I had in mind how the RCC ADDS new theology,like the Immaculate Conception, etc., and the EO does not. That's what I meant to say. Fini. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/29/2004 1:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlakequote:
While our opinons of which is true may be interesting, the only opinion that matters is that of God and He has expressed this in the scriptures.
I agree and sin is when we live and act without God's love flowing through us. "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, and spirit. Love your neighbor as yourself." This is the great commandment.
John Earp quote:
It is not clear to me how one can affirm that everyone ought to do something that they simply cannot do, or that God condemns man for that which is unavoidable.
I certainly agree that "we love Him because he first loved us," and that "the love of God has been poured out abundantly in our hearts" by the grace we have received
Amen! We stand in agreement.
This thread has had me thinking a bit more about the ministry of Jesus and I have to say that I fall even more in love with Jesus when I contemplate on his ministry. He hung out with the outcast. He didn't expect more from a person than they were able to give. He loved and taught about love. JESUS CAME TO SET THE CAPTIVE FREE! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/29/2004 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
PoW,
If all sins are already forgiven, then how is universalism not true?
Cute question. I don't think THAT (Not my words, and I'm going to refrain from posting any of my own, in the face of people trying to pick them apart--not fun!) quote meant to say that everyone is saved automatically. I think it would be rediculous to suggest that it did. So.....
But the notion of universalism as a painful process after judgement -- not a purgatory! -- is "around" -- as in St. Isaac the Syrian.
But that Christ ACCOMPLISHED IN HIS FLESH all that is necessary (Ooops--my own words!) and therefore AVAILABLE (Well said I think) for our salvation, which puts the ball in our lap ("Behold i stand at the door and knock!")....I think that THAT is true.
I'm going to refrain from anything political, though: no Calvinist/Arminian fights, nor Augustine/Pelagius.
I'm done. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/29/2004 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
PoW,
If all sins are already forgiven, then how is universalism not true?
If love must be chosen then even if God totally forgives someone they may still not choose to forgive Him back.
I believe that God totally and unconditionally forgives all people and always has. He is always willing to accept someone no matter what they have done. This is the meaning of the prodigal son.
Being "saved" is not the state of God forgiving us. It is the state of us forgiving God, which means nothing but choosing to no longer live out of our own knowledge of good and evil, which means nothing but choosing to love God and therefore love ourselves and one another.
God paid the price that our judgment of Him calls out for. It is not that God required this price - it is that we require this price - and God loves us so much He was willing to pay it - the ultimate price He could possibly pay - in order that our blood lust which comes from our judgment would be satisfied and therefore seen to be what it is - unjust, unmerciful, unloving.
Unfortunately, some folks don't even accept this price. They don't want to simply be loved by God and to love Him back. They want to be a god themselves - they want to kill God so that they can reign supreme. This is what the knowledge of good and evil does to 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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
PoW,
If all sins are already forgiven, then how is universalism not true?
If love must be chosen then even if God totally forgives someone they may still not choose to forgive Him back.
I believe that God totally and unconditionally forgives all people and always has. He is always willing to accept someone no matter what they have done. This is the meaning of the prodigal son.
Speaking from the so-called "legal view" (which is really just the scriptural view), we find that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness," and "He that covers his sins shall not prosper, but he that confesses and forsakes them finds mercy" (Prov. 28:19)
Obviously, the prodigal son would never have been reconciled to his father had he not said within himself, "I will arise and go to my father."
The universalist and the antinomian both err in asserting (without any scriptural or logical support) that God's forgiveness has no conditions attached to it. The Scriptures reveal plainly that we are not forgiven until we ask. The universalist and the antinomian position both miss or ignore the fact that the atonement has both an objective and a subjective element, and both must be kept in proper balance.
If what the antinomian and the universalist claim is true, then Jesus did not tell the truth when he said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit "hath never forgiveness" and are "guilty of an eternal sin."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/29/2004 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Unfortunately, some folks don't even accept this price. They don't want to simply be loved by God and to love Him back. They want to be a god themselves - they want to kill God so that they can reign supreme. This is what the knowledge of good and evil does to us.
