I don't agree with your assessment of Romans 13 at all. The cop in the small town deriving revenue from setting speed limits lower than what is reasonable did not have God order them to do that. He allows them just like He allows other criminal activity without immediate judgment.
You are correct.. And I should have placed an "and/or" between "he orders and allows them".. As I agree with yuur point fully on Rom 13, and I just communicated it badly. Thanks. And that was what I was trying to communicate with His judgment. Sometimes they are now in the present, and sometimes he postpones this judgement. But there are no powers that exist, without Him being aware and capable of doing something about it, if He chooses. Would you agree with that?
Quote
"Death is a requirement or else evil will be allowed to continue eternally" Is this a scripture somewhere, or a construct of the human mind? I mean what a horrible picture to paint of God - "powerless human, you need to die so your evil can't continue. But I'll resurrect you later". Sounds like a God of waterboarding to me.
The entire sentence can be described as a "construct of the human mind", sure, since i know of no single verse. And I'm not trying to paint any rosy picture here. There is a final judgement day coming, just as much as there have been "smaller" days of judgement in the past. Should I instead couch it in, "Oh don't worry, God loves you, you just continue doing whatever your heart desires. Bless your little precious heart. God will forgive you, it'll all be ok!". Or what in your mind "should" God do with those who just desire to kill, rape, and pillage others.
Quote
I wasn't criticizing you - your post was just a springboard into a more detailed discussion. I'm not sure what you are going to take as critical or not - I am posting different opinions than you have and questions about logical points - my aim is not chopping you down or anything just to further discussion and develop this topic of salvation we are discussing in detail. Thanks for all your posting and contributions I enjoy reading the detail whether I stand on the same side of a particular discussion as you do or not.
Don't worry about me.. I'm fine with any feadback of any kind. I enjoy critiques.. I enjoy having a discussion, mostly though. That's why I come here. If I wanted to just write platitudes, I guess I would become a book writer.. But rather I'm interesting in conversing and learning from other's takes. Especialling on toppics I think are important. They help me formulate and perfect my own thoughts. So don't worry if I take it as criticism or not, I wasn't trying to keep you from your expressing yourself.
Why suppose that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things?
I don't believe I've insinuated that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things, have I? If so, I apologize for misleading. Rather, I thought I was attempting to help define "salvation" as used in the scriptures. Which is found in a wide variety of contexts and situations, all different things that one was, is, and would seek deliverance from. But of course, I think ultimately, at least in regards to the topic of this thread, I believe we are all talking about salvation from the one and same thing. That is, saved from the wrath to come. The final judgement. Or am I mistaken on that also?
Quote
Furthermore, are you supposing that the conditions for salvation are the same for all?
So, you think what saves one person is no different that what saves anybody else?
I don't believe "conditions" is a word I would use in regards to "salvation".. God judges based on the heart and has only asked that anyone trust Him. For we are saved by grace through "pistis(trust/faith/etc.)", not out of works, lest any man should boast. Would you define "pistis" as a condition? Is it a work? Is it something you do? I know TWI used to always like to say "pistis(believing)" is a verb and therefore connotes action. And action is usually a good basis for work, but is it work?
If we are talking about the ultimate deliverance from the final death, from the final judgement, then yes, I would most definitely say God has always had it planned by one way, Christ. Whether it be the first Adam, or his final descendant, it has, is, and will always be by way of His son.
But of course, I think ultimately, at least in regards to the topic of this thread, I believe we are all talking about salvation from the one and same thing. That is, saved from the wrath to come. The final judgement.
My view of it sees these as two very different events. The wrath to come points to the tribulations written in Revelations (and referred to in Jeremiah as the time of Jacob's trouble.) The final judgement sounds like something after death, such as the great white throne. Of course, the question arises as to when anyone might have first known of either of these events, and why anyone that didn't know about them would need (or would think they needed) salvation from them.
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
I don't believe "conditions" is a word I would use in regards to "salvation".. God judges based on the heart and has only asked that anyone trust Him.
Really? And exactly what sort of evidence or scriptures might you be basing that statement on? Who or where do you see that anyone is saved by that?
Yes, but it merely shifts the issue to knowing what it is to believe, or what is to be believed. Okay, "Believe God." Are you going to leave it at that with no other parameters? Then how does that fit with and what do you make of James 2:19?
If we are talking about the ultimate deliverance from the final death, from the final judgement, then yes, I would most definitely say God has always had it planned by one way, Christ. Whether it be the first Adam, or his final descendant, it has, is, and will always be by way of His son.
Giving some consideration to the manifold wisdom of God, I don't know why you would insist on saying that God always had it planned by one way (unless you start with Genesis 1:2 and jump straight to Rev. 21.) Sure, I wouldn't have questioned it had you said that He knew which way it would play out. (Maybe He did, maybe He didn't. Frankly, I'm not sure. Either way, I believe He has the means to, and knows exactly how to keep it on track.) I'm just not so quick to think or say it was only planned by "one way." Perhaps you need to fill in a lot more details of what you see in "by way of His son."
