• 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.

My radical two cents...

A Devil's Advocate

Active Member
Nov 2, 2023
61
23
56
Alberta
✟22,462.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Can we not take any command given in scripture and have Biblical support for say: “This is man’s objective”, since the Bible says, “we are to do this command”?

The Greek word we translate “know” can also be translated “experience”, so are you talking about experiencing God?

Demon and some very wicked false teachers “know” a lot about God, so have they fulfilled man’s earthly objective?
When I say our objective while here on earth is to get to know God, I am meaning in the same sense you would get to know someone you love. But, this only becomes a possibility after salvation. When you say "Our objective while we are here is to accept God's free gift," I totally agree, but is not the point of salvation, so you can get to know God?
It is true that demons and some wicked false teachers know a lot 'about' God, but they don't 'know' God.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.
I really like this. Well said.

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill His Mission?

Man must have a very limited amount of autonomous free will to make at least the one choice to humbly accept or reject God’s Love (forgiveness/mercy/grace/charity).
If you lack the knowledge of good and evil, where is freewill? Without having a reference point from which to distinguish good, is it possible to know God who is all good? It seems to me, without this knowledge it would be impossible to know God. Before the fall, neither Adam or Eve could've said that God is good and the serpent is evil since they both lacked this knowledge. If Eve could have recognized the serpent as being evil, it's highly unlikely she would have ever listed to it.
Freewill, in the biblical sense, has always been man's freedom to deny God. The freedom for the created to deny its creator. So logically, until man gained the knowledge of good and evil, which they probably never would have, without the serpent interfering, the freedom to deny God was not possible. If there is no freedom to deny God, then likewise, there is no freedom to choose God.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….Luke 7) God hates sin, but does allow it, so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.
You are right. Sin is not the problem. The problem is we are dead spiritually leaving us separated from God. We don't need to accept forgiveness, because we already have forgiveness. Forgiveness is not the free gift and neither is it salvation.
Salvation is accepting the free gift of new spiritual life. Forgiveness was necessary beforehand so that it would be possible to receive new spiritual life and never lose it, John 3:16. Paul tells us in 1Cor 15:17 that even though Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins, salvation is found in the resurrection, where new spiritual life is found. We are not asked to believe in the Jesus that died for sins, even though this is what's preached time and time again. We are asked to believe in the Jesus that was resurrected from the dead.

You tell me: Would you prefer to be in a place where your continuous close relationship with God was dependent on your obedience (a Garden type place) or in a place (where you are now) where you are dependent on just humbly accepting God’s Love to forgive you and thus be with Him in heave after your death?

Adam and Eve were not going to fulfill their earthly objective prior to sinning in the Garden situation, there was no reason for them to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity, since they had done nothing wrong. After sinning and under the threat of death they had an excellent reason to humbly desire and accept God’s Love in the form of forgiveness and to be with God in heaven.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they could have gone on forever (with the help from the tree of life) living in the Garden, but after sinning, death became necessary away to leave this world and be in heaven, so they would be encouraged to repent before they died (which could be at any time).

Think about our world without death, would anyone feel encouraged to seek God’s help/Love/Forgiveness, now and not later?
Had Adam and Eve never sinned, then yes, I totally agree, they could have lived forever providing they ate from the tree of life. They wouldn't have known good or evil, and therefore couldn't know God, but they could have pointlessly lived forever. Alternatively, they could've eaten from the tree of life after they sinned and also lived forever Gen 3:22.
Right from creation, death has always been a natural part of human existence, not a result of sin, hence, the tree of life. Spiritual death, however, was not a natural part of human existence.

You speak much on our need for God's love (which I agree), but that it is found in accepting his forgiveness. If sin brought spiritual death into the world and this death resulted in us being separated from God, how is God simply forgiving our sins love? Okay, he forgave me my sins, great! But I'm still dead and separated from him. Is that the extent of his love? Read John 3:16 again. God's love is associated with him giving us everlasting life. Yes, him forgiving our sins was certainly a part of that, but it definitely isn't the fulfillment of his love.

God banishing man from having access to the tree of life isn't so man can die, and hopefully repent at the fear of death. It was so that man wouldn't live forever in a state of separation from God. Whether you commit one sin or 40,000 sins, you are already spiritually dead. Him forgiving these sins doesn't change that fact. It just means that should you choose to accept the free gift of salvation, that is new life, there is now no longer any possibility of ever losing it.

Jesus is quoting the unnumbered first verse of Psalms 22 which would remind the teachers of the Law there at the cross that God had not left Him and they were those mocker of the savior.

I totally agree with what you said: “His ransom payment was made out to you and I and every single human to ever exist.” But do you understand what you said? When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner: Are you trying to get them a accept: Your Church doctrine, a book, baptism, a religion or a person: “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”?

For as long as the person rejects, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” a child is kept out of the Kingdon and away from God.

If this sinner humbly accepts “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”, a child is set free to go to his/her father in the Kingdom.

Christ, Paul, John, Peter and the Writer of the Hebrew Letter all describe Christ and Him crucified as an unbelievable huge “ransom payment”, setting a child free and going to the Father.

