Did Jesus save us from God?

[Confused-by-christianity]

And that is a basis for rejecting the revelation of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16)?

Are you saying that’s why you reject scripture?? Or are you saying others are rejecting scripture?
Have we spoken before??

 

[Hmm]

Because the faith which believes doctrine is not just intellectual assent--it is also trusting on.

That's another of the many misrepresentations by that poster.

I agree about trusting on God but we can also trust our moral instinct and what we feel is right and wrong. These are gifts from good. God is good. He is more good than we can ever understand and, though we can never completely understand His goodness, we can be assured that He will never be other than good. An example of other than good is eternally tormenting someone. If you don't believe me, ask any child.

 

[Clare73]

Are you saying that’s why you reject scripture??
Or are you saying others are rejecting scripture?
Have we spoken before??

What I said is quite clear. Is this deliberate obfuscation?

Your response to post #74?

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree about trusting on God but we can also trust our moral instinct and what we feel is right and wrong. These are gifts from good. God is good. He is more good than we can ever understand and, though we can never completely understand His goodness, we can be assured that He will never be other than good. An example of other than good is eternally tormenting someone. If you don't believe me, ask any child.

Exactly. The common dogma holds God to a subhuman standard. Described as a brutal, malicious and sadistic tyrant. I don't see God that way.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Why not? Who made that rule.

The only thing required and owed to us in the entire Universe is justice.
Our sin (law breaking) is justly subject to penalty.
Justice requires simply that the penalty be paid, just like up at the Courthouse.
If you have a debt on the books, the Court cares not who pays it, only that it gets paid.

It's no more complicated than that.
As the death of the (sacrificial) animal in the OT paid the Israelite's debt for sin,
so the sacrificial atoning death of Jesus pays the believer's (Israelite's) debt for sin.

not convinced by your argument.

Im sticking to my guns

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Your response to post #74?

Please speak clearly.

have we spoken before??

 

[Clare73]

Please speak clearly.

have we spoken before??

I wish I could answer that, but in over 11,000 posts, I can't remember.

Please speak clearly.

Your response to post #74?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

It's called mercy and forgiveness.

You don't think those are good things?

I didn’t say that

Are you trying to state an inconsistency between love/mercy to the sinner
and the justice/punishment the sinner deserves?

God's goodness in his love/mercy is subject to and in accordance with justice, like everything else is.
He cannot forgive and have mercy contrary to his justice.

So God has provided his own Son (Romans 3:25) to pay the penalty his own justice requires,
that he may then justly remit our sin and admit us into fellowship with him, all through faith (without/apart from faith's works) in the person and atoning sacrifice (blood--Romans 3:15) of Jesus.

. I think you’re mistaken

 

[Clare73]

I wonder if John 3:16 is too mushy for them? "God so loved the world..." XOXO

Of if NT doctrine is too true for you?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Your response to post #74?

I don’t understand this statement

 

[Clare73]

I didn’t say that

. I think you’re mistaken

Please explain why and how in the light of the NT.

 

[Hmm]

Exactly. The common dogma holds God to a subhuman standard. Described as a brutal, malicious and sadistic tyrant. I don't see God that way.

Yes, God can't be both loving and sadistic. Trying to believe that he is will either lead to a moral dilemma which can be severe or to rejecting faith in him altogether.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

And that is a basis for rejecting

Are you saying that my post is your basis for rejecting Gods revelation??

 

[Clare73]

I don’t understand this statement

Moot now. . .you've addressed it in your response to post #74; i.e., you think I'm mistaken.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think is mistaken according to the NT,
and why to you that would be a mistake.

Am I assuming incorrectly that love and mercy are good thing?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Please explain why and how in the light of the NT.

I have - please take the time to read my posts

 

[Ceallaigh]

I am going to answer your question with a resounding “No” because Jesus Christ is God, and why would God need to save us from God?

Ask Paul; "Much more then, having now been justified by Jesus' blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Jesus". Romans 5:9 (paraphrased by me)

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Mute now. . .you have given your response to post #74; i.e., you think I'm mistaken.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think is mistaken according to the NT,
and why to you that would be a mistake.

Am I assuming incorrectly that love and mercy are good thing?

mute now?? Ok sure

I’ll place you on ignore list and not receive any further posts from you.

If I remember correctly you were plain rude and obnoxious last time we spoke.

 

[Clare73]

I have - please take the time to read my posts

Will you not do me the favor of speaking it clearly in a brief summary,

and the further favor of explaining what you think is mistaken according to the NT,
and why to you that would be a mistake. . .please.

Am I assuming incorrectly that love and mercy are a good thing?

 

[Clare73]

Are you saying that my post is your basis for rejecting Gods revelation??

Actually, I was saying that "it doesn't seem right" is not a good basis for rejecting God's revelation in Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

mute now?? Ok sure

I’ll place you on ignore list and not receive any further posts from you.

If I remember correctly you were plain rude and obnoxious last time we spoke.

And I'm thinking you may not really be what you present yourself to be here. . .
maybe "inconsistency" is not really your true objection. . .
so that when "inconsistency" is addressed, you cannot make a response without that being exposed...
so that your action above may simply be a fig leaf of a refuge to avoid that exposure. . .
that's what I'm thinking. . .