Will you let the bible ...

[fhansen]

Will you put out every fire in the forest? Or will you be cruel and let the fires kill trees?

Put out all the fires in the forest and in 100 years the forest will be ready to burn everything down to the ground. Nothing will be left.

How have you been compassionate to that forest?

Did you ever wonder why God imposed controlled burns, like in forests, in Israel via the Shemitah and Jubilee years?

Nothing automatically wrong with some compassion, but there is more going on than meets the eye. Some things take decades, if not a few hundred years, to play out. Too much compassion is like putting out all the fires in a forest.

Of course, too much compassion and love would be bad, not what the world needs. We need to inform God about that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

God is love

And love is described like this

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never ends ...​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Of course, too much compassion and love would be bad, not what the world needs. We need to inform God about that.

I think I detect some intentional irony here

 

[fhansen]

deleted post

 

[hedrick]

My religion, my faith is more wedded to being kind and showing compassion than it is to law and gospel, to justice and rightness. So I ask of my self "will you let the bible teach you to punish and to judge the 'world' casting some away?" which translates to will I let the bible teach me to be unkind and hard - to treat anyone badly because justice demands it or their faults deserve it?

1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

I’m responding directly to the OP, not to any specific response.

Your question would have no answer within the realm of traditional interpretation of Scripture. From my point of view, however, Scripture reflects to some extent the culture from which it came.

In parts of the OT, God gave Israel victory in war, and commanded genocide of his enemies. But over time the prophets thought he judged how the widow and orphan were treated, and they began to extend sympathy to those beyond Israel.

It seems likely (I’m following Bernstein’s “Hell and its Rivals” here) that hell developed as part of a vision of the afterlife as just, as opposed to everyone being shades. But that development was in a society where torture was used, and extreme punishment by God didn’t raise any eyebrows. Today, to a large part because of acceptance of Jesus’ attitudes even by non-Christians, it’s a problem.

Jesus called people to be his representatives in reconciling people to God and each other, but he also said that we would be accountable for how we respond. The accountability is as basic to his message as the reconciliation. After all, we shouldn't want evil to continue forever. That's not a kindness. Judgement means upholding the right and defeating evil. It needn't be envisioned primarily in rewarding the good and punishing the bad. A traditional definition of justice is giving every man his due. That's the concept out of which the concept of rewards and punishments in the afterlife presumably came. But I think a Christian can see it more in terms of bringing good out of evil.

I don’t believe Jesus ever encouraged unkindness. He taught that God was kind to his enemies and we should follow his example.

The question is how to understand accountability and judgement. That God should treat Hitler differently from a saint seems like an obvious implication of justice. But we don’t need to envision it in the lurid terms of Christian tradition. Perhaps we could use 1 Cor 3:12 as a model (though in the original context this passage was directed ato Christian leaders). To go beyond this I think we have to go to Unorthodox Theology, because we have to look at the intent of Jesus’ various statements about judgement.

 

[Clare73]

1 John 3:23.

Is that belief in the Son of Man not a NT command given after the law?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I’m responding directly to the OP, not to any specific response.

Your question would have no answer within the realm of traditional interpretation of Scripture. From my point of view, however, Scripture reflects to some extent the culture from which it came.

In parts of the OT, God gave Israel victory in war, and commanded genocide of his enemies. But over time the prophets thought he judged how the widow and orphan were treated, and they began to extend sympathy to those beyond Israel.

It seems likely (I’m following Bernstein’s “Hell and its Rivals” here) that hell developed as part of a vision of the afterlife as just, as opposed to everyone being shades. But that development was in a society where torture was used, and extreme punishment by God didn’t raise any eyebrows. Today, to a large part because of acceptance of Jesus’ attitudes even by non-Christians, it’s a problem.

Jesus called people to be his representatives in reconciling people to God and each other, but he also said that we would be accountable for how we respond. The accountability is as basic to his message as the reconciliation. After all, we shouldn't want evil to continue forever. That's not a kindness. Judgement means upholding the right and defeating evil. It needn't be envisioned primarily in rewarding the good and punishing the bad. A traditional definition of justice is giving every man his due. That's the concept out of which the concept of rewards and punishments in the afterlife presumably came. But I think a Christian can see it more in terms of bringing good out of evil.

I don’t believe Jesus ever encouraged unkindness. He taught that God was kind to his enemies and we should follow his example.

