God’s faith in us matters more than our faith in God.

[Saint Steven]

What aspects of God's character in the OT do you want to erase?

Maybe the genocidal part? Feel the love.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm saying the scripture says we cant hold God to account by human judgements. We never have the full story to judge, the chasm between our human conclusions and His Glory and Holiness is too vast, He is to be fully trusted and we are not. He is the embodiment of Love - what could there be to judge? His judgements are perfect, ours are not.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. As the saying goes. Let's do a body count and decide.

What can we conclude?
We are told of a global genocide (the flood) and an ethnic slaughter of the Canaanites. (for starters) Anything wrong with that?

The literalist says: "Nope, he's God. He can do whatever he wants. We are powerless to stop him. Besides, who are we to judge God? Just look the other way. Nothing to see here."

The bottom line: If God is love, he did none of those things. If he did none of those things, there's something wrong with the biblical record, OR the way we are reading it. (I'll go with the latter)

 

[Carl Emerson]

@Carl Emerson - This verse was life-changing for me. An eye-opener. Why does it say, "not only for ours"?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Yes but the 'whole world' does not want it...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I know what it says through Damnationist lens. But what does it say if you take those glasses off? What does it ACTUALLY say? Same goes for this one. (and many more)

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Stephen, I can do the same thing and have a verse contest...

At the end of the day it is not about verses but what He says through them.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Well, the proof is in the pudding. As the saying goes. Let's do a body count and decide.

What can we conclude?
We are told of a global genocide (the flood) and an ethnic slaughter of the Canaanites. (for starters) Anything wrong with that?

The literalist says: "Nope, he's God. He can do whatever he wants. We are powerless to stop him. Besides, who are we to judge God? Just look the other way. Nothing to see here."

The bottom line: If God is love, he did none of those things. If he did none of those things, there's something wrong with the biblical record, OR the way we are reading it. (I'll go with the latter)

So will I, but I don't read it the way you do...

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes but the 'whole world' does not want it...

I think that is a fallacy of Evangelicalism.
As if the payment was insufficient. Or that the grace of God could be thwarted by human rejection. When Jesus said, "It is finished.", he meant it.

Saint Steven said: ↑
@Carl Emerson - This verse was life-changing for me. An eye-opener. Why does it say, "not only for ours"?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Saint Steven]

At the end of the day it is not about verses but what He says through them.

That's what I have been telling you all along. What does this one actually say?

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Same reply - you interpret different than I do...

 

[Saint Steven]

Same reply - you interpret different than I do...

Do you believe that a person will face condemnation if their doctrine isn't perfectly correct?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Do you believe that a person will face condemnation if their doctrine isn't perfectly correct?

Of course not...

 

[Saint Steven]

Of course not...

Okay, good. You had made a comment earlier about someone going down doctrinal rabbit holes. (Alice in Wonderland reference?) I wasn't sure what your tolerance level for "error" was. "Error" being defined as someone else's take/opinion on a doctrine that differs from your own.

Over time I have figured out that those I was told were in gross error really aren't. They just see things differently. On the other hand, I have met individuals that seemed like a lost cause.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Do you believe that a person will face condemnation if their doctrine isn't perfectly correct?