Is God out to get us?

[Clare73]

I thought it was common knowledge in Christianity that Jesus returns to Israel to rescue them in the Second Coming.

Not by longshot.

 

[Guojing]

Not sure.
It seems that the two groups (Jews/Gentiles) run parallel (two gospels?) until the end when they come together. The Jews (Israel) is in a different relationship with God, as a covenant people. They will receive Messiah Y'shua in the end. (as I understand it) Jesus is not the Messiah of the gentiles. Israel will look on "the one they have pierced..." - Zechariah 12:10

Many Christians, being covenant theologians, subscribed to some form of replacement theology, or the more politically correct term "fulfillment theology".

https://rts.edu/resources/what-are-some-misconceptions-about-covenant-theology/

In this view, true/believing Israel is the combination of the remnant Jews that believe in Christ, together with the entire Body of Christ now.

Thus, any promises that was given to believing Israel, can be transferred to the Body of Christ. So they do not believe there are 2 groups.

 

[fhansen]

I suppose many would say, "Yes, God is out to get us."
But what do they mean by "get us"?

Do they mean that God is watching for any slip up, so that he might punish us?
Or is God looking out for our best interest, that he might have us as his own?
Thus pursuing a positive relationship with his creation.

Many would combine these two aspects and claim a balanced view of "God's love and justice". The idea that he wants to have a positive relationship with us, but since we are "completely unworthy", he has no choice but to punish us. Thus blaming the victim for divine alienation and punishment. As if we should be accountable for the way in which he created us. Plan B treatment, since we messed up his plan A. Didn't see that one coming. Now what?

No, I don't believe God's original plan has been derailed by humankind, which he created in his own image. On the contrary. The intent is that all things will be restored. This story ends well.

Romans 8:20-21
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

God wants all humankind to get their stuff together, which begins by our turning to Him first above all else. The human will is the “prize”, so to speak, and the more aligned we are with His will, and the nearer we draw to Him (the more that we love Him to put it best), the nearer we are to truth and justice ourselves. God wants all to come to Him, always having man’s best interest at heart.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Steve...does this quote from Jesus Christ of Nazareth tell us that those who rejected Him will be restored? Or, will all know Him but not all will be with Him? Afterall, Christ lamented the rejection He received by His people. Seems counterintuitive since He will gather them regardless.What do you think ?

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

Wouldn't Jesus be grieved until that finally takes place?

 

[Andrewn]

The term "hell" refers to Hades/Sheol/the realm of the dead. There are 29 references to "the realm of the dead" in the NIV translation.

The word "hell" has been used to translate different biblical terms. These are best transliterated as Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, LOF, outer darkness, and Abaddon.

Some translations have used terms like "hell," "realm of the dead," or "the underworld / netherworld" but these ultimately result in more confusion.

 

[Saint Steven]

God wants all humankind to get their stuff together, which begins by our turning to Him first above all else. The human will is the “prize”, so to speak, and the more aligned we are with His will, and the nearer we draw to Him (the more that we love Him to put it best), the nearer we are to truth and justice ourselves. God wants all to come to Him, always having man’s best interest at heart.

Thanks for your reply to this thread. I liked it, as indicated by the post rating I gave. But, something bothers me about it, which I am having trouble identifying.

Not sure if it is the idea that we are unacceptable to God as we are, or the idea that subjection to his will equals love for God, or that the more our will is laid down, the closer we become to Him. Seems to be odd requirements for a relationship. (rather one-sided?) Not sure.

Not that I don't understand the concepts, I'm just struggling to embrace them. I was accused recently of cuddly Daddy syndrome, in reference to God. Maybe that's my problem. - lol

I do like the general direction you have chosen, that God has our best interests at heart. How would you address my concerns in my second paragraph above?

Perhaps what is bothering me (thinking out loud) is the relationship of the Fall of humankind (in Genesis chapter 3) to the plan of God for humankind. Did the Fall of humankind mean that Plan B was now required (since Plan A was ruined), or was the Fall a part of Plan A all along? (anticipated by God)

Assuming we are still on Plan A (God anticipated the Fall), our need would be redemptive and restorative. Not much hope of us doing that for ourselves. Thus getting our "stuff together". And as you wrote, "which begins by our turning to Him first". On that point we agree.

I think I was also bristling at the idea of our alignment with God's will (obedience?) as a determining factor for His nearness to us. (conditional love?)

Sorry, I wasn't intending to pick your post apart initially. But needed to come back to it since it was bothering me for some reason. Probably has more to do with me than you. Thanks for listening.

 

[Clare73]

Many Christians, being covenant theologians, subscribed to some form of replacement theology, or the more politically correct term "fulfillment theology".