Iconoclast, yes, you are right in saying the simple truth of love can be too hard for people to accept. Sometimes people reject God's love because they are unable to feel worthy of being loved -- they judge themselves with no mercy. Sometimes people reject God's love because they have such a warped construction of what God's love is -- they have been deceived by the standards of the world (the knowledge of good and evil). Sometimes people reject God's love because they have hardened their hearts -- usually due to not feeling they can measure up to what they believe to be God's expectations... The interesting theme I find is that it is the person rejecting God and NOT God rejecting the person and this appears to be the result of the person not understanding that God's love is so easy to embrace. This was the case in the garden, wasn't it? This is making more and more sense. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/29/2004 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If what the antinomian and the universalist claim is true, then Jesus did not tell the truth when he said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit "hath never forgiveness" and are "guilty of an eternal sin."
John, I have an honest question which I have often wondered.... Do you believe that possibly the unforgivable sin "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" is one in which happens at the time of death? What I am asking is that I cannot understand why God would keep a person alive if they are definitely damned to hell. I have to believe that God gives people EVERY possible breath of life to accept his gift of love. I wonder if a person can stand at their death, face Christ, and still say "No." Could this be what is meant by "blaspheming the Holy Spirit"? I am serious. I cannot reconcile that God gives up on a person while they are still living on this earth. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 6:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
quote:
If what the antinomian and the universalist claim is true, then Jesus did not tell the truth when he said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit "hath never forgiveness" and are "guilty of an eternal sin."
John, I have an honest question which I have often wondered.... Do you believe that possibly the unforgivable sin "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" is one in which happens at the time of death? What I am asking is that I cannot understand why God would keep a person alive if they are definitely damned to hell. I have to believe that God gives people EVERY possible breath of life to accept his gift of love. I wonder if a person can stand at their death, face Christ, and still say "No." Could this be what is meant by "blaspheming the Holy Spirit"? I am serious. I cannot reconcile that God gives up on a person while they are still living on this earth.
Romans chapter one reveals plainly that God does in fact give up on people who willfully reject Him. At least three times in that sobering chapter, Paul says, "For this reason God gave them up..." or "God gave them over to a depraved mind..."
God gives everyone what they most want. Tragically, for most people, because they do "not like to retain the knowledge of God in their minds," and "suppress the truth in unrighteousness," this means they get what they want, too--separation from God.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 7/29/2004 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | might-be-don
Here's one courtesy of John E.
1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
What is meant in this context by "atoning sacrifice" ?
Iconoclast
atone, atoned, atoning, atones
1. To make amends, as for a sin or fault: These crimes must be atoned for.
2. Archaic. To agree.
v. tr.
1. To expiate.
2. Archaic. To conciliate; appease: “So heaven, atoned, shall dying Greece restore” (Alexander Pope).
3. Obsolete. To reconcile or harmonize.
sacrifice
1.
a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.
b. A victim offered in this way.
2.
a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
b. Something so forfeited.
The legal view would say that “atoning sacrifice” would mean #1 (To make amends, as for a sin or fault) and #1 a and b (The act of offering something to a deity in propiation or homage … A victim offered in this way)
The love view would say that “atoning sacrifice” would mean #3 (To reconcile or harmonize) and #2 (Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim) – That is: God reconciles and harmonized Himself to us by forfeiting His own life for us – which means that He is showing us how valued we are to Him – we are so valued to Him that He would lay down His life for us.
Which view looks more like Jesus dying on the cross for us?
Also, notice the language of this passage. John starts out saying, “My little children.” He is not addressing giants in the faith. He is addressing people who are really concerned about their own sin and whether they will be acceptable to God. Like a child to his or her parent. He is encouraging them not to sin and if they do that it will be okay – just get up and try again. This is like a parent speaking to their toddler who is learning to walk.
Again, notice that what John is concerned about is letting these folks know that they are okay with God. God is on their side because they have a powerful advocate – a righteous advocate. It is our sin that separates us from God – not the fact that we sinned but our consciousness, our belief that because of our sin we are now unacceptable to God. We feel shame just like Adam in the Garden and like Adam we hide and blame and everything else we do. First things first, we need to know that we are forgiven, that we can stand before God even though we do sin.
As a bit of evidence for this remember Paul saying that if someone believes that something is sin then it IS sin for them even though it is NOT sin for someone else. Why, why, why would he say this? How can this possibly be true if sin is an objective factual act? But if sin is that which causes us to feel unacceptable to God which is nothing but our own judgment of ourselves then clearly it is not the thing itself but whether we are acting out of judgment or acting out of love. To believe that a sin we commit can separate us from the love of God is to judge ourselves as unworthy of His love which is to judge God as not really being unconditionally loving but really simply loving our behavior rather than ourselves. Either way, we are now acting out of judgment and not love, and that's when all the bad stuff start to happen...