This scenario is a kidnapping scenario with the unbelieving sinner being a criminal undeserving of anything good, kidnapper (all of us at one time). We either accept or reject the ransom payment, but this huge, underserved payment is uniquely also a gift, so we cannot pay it back.
In Romans Paul says he is not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to save those who believe. In 1 Corinthians Paul explains this Gospel as being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Christ crucified is only part of the story and was a necessity before salvation could even be offered. Just as Jesus' death and his resurrection are two uniquely separated events, so too are the forgiveness of sins and salvation. They are not one in the same. This is a major theological error being continually preached in our churches, that to be forgiven is to be saved.

The world doesn't hate us because of Jesus. Most people today have no idea who Jesus even is. They hate us because we go around preaching, that because we're Christians, we're forgiven and they aren't. When in reality, everyone has already been forgiven, they just aren't saved. That's because salvation isn't found in getting your sins forgiven. Having our sins already forgiven leaves mankind free to come to God for salvation regardless of anything he's done or not done, and regardless of how bad or undeserving he may be feeling. Jesus, through his death, has made the path to salvation clear and available for everyone.

First off: How long would you allow yourself to be innocently “Waterboarded” by evil people , if at any moment you could call a legion of angels to rescue you and waterboard these evil people?

It is one thing to be rightfully punished for crimes you willfully committed and have no way of escaping the punishment and another to be innocent and have the power to escape.
We're not talking just one or two sins here, we're talking every sin of the entire human race. The punishment he wilfully endured did not come close to paying for that amount of sin. I don't believe it is even possible to pay for that amount of sin physically. Also, if it was his death that payed for sins, why does our own death not pay for our own sins? When a criminal serves time for crimes committed, is he not considered free of those crimes after serving his sentence?

With the exception of Jesus, and Adam and Eve to a lesser extent, no one has ever experienced spiritual death from a state of spiritual life. We have all come into the world already spiritually dead. We could say this is the normal or initial state of a human. We can then receive new spiritual life, should we choose it, but we can't ever lose it. And, since we can't ever lose it, no one has ever experienced it. Remember, spiritual death was the punishment for sin. When God poured out all his punishment on Jesus, which would've had to be in the form of spiritual death, that left no more punishment to be handed out. If there is no more punishment to be handed out, there is no more possibility of spiritual death. And no, you can't simply choose to spiritually die.

If, physical death was God's punishment for sin, then yes, Jesus' physical death would have paid for our sins. But, since the tree of life is able to give everlasting life to a sinner, physical death cannot be the punishment for sin. Is the tree of life somehow more powerful than God, that God cannot punish the sin of someone who eats from it? Of course not. So, obviously physical death can't be the punishment. It must be spiritual death. Now, if spiritual death is God's punishment for sin, then would Jesus pay this punishment through physical death? It doesn't make any logical sense.
 
Upvote 0

A Devil's Advocate

Active Member
Nov 2, 2023
61
23
56
Alberta
✟22,462.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A far better sacrifice because it was once for all, instead of continually repeated,
and a greater sacrifice because it actually atoned and remitted sin, which the animal sacrifices did not and could not do.

That, you don't know.
And if the OT Day of Atonement is the pattern for atonement, which was atonement for the people of God, Israel,
then Jesus' atonement was for the people of God, both Gentile and Jew (all without distinction, not all without exception).

It's not about the Jews and "separation," it's about sin and who are received by God, and how.
Only the people of God were received by God through sacrifice.

Actually, the issue there was not the nature of the gospel, it was the Judaizers who were requiring circumcision for salvation.
Paul's visit was
1) to get the apostles to stand firm on the gospel of grace in order to neutralize the Judaizers who required circumcision for salvation (Gal 2:1-5)
2) so that his preaching of faith alone for salvation--no circumcision required--would not be in vain.
Just to clarify before responding, I do not believe in universal salvation. I believe in universal atonement, in that all mankind has already been forgiven their sins. But, that is not salvation. These are two separate events. Forgiveness has already taken place, but our salvation only happens when we choose to believe.

John 3:16 (NIV)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

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

1 Timothy 2:5-6 (NIV)
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people."

Hebrews 2:9 (NIV)
"But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (NIV)
"For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

1 John 4:14 (NIV)
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

Titus 2:11 (NIV)
"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."

Romans 5:18 (NIV)
"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people."


I think it's a little tough to argue #8. To say that the entire human race has been condemned due to one trespass, but one righteous act only justifies those God has chosen, is a real stretch. If the one righteous act, by one who is far greater than the one who trespassed, only justifies the few (the chosen people of God), then logically, the lesser one's trespass could not have brought condemnation to all people. Only a few.

I heard TD Jakes once say that God choosing those who will be saved is an act of grace on God's part, because that's how much he loves us. His reasoning was that none of us deserve salvation. We are all guilty of sin and therefore all deserve to be punished. But because God is so loving and doesn't want all mankind to perish, God has chosen to save some.

My question is: If God, out of his amazing grace, is obviously capable of saving the entire world if he's willing to save some, but chooses to only save a few, how is that love? It scares me to think that there are so many people out there who find no issue with this while claiming to be a loving Christian. The very idea that anyone should perish should break one's heart if the love of God resides in them. Also, to have to choose between one of your own children who will inherit eternal life and who will perish would destroy any loving parent. To argue that not all people are God's children (in this context) makes no sense either. We all come from Adam and Eve. If they were God's children, then we're all God's children. If they weren't, then none of us are.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
3,153
630
64
Detroit
✟84,017.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Over the years I have come to understand that intellectual blindness/ignorance is a wilful choice. Most of us choose to remain blind/ignorant in certain areas of our life.
I agree.