That would be more Biblically correct term.

https://rts.edu/resources/what-are-some-misconceptions-about-covenant-theology/

In this view, true/believing Israel is the combination of the remnant Jews that believe in Christ, together with the entire Body of Christ now.

Thus, any promises that was given to believing Israel, can be transferred to the Body of Christ. So they do not believe there are 2 groups.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Wouldn't Jesus be grieved until that finally takes place?

That time is long gone for those in the first century.

 

[Clare73]

Thanks for your reply to this thread. I liked it, as indicated by the post rating I gave. But, something bothers me about it, which I am having trouble identifying.

Not sure if it is the idea that we are unacceptable to God as we are, or the idea that subjection to his will equals love for God, or that the more our will is laid down, the closer we become to Him. Seems to be odd requirements for a relationship. (rather one-sided?) Not sure.

You talk as though we are on equal footing with God and a relationship with God is on equal terms.
In fact, your whole mind-set is permeated with this contra-Biblical notion.

More time in the study of Scripture is urgently called for.

Not that I don't understand the concepts, I'm just struggling to embrace them. I was accused recently of cuddly Daddy syndrome, in reference to God. Maybe that's my problem. - lol

I do like the general direction you have chosen, that God has our best interests at heart. How would you address my concerns in my second paragraph above?

Perhaps what is bothering me (thinking out loud) is the relationship of the Fall of humankind (in Genesis chapter 3) to the plan of God for humankind. Did the Fall of humankind mean that Plan B was now required (since Plan A was ruined), or was the Fall a part of Plan A all along? (anticipated by God)

Assuming we are still on Plan A (God anticipated the Fall), our need would be redemptive and restorative. Not much hope of us doing that for ourselves. Thus getting our "stuff together". And as you wrote, "which begins by our turning to Him first". On that point we agree.

I think I was also bristling at the idea of our alignment with God's will (obedience?) as a determining factor for His nearness to us. (conditional love?)

Sorry, I wasn't intending to pick your post apart initially. But needed to come back to it since it was bothering me for some reason. Probably has more to do with me than you. Thanks for listening.

 

[Andrewn]

That time is long gone for those in the first century.

Verses in post #27?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Verses in post #27?

Ok here is your post and my comments....(my understanding)
Re Rom 11:
The remnant that believed in Christ in the 1st century or the remnant that believed throughout the ages?
Any and all Jews who are faithful from the very beginning to the time Jesus Christ of Nazareth proclaimed " it is finished" are considered the remnant. The remnant carried the seed of the Messiah among them. They were the faithful. The rest were branches broken off making room for the faithful Gentile. This is the " mystery" spoken of by Paul that Jew and Gentile become one Body.
It looks like the Apostle Paul is talking about their fullness / totality / pleroma. Is this the fulness of their remnant?
Blindness was given to the unbelieving Jew so that the fullness of the Gentiles can be grafted into the Olive Tree. This takes place up until the Temple is destroyed in 70AD. After that, the blindness is lifted. This was a temporary measure in order to release the Gospel. In other words, keeping Temple Judaism seperate from the Gospel was necessary in order for the Gentiles to come into the fold known as The Body of Christ. This is the " mystery".
What does their acceptance mean? Acceptance of the remnant?
They will also receive mercy? Who are "they" the remnant?
The remnant are the " first fruits" into the "Body of Christ". The Apostles are first fruits and the foundation .
It looks like he is talking about a future hope, no? If this hope is about a future generation, why would it be relevant to talk about to Jewish believers living in 1st century Rome?
This is Dispensational theology with an emphasis in Zionism. The blindness ended with the destruction of the temple. Now all have the opportunity to know Jesus Christ of Nazareth the Messiah.
12 If their trespass means riches for the world, and their impoverishment means riches for the nations, how much more will their fullness mean!
Paul often speaks hyperbolic especially in this case, to Gentiles, who may have had an attitude about the unbelieving Jew. He is simply stating that the Gospel came to the Jew first making them the first fruits. Additionally, it would have been very difficult for some to accept the "mystery" of the Gentile fold so the blindness was necessary.
15 If their casting away, you see, means reconciliation for the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?
Paul again is being hyperbolic. God never cast away His chosen people, they always cast Him away. If they choose to believe then they will be reinserted into the Olive Tree.
30 For just as you were once disobedient to God, but now have received mercy through their disobedience, 31 so they have now disbelieved as well, in order that, through the mercy which has come your way, they too may now receive mercy. 32 For God has shut up all people in disobedience, so that he may have mercy upon all.
This confirms the temporary blindness.