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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | One of the major problems with the whole "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" argument Iconoclast and Doc put forward is, besides being an (unwarranted and unreasonable) allegorical interpretation of Scripture is that it directly contradicts many, many NEW TESTAMENT passages which clearly and plainly state that knowledge of good and evil is something we SHOULD seek for, such as:
Heb. 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
2 Cor. 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Phillipians 1:9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
Certainly SOME knowledge CAN lead to sin, but just as certainly not ALL knowledge is bad.
What is really amazing to me is that those who advance this antinomian theory themselves use knowledge of Scripture, Reason, and Experience to express their point of view. One has to wonder why they don't just always speak in unknown tongues instead of English, if "knowledge" is by definition a bad thing.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
What was the "problem" that Jesus died to solve?
If one believes that the problem was "sin," this leads one direction.
If one belives that the problem is "lack of love" and especially a "lack of love for ourselves," then this leads in another very different direction.
While our opinons of which is true may be interesting, the only opinion that matters is that of God and He has expressed this in the scriptures.
It seems to me that scripture is quite clear that these are one and the same thing. Jesus said quite plainly that if one loves God and their neighbor then they fulfill the law and the prophets. Paul says that ANYTHING that is not done out of love is sin.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Finally, something sensible, righteous, scriptural, and that I can agree with from Iconoclast! 
How "legal" of you, Ike.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/29/2004 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
What is really amazing to me is that those who advance this antinomian theory themselves use knowledge of Scripture, Reason, and Experience to express their point of view. One has to wonder why they don't just always speak in unknown tongues instead of English, if "knowledge" is by definition a bad thing.
I thought iconoclast communicated that the so called “bad thing” was our judgment not knowledge. Here is my take on it:
In our natural state we want to determine, based on our own knowledge, what is good or evil. It's been said that the worst enemy of the best is the good. Man has substituted his own opinion in place of God's judgment of what is good or evil. In our natural state, we always interpret God's opinion of us based on what we do, and we base our opinions of others on what we think is right or wrong, rather than submitting everything to God's sovereign judgment.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/29/2004 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
One of the major problems with the whole "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" argument Iconoclast and Doc put forward is, besides being an (unwarranted and unreasonable) allegorical interpretation of Scripture is that it directly contradicts many, many NEW TESTAMENT passages which clearly and plainly state that knowledge of good and evil is something we SHOULD seek for, such as:
I do not understand why you write one of the major problems with the "tree of life..." argument. I am struggling to understand how you find it as unwarranted and unreasonable. The whole ministry and life of Jesus was one spent teaching people to live out of a heart of love instead of living from the knowledge of good and evil. Jesus was passionate about demonstrating love to people but I do not find Jesus being passionate about preaching the law. In fact I find that many of the parables are addressing those who are living out of the knowledge of good and evil instead of acting with love.
In the story of the 'Good Samaritan' Jesus was demonstrating how the two religious leaders were concerned with the law and missed the point of love while the Samaritan acted out of love for his brother. In the story of the 'Prodigal Son' Jesus was demonstrating how the father openly loved and embraced his son when his son was ready to go home. I find Jesus actions and teachings here on earth immersed in love. John, I am struggling to understand why you wrote that Iconoclast and Dr. Boyd's view is unwarranted and unreasonable. Would you please expand. Thank you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
What is really amazing to me is that those who advance this antinomian theory themselves use knowledge of Scripture, Reason, and Experience to express their point of view. One has to wonder why they don't just always speak in unknown tongues instead of English, if "knowledge" is by definition a bad thing.
I thought iconoclast communicated that the so called “bad thing” was our judgment not knowledge. Here is my take on it:
In our natural state we want to determine, based on our own knowledge, what is good or evil. It's been said that the worst enemy of the best is the good. Man has substituted his own opinion in place of God's judgment of what is good or evil. In our natural state, we always interpret God's opinion of us based on what we do, and we base our opinions of others on what we think is right or wrong, rather than submitting everything to God's sovereign judgment.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comments. It is certainly possible (though I sincerely doubt it) that I have misunderstood Icon's meaning. In saying that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is by definition wrong, he is in fact making a judgment about right and wrong, is he not?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
quote:
One of the major problems with the whole "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" argument Iconoclast and Doc put forward is, besides being an (unwarranted and unreasonable) allegorical interpretation of Scripture is that it directly contradicts many, many NEW TESTAMENT passages which clearly and plainly state that knowledge of good and evil is something we SHOULD seek for, such as:
I do not understand why you write one of the major problems with the "tree of life..." argument. I am struggling to understand how you find it as unwarranted and unreasonable. The whole ministry and life of Jesus was one spent teaching people to live out of a heart of love instead of living from the knowledge of good and evil.
