Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it isn't true. What we see in this video is akin to someone committing a murder, being convicted in court, standing before a judge, and believing no sentence will be passed down because the judge happens to be a kind man.
Note especially what is said at 3:53. Those of us who believe in Hell are "believing in a place that no one would rationally think of in this day and time." Translation: Forget what scripture says, because going by the world's concept of rational is how we should live.
This is what happens when words like "holy," "just," "sin," "punishment," and "atonement" cease to have any meaning.
Posts
57 comments:
The only positive thing I'll say about this guy is that he is consistent. He believes in a general atonement which naturally leads to universalism. Frighteningly, he is more consistent than Arminians are.
I wonder if this man has ever read the bible.
Oh. My. Goodness. That's just astonishing - what a mockery.
Eric (above) is right - he is very consistent. And why would he read the Bible? He's basically tossed it out the window already. He's created a God of his own design.
The one true gospel is the Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (Old Testament), He was buried and He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. (Luke 24, 1 Cor 15:1-6) There is no gospel preached here. He is contrary to Christ.
He's going to find out how real hell really is if he keeps this up.
So true Phil. He will find out that there is no Hell at all just as the scripture states. In the greek and hebrew there is no mention of Hell at all. You'll find Gehennes yes but that place was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem that the poor had to put their bodies since they could not afford tombs usually. She'ol? That's just a word for the grave. The Egyptians made the word hell and the ancient greeks turned that word into Hades. Guess what, Hades is mythology! A place named after the greek pantheon's god of the underworld. Now an intelligent use of the word Hades is "grave" as well.
I am thankful after seeing this video that the guy who made the No Hell - Joey video is going to be making a series of videos in greek and hebrew. I am glad I found that group. They teach scripture how it is supposed to be and not like the way the catholics and protestants do.... with fear.
Hey Blainemonster, bless you. Though I must say that it is obvious that the man does read the bible. Not the KJV which was horribly made by a corrupt king. Read up on the person King James. Messed up stuff on him. Does the english come before the greek and/or hebrew? Nope, not at all.
Eric, bless you. Why do people think God is like us? Flawed and full of a sinful nature? He is without sin. Jesus Christ is evidence of that fact. Jesus is love, Jesus is God, thus God is love. He does good for good AND evil. Why? He sees the good in us all. He is not some being that only loves a few of us. If he was so wrathful and vindictive as people seem to want him to be then why hasn't humanity been wiped out yet?
Come on now, people. 2,000 years ago we were ALL had ALL of sins covered by his blood. To say it didn't happen is to spit on the blood of Christ and his perfect works. His sacrifice was enough satisfy God. Why can't it satisfy humanity? Why do we keep on going to God and beg for forgiveness? It says in Hebrews that He will remember sin no more. You actually think you have done something God does not know about? Really? Are you above Him? Does your existance hide itself from God? Never. God knows all. He knew your names before the world was even created. He knows every pain and joy you have felt and have yet to experience.
I thank God everyday that those in this world can at least in death know Him who is above us ALL. I thank him for washing away our sins with his blood. I thank him for every blessing we all have received. Thank you, Lord! Thank you! Amen!
LoHAA, you just made the case against evangelism. Since ALL sins were paid for, ALL people will be saved. Therefore, it doesn't matter how we live. Is that really the message you wish to convey?
@Lee: Which is, of course, the logical progression and end of universalism and blatantly anti-Biblical.
"you just made the case against evangelism"
Lee, how can you say that? Surely you're not suggesting that, if God has indeed saved everyone, that you don't want them to know about it? Surely you would work very hard to tell everyone how they've been blessed, right? Which news would be better: that God will save you on the condition that you believe and obey Him, otherwise He'll let you be tortured forever; or that God has already saved you, and that He loves you unconditionally, no matter what? How would a message that contains unconditional love and no threat of torture cause less excitement, or less motivation to tell the whole world? This is exciting news, and if it's true, surely we would love everyone enough to want them to know about it.
"A case against evangelism". Give me a break.
Romans 2:4 "...God’s kindness leads you toward repentance..."