I do not refer to this in a demeaning manner, but as a simple observation. I am just sa guilty of this and still am. This isn't seen any more clearly than in the gender issues going on today. But, that isn't what this is about. This is about Christianity and what we have been led to believe and still choose to believe. If you've read any of my other posts, you've probably noticed that I don't conform to the current theological understanding of salvation.
However, you should've also noticed that I don't just use scripture to back up what I'm saying, but I also try and explain why in a logical and common sense manner the reasons I believe what I believe.
Using logic and reason is good. The Bile encourages reason. However, the reason why most of us choose to remain blind/ignorant by wilful choice, is because our commonsense reasoning overrides the scriptures.
I'll show you what I mean, in a moment.

What do I mean that I don't conform to current theological understanding of salvation? I mean that I believe it to be incorrect. I'm not saying we can't be saved by believing what we currently believe. But, we could definitely have a far greater acceptance of Christianity, and as a result, a far greater number of people receiving salvation.
Yes, I am well aware that Jesus said "Everyone will hate you because of me" Luke 21:17. We like to use this in defence of why we are so hated. The problem is, today, most people outside the scope of any religion don't even know who Jesus is. The problem isn't Jesus, the problem is our lack of love which, ultimately, stems from incorrect theology.
Lets go back to the fall of Adam. One of the first core beliefs we learned was that physical/human death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin. Which ultimately leads to the belief that Jesus' physical death on the cross paid for the sins of the world. We then choose to ignore all the contradictions and holes this leaves us in scripture. So instead, we focus on sin as being the main problem. In fact, coming in a close second to Jesus dying for our sins, dealing with our sins is the next main focus of Christianity and therefore, should be the focus of the rest of the world too.
Human death did not enter the world through Adam's sin. Death was a natural part of human life right from the start. Hence, the tree of life and the commandment to eat from it, Gen 2:16-17. Why would I choose to believe something that appears to contradict Rom 5:12? There are many reasons, but I'll focus on just two.

First, evil only produces more evil. If death came through sin, then death also must be an evil. Yet, death is always used in the forgiveness of sins. Seems rather contradictory to the character of God for him to use evil to forgive evil. Second, is the fact that the tree of life is able to give everlasting life to a sinner, Gen 3:22. Lets say, for example, you came into possession of a new drug capable of making someone live forever. You give this drug to a person who is slowly dying and will eventually die from terminal cancer. Except, the drug cannot cure the cancer. What would be the outcome? The man would eventually die. Unless the drug is able to cure any and all potential threats of death, it's rather useless. So, if death is the result of sin, then it would be impossible for the tree of life to give everlasting life to a sinner when their sin will ultimately lead to death.
In 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 Paul speaks extensively about death, and says this:
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death
Death is refered to as an enemy, and therefore, evil.

The apostle also says.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Paul is talking about physical death. The same death that is an enemy - evil.

Now, if we try to overide these scriptures with our own commonsense logic, we run ourselves in trouble.
The problem is not the scriptures. It's us, and our pride.
Pride makes us believe we are so knowledgeable, and brilliant, but did not God say, these are the ones he hides wisdom from? Luke 10:21
Yes. God tells us, if we want to understand, we must become foolish. 1 Corinthians 3:18
In other words, we must become babies, who know next to nothing. Only then will we become wise.

Paul says in the same letter to the Corinthians, that the understanding of the crucifixion is foolishness to those perishing. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31

If we take these scriptures as truth -
  • 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
  • 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
  • 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death
We do not have to discard commonsense, to come to the conclusion that Adam was created to live forever.
We just need to understand how.

Adam, as you said, is mortal, which means subject to decay and death.
Adam could not last forever... unless God sustained him.
How?
Well the tree of life would not give Adam immortality. It had no special powers.
However, God, the one with the power, could give Adam everlasting life, the same as promised to all those who remain faithful.

So, if Adam had remained faithful, he would not decay and die. God would sustain his life.
To illustrate it...
Think of it, like your pc that has a battery that is being drained every second it is in use.
Now plug your AC adapter jack into the computer, and plug the power supply into an electrical outlet.
What happens?
Your pc can be used indefinitely.
Make sure you take the battery out, if you intend to use the adapter, to prevent any problems that might occur.

In the same way, if Adam had proved faithful, he would have remained plugged into the power supply - the source of life, and Adam would not have decayed.
Think of the sun. Scientists think the sun will burn out. That's because they do not know that it is being replenished.. by the one they cannot see - God.

So, yes, Adam did die spiritually, and he did die physically.
The death Adam passed on to his offspring was both physical and spiritual, and this is because Adam pulled the plug.
His offspring had no supply - either spiritually, or physically. Deuteronomy 32:5; Ephesians 4:18
Reverse it, and no one would be dying. Jesus would not have had to die.

You see. We can use commonsense, logic, and scripture all together, without substituting, or overriding scripture, with our own thinking.
Do you find a problem here? If so, can you point out where please?

