Did Jesus save us from God?

[Clare73]

I agree about trusting on God

My reference was to trusting Biblical doctrine.

but we can also trust our moral instinct and
what we feel is right and wrong.

Did Jesus trust what Peter's instincts told him was right (Matthew 16:22-23)?

I'm thinking you need a better measure than feelings.

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.

 

[The Liturgist]

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)

I provided the doctrinally orthodox interpretation of St. Paul in my reply.

 

[Hmm]

Did Jesus trust what Peter's instincts told him was right (Matthew 16:22-23)?

You need a better measure than feelings.

Why do you trust your intellect but not your feelings and intuition?

 

[Clare73]

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.

More misrepresentation of Scripure. . .

 

[Clare73]

Yes, God can't be both loving and sadistic.
Trying to believe that he is

Which is your first clue that you are wrong.

will either lead to a moral dilemma which can be severe or to rejecting faith in him altogether.

 

[Clare73]

Why do you trust your intellect but not your feelings and intuition?

That is demonstrated in my post #101, which question you do not address in the above.

 

[Hmm]

Which is your first clue that you are wrong.

You mean you think God is both loving and sadistic?

 

[Ceallaigh]

And I'm thinking you may not really be what you present yourself to be here, and your action above may simply be a fig leaf refuge to avoid exposure of that fact.

You're the quintessential antagonist in these kinds of threads.

 

[Hmm]

That is demonstrated in my post which you do not address here.

I'm talking about the sense of what is right and wrong. If we can't trust that then how can we be held to account for anything?

Tbh, if you don't naturally see anything wrong with the image of God tormenting someone forever then I'm not sure any argument will help you see it. I suspect that deep down you do know it's wrong because you're a nice person although I also expect that you'll deny that.

 

[Clare73]

You're the quintessential antagonist in these kinds of threads.

Perhaps you can help me see where I was "antagonistic" (active opposition or hostility toward) with him, beginning at post #63.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Perhaps you can help me see where I was "antagonistic" with him.

You're antagonistic all around when it comes to these kinds of threads. I figured that's the role you prefer to play. Makes me wonder if "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" is applicable

 

[Hmm]

Makes me wonder if "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" is applicable

I think so too.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I provided the doctrinally orthodox interpretation of St. Paul in my reply.

I'll get back to you on that. I haven't had time to digest its deepness.

 

[Clare73]

You mean you think God is both loving and sadistic?

The inconsistency in that thought is your first clue that it is erroneous, that his justice is not sadistic.

I'm talking about the sense of what is right and wrong. If we can't trust that then how can we be held to account for anything?

You still have not answered the question of my post #101. . .why all the dodging?

Tbh, if you don't naturally see anything wrong with the image of God tormenting someone forever then I'm not sure any argument will help you see it. I suspect that deep down you do know it's wrong because you're a nice person although I also expect that you'll deny that.

 

[Hmm]

You still have not addressed my post #101.

You mean about trusting doctrine? Some doctrines are wrong and are quietly dropped.

 

[Ceallaigh]

My reference was to trusting Biblical doctrine.

Did Jesus trust what Peter's instincts told him was right (Matthew 16:22-23)?

I'm thinking you need a better measure than feelings.

When it comes to doctrine, one's sensibility (feelings, perception) is an important aspect of discernment.

 

[Abaxvahl]

"Did Jesus save us from God?" seems to be a common question/saying among those who believe in universal salvation.

But Romans 5:9 seems to indicate that's exactly what happened:

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him"

It can't be so since "all the Father has the Son has and the Spirit has" concerning nature and operations (acts), so if there was judgment coming and God gave mercy then there is no variance like this, that "the Father saved us from Himself through His Son," for there is no separation operations (or the nature) like that in the Blessed Trinity.

 

[Clare73]

You're antagonistic all around when it comes to these kinds of threads. I figured that's the role you prefer to play. Makes me wonder if "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" is applicable

I think so too.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "protesting too much."
Are you intending Shakespeare's meaning in his use of it. . .to cover guilt. . .or not what it appears to be?
If so, what do you think is the guilt. . . or the reality which "appearance" is covering up?

There is much "misunderstanding" (translate: error) of orthodox Christian doctrine presented here and there, based in "misunderstanding" (translate: often unbelief) of the NT.

I see it as a good thing to address it. . .at least for the sake of the church body, if not for the individual. So yes, "that's the role I prefer to play," for the sake of the brethren.

 

[Clare73]

When it comes to doctrine, one's sensibility (feelings, perception) is an important aspect of discernment.

Not if they are not grounded in the whole counsel of God, which one may need to seek before deciding.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Yes. I wonder why emotions have been so looked down upon in Christianity? As if dry knowledge is more important. As if to say, "None of this irrational emotional stuff."

In fact the fruit of the Spirit is rather emotional in nature.
(fruit = ripe harvested produce)

Galatians 5:22-23 NIV
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Its not so much emotions but passions that we have to control.
From the years of my youth, many passions combat me, but you who are my Savior, assist me and save me. –from the First Antiphon of the Anavathmoi