Does the fear of torture lead us toward repentance? Or does kindness? If a man decides to believe and love God because he doesn't want God to burn him, is that sincere belief or true love? Has that man really changed his mind about anything, except that He doesn't want to be tortured infinitely? If God's child decides to do what is right because He doesn't want God to hurt him, is that the right motivation for doing what is right? Must love be sincere, or can it be synthetically generated by fear? If hell really exists, and people love God and accept Jesus in their heart only because they don't want to go to hell, hasn't that afforded man an opportunity, and in fact a strong compulsion, to lie to his own heart to escape pain. Isn't he therefore going to hell anyway? Is that a scenario we would accept in any other context besides a superstitious world where men in high places have been dishonest with the original languages, and now the uneducated are too terrified to question anything for fear of Father-inflicted torture?
Romans 2:4 "...God’s kindness leads you toward repentance..."
So don't you want mankind to repent? Don't you want them to grow, and become better people? Does the threat of pain bring such an amazing change in people's lives, or does the limitless love and kindness of God do it? If four different terms are translated from the Greek and Hebrew into the term hell, and none of them actually mean hell, then what place does hell have in a message that is supposed to change man's heart by the instrument of God's kindness and unlimited Fatherly love? Tell me where the lack of motivation to spread the gospel, i.e. God's unconditional love and unlimited patience in sending Jesus to die in the place of the sin of the whole world, would come from?
1 Corinthians 15:22
"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"
How many died in Adam? Was it all of mankind, or just a select few?
I'm not sure why you feel the need to comment under different screen names, but whatever.
Yes, you make a great case against evangelism. If everyone is in fact saved, then no one is punished for their sins. Therefore, anyone can live as they see fit, offending an eternal and infinitely holy God with no fear of eternal consequences.
No, it isn't the fear of Hell that drives people toward Christ, however I do believe it plays a part when we are convicted of our sins. Ultimately, it is God who draws us to Christ (John 6:44).
excellent video, about time we realized the truth,
god is love.
READ THE PREFACE OF YOUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND THEY FREELY ADMIT TO MAKING ERRORS. WHY IF TRUTH IS REALLY WHAT WE SEEK ARE WE SO HESITANT TO EXAMINE THE TEXT FROM WHICH IT DERIVES.
For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled shall we be saved through his life! Not only is the so, but we also rejoice in
god through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
I have only commented under one screen name. Are you suggesting that LOHAA and I are the same person? That's not the case.
What causes man to stop "doing what he sees fit"? Is it the fear of pain, or a change of heart? If a man stops "doing what he sees fit" because he fears pain, has his heart changed, or only his actions? What makes a man do good: seeing someone punished for doing evil, or being effected by the goodness and love of others?
Does God change us by threatening us, or by showing us goodness and love? Is this strategy effective? How effective, perfectly or only kind of? If only kind of, then torture must make this plan of love complete. Or if God's plan of love is complete on its own, then what necessitates hell?
With these rhetorical questions in mind, which is evangelism: stopping man's outer evil actions by telling him he's going to be tortured if he continues, or is it telling them about, and showing them, the one and only thing that will truly change their innermost hearts, i.e. God's unchangeable love, which goes beyond, overpowers, and outlasts all form of hatred and evil?
What changes a man: compelling him to do something on the outside, or doing something for him on the inside?
Forgive the interrogation. I don't mean for you to answer all these questions. They're just food for thought. But I would appreciate it if you would answer the question I posed at the end of my last comment, and I'm very curious about your response:
1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"
How many died in Adam? Was it all of mankind, or just a select few?
Context, context, context. You do realize that Paul was writing to believers, don't you? Besides, a universalist interpretation of that passage conflicts with those passages that clearly teach eternal punishment (Matt. 18:8, Matt. 25:46, 2 Thess. 1:9, Jude 7, Jude12-13, Rev. 20:10).
It's true that Paul is writing to "the church", "those sanctified and called to be holy", "all who call on the name of Jesus". If we read further into the context, we find out a bit more about these people that Paul was writing to.
Some of them argued that they followed Paul, Cephas, or Apollos, rather than Christ. Whom did these people accept into their heart, Jesus the one true God, or Paul, Cephas, and Apollos?