I am unaware of any place where the Lord Jesus ever spoke of the tree in question. Do you know where I might find where He did?
quote:
Jesus was passionate about demonstrating love to people but I do not find Jesus being passionate about preaching the law.
In His magnum opus, the Sermon on the Mount, Christ makes it quite clear that he did not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it, and that anyone who taught others to break even the least of the commandments would be least in the kingdom of heaven. Further, Jesus said quite plainly that he would tell those who practice lawlessness, "depart from Me, I never knew you."
quote:
In fact I find that many of the parables are addressing those who are living out of the knowledge of good and evil instead of acting with love.
Again, I am unaware of any passage in the Gospels in which Christ addressed this issue, much less where He created a dichotomy between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The only ones I have ever heard propose this (false) dichotomy are Bonhoeffer (d.1945) and Rick Joyner, both of whom seemed to me to be attempting (like Boyd and Icon) to read an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis account into the New Testament. One has to wonder where such a rationale comes from. Besides Bonhoeffer and Rick Joyner, I honestly haven't a clue as to the origin of Boyd's thesis on this.
quote:
In the story of the 'Good Samaritan' Jesus was demonstrating how the two religious leaders were concerned with the law and missed the point of love while the Samaritan acted out of love for his brother. In the story of the 'Prodigal Son' Jesus was demonstrating how the father openly loved and embraced his son when his son was ready to go home. I find Jesus actions and teachings here on earth immersed in love.
Certainly. But that by no means obviates our own moral responsibility. The religious leaders who did not act according to love in fact were violating the very spirit of the law--love thy neighbor as thyself.
In the Prodigal Son story, the father certainly was anxious to be reconciled with his son, but it is noteworthy that the father in the story did not try to keep the son from leaving in the first place, and did not chase after him after he left, either. It was only when the son had repented (turned back) to his father that reconciliation was truly possible.
quote:
John, I am struggling to understand why you wrote that Iconoclast and Dr. Boyd's view is unwarranted and unreasonable. Would you please expand. Thank you.
Basically, in the past on this board the claim has been trumpeted loud and long, by Iconoclast and others, that it the Christian church should not say homosexuality is sinful, for to point out sin in another would be, in their words, "sinful."
However, Paul, in speaking of pastoral duties, said plainly to Timothy, "exhort, reprove, and rebuke, with all patience and teaching." Virtually every time I have pointed this out to Icon and Greg, I have been assailed by a volley of, ironically, quite judgmental posts against me, questioning the motives of MY heart, mocking me by saying I must be a pretty busy guy, trying to point the sins of everyone else, and finally, with perhaps the ultimate trump post: "You mean you DON'T sin?!?!?" Which really is beside the point, isn't it? My obedience or lack thereof by no means absolves anyone else of their obligation to do right.
In light of the foregoing facts, I have only been able to conclude (quite against what I would have LIKED to conclude), that those who promote this dichotomy are in fact nothing more than antinomian in their approach to Christian ethics. (Indeed, they say things like, "there is no Christian ethic," parroting Bonhoeffer's gaffes).
One is only left to wonder at the nonsense that LOVE is not an ethic (standard of right and wrong). Indeed, as Christ himself said, it is the greatest commandment of all, which if one keeps it, Paul said one had "fulfilled the law." The only responses they usually give with regard to my scriptural and logical objections are emotional arguments, which are really beside the point.
Anyway, enough ranting for now. I must get some sleep. I will no doubt be banned after this post anyway.
Blessings to all who truly love the Lord Jesus,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/30/2004 2:25 AM (GMT -6) | | John, thank you so much for your reply -- I doubt you will be banned for speaking your mind since that is what we are encouraged to do.