The death Adam suffered was spiritual death, not physical. And just as important, his spiritual death was the immediate punishment given by God, Rom 6:23, Prov 10:16.
When Paul speaks of sin entering the world through one man and death through sin Rom 5:12, he isn't speaking of the world in a literal sense. He is speaking withing the context of man's relationship with God. We know this because sin was already in the world- The serpent deceiving Eve. The analogy I like to use here is marriage. In a marriage there is no hate, even though the world is full of hate. However, given the right deception, hate could enter into that marriage and destroy it. This is exactly what happened. The serpent deceived man, man sinned, and the relationship with God was destroyed.
Yes, Adam destroyed his relationship with God - cutting himself off from the life belonging to God.
He also, because of that, started to deteriorate. His life cut short... which scientist today cannot figure out, since man really should keep living, as his cell are renewed, and repaired, Adam is on a decline to physical death. So is all his offspring.
old-woman-aging.gif


There is this concept of original sin which is the idea that we are all guilty of Adam's sin. It's based mostly on Rom 5:12-21 and sometimes Psalm 51:5. We are not guilty of Adam's sin. In fact, sin isn't even the focus of what Paul is peaking of here in Romans 5:12. Paul's focus is on the fact that we are dead as a result of Adam's sin. He says that sin entered the world through one man and through sin 'death,' and death came to all men. Death is what's at issue here, not our sin. He says death came to all men because we were all in Adam, we all come from Adam, and therefore we all suffered death as a result of Adam's sin. This is why our image is now different from that of God's image, Gen 5:3. Spiritual death is what separates us from God, not our sin.
Sin means miss - missing the mark.
That means, as the Bible says, to fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
Thus, Adam feel short - he missed the standard of perfection set by God, and as the scriptures referenced earlier show, all his offspring were born imperfect - that is, in a state short of perfection - meeting God's standard.

When Adam sinned, God being true to his very nature, had to punish that sin. That punishment was immediate spiritual death. This is extremely important because any sin Adam may have committed after that, the consequences had already taken place. He was already separated from God. And since we all come into the world in the image and likeness of Adam, spiritually dead, our sin isn't the issue here. It's the fact that we are dead and separated from God.

Sin is not a physical issue, it is a spiritual and a moral issue. The spiritual issue deals with our relationship with God, while the moral issue deals with our relationship with our neighbours. I am only focusing on the spiritual issue as it deals with our understanding of salvation.

Now, if we are not guilty because of Adam's sin, would we not still be guilty of our own sin? Yes! Obviously! But again, we are already dead and were dead even before our first sin. So logically, salvation must be the receiving of new spiritual life and not the forgiveness of sins. However, if the wages of sin is spiritual death, then before salvation can even be offered, the punishment for sin must be taken care of or we can never be saved. You see, if you were given new life, but your sins were not forgiven, then you would just die the very next sin you commit. Likewise, if your sins are forgiven, but you are still dead, then you're obviously not saved, which just so happens to be the present state of the unsaved.

In old testament times the high priest would offer a sacrifice for the sins of the people. To do so he would need to enter into the Holy of Holies, into the presence of God, to offer this sacrifice. There was a curtain that separated this room from the rest of the temple. This curtain symbolized the separation between man and God. No one but the high priest, and only once a year, could he enter this room, and only after he himself was cleansed of his own sins. Basically, without being cleansed of his own sins, the high priest could not come into the presence of God to offer a sacrifice for forgiveness for the people. Today, anyone can come to God for salvation. So what changed? Everything has changed, but at the same time nothing has changed.

Everything has changed- At the very moment Christ died on the cross, God tore that temple curtain in two. God did this to show the world that the punishment for sins has been taken care of. As a result, anybody can now come to God for salvation. Jesus, paying the penalty for all sin, satisfied God's just judgment over sin. There is now no longer any penalty for sin to be handed out by God. Jesus took it all. This act brought forgiveness to the entire human race. Simply put, everyone who has come into the world from the cross forward has come into the world already forgiven. But remember, you can be forgiven and still be spiritually dead. That is, forgiven but unsaved.

And nothing has changed- If we need to come to God for salvation first and then we are forgiven, or we must ask to be forgiven before we can be saved, then we are all screwed. If we have not already been forgiven, cleansed of our sins, then no one can approach God for salvation. You cannot ask God to forgive you your sins when you must first be forgiven your sins before you can even approach God for forgiveness. It's a lot like "I cannot get a job because I have no experience, but I have no experience because I can't get a job." As I similarly stated earlier, salvation is not found in getting your sins forgiven. It is found in receiving new life. This new life is found in the resurrection of Jesus, not his death, 1Cor 15:17.

I mentioned that sin is not a physical issue. If it were, then yes, physical death would be the penalty for sin. But, if this were true, then why does our own death not pay the penalty for our own sins? The idea that Christ's physical death paid the penalty for sins is rather silly when you take the time to think about it. Take the worst sin you've ever committed to date. It was paid for at the cross. Take the worst sin every single human to ever exist has committed, collectively, and compare that to yours. Would your worst sin even be considered a drop in the bucket, at that point? Jesus paid for those. Now, take all your sins collectively, and compare that to the collective sins of the entire human race. Again, would yours even be considered a drop in the bucket? Jesus paid for these as well. Okay, now take the thief on the cross beside Jesus, who is being crucified for being a thief. Was the punishment Jesus experienced much worse than what the thief experienced? To some degree, yes. But relatively speaking, the physical punishment Jesus suffered paying for the sins of the entire human race would only amount to possibly God raising an eyebrow, if even that.

Jesus' physical death did not pay for our sins. Sin, in relation to salvation, is a spiritual matter. If the punishment for sin is spiritual death for man, then Jesus would need to suffer the same thing to pay the penalty for man's sin. This is a punishment far worse than anything man could ever dish out, and man can dish out some pretty horrific punishment. For the first time in all of eternity, Jesus world be separated from God. Even the thought of it left Jesus sweating blood while praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, Luke 22:44. So, if Jesus' physical death didn't pay for our sins, then why his physical resurrection? Simple. How else was he to prove he was God if not through his physical resurrection?