One of them was having sex with his father's wife, and the rest of them were proud of him. Whom did these people believe in, Jesus the One who had freed them from sin, or Jesus the One who gave them a license to sin?
Many of them had to be told not to participate in idolatry. Whom did these people believe in, Jesus the One true God, or Jesus just one god among many?
If it's important that men believe in Jesus to be saved, if it's important that men accept Jesus into their heart to avoid torture, then surely it's important that they accept the true Jesus. Or can they accept their own concept of him? Can I conceive of a god in my mind, surround him by many other gods, imagine that he has given me a license to sin, call him "Jesus", and accept *him* into my heart? Surely not. And yet Paul still includes these people in the context of those that are saved. I think there is a bigger picture to consider here than the one you are painting.
I'm glad that you brought up John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." As you say, it's important that we examine the context, and this verse has a very important immediate context, as it goes on to say, "And I will raise him up on the last day". Is Jesus speaking about a different group of people than Paul was speaking about in 1 Corintians 15:22, when Paul said "all will be made alive"? Clearly not. Paul was speaking about the resurrection; Jesus was speaking about the resurrection. So what about this drawing of men? Jesus speaks about it more than once in this very book. John 12:32, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." Did Jesus begin this statement with "to all who believe"? Who believed at this time? Who believed when Jesus was lifted up on the cross? Did Jesus restrict this statement in any way, or was everyone in an equal state of darkness at this time? So when Jesus was lifted up on the cross, who was lifted up with him? Some men, or all men? What about those whom Jesus was speaking to when He said this; what did they understand Him to mean? Did they need a calvanist to interpret Jesus' speech for them, or was Jesus perfectly capable of making sure they understood clearly what He would do when He died on the cross.
And so this is the point: When He died, we died. Ephesians 2:4-6 "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus". When did we die? When we believed? No, we died when Christ died. When were we raised? When we accepted a Jesus into our hearts that we didn't even begin to understand, like the Corinthians did? No, we were raised when Jesus was raised.
So getting back to Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive". Who is the all in context? Was Paul talking about a different "all" than Jesus was? Did Paul disagree with Jesus?
Maybe we should examine the more immediate context of 1 Corinthians 15:22 a bit more. In 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul makes a provocative point: "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" Is Paul advocating the inclusion of people who are dead and gone into the body of Christ? Is Paul allowing those who no longer have the ability to believe, to be thought of as saved? Is he acknowledging that people who can no longer be seen or observed, can confidently be proclaimed to be heaven-bound? So let's ask again, who is the "all" that will be made alive? Maybe it's just the people who are alive and believe, along with the people who are dead but have believers who really want them to be saved? Something's wrong with that picture.
Clearly, Paul saw things the way that Jesus did: that *all* men were in fact drawn to Jesus when He died on the cross, and that it therefore was easy for Paul to advocate the baptism of the dead, i.e. the acknowledgement that even those who no longer had a choice were included in Christ. Paul knew that salvation was not so complicated that it required us to discern whom Christ's blood covered, and whom it did not. It covered everyone, even those long dead and gone.
Oh wow, amen anger! It's so good seeing other people have the ability to think for themselves instead of listening to a broken religious church and being able to ask questions. God did give us a free will after all and not to have us just fall in line with false doctrine like the catholics and protestants try to push. God bless you all and may the Lord keep you safe. Amen.
Like the Mormons, you misinterpret 1 Cor. 15:29. There were false teachers at the time who taught that there was no resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:12), yet they practiced baptism for the dead. Paul was drawing attention to that contradiction. Note that he says "those" or "they." He does not say "you" or "us."
Again, you ignore passages like Matt. 18:8, Matt. 25:46, 2 Thess. 1:9, Jude 7, Jude12-13, and Rev. 20:10 in which eternal punishment is clearly taught. They alone are enough to disprove your position.
Lee, forgive me, my friend, but do you really think that what you're doing is fair? I have spent a lot of time and care for you, composing a great deal of carefully contextualized information, and rather than deal with all of it, you've decided to compare me to a Mormon, attempted to poke a hole in a single pericope of my argument, sweep the rest of my argument under the rug, and then throw out a bunch of single verses without even taking the time to deal with the context of those verses. Is that really honest?
