Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[Clare73]

The book of Hebrews calls Melchizedek the King of Righteousness. Doesnt sound fallen to me.

His name means "king of righteousness" (Hebrews 7:2), not that he was righteous. . .again making him a prefigure, type, pattern of Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Melchizedek is inferior to Jesus because
Melchizedek is just one of several hats the First and Last wears.

Prophet, priest and king are not "hats," they are offices and functions assigned by God, all three assigned to one man, Jesus of Nazareth, the criminal who was crucified.

 

[Clare73]

Melchisedec and Jesus are the same person and through this Priesthood Jesus acts as our Advocate to the Father. The idea that a sinful Priest could establish this High ranking position in God's government doesn't wash. I never heard anyone claim the book of Hebrews is about a birth certificate before. I didn't bother to look but I wouldn't expect to find much in the way of scholar support for your position.

Hebrews is defending the superiority of Jesus, over the angels, over Moses, and over Abraham who was subject to and lower than Melchezidek (Hebrews 7:7), who was a Biblical pattern of Jesus Christ, whose priesthood was not based on his ancestry but on his endless life, and established by oath from God (Hebrews 7:16-20), which the Levitical priesthood did not enjoy.
Hebrews does not present Melchizedek as Jesus, but as a pattern of Jesus, as for example, the animal sacrifices were a pattern of Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, that's a great observation by @public hermit.

I get the impression that some people think it's arrogant or that it limits God in some way to say that He must be just and would not commit acts such as torture or torment, and that we must accept the possibility that He can do anything He wants however immoral it may be in our eyes. But when we look at things like morality, beauty and truth we are also looking at these through God's eyes, however imperfectly, because He has revealed something of Himself. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

God gives those who want to torture and torment others the same in return. Its a constant reminder to them as to why they must be removed from life. If they complain about what is happening to them as unfair? Its all the more reason why they must be removed from life, for they would be the source of the same thing for it for others.

If allowed freedom? They would be a constant source of torment to others. And, since the redeemed will live forever? The tormentors must be tormented forever as a reminder as to why they can not be allowed freedom to be with them.

Their evil desires, in essence, become their own form of punishment.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."


(justice)​

 

[GenemZ]

Prophet, priest and king are not "hats," they are offices and functions assigned by God, all three assigned to one man, Jesus of Nazareth, the criminal who was crucified.

Are you saying Jesus was crucified because he was a criminal?

I think you may need to rephrase what you said.

 

[GenemZ]

Melchisedec and Jesus are the same person and through this Priesthood Jesus acts as our Advocate to the Father. The idea that a sinful Priest could establish this High ranking position in God's government doesn't wash. I never heard anyone claim the book of Hebrews is about a birth certificate before. I didn't bother to look but I wouldn't expect to find much in the way of scholar support for your position.

There is support. Just found this...

Who Is Melchisedec? |

If you had your way of thinking prevail? There could have been no high priests of God in Israel.

For all were sinners saved by grace. Being a sinner is what we all were, and remain potentially as so until we receive the resurrection body.

Melchisedec remains a mystery person. That always leads to speculations that reveals the heart of the one making them.

Melchisedec was 'a' high priest of God.

In contrast.. Jesus is 'the' high priest of God.

 

[Clare73]

Are you saying Jesus was crucified because he was a criminal?

I think you may need to rephrase what you said.

I'm speaking from their point of view.
He was crucified because he was sentenced as a criminal.
Did that not make him a criminal under their law, which is their point of view?

 

[GenemZ]

He was crucified because he was sentenced as a criminal.
Did that not make him a criminal under their law?

It actually made those who wrongly judged him into criminals.

When an innocent man is wrongly executed for a crime? Does the law make him guilty?

The law itself does not make anyone guilty when wrongly accused.

 

[GenemZ]

Melchizedek is inferior to Jesus because Melchizedek is just one of several hats the First and Last wears.

What Melchizedek was being in how others perceived him for a limited period of time? Jesus is being forever. There's the difference.

 

[Clare73]

The more each one of you in this thread keeps talking at each other, the more existential I become.

I find it strange that each of you, whether you're on the side of ECT or Universalism, somehow "KNOWs" what God 'is'...

Was it any different in Paul's day with Gnosticism?

One is based in God's scriptural revelation, one is based in human wisdom, just as in Paul's day.

So much for my hope and prospect of conciliation and ecumenism among all fellow Christians.
I guess all of that kind of thing is just chalk dust ...

Are you sure that is God's purpose anyway?

 

[Hmm]

Are you sure that is God's purpose anyway?

Surely it is if the church is meant to be His body. Who would want a body that's scattered all over the place? It makes it really hard to get dressed in the mornings.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah, except God. God gets the short stick. God wanted a good creation, but alas, some (many?) must be tortured forever. <--- That's not a caricature; that's somebody's doctrine. God wanted, but didnt get what God deserved. Lord have mercy.