John 14:6. This single verse is a prime example of why Christianity is so hated. Out of what we think is love, we like to proclaim that Jesus is the only way to God, If you don't believe in Jesus, well... then it sucks to be you. When in reality, we are saying this out of ignorance. The most common response is "What of those who have never heard of Jesus?" My thoughts exactly! What of those who have never heard of Jesus, like Abraham for example, but still they believe in God? Are they also outta luck? If this is what Jesus is meaning, that he is the only way to the father, then him saying "No one comes to the father except through me" assumes there is or was another way to the father. Yet, scripture is clear that there has never been any other way to the father except through faith. It also assumes that Jesus and the father are not the same, John 10:30, and that Jesus is somehow less than the father, John 14:8-11, John 1:1. However, when you take into account the fact that everyone is already forgiven of their sins, this verse then takes on a whole new meaning.

Saying he is 'exclusively' the only way to the father is like me saying that by plane is, exclusively, the only way from LA to Miami. If you do not come by plane, you cannot get to Miami. That would be ridiculous. There are many ways to get from LA to Miami. By plane, automobile, motorcycle, bicycle, walking, train, boat, even a hot-air balloon. Some, obviously, will take far longer than others, but all will get you there. The reason they will all get you there is because whatever mode of transpertation you choose to take, they all have one thing in common. They are all forms of travel.

Jesus is saying however you choose to come to the father, regardless if it's believing in him or if you've never even heard of him, it will have been through him. Because he paid for the sins of the world, anyone can now come to God for salvation. Therefore, anyone who does, they will have come through/by Jesus regardless of what mode of travel they chose.

There is so much more I would like to say regarding our salvation, but I'm thinking this is already far too long a read. So, I will just leave it at that. I hope this helps you in your understanding with regards to salvation.
Hopefully, this was covered.
 
Upvote 0

Grafted In

Newbie
Site Supporter
Apr 15, 2012
2,517
739
Upper midwest
✟216,934.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Devil's advocate, you wrote "God banishing man from having access to the tree of life isn't so man can die, and hopefully repent at the fear of death. It was so that man wouldn't live forever in a state of separation from God. Whether you commit one sin or 40,000 sins, you are already spiritually dead. Him forgiving these sins doesn't change that fact. It just means that should you choose to accept the free gift of salvation, that is new life, there is now no longer any possibility of ever losing it."

How/ where does Romans 11 fit into your entire explaination of how most of the church has it wrong,...that sin is no longer an issue?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,183
7,536
North Carolina
✟345,041.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Exactly. They are an everlasting being, but not eternal.
Eternal life is not about duration, it's about nature and quality.
It is God's life, and it is everlasting because God is everlasting.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,183
7,536
North Carolina
✟345,041.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Over the years I have come to understand that intellectual blindness/ignorance is a wilful choice.
As is unbelief. . .with far more dire consequences.
Just to clarify before responding, I do not believe in universal salvation. I believe in universal atonement, in that all mankind has already been forgiven their sins. But, that is not salvation. These are two separate events. Forgiveness has already taken place, but our salvation only happens when we choose to believe.
Universal atonement makes God unjust, the same sin being paid for twice, by Jesus on the cross and again by the unbeliever at the Judgment.
John 3:16 (NIV)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
1 John 2:2 (NIV)
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
1 Timothy 2:5-6 (NIV)
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people."
Hebrews 2:9 (NIV)
"But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (NIV)
"For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."
1 John 4:14 (NIV)
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
Titus 2:11 (NIV)
"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."
Romans 5:18 (NIV)
"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people."

I think it's a little tough to argue #8. To say that the entire human race has been condemned due to one trespass, but one righteous act only justifies those God has chosen, is a real stretch.
Are you saying you do not believe the word of God in Ro 5:18?

If so, that is a problem of unbelief, and above the pay grade of all fallen human mortals.
If the one righteous act, by one who is far greater than the one who trespassed, only justifies the few (the chosen people of God),
then logically, the lesser one's trespass could not have brought condemnation to all people. Only a few.
The logic depends on what the definition is. . .

One act of Adam affected all who are of Adam (by birth), while one act of Christ affected all who are of Christ (by re-birth).

Perfect logic and perfect justice.
I heard TD Jakes once say that God choosing those who will be saved is an act of grace on God's part, because that's how much he loves us. His reasoning was that none of us deserve salvation. We are all guilty of sin and therefore all deserve to be punished. But because God is so loving and doesn't want all mankind to perish, God has chosen to save some.
My question is: If God, out of his amazing grace, is obviously capable of saving the entire world if he's willing to save some, but
chooses to only save a few,how is that love?
It scares me to think that there are so many people out there who find no issue with this while claiming to be a loving Christian.
As it scares me to think you understand so little about the nature of justice.
Justice is giving everyone what he is owed--his due, what he has earned.

What does God owe the sons of Adam who, by the nature they inherited from Adam, are in spiritual rebellion against him?. . .Nothing.
That being the case, no one has a just case against him if God gives them nothing, because God owes them nothing.
That he gives something (love) to some is no injustice to others, because he owes no one anything,
and he is free to give to whom he pleases (believers) what he pleases (salvation).