What about the believers of Corinth? You asserted that it was important to note that this book was written to them, and I agreed. I then asked some questions about what exactly it was they believed, and if that was important, and if it was important to note that Paul counted them as saved even though many of them believed Jesus was not the One and Only God, that He had not freed them from sin but licensed them to sin, and that some did not even follow Christ. Do you really need to lead me around, jumping from verse to verse, without taking the time to enjoy a single context, or can we be honest with this context before we move on to the next?
I also asked you if Paul's version of the resurrection was in agreement with Jesus' version of the resurrection, and if so, should we include what Jesus had to say about this "all"? So what about this drawing of men that Jesus talks about throughout John that you so confidently brought up? Can we deal with that in context? Can we take one thing at a time? Can you deal with the book of John thoroughly with a calvinist mindset, or is forcing me to play "whack-a-mole" with the scripture your game of choice?
I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I hope you are too. I would love to address each verse that you've brought up. But a good debate should be two people working together to grow in truth, not one person laboring to thoroughly understand the author's intention, while the other just throws out sound byte theology willy-nilly.
@Anger and LoHAA (same fella?) Your talent with rhetoric is impressive, and equally impressive is your denial of logic and the scope of the meaning of Scripture. Carry on, Lee.
Blaine would you mind explaining? You say this and yet give no argument to your case. It is like you are saying, "Because I said so!" and giving no further words on the matter. Come now, speak up and make your point with facts and not opinions and no, I am not anger.
When considering context, you must include the whole of scripture. So, if there are verses that speak of eternal punishment -- not just mentioning it, but talking about it in clear, specific terms -- those must be reconciled with the verses you claim speak of all people being saved. Your way of reconciling them, however, is to resort to eisegesis and say that they don't really mean what they say. "Hell" doesn't really mean Hell, "eternal" doesn't really mean eternal, etc.
The fact is that we could debate the specific context of a verse or two in 1 Corinthians all day, but in the end your interpretation is refuted by those verses that clearly teach of eternal punishment for those outside of Christ.
why is it so difficult to accept the sovereignty of God, the creator of all that is, was,or ever will be.
God, who creates in love and is love.A father who corrects and never condemns.
I'm so thankful for a father who loves me no matter what. He loves me regardless of the lessons I've struggled with and those yet to be.
A father who stated at the moment of his death; "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
They neither asked nor believed him to be the Christ, yet he forgave them.
Who among you loves your children? Is your love for them dependent upon there actions?
Blaine, thank you for your kind compliment. I'm grateful for a classical education that has blessed me with sound skills in rhetoric and logic. However, I do agree that my rhetoric and logic has little to no agreement with calvinistic fallacies, which are bit like trying to perform surgery with a medical book written in the dark age.
Lee, I'm not using eisegesis. Eisegesis is the process of reading into a document more than what is there. Exegesis is bringing out of the text what is actually there. This is what I'm doing: exegesis, not eisegesis. It's not eisegesis to allow an author to speak for himself. It is indeed eisegesis to try to interpret that author through the lens of an entirely different document written by an entirely different author, as you have suggested that we must do in order to force all the books in scripture to agree with each other. You don't have to force the scripture to agree, Lee. Relax and stop trying to defend God. I assure you that He's more than capable of defending Himself. Let each author define their own context, and stop trying to force the meaning of other books upon them. If an author is trying to agree with other writers, that will come out all on it's own, without your eisegetical insistence. Force is not needed. Trust me, my friend.
It feels a bit like you're trying to avoid actually addressing my questions. Personally, I enjoy being proven wrong. It's an opportunity to grow. Don't you agree?
Maybe I'm exhausting you with a saturation of hard questions. If that's so, I apologize. Let's baby-step it by talking about one simple, easy thing at a time. How about this one:
You said, "No, it isn't the fear of Hell that drives people toward Christ, however I do believe it plays a part when we are convicted of our sins. Ultimately, it is God who draws us to Christ (John 6:44)."
So when did God draw men to Christ, and how many men did he draw?
In John 12:32, when Jesus said that He would draw all men to Himself when He was lifted up, when was He indicating that this would happen? When He said that He would be lifted up, what was He in reference to? Can this event be placed in our future, or has it already occurred? And the people who were listening to Him as he spoke: what did they understand by the phrase "all men"?