 

[fhansen]

Not sure if it is the idea that we are unacceptable to God as we are, or the idea that subjection to his will equals love for God, or that the more our will is laid down, the closer we become to Him. Seems to be odd requirements for a relationship. (rather one-sided?) Not sure.

I'm not sure how to word this best. A serial child-torturer/murderer is not acceptable to God and yet God loves and died for him-while he's yet a sinner, and before the sinner turns to Him in faith, whether he does or not. From God's side the love is unconditional but God still allows us to remain apart from Him, to not love in return.

Anything outside of God's will is sin, is falsehood-and opposed to love. If the sinner mentioned above wishes to remain in his sin he's definitely not drawing near to God, whether he's done so in the past or not. Gods will is perfect truth, reality, not an arbitrary opinion. And our spritual health, our life, is intrinsically interwoven with how we align with that truth. Our purpose, our telos, is determined by God, and it reaches its zenith to the extent that we love, that we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strentgh and our neuighbor as ourselves. So like a good parent God isn't in the busines of spoiling His childern, but of drawing the best out of them, to be who He created them to be. Otherwise he would never have kicked Adam out of Eden to begin with. We're like prodigals who have something that He wants us to learn here, the hard way, of His existence, goodness-of His love- and of our indisputable need for Him, reversing Adam's foolishness and choice of disobedience-within ourselves. This world is a school, a place of formation; our wills are involved.

So man has an obligation, which is what some of us bristle at, and at the end of the day that obligation is to become more like Him. We're obligated to love, as best we can, with the grace He gives. And that cannot be a bad thing, a bad expectation, or a bad plan. And we can thwart that plan but God wants more from and for us than we even know enough to want for ourselves. So He's producing something here, something great, something that's all the greater because of our embracing of and increasingly free participation in it, rather than His just saving a portion of otherwise worthless wretches-whcih He could've done at the beginning if that's all there is to it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

That time is long gone for those in the first century.

You said:

Steve...does this quote from Jesus Christ of Nazareth tell us that those who rejected Him will be restored? Or, will all know Him but not all will be with Him? Afterall, Christ lamented the rejection He received by His people. Seems counterintuitive since He will gather them regardless. What do you think ?

So going by Steve's beliefs of eventual reconciliation, I was asking wouldn't Jesus be grieved until that finally takes place?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

You said:



So going by Steve's beliefs of eventual reconciliation, I was asking wouldn't Jesus be grieved until that finally takes place?

Till what takes place?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Till what takes place?

Eventual complete reconciliation.

 

[Fervent]

The word "hell" has been used to translate different biblical terms. These are best transliterated as Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, LOF, outer darkness, and Abaddon.

Some translations have used terms like "hell," "realm of the dead," or "the underworld / netherworld" but these ultimately result in more confusion.

And a lot of these same words are also translated simply as "the grave," adding to the confusion in English. Though conceptually Gehenna, Tartarus, LOF, outer darkness, and Abaddon are joined as metaphors for a single concept which is where the wicked go after judgment while hades and sheol are the Greek/Hebrew terms for something akin to a temporary abode of the dead before judgment.

 

[Guojing]

Eventual complete reconciliation.

I think he or she believes that there is already complete reconciliation, since covenant theologians believe that the current Body of Christ you see now is the Israel that has reconciled with Christ.

So Christ is not grieved.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I think he or she believes that there is already complete reconciliation, since covenant theologians believe that the current Body of Christ you see now is the Israel that has reconciled with Christ.

So Christ is not grieved.

Maria Billingsley said: ↑
Steve...does this quote from Jesus Christ of Nazareth tell us that those who rejected Him will be restored? Or, will all know Him but not all will be with Him? Afterall, Christ lamented the rejection He received by His people. Seems counterintuitive since He will gather them regardless. What do you think ?

MMXX said: ↑
Wouldn't Jesus be grieved until that finally takes place?

 

[Guojing]

Maria Billingsley said: ↑
Steve...does this quote from Jesus Christ of Nazareth tell us that those who rejected Him will be restored? Or, will all know Him but not all will be with Him? Afterall, Christ lamented the rejection He received by His people. Seems counterintuitive since He will gather them regardless. What do you think ?

MMXX said: ↑
Wouldn't Jesus be grieved until that finally takes place?

From the perspective from Covenant Theologians, "His people" are now the Body of Christ, so from this perspective, why would Jesus stay grieved?

 

[Ceallaigh]

From the perspective from Covenant Theologians, "His people" are now the Body of Christ, so from this perspective, why would Jesus stay grieved?

Wouldn't Jesus be grieved over anyone who hasn't yet accepted his salvation, whether Jew or Gentile?