Changing the purpose of this forum

[sentipente]

ideas about faith and doctrine is so unlike an Adventist trained pastor. Thats why I asked if you are a SDA pastor. If I crossed lines I had no right to cross, I apologise.

AT

Let me repeat. You did not ask whether I was an SDA pastor. The question as posed was designed to offend. If you picked up that type of questioning along the way you would be well advised to return it.

 

[Avonia]

And whats the cut? Can you ask a simple question around here? If he is or if he's not, whats so hard about that question? I honestly don't see what the problem is. So maybe one of you three quys can tell me.
AT

Unless you are suggesting the CF wrote his profile, your question calls into question his integrity. You've now stated that was not your intention - so water under the bridge - let's move on.

Second issue. Senti has some perspectives not as common among SDA pastors - but that's one reason he contributes so much. It's a different perspective from a person who obviously cares deeply about the SDA church.

 

[Adventtruth]

Let me repeat. You did not ask whether I was an SDA pastor.

That is what I was asking. If you read my two posting you will see thats what I had in mind.

Originally Posted by Adventtruth

This has become the nature of his posting....typical at the least.

I'm even having a hard time understanding how this person can be a Adventist pastor.


AT
​

sentipente wrote:

Big deal. It just shows that your present understanding is lacking. No problem. We all have to grow.

It was followed by

Originally Posted by sentipente

Big deal. It just shows that your present understanding is lacking. No problem. We all have to grow.
​

AT wrote:

Ok Pastor sentipente....please help me in my understanding of the two text...Eph 2:8 and John 3:16. How are they not saying the samething? OR are you not a pastor contrary to your profile?

The question as posed was designed to offend. If you picked up that type of questioning along the way you would be well advised to return it.

The question certainly was not presented to offend you. Sorry that it did. My intent here is to see honest discussions about faith and doctrine.


Can we get back to the original question.

How is Eph 2:8 and John 3:16 different?


AT

 

[sentipente]

Eph. says we are saved by grace, John says we are saved by love. It is obvious they are referring to different experiences. To simply latch on to words would miss the meaning. Salvation is not an act of grace; it is an act of love. Honor, position and prestige are acts of grace. God had not choice but to save the human race. He could not refuse to do so. The love of God constrains both us and Him.

 

[Adventtruth]

Eph. says we are saved by grace, John says we are saved by love. It is obvious they are referring to different experiences.

Would it be correct to say that grace flows from love? That grace is love in action?

To simply latch on to words would miss the meaning.

And how so? I have come to the above conclussion by understanding what the words mean. Am I wrong in my assessment of the words?

Salvation is not an act of grace; it is an act of love.

But again...does grace flow from love? Does grace display the Love?

Honor, position and prestige are acts of grace.

I'm a bit confused here. Perhaps you can clarify? Unless you are saying that grace gives honor, position, and prestige?

God had not choice but to save the human race. He could not refuse to do so. The love of God constrains both us and Him.

So now it sounds as if you are saying that we are the core and this is about us and not about God. It sounds like in your above statement that we should be made much of and not God.

Is not the truth that God saves us that we can make much of Him and His glory and not Him making much of us?

Is it true that God loves us that we can inturn love Him for who He is and glorify Him forever?


AT

 

[sentipente]

Grace does not automatically flow from love. Love does not require me to bestow unmerited favor on anyone nor does the bestowal of unmerited favor indicate a loving relationship.

Love dictates how I will relate to those I love. It leaves me no choice. If I should refuse to rescue my child then I have failed to be a good parent. But I am under no obligation to buy him a car. That would be an act of grace. I don't see how you can conclude that God being constrained by His love shifts the emphasis from Him to us. IAE, we are because of Him. We are His express image. When He loves us He is merely loving Himself.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Please explain what you believe is unreasonable.

scripture clearly says you are saved by grace by faith, but that is not good enough for you. Why is that? There is not contradiction betwen Jesus and Paul. It means you just have not done your home work.

 

[sentipente]

scripture clearly says you are saved by grace by faith, but that is not good enough for you. Why is that? There is not contradiction betwen Jesus and Paul. It means you just have not done your home work.

If you believe Paul made no errors then you must know something Paul didn't. You may have the luxury of ignoring the meaning of terms; I don't.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If you believe Paul made no errors then you must know something Paul didn't. You may have the luxury of ignoring the meaning of terms; I don't.

I bow out of this, I want no more of this conversation. it is unreasonable and ridiculouse. It is also off topic

 

[sentipente]

I bow out of this, I want no more of this conversation. it is unreasonable and ridiculouse. It is also off topic

Just say it's too big for you. No loss of face.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Just say it's too big for you. No loss of face.

you aren't worth it

 

[sentipente]

you aren't worth it

I mark my value by the price the Creator of the Universe was willing to pay for me. You have every right to disagree with Him.

 

[Adventtruth]

Grace does not automatically flow from love. Love does not require me to bestow unmerited favor on anyone nor does the bestowal of unmerited favor indicate a loving relationship.

See that you don't put mere humans in this conversation sentipente. The context of our conversation is God not us. So from that perspective, God is love at The core of His being (tho that is not all of what or who God is). This in essence is where the grace flows from.

Love dictates how I will relate to those I love.It leaves me no choice.

