Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do they question? Is the Scripture not clear?"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"
I agree that there is a common perception that universalists emphasise God's love and forget that He's also holy and just. But I don't think that's true. It's just that they think that God can't be divided up into opposing parts such that some of His actions are loving e.g. in salvation and some are about justice and wrathful.
They rather see all of God’s actions as motivated by "holy love". Everything God does is holy, completely just, and completely loving.
So whatever being wrathful and hell is about it must be compatible not only with justice but also with love. Which means that it must, in some way, have the good of those in hell as part of its rationale, which is obviously not possible with ECT.(Eternal Conscious Torment).
What they "feel" plus a buck-50 will get them a cup of coffee.Universalists feel that the error with ECT or annihilationism is that while they make much of God justice and wrath they are incompatible with His love and, as a result, they divide up the unity of His nature.
And that is a basis for rejecting the revelation of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16)?Lots of Christianity is a mystery to me haha
Should God save us?
If we quite rightly deserve death and eternal hellfire, then we should get that.
It doesn't seem right for God to allow a replacement for our just punishment.
Even if the replacement is a willing volunteer. It seems inconsistent. You'd expect mercy to be allowed where mercy is allowed and the penalty to be actioned where appropriate.
I'm certain I'm not the only person who has thought this, and so I'm sure there is a philosophy that accounts for this seeming inconsistency.???
Anyone know??
What they "feel" plus a buck-50 will get them a cup of coffee.
For what they "feel" is contra-Biblical (Romans 5:9).
Why not? Who made that rule.That seems to be inconsistent though??
God shouldn't save anyone from His righteous wrath?? Jesus, doing the Father's will, shouldn't either??
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."Trust your feelings, they are from God.
Interesting. . .your "feelings" are from God, but the teaching of Scripture (Romans 5:9) is not.Trust your feelings, they are from God. Don't trust intellectual doctrines that tell you God would torture someone forever, He won't.
See post #65, above.Has anyone got any ideas on how a seeming inconsistency is resolved?
The seeming inconsistency between a punishment we rightly deserve, being allowed to be absorbed by someone else?
Ought God accept a replacement sacrifice in our place?
I'm not so sure on first look. It sounds wrong. If the punishment is fair and right and for us to take as we are the guilty ones - only we should bear the punishment. ???
Interesting. . .your "feelings" are from God, but the teaching of Scripture (Romans 5:9) is not.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Because you are using fallen human reasoning to try to understand infinite and divine holiness and justice.That doesn't explain how this all fits together.
But God created imperfect beings.God is unyielding to sin, maintaining His perfection in all things. This is why He is the same today as He was yesterday, and will be tomorrow. Perfection cannot be improved upon.
The wages of sin is death and this is what Jesus saved us from. The wrath of God is what we deserve, mercy is what we receive.
I wonder if John 3:16 is too mushy for them? "God so loved the world..." XOXOEven more interesting is why you excluded the word "intellectual" from your highlighting.
Following the intellectual Augustine instead of the early church, what could go wrong?
It's called mercy and forgiveness.This reply is not answering the question.
The topic in question is:
God's righteous punishment for our sins is death. Some say Jesus took that punishment. That doesn't sound right. God ought not accept another's innocence replacement. The punishment is for us - that is right and it should be carried out on us.
Are you trying to state an inconsistency between love/mercy to the sinnerThere seems to be an inconsistency here - that God allowed an innocent replacement.
I'm in it for knowing and fellowshipping with him now. . .everything else is just icing on the cake.In an earlier topic, the majority of Christian posters said they would not follow Jesus if there was no afterlife. What do you make of that?
Interesting. . .your "feelings" are from God, but the teaching of Scripture (Romans 5:9) is not.Trust your feelings, they are from God. Don't trust intellectual doctrines that tell you God would torture someone forever, He won't.
Another misrepresentation of the truth.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."
I suppose we should introduce anyone that is not familiar with this conference series."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"
Because the faith which believes doctrine is not just intellectual assent--it is also trusting on.Even more interesting is why you excluded the word "intellectual" from your highlighting.
Following the intellectual Augustine instead of the early church, what could go wrong?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?