I believe the Bible is the word of God. All books are inspired. All books support one another. There are no contradictions. There may be paradoxes and mysteries, but no contradictions.
You engage in eisegesis because you don't want to believe in a holy and just God that punishes unrepentant sinners. Therefore, you read into scripture what isn't there: universal salvation. (Tell me, will Satan and his demons be saved as well? Or do you even believe they exist?)
A great tip for biblical interpretation is to start with those passages that are absolutely crystal clear. I gave you a bunch of them that specifically mention eternal punishment. The only way to dismiss those is to read your own preconceptions into what's written.
God requires no defense, but I am prepared to give a defense for the hope that is in me (1 Peter 3:15). I have broken God's law. I have sinned against an eternal and infinitely holy God and deserve eternal punishment. The fact that I am even allowed to draw one more breath is more mercy than I deserve. But God sent his Son to bear my punishment on the cross. I repented of my sins and put my faith in Christ. Now, I am just a wretched sinner saved by grace. The righteousness of Christ has been imputed to me, and I stand justified before the Father. Yes, I still stumble. I still sin. But thankfully he is sanctifying me through his Holy Spirit. My desire is to see others come to repentance and faith as well.
So you can imagine how much it bothers me when someone posing as a Christian comes here in order to spread a false gospel. Paul had some very serious words for people like that. I plead with you to repent and put your faith in the Christ of the Bible, not a god of your own making.
Lee, are you familiar with the fallacies of distraction? Aren't you trying to demonize me to distract people from thinking for themselves concerning what I've said? Is it right to attack the man, or would it be better to attack his argument? What you're doing serves only to distract your readers from the information I've written. If what I'm saying is false, wouldn't it be more honest to actually deal with my arguments directly, and demonstrate that they are either true or false, using honest methods of debate, and thus remove all doubt that what I'm saying is false, instead of risking the possibility that anyone might believe false doctrine because you're not addressing it directly, but instead using fallacies of distraction to avoid addressing it?
I'm not posing as a Christian, Lee. I'm a believer. I walked down the aisle when I was very young, and I accepted Jesus into my heart. I made a choice to believe in God and love Him. I felt the flames of hell lashing my backside as I fled from the bowels of adolescent lust. I've pleaded with God to accept me back into His arms when I felt He was far from me. I've hurt for my loved ones when I feared their eternal fate was being threatened, and I've warned them of their impending doom.
But none of this makes me or anyone a child of God. Not our natural descent, not our human decision, not a husband’s will. Only God's work alone does that.
I only desire to grow in the word of God. I want to know the truth, even if that means denying hundreds of years of tradition. If that tradition is right, then God forbid I deny it! But if it's wrong, then God forbid I ignore the truth just to avoid being called beelzebub by a pharisee.
So I ask you, can't you speak with a fellow believer? If not, how can you expect to be able to speak with unbelievers, who need your guidance far more than I do? If I'm wrong, don't I deserve your correction? Don't you love me enough to take the time?
Believe me, I'm really anxious to talk to you about all the verses that you've brought up so far. But it doesn't make sense to me to move on until we've dealt thoroughly with each context. But I promise you, if you will bear with me, I will deal with each one for you. Matt. 18:8, Matt. 25:46, 2 Thess. 1:9, Jude 7, Jude 12-13, Rev. 20:10. These are all very simple to deal with. It's unfortunate that they have been treated as passages of damnation for so long, and the minds and hearts of many people have suffered because of it. Thank God for the source languages. I'm actually very excited to discuss each of these passages and their contexts with you.
So please, you brought the drawing of men up, so let's talk about it. In chapter 6 and 12 of John, Are these two different drawings? Did God draw men unto Jesus multiple times, or just once? In John 12:32, Jesus says that He will draw all men to Himself when He is lifted up. What event is He referring to? Can this event be in our future, or is it in our past? What did Jesus mean in this passage when He said "now...now..."? And the people who were standing there listening to Him, what did they understand Him to mean when He said "all men"?
Also, Happy Thanksgiving, my friend. I hope you and your family have a wonderful holiday weekend. Sincerely.