It scares me to think that there are so many people out there who find no issue with this while claiming to be a loving Christian.
That's not what should scare you.
What should scare you is that he is sovereign. . .and you're NOT.
He makes the rules. . .and you DON'T.
You live in HIS creation, he does not live in yours.
You've got no choice in the matter. . .
The very idea that anyone should perish should break one's heart if the love of God resides in them. Also, to have to choose between one of your own children who will inherit eternal life and who will perish would destroy any loving parent.
Not all are children of God, only those born of God (with faith in Jesus Christ) are children of God (Jn 1:12-13).
To argue that not all people are God's children (in this context) makes no sense either. We all come from Adam and Eve. If they were God's children, then we're all God's children. If they weren't, then none of us are.
And here we see the infinite gap between the mind of man and the mind of God, between the divine wisdom and human wisdom, as God stated:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

Logic 101:
If there is a sovereign God who created all things,
does it really matter what you think regarding him and his operation of his creation?

Do you judge him. . .or does he judge you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,809
1,920
✟988,459.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When I say our objective while here on earth is to get to know God, I am meaning in the same sense you would get to know someone you love. But, this only becomes a possibility after salvation. When you say "Our objective while we are here is to accept God's free gift," I totally agree, but is not the point of salvation, so you can get to know God?
“Knowledge” can be programmed into a person. Adam knew how to walk and talk which was programmed into Adam. In fact, since God was responsible for parenting (programming) Adam to adult hood, Adam would have the greatest knowledge a person could have (what would God keep from Adam besides the knowledge of good and evil which Adam did not need at the time?).

Knowledge can puff up a person, increase their self-reliance and reduce their reliance on others (including God).

This messed up world is not the best place to learn about God, but it is the very best place for willing individuals to humbly accept God’s charity/Love in the form of forgiveness and grow that Love with use. The sinner can still hate his/her enemy God, yet be willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from the enemy they hate (this is like most soldiers who surrender to their enemy). That willingness allow God to shower them with gifts.


If you lack the knowledge of good and evil, where is freewill? Without having a reference point from which to distinguish good, is it possible to know God who is all good? It seems to me, without this knowledge it would be impossible to know God. Before the fall, neither Adam or Eve could've said that God is good and the serpent is evil since they both lacked this knowledge. If Eve could have recognized the serpent as being evil, it's highly unlikely she would have ever listed to it.

Freewill, in the biblical sense, has always been man's freedom to deny God. The freedom for the created to deny its creator. So logically, until man gained the knowledge of good and evil, which they probably never would have, without the serpent interfering, the freedom to deny God was not possible. If there is no freedom to deny God, then likewise, there is no freedom to choose God.
The “free will” was in obeying or not obeying the one rule God gave them, which is not a choice between good and evil, but more like a right and wrong free will choice. It might be wrong in some situations to ride your bike in the street, but it is not evil. “If you Love me, you will obey me”, so the Love comes first and this is Godly type Love, we are talking about.

We need to be in the image of God (having free will) to Love like God Loves, which I described in my last post. Adam and Eve in theory could have chosen of their own free will to accept God’s Love as pure undeserved charity, but it is extremely hard for anyone, let alone someone who has done nothing wrong, to humble themselves to the point of accepting charity. This in part has to do with our God given and needed survival-instinct, which leads to: self -awareness, self-esteem, self-reliance, selfishness and pride.
You are right. Sin is not the problem. The problem is we are dead spiritually leaving us separated from God. We don't need to accept forgiveness, because we already have forgiveness. Forgiveness is not the free gift and neither is it salvation.
Salvation is accepting the free gift of new spiritual life. Forgiveness was necessary beforehand so that it would be possible to receive new spiritual life and never lose it, John 3:16. Paul tells us in 1Cor 15:17 that even though Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins, salvation is found in the resurrection, where new spiritual life is found. We are not asked to believe in the Jesus that died for sins, even though this is what's preached time and time again. We are asked to believe in the Jesus that was resurrected from the dead.
You say: “The problem is we are dead spiritually leaving us separated from God.” Adam and Eve prior to sinning were not dead Spiritually nor separated from God, but they still had the same problem (fulfilling their earthly objective) we all face. They still had to obtain Godly type Love, which is not instinctive nor can it be forced into them. God is willing and wanting to shower us with gifts (including: Love, heaven, new life, purpose, fellowship with Him and others, indwelling Holy Spirit), but are we willing to accept them as gifts.
Had Adam and Eve never sinned, then yes, I totally agree, they could have lived forever providing they ate from the tree of life. They wouldn't have known good or evil, and therefore couldn't know God, but they could have pointlessly lived forever. Alternatively, they could've eaten from the tree of life after they sinned and also lived forever Gen 3:22.
Right from creation, death has always been a natural part of human existence, not a result of sin, hence, the tree of life. Spiritual death, however, was not a natural part of human existence.
Addressed above.
You speak much on our need for God's love (which I agree), but that it is found in accepting his forgiveness. If sin brought spiritual death into the world and this death resulted in us being separated from God, how is God simply forgiving our sins love? Okay, he forgave me my sins, great! But I'm still dead and separated from him. Is that the extent of his love? Read John 3:16 again. God's love is associated with him giving us everlasting life. Yes, him forgiving our sins was certainly a part of that, but it definitely isn't the fulfillment of his love.
First off: While we were sinners and enemies of God, we were only just willing to humbly accept pure charity (Love, mercy, grace, forgiveness) from our enemy, but our enemy God will shower us with all kinds of gifts and not just forgiveness, which we in accepting forgiveness as a gift will also accept. This includes being made alive.