Whose doctrine says God didn't get what he wanted? God didn't deserve to die in payment for the sins of his enemies, but he got what he wanted.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You, Clare, say that God chooses some. On what basis does God choose some?

Was that a Freudian slip, i.e. did you mean, "Why would God choose some"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That sounds like the divine will trumps goodness, justice, beauty, truth, etc. I would agree that the divine will is sovereign, but it is also good, beautiful, true, and just....and what God does proves the point. The product of God's will can't entail a result that is contrary to God's will. God desires that all repent and be saved. Done.

When Christ begged his Father, "if it be possible, let this cup pass," did he not wish something different from what he submitted to? How ever, and no disrespect intended, but I see you lately a bit more dogmatic than in the past. I'm pretty sure you well know the logical possibility that "all" in the texts "desires that all" in 1 Timothy 2 and other similar passages, are not only possibly including absolutely everyone who ever lived.

So, no, not done!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Before He came down from Heaven to make himself to become as a man?... Yes! The Lord God of Israel was a union of two different natures. He was both Soul and Deity in union.

Keep in mind. Jesus clearly stated that God is "spirit" in essence, as found in John 4:23-24.

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Is that safe to assume that we can know that God is "spirit" in essence? Yet, the Lord God of Israel possessed two natures in union. It did not begin with the Incarnation. He always was two natures in union. Its what distinguishes the Son from the Father who is solely one nature.

Here are some proof of what I speak. See what you think...

You will eat the old supply and clear out the old because of the new. Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not reject you.'I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people." Lev 26:10-12​

And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst and to serve Jehovah, so that his soul became impatient because of the trouble of Israel. Jdges 10:16

Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, and anyone loving violence his soul certainly hates." Ps 11:5​

“Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them.. Isa 1:13-14


God (Deity) is not soul!

As those passages reveal, the Lord Jehovah of Israel consisted of two natures in a unique union. With the same Soul that entered the body provided by Mary's womb to make Himself be as a man!

You jump quite a few logical steps. Are we humans possessing of three natures (body, soul and spirit)? or should we add "mind" and "worldview". We are of one nature. Christ was of two: human, and divine.

If I was so inclined I could use Scriptures to make your point better than you have.

You seem to think any invention, as long as it makes sense to you, is good doctrine.

 

[public hermit]

Whose doctrine says God didn't get what he wanted? God didn't deserve to die in payment for the sins of his enemies, but he got what he wanted.

Doesn't God desire that all come to repentance and be saved (1Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 2:9)? If some fail to do so, God is unable to do what God wants or God just doesn't do what God wants. We have two basic options:

Perhaps God's power is limited due to the unsurpassed value of the human freedom to sin. In fact, according to some versions of ECT, the value of the human freedom to sin is greater than the value of the humans, themselves. In this case, God wants to save all but can't.

On other accounts of ECT, God could save all but chooses to save some and subject the rest to eternal torment. This is not due to the unsurpassed value of the human freedom to sin; it's just that God thinks it's good and it gives God glory. In this version, God wants all to repent and be saved, but God chooses not to do that. This version is incoherent since God wants to save all but simply chooses not to.

 

[public hermit]

Was that a Freudian slip, i.e. did you mean, "Why would God choose some"?

No, I was assuming her Calvinist position to bring it to its logical conclusion, i.e. God chooses, for no reason other than divine whim, to create creatures that cannot escape their God-chosen destiny to eternal torment.

 

[GenemZ]

You jump quite a few logical steps. Are we humans possessing of three natures (body, soul and spirit)? or should we add "mind" and "worldview". We are of one nature. Christ was of two: human, and divine.

If I was so inclined I could use Scriptures to make your point better than you have.

You seem to think any invention, as long as it makes sense to you, is good doctrine.

Body is not a nature. Its a means for your soul nature.

The body will decay and be gone. The soul will exist forever and continue to be you.

Only the believer is soul and spirit.

The unbeliever is spiritually dead. He is only soul, and can not know the things of God.

 

[RickReads]

There is support. Just found this...

Who Is Melchisedec? |

If you had your way of thinking prevail? There could have been no high priests of God in Israel.

For all were sinners saved by grace. Being a sinner is what we all were, and remain potentially as so until we receive the resurrection body.

Melchisedec remains a mystery person. That always leads to speculations that reveals the heart of the one making them.

Melchisedec was 'a' high priest of God.

In contrast.. Jesus is 'the' high priest of God.

The writer of the article articulates my view, not yours. Did you actually read this before you put it up?

 

[public hermit]

When Christ begged his Father, "if it be possible, let this cup pass," did he not wish something different from what he submitted to? How ever, and no disrespect intended, but I see you lately a bit more dogmatic than in the past. I'm pretty sure you well know the logical possibility that "all" in the texts "desires that all" in 1 Timothy 2 and other similar passages, are not only possibly including absolutely everyone who ever lived.

So, no, not done!

What reasons are there to think the statement that God desires everyone to be saved doesn't actually mean everyone? 1 Tim. 2: 4-6. Did he not give himself as a ransom for all (v. 6)?