You said "Blessings to all who truly love the Lord Jesus" I find that as I stop trying and just being with God that I am filled with more of
his love for me and am able to love other people. I find that as I let go of my need to judge other people I actually am free to love others without putting expectations on that love. In a nutshell, I find that as I live how Dr. Boyd wrote in his book Repenting of Religion] I am free. Therefore, as much as I understand what you wrote, I also find that Iconoclast and others are on to something in their argument for the knowledge of good and evil. I do not find their arguments unwarranted nor unreasonable. I actually find them life giving.
The bottom line, John, is that as we allow God's love into our lives,
and open our minds and hearts to accepting God's love and mercy, then we will be free from the bondage sin once held. As we experience this love and give it away we will find that we are being transformed and will refrain from judging others because we love them right where they are at and trust that the Holy Spirit will work in them. We are to pray for everyone but not to judge just as God accepts us right where we are at. I so love the fact that Jesus hung out with the "losers" of his day because I would have been one of them. Jesus accepted people where they were at and offered them love. Sometimes people feel so judged by the world that they NEED to know that Jesus loves and accepts them just as they are. The knowledge of good and evil robs many of this truth. That is why I stand in agreement with Iconoclast, Dr Boyd, and others who promote LOVE.
Thank you, John. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/30/2004 2:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/30/2004 3:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
I find that as I let go of my need to judge other people I actually am free to love others without putting expectations on that love. In a nutshell, I find that as I live how Dr. Boyd wrote in his book Repenting of Religion] I am free. Therefore, as much as I understand what you wrote, I also find that Iconoclast and others are on to something in their argument for the knowledge of good and evil. I do not find their arguments unwarranted nor unreasonable. I actually find them life giving.
I find them manifestly one-sided and ultimately unscriptural. The standard is not, "How does this teaching make me FEEL?" But rather, "How does this teaching compare to the Word of God?" Boyd and Icon have constructed a lopsided, lovey-dovey, "feel-good" religion, all the while saying anyone else who doesn't see it their way are "stuck in the legal view," and are thus somehow "unloving" (according to their definition of what "loving" is) which is a stunningly ironic means of betraying their own judgmentalism towards others who hold to what they call "the legal view." (Which is really nothing more than the scriptural view).
Further, their approach blurs the self-evidently clear scriptural distinction between discernment and condemnation. To my understanding, "Judge not" falls under the category of "condemnation," while "discernment" is that which all the NT writers expressly command believers to exercise.
Further, the implication that those who emphasize righteous living are by definition not being loving is simply false, and amounts to nothing more than an avoidance of the real issues and a thinly veiled and quite ironic form of judgmentalism on their part towards those they consider "judgers."
I agree (with Scripture) that the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Sin is anything that is not motivated by unselfish love. This God-kind of love is only possible by the Holy Spirit being poured out in our hearts (as in Romans 5). So it is simply not true that those of us who seek to obey ALL of the New Covenant commands are somehow "not loving," as Icon's view would want us to think.
Yes, Jesus was the friend of sinners, and so should we be. I fail to see how that requires us to cast off any and all GODLY discernment, however. Indeed, Scripture is filled with admonitions to Christians to exercise discernment and to clearly mark what is and what is not acceptable behavior within the fellowship of believers:
1 Cor 5:9 ¶ I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10 I {did} not at all {mean} with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within {the church?}
13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
One has to truly wonder how some would apply with the above passage.
As far as how I apply this principle to my own life and ministry, I generally rely on simply teaching people the righteous path (which is by definition loving) and then listening to their concerns and questions, trying to help in any way I can. I certainly don't go around threatening everyone with hell. If God hasn't prepared their hearts and drawn them to Christ, I won't be able to, either.
quote:
That is why I stand in agreement with Iconoclast, Dr Boyd, and others who promote LOVE.
So you join them in judging me by saying I don't promote love? How typical of those who hold this superspiritual, supposedly nonjudgmental view.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/30/2004 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Again, I am unaware of any passage in the Gospels in which Christ addressed this issue, much less where He created a dichotomy between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The only ones I have ever heard propose this (false) dichotomy are Bonhoeffer (d.1945) and Rick Joyner, both of whom seemed to me to be attempting (like Boyd and Icon) to read an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis account into the New Testament. One has to wonder where such a rationale comes from. Besides Bonhoeffer and Rick Joyner, I honestly haven't a clue as to the origin of Boyd's thesis on this.
Click here to read an article about Rick Joyner by G. Richard Fisher
or
The False Teachings of Rick Joyner
By Joseph R. Chambers, D.D., 1999 | | 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 5:24 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 |
|
|