Now, I did not create this idea, but Jesus identified to us this fact, in Luke 7: He that is forgiven much Loves much! Are you having a hard time seeing how truly unbelievably huge of a debt our sin created and thus how huge this Love which we receive has to be?

God’s Love is seen and experienced in His forgiving us (this is huge) and thus we automatically receive the gift of a huge Godly type Love.

God is Love, so if we have even a little part of this Love we become like God and can grow this Love with use.
God banishing man from having access to the tree of life isn't so man can die, and hopefully repent at the fear of death. It was so that man wouldn't live forever in a state of separation from God. Whether you commit one sin or 40,000 sins, you are already spiritually dead. Him forgiving these sins doesn't change that fact. It just means that should you choose to accept the free gift of salvation, that is new life, there is now no longer any possibility of ever losing it.
You are right to say: “Him forgiving these sins doesn't change that fact.” It is our humble acceptance of this unbelievable huge debt of sin being forgiven and thus His providing us with this charitable gift of a matching Love, which is hugely significant. You are not wanting to join your enemy (have life with Him) until you Love Him, which comes after humbly accepting His Love.
In Romans Paul says he is not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to save those who believe. In 1 Corinthians Paul explains this Gospel as being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Christ crucified is only part of the story and was a necessity before salvation could even be offered. Just as Jesus' death and his resurrection are two uniquely separated events, so too are the forgiveness of sins and salvation. They are not one in the same. This is a major theological error being continually preached in our churches, that to be forgiven is to be saved.
I have no problem with you separating God’s forgiveness and salvation. As forgiven sinners we do not deserve salvation.

Jesus said before He died, “It is finished”, so His actual death and transition to paradise, come after what was finished with the torture humiliation and murder. I would say the atonement sacrifice was completed while Jesus was still alive on the cross. How do you explain what was finished?
The world doesn't hate us because of Jesus. Most people today have no idea who Jesus even is. They hate us because we go around preaching, that because we're Christians, we're forgiven and they aren't. When in reality, everyone has already been forgiven, they just aren't saved. That's because salvation isn't found in getting your sins forgiven. Having our sins already forgiven leaves mankind free to come to God for salvation regardless of anything he's done or not done, and regardless of how bad or undeserving he may be feeling. Jesus, through his death, has made the path to salvation clear and available for everyone.
This gets us into a lengthy discussion of Matt. 18, which I can do. But prior to that we have, Jesus pray to God on the cross: “Forgive them they know not what they do.” So would God answer Christ’s pray with: “I will”? We than have the issue of Peter later tell the same group of people, they are guilty of crucifying the Messiah, so did God not forgive them?

I use the parable in Matt. 18 extensively as a proof text to show how forgiveness, Love, atonement, grace, and mercy are not one-sided actions but require action on both the giver and receiver to complete the transaction.

This parable is not explained well by every commentary I’ve read.

Before going into this parable, you need to get the context which may not be obvious;

Matt. 18: 21-35

Peter asked a question and Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but 77 times (or 7x70).

I would say: “Jesus answered Peter’s question, perfectly, a strait forward answer, but Jesus’ answer would produce an immediate follow-up question in the mines of the hearers, yet the apostles would be slow to ask Jesus, so what is on their hearts which? This parable is the follow-up answer to the question Peter (and the other disciples) would have on his/their heart(s).

If I was there at this time, when Jesus says 7 times 70 or 77, I would think: “WOW!! How Can we keep from being taken advantage of by our brothers if we are just going to keep forgiving them every time?”

Jesus then needs to address this bigger question with His parable.

Here are some questions I have asked in the past:

The Master (God as seen in verse 35) is the way the apostles and all Christians are to behave.

The (wicked) servant I think would be referring to all mature adults, but am open to other alternatives? (This example, is it referring to all other humans or just other Christian brothers?)

Here is what we might want to further discuss on Matt. 18:

The Master (God) would have to be doing all His part completely perfectly and all He can do in unconditionally forgive the servant, but does the servant accept being forgiven as pure charity (undeserving/unconditional)?

The servant is asked: “Give me time” and “I’ll pay everything back.” Now this unbelievably huge debt is way beyond any possibility of being paid back and the Master states this and the servant would know this also from going through this amount of money, but what would the Master be tell the world about this servant if he gave him more time? Could the servant take pride in telling others: “The Master gave me more time to pay the whole debt back”?

In management 101 they tell us not to give the person a raise at the same time you give them a performance review, why? They come in wanting to hear what raise they got, and that is all they will hear and remember.

This parable might be a classic example of the person hearing what they wanted to hear. The servant came to the master wanting to hear, “I will give you more time to pay all the debt” while he did not even imagine hearing an unbelievable: “Your debt has been totally unconditionally forgiven”, so what did he hear?

If the servant truly accept unconditional forgiveness of this unbelievable huge debt, would he not automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (really Godly type Love), (Luke 7: 40-50) and would that Love have been seen in Loving the Master’s other servants, which it is not being seen?

If a “unconditional forgiveness transaction” had taken place/been completed how could the Master (God) say and do: “Shouldn’t you have had mercy on the other servant just as I had mercy on you?” 34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers. He would be punished until he paid back everything he owed.”?