I admire what angerIsInsanity has said here. I really doubt any Calvinist, "contemporary" or not, would remotely try to answer John 6 & 12. I would love to see Lee or any other Calvinist respond to this context!
John 6:44 merely states that all whom the Father draws will be raised up on the last day. Those whom the Father does not draw will not be raised. You're making it much more difficult than it has to be.
As for John 12:32, we learn that people from all over the world (all nations, all ages, etc.) are drawn. In short, all the elect. We know "all" cannot mean every single person because not all people come to Christ. Just read the next eight verses. Isaiah is quoted referring to those who don't believe because they can't believe. Their eyes have been blinded.
Universalists latch onto specific verses with no regard for the context of the whole of scripture. Again, if we are to believe that the Bible is the word of God, there can be no contradictions. The proof texts you are using cannot be reconciled with those that specifically speak about eternal punishment. You can debate all you want about the specific context of a particular verse, but if other parts of scripture clearly refute your interpretation, then that interpretation must be wrong. And it is.
Yes Mr. Shelton your interpretation certainly is.... flawed.
Thankfully GOD is sovereign.
Amen. Like we have the authority to tell God what to do in our lives. God IS in control, you know? We all got saved. Can't deny that. To do so is to say that the works of Christ was not complete and that is spitting in the face of Christ. Like it or not, it's true. People need to stop acting like they have control over what God/Christ does. We do not and never have.
"We all got saved. Can't deny that. To do so is to say that the works of Christ was not complete and that is spitting in the face of Christ."
If you're right, and we're all saved anyway, then that means no one is punished for "spitting in the face of Christ." So why do you care?
CARE?
Shouldn't we all care about truth?
If our desire is to proclaim the truth about GOD, shouldn't we first spend time with GOD, discovering what that truth is?
Every theology,philosophy,idea,and theory must have a foundation. A foundation being that which qualifies the rest.
GOD's foundation is love. Subsequently everything thereafter must be supported by this. Love is defined by our english translation as is the character of CHRIST ie GOD.
GOD's kindness leads man towards repentance not threats of eternal damnation.Good gracious people think about what you are saying.Meditate on the things of above. GOD IS LOVE!!!!!
Voiceoftruth, let's dispense of the notion that we're having an in-house debate. You are spreading a dangerous "gospel," one that lulls people into a false sense of security.
Public forum negates the 'in house' segment and debate is your word not mine. I simply wish to spread the GOOD NEWS, ie the reconciliation of man to GOD through the redemption of sin accomplished by the death burial and resurrection of Jesus the CHRIST.
HIS DIVINE POWER HAS GIVEN US EVERYTHING WE NEED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS THROUGH OUR KNOWLEDGE OF HIM WHO CALLED US BY HIS OWN GLORY AND GOODNESS.
For this very reason make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge and to knowledge self-control and to self-control perseverance and to perseverance godliness and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness LOVE. for if you possess these qualities in increasing measure they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them he is near-sighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins!!!
reading and comprehending are two different things.
My only desire is for people to know God for who he truly is. LOVE! God defines himself if only we will seek the truth, seek and ye shall find.
Do you just skip all those passages that talk about God's holiness, justice, and wrath? Were all those Old Testament plagues brought upon people that God ended up saving anyway? Were those nations wiped out by the Israelites as part of God's judgment ultimately saved?
And by "in-house" I'm referring to orthodox Christianity. Universalism isn't biblical.
Love does not have wrath.
Prior to the resurrection of Christ: NO ONE, not even the apostles who walked and talked with Christ himself understood God; sorta negates all the killing in 'gods' name in the old testament now doesn't it.
Why do you continue to attempt to categorize me?
As far as skipping things, quite the contrary; I for one seek to understand, through study, prayer, meditation, and unbiased research.
I for one do not, claime to have all the answers, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking.
What I will not do is be swayed by mysticism, folklore,legend or mythology!!
Every preface to every english translation I've encountered admits to errors in the text. I for one wish to identify and hopefully correct some of those misrepresentations of GOD.
Mabey you can help, where are some of the errors you have identified in the text.
If you must categorize, 'student', would be far more accurate.