The question is how to understand accountability and judgement. That God should treat Hitler differently from a saint seems like an obvious implication of justice. But we don’t need to envision it in the lurid terms of Christian tradition. Perhaps we could use 1 Cor 3:12 as a model (though in the original context this passage was directed ato Christian leaders). To go beyond this I think we have to go to Unorthodox Theology, because we have to look at the intent of Jesus’ various statements about judgement.

Thanks for your reply, you did me the courtesy of looking at what I wrote and giving an answer. Thanks.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is that belief in the Son of Man not a NT command given after the law?

All which God commands is His Law.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

I think I detect some intentional irony here

forgive me...

 

[fhansen]

Unbelief condemns. . .even if you do the law, as the Orthodox Jews do, and who also reject Jesus of Nazareth..

Sin condemns. Faith is the doorway to the righteousness that overcomes sin-and therefore its condemnation, as it's the doorway to God, the source of all true righteouenses.

 

[Clare73]

All which God commands is His Law.

-CryptoLutheran

Not all is Old Covenant law, which is what is meant by "the law."

 

[Clare73]

Sin condemns. Faith is the doorway to the righteousness that overcomes sin-and therefore its condemantion, as it's the doorway to God, the source of all true righteouenses.

Saving faith has an object; i.e., the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin (salvation) and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (justified) with the imputed/credited righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 4:1-11), just as by faith Abraham was also (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

Ole #2 again.

 

[fhansen]

Saving faith has an object; i.e., the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin (salvation) and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (justified) with the imputed/credited righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 4:1-11), just as by faith Abraham was also (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

Ole #2 again.

That speaks of the forgivness of sin. But the overcoming of future sin is also necessary in order to gain eternal life-and that same sacrifice, by reconciling and uniting us with God as we turn to Him in faith, brings us that power, that righteousness.

 

[Hammster]

That speaks of the forgivness of sin. But the overcoming of future sin is also necessary in order to gain eternal life-and that same sacrifice, by reconciling and uniting us with God as we turn to Him in faith, brings us that power, that righteousness.

Are you saying that you can do something that Christ couldn’t do?

 

[fhansen]

Are you saying that you can do something that Christ couldn’t do?

Well, the question doesn't really follow in light of my post but either way, no, I'm saying I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I'm saying that apart from Him I can do nothing, but with God all things are possible, including becoming who He created me to be. And He didn't create me to be a sinner.

Fallen man's problem is simply that he's apart from God, thanks to Adam. That condition constitues a state of injustice in itself because man is made for communion with God and he's sick, dead, lost, disordered if apart from Him. Jesus came to reconcile and bring us back together so that authentic justice/righteousness may flow from Him, the source, to and through us.

 

[Hammster]

Well, the question doesn't really follow in light of my post but either way, no, I'm saying I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I'm saying that apart from Him I can do nothing, but with God all things are possible, including becoming who He created me to be. And He didn't create me to be a sinner.

Fallen man's problem is simply that he's apart from God, thanks to Adam. That condition constitues a state of injustice in itself because man is made for communion with God and he's sick, dead, lost, disordered if apart from Him. Jesus came to reconcile and bring us back together so that authentic justice/righteousness may flow from Him, the source, to and through us.

When you overcome future sin, it must be because the cross is only good enough to cover sin up to a pint.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not all is Old Covenant law, which is what is meant by "the law."

Nobody said it's Old Covenant law.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

When you overcome future sin, it must be because the cross is only good enough to cover sin up to a pint.

God doesn't want to just cover up our sins; He wants to take them away, replacing unrighteousnes with righteousness. Snow-covered dung-heaps, simul justus et peccator, are no different than white-washed tombs, still filthy on the inside.

 

[Hammster]

God doesn't want to just cover up our sins; He wants to take them away, replacing unrighteousnes with righteousness. Snow-covered dung-heaps, simul justus et peccator, are no different than white-washed tombs, still filthy on the inside.

The cross took away the sins of His people. We don’t need to keep overcoming to be righteous.

 

[fhansen]

The cross took away the sins of His people. We don’t need to keep overcoming to be righteous.

oh, so we’re perfect now? We don’t need to put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit in order to gain eternal life as per Rom 8:12-13? Or confess our sins in order to be purified of all unrighteousness as per 1 John 1? You never sin in thought, word, or deed because your sins have been taken away?