What about those whom you don't love? Are we to treat them with contempt? And love always leaves us with a choice. If not then its universal salvation for all.

If I should refuse to rescue my child then I have failed to be a good parent. But I am under no obligation to buy him a car. That would be an act of grace.

Then why do some go to their graves cursing God? Does that suggest that it was Gods fault and that He was a bad parent? Christ does suggest that there will be those who miss out on eternal life

I don't see how you can conclude that God being constrained by His love shifts the emphasis from Him to us. IAE, we are because of Him. We are His express image. When He loves us He is merely loving Himself.

Are you now saying that the image is also God? That is the conclussion of what you said. God loving us "is merely loving Himself."



AT

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I mark my value by the price the Creator of the Universe was willing to pay for me. You have every right to disagree with Him.

don't we all

 

[sentipente]

AT, what is a mere human? You seem to wish to define the Creator to fit with your dogma. Hence, you do not ask whether this view of the Creator is true but whether it will lead to a conclusion, i.e. universal salvation, that you refuse to accept. Human salvation is not yours to give but you certainly have convinced yourself that you can define its terms and conditions.

 

[Adventtruth]

AT, what is a mere human? You seem to wish to define the Creator to fit with your dogma.

No not at all. I define the creator by the record He has left us in the bible. I said mere human because your posting suggested human responces, not God. Look at your quote.



Originally Posted by sentipente

Grace does not automatically flow from love. Love does not require me to bestow unmerited favor on anyone nor does the bestowal of unmerited favor indicate a loving relationship.

This is tipical of humans not God. God desires rightousness.

Hence, you do not ask whether this view of the Creator is true but whether it will lead to a conclusion, i.e. universal salvation, that you refuse to accept.

If the bible defines God as love (1John 4:16) Why would I not believe that its true? The Love of God controls us if we let it...if we are compelled by it, Thats our choice, is it not? If its not our choice, then the opposite is true...universalism.

And you make it seem as if the whole human race is Gods children when the bible never makes such claims. What of Christ and the redemption? What are we to make of the children of wrath? Are we to say Paul had it wrong here as well?


(Eph 1:7) In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

(Eph 2:3) among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.



Perhaps I was a little over board with the image thing. My whole point is that when we say that God has to save us because He is controlled by love, that sends the wrong message. It puts us at the center and God off to the side. This is the clear message you sent in the following quote by saying God could not refuse to do so.




Originally Posted by sentipente

God had not choice but to save the human race. He could not refuse to do so. The love of God constrains both us and Him.

The love of God controls Him to Display His righteousness. God could have decided to not save humanity if He wanted to, and still be true to His nature which requires justice as well as mercy and love. Christ was the solution to display all of Gods rightousness, justice, mercy and love.

(Rom 3:25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
(Rom 3:26) It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Human salvation is not yours to give but you certainly have convinced yourself that you can define its terms and conditions.

And its a good thing salvation is not mine to give And the God of the bible has certainly defined its terms and conditions for me through His written word. Thats why Eph 2:8 and John 3:16 are in perfect harmony with one another. They clearly tells us a person is saved by grace alone through faith alone apart from works, but you refuse to recieve this truth.

But I find it odd that you would say Paul, who knew Christ better than you and I, was wrong on this subject.

What do you know think?


AT

 

[sentipente]

Paul did not know the Creator better then I can. Thankfully he admitted that he only saw through a glass darkly. The advantage of using humans as an example in this discussion about the Creator is because we are capable of being less than He is and that is good for illustrative purposes. Humans are the center. We are the apple of His eye. He is willing to sacrifice His kingdom for us. How can you not be persuaded of how important the human race is. Matt. 1:20 declares we are all His people "for He shall save His people" from their sins.

I do find it curious that when Christians find two passages that give conflicting messages they prefer to use the one that works against the interest of the entire human race. Why do we exhibit so much self-hatred when the Creator has declared how much He loves the entire race?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

i would like to apeal to the mod to purge this thread. it is so off topic. the topic is changing the purpose of the forum. not a theological discussion

 

[StormyOne]

Paul did not know the Creator better then I can. Thankfully he admitted that he only saw through a glass darkly. The advantage of using humans as an example in this discussion about the Creator is because we are capable of being less than He is and that is good for illustrative purposes. Humans are the center. We are the apple of His eye. He is willing to sacrifice His kingdom for us. How can you not be persuaded of how important the human race is. Matt. 1:20 declares we are all His people "for He shall save His people" from their sins.

I do find it curious that when Christians find two passages that give conflicting messages they prefer to use the one that works against the interest of the entire human race. Why do we exhibit so much self-hatred when the Creator has declared how much He loves the entire race?

because christians believe the story without questioning if the story is true... once internalized its next to impossible to believe otherwise.... christians recite the explanation that it was the "blood of Christ" and his sacrifice that saved us.... was there something magical about his blood? Was sin so devastating that Christ could not save us while living? Are we to believe that it took a God/human sacrifice to save humanity? Questions like those are likely to get one branded as all kinds of things, rather than being answered....

 

[StormyOne]

i would like to apeal to the mod to purge this thread. it is so off topic. the topic is changing the purpose of the forum. not a theological discussion

why can't it be both?