Must retire have to get up early for work.Look forward to further discussion.
PEACE,
Yes, God is love, but does he love evil? No. If God is love, then he must hate what is evil. Scripture is clear that God hates sin, and a holy and just God punishes sin. How can you read the Bible and say God does not have wrath?
If you don't like the Old Testament, here are just a few verses from the New Testament on God's wrath:
Romans 1:18
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."
Romans 2:5
"But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."
Romans 13:5
"Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience."
Colossians 3:6
"On account of these the wrath of God is coming."
1 Thessalonians 1:10
"and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come."
A quick reminder that GOD loves you!
PEACE
Apologize for taking so long to get back to our talk but holidays combined with work have consumed the hours. Hope you all had a wonderful holiday will be back soon.
God is good!!!
Because of GOD'S great love for us:
We who were once dead in our transgressions are now made alive in CHRIST.
Per God's design.
The sovereignty of God is indisputable.
"We" does not include all people. And the sovereignty of God was never in dispute.
Lee - Sorry but yes, it does include all people. The scripture says, "For He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight." That is all of us. It it meant few, many and such it would have said that. It doesn't. That is basic english. I am so tired of seeing people turn a loving Father into a being who burns His own children forever. It even says in Hebrews and Ehpesians that we were all made into God's people together. Jew and Gentile. We are all of Israel.
I am sorry but the old covenant is dead and buried. Jesus Christ abolished it and the Levitical law. Now we have an oath that God Himself gave us. He said that He shall remember sin never again. He IS absolute, like it or not. When he decides on something it is finished. We are in a new covenant age. God loves us ALL. Like it or not. It is true. He is not some psycho being who tortures his own children. Read the scriptures. Understand the metaphors in it.Understand the true character of God as seen in the works in Jesus Christ.They are one in the same. He is love. Period. Nothing can never change that. Not the catholics, protestants, baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, pentacostals, Calvinists, Luthereans. Jesus Christ saved us ALL 2 thousand years ago. He completed the job. Who are you to say that he didn't? Please, think about it. Get outside of the broken box of religion and grow in the love God. Understand that there is no sin greater than His grace.
Also, prove that We does not mean us all. I would like you to do it without sounding like a parrot. Please. Stop resisting His love, brother. It's all about love. Always.
I see no one wants to attempt to refute any of the passages on wrath I quoted earlier. It must be easier to just ignore them.
As a Christian I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which passages of scripture are true. It's all true, and if it says that "the wrath of God is coming" (Colossians 3:6), then I can only assume the text means exactly that -- unless, of course, you believe that "wrath" actually means "love." But no, I'm the one who has a problem with basic English.
Let me ask you this: If I say to a groups of friends, "We should all go bowling tonight," is there anyone who would interpret that to mean that I want all people in the entire world to come along? Isn't it possible that I am referring to all people in a particular group? I think you know the answer.
Thing about it, we have said several passages as well and you do nothing but sidestep it. I can answer your wrath issue easily but I won't until you face what we have been saying here about a really loving God.
You've said nothing. A truly loving God must hate what is evil. Period. For some strange reason you have a problem with that concept.
Sure, as I stated earlier reading and understanding are two completely different things.
If you think that anything from the original sin to date is a surprise to God you have an enormous ego,stop paying your arrogance intellectual homage.
Everything ever created is done so by God, the sin of Adam was no surprise to God.
The sovereignty of God is indisputable so is his SINGULARITY. Stop trying to make God 'dualistic' as man is up-down right-left good-bad.
God's design is LOVE; PERIOD.
Wow, it amazes me that a man can actually accept the notion that what he thinks or says can change what GOD has set in motion!
There is nothing past present or future that God is not aware of.
Jesus came not to condemn but to save the world. He came to do what man could not do for himself.
Love never condemns, always corrects.
Now you really aren't making any sense. It seems you're content to let me think that you believe God loves evil.
You must have a strange concept of LOVE!
GOD: The author and creator of the heavens and the earth, and EVERYTHING THEREIN.
Salvation is not some mystical spell that a person evokes by saying ( i believe). How pitiful that some would so cheapen the wondrous work of Christ.
Post a Comment