God being Love would be the perfect forgiver, forgiving everyone of all their wrongs all the time, so how could anyone go to hell?

Is there any other debt the servant owes, since Jesus tells us this is what he owed, that the Master “tried” to forgive?

Does the servant still owe the master, because the servant did not accept the unconditional forgiveness as pure charity and thus automatically Love much?

In the parable, which scenario would give the wicked servant more “glory” accepting or rejecting God’s charity or does it even matter, since all the glory in the story goes to the Master no matter what the wicked servant does?

Can the wicked servant take pride (a false pride) in the fact that, in his mind, he did not “accept” charity but talked the Master into giving him more time?

Jesus gives us one requirement, we often leave out, and that is going to the person we tried to forgive when he did not accept the forgiveness as charity, and explain what he did wrong and why he still owes us. We may stop with just not loaning them our car again, since they still owe us for the last time.

These are teaching moments.

God forgives unconditionally, but we do have to accept it as unconditional, undeserved, unselfish pure charity to complete the transaction.





I did not really look at the details of the servant throwing the other servant in prison. There are always limits to parables, but look at the subtle differences between what the servants did and what the master did. The wicked servant only put the fellow servant in prison (no mention of torture this could be like Paul’s imprisonment) while the master had the wicked servant turned over to a person (being) for continuous torture?

Can we start with what we do agree with in this parable, just let me know yes or no:

1. The master is representing God in the Spiritual Kingdom?

2. The “turned him over to the jailers. He would be punished until he paid back everything he owed.” Represents Hell in the spiritual meaning?

3. The millions and millions of dollars represents spiritually the huge debt sin creates?

4. The wicked servant is a sinner?

5. The Master’s forgiveness of the servant’s debt is the same as God’s part in forgiving a sinner’s sins?

6. The servant’s debt was not forgiven, since in the end the master says, he is imprisoned for the debt?

7. The servant is lying when he says “I will pay everything back” since it is totally not possible?

8. The servant was asking for time and not forgiveness and gives no indication He accepted the forgiveness as charity?

If we agree with this we are 90% in agreement. The only question is: “Since the wicked servant still owes the master the huge debt after the master did his part of forgiving the wicked servant, what else must happen for the transaction of forgiveness to be fully completed?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,809
1,920
✟988,459.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
continued:
We're not talking just one or two sins here, we're talking every sin of the entire human race. The punishment he wilfully endured did not come close to paying for that amount of sin. I don't believe it is even possible to pay for that amount of sin physically. Also, if it was his death that payed for sins, why does our own death not pay for our own sins? When a criminal serves time for crimes committed, is he not considered free of those crimes after serving his sentence?
I Love your wisdom and logic you show here and agree with most everything you say. Very Good!

Yes! How bad is it to offend the Creator of the Universe just one time? Nothing can “pay” for that crime, but is God’s Love great enough to forgive you?

Do you understand the difference between being “punished” and being “disciplined” since both are “just”?

Dr. Dobson would say: “You discipline your children and never punish your children”.

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

God is not blood thirsty, Christ did not take your place or pay for your sins. Christ wen to the cross so you could go to the cross and be disciplined for your sins and not punished for your sins. You are to be crucified with Christ.
With the exception of Jesus, and Adam and Eve to a lesser extent, no one has ever experienced spiritual death from a state of spiritual life. We have all come into the world already spiritually dead. We could say this is the normal or initial state of a human. We can then receive new spiritual life, should we choose it, but we can't ever lose it. And, since we can't ever lose it, no one has ever experienced it. Remember, spiritual death was the punishment for sin. When God poured out all his punishment on Jesus, which would've had to be in the form of spiritual death, that left no more punishment to be handed out. If there is no more punishment to be handed out, there is no more possibility of spiritual death. And no, you can't simply choose to spiritually die.
I do not agree with the idea: “We have all come into the world already spiritually dead”. We are born innocent (this takes lots of words to explain.)

God can “forgive us” without the need for Christ to go to the cross.
If, physical death was God's punishment for sin, then yes, Jesus' physical death would have paid for our sins. But, since the tree of life is able to give everlasting life to a sinner, physical death cannot be the punishment for sin. Is the tree of life somehow more powerful than God, that God cannot punish the sin of someone who eats from it? Of course not. So, obviously physical death can't be the punishment. It must be spiritual death. Now, if spiritual death is God's punishment for sin, then would Jesus pay this punishment through physical death? It doesn't make any logical sense.
I fully agree: “physical death can't be the punishment”, since death itself is not a punishment, but the way we get to go to heaven and bad people quit doing bad stuff. If the tree of life was around today, I would not eat from it, since I much prefer to go to heaven than remain forever on earth.

Spiritual Death (separation from God) only persists if you do not repent and have God forgive you. Sin separates you from God, but that also should help you to repent and return to God. I do not agree with OSAS, but that takes lots of words and scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,144
EST
✟1,123,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, but what is the difference between something being everlasting and something being eternal? Surely they are synonymous. Jesus said:

“"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)

and:

“"He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” (Joh 12:25 NKJV)

Are you saying that He was talking about two different things?
The Greek word translated everlasting in John 3:16 is aionios. The Greek word translated eternal in John 12:25 aionios.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,183
7,536
North Carolina
✟345,041.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Greek word translated everlasting in John 3:16 is aionios. The Greek word translated eternal in John 12:25 aionios.
Der Alte has volumes on this. . .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Der Alte
Upvote 0