You are correct.. And I should have placed an "and/or" between "he orders and allows them".. As I agree with yuur point fully on Rom 13, and I just communicated it badly. Thanks. And that was what I was trying to communicate with His judgment. Sometimes they are now in the present, and sometimes he postpones this judgement. But there are no powers that exist, without Him being aware and capable of doing something about it, if He chooses. Would you agree with that?
What I'm trying to get at is people talk about whether or not God will bring judgment in the present like He rolls dice and decides or something. Usually what I see is this line of reasoning is trying to induce or inspire someone with fear motivation towards a certain behavior. What would you see as determining God carrying out or postponing judgment in the present? I mean the general mainstream Christian view is God holds off from judgment for the future like the parable of the wheat and the tares. The question this line of reasoning brings up is "How much does God intervene in human affairs?"
Is there comfort in thinking that God is aware of everything and capable of doing something about it if He chooses, He just doesn't choose because that would make it unjust?
The entire sentence can be described as a "construct of the human mind", sure, since i know of no single verse. And I'm not trying to paint any rosy picture here. There is a final judgement day coming, just as much as there have been "smaller" days of judgement in the past. Should I instead couch it in, "Oh don't worry, God loves you, you just continue doing whatever your heart desires. Bless your little precious heart. God will forgive you, it'll all be ok!". Or what in your mind "should" God do with those who just desire to kill, rape, and pillage others.
In my mind I don't try to determine how God carries out or should carry out justice. And the method that will happen is not tremendously clear. "Final judgment" - what do you refer to there? The rapture and rewards? The "Great White Throne Judgment"? The judgment of Satan and lake of fire? What "smaller days of judgment" in the past are you talking about? I'm not condoning promoting sin in grace. But it is a dangerous slope when man starts playing God.
Since we are discussing this, I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer, but what does it mean to you, to "Accept Christ and find a place in the His body"?
Lately my view on this has been "anything except the polar opposite which we see as common occurrences in the Way and splinter groups".
Accepting Christ - I would feel no other need to embellish that phrase. People who make Christ Lord are not tricked into it. Plenty of instruction in scripture for this one.
Find a place in His body -
WHAT IT IS NOT: - I was a person with a high position in the Way, to preserve "my effort and years of studying scripture" I will start a new splinter group with myself as the "leader, director, originator, founder, etc".
WHAT IT IS - a healthy acknowledgement that the teachings of the Way regarding a "household of God" as somehow separate and more elite than the "body of Christ" are antichrist, and actions that show appreciation for other members in particular in the body of Christ including those in denominations, in the Catholic church, in cities and communities across the world as community Christian churches. Christians acknowledge and appreciate and collaborate with other Christians, not isolating themselves off into a little small group called a "twig" or called whatever with a "twig coordinator" or a "whatever coordinator" who is or isn't calling themselves that at the moment like the RnR railroad folks.
This is only answering the question "what do I mean by accepting Christ and finding a place in His body".
My view of it sees these as two very different events. The wrath to come points to the tribulations written in Revelations (and referred to in Jeremiah as the time of Jacob's trouble.) The final judgement sounds like something after death, such as the great white throne. Of course, the question arises as to when anyone might have first known of either of these events, and why anyone that didn't know about them would need (or would think they needed) salvation from them.
That's fine.. Eschatology is not really much of a topic that interests me. It's future and a bunch of speculation. Whatever it may end up being, will be beyond my thoughts. And while I tend to agree with you that the wrath to come is "probably" the pre-millenial tribulation. I can't say I am 100% certain of it.
As with who knew what, and when, is not something I believe we can arrive at. It's almost as speculative as knowing the future, with not much more written concerning the time. If the Tanakh's account of the first man Adam is believed in any literal sense, humans since the beginning has known that we have been burdened with the result of man's departure from trusting the creator. Cursed is the ground itself, and death has arrived whether in whole or in part. Now, while some of the events I would put as being more allegorical, I wasn't there, and it's just speculation. But even if the future events were not clear, the salvation from the present condition of creation and mankind could very well possibly be a source of thought. Since Hebraic thought was usually concrete and anchored around what one could see in front of them, such as the past (which they considered in front), and what was behind them, the future, was part of the unknown.
Quote
Really? And exactly what sort of evidence or scriptures might you be basing that statement on? Who or where do you see that anyone is saved by that?
Saved by what? Trust? I would find it hard pressed to find a place where one is not saved through "that". (Salvation is "by/through God's" grace "through/by way of" pistis).
Quote
Would you define "pistis" as a condition? Yes, but it merely shifts the issue to knowing what it is to believe, or what is to be believed. Okay, "Believe God." Are you going to leave it at that with no other parameters? Then how does that fit with and what do you make of James 2:19?
It would be rare for me to define "pistis" with the English word "believe". It's true that at times "pistis eis" + a thing is used of belief in something. Or even "pistis" by itself at times. Which for me emphasizes the acknowledgment and/or acceptance and/or persuaded agreement with said doctrine. Much like saying I believe that chair can hold me up. Yet, I haven't placed my body's weight on that chair. And for James 2:19, I would say that is a good example of defining "pistis" as such. They take part in the mental exercise even to the point of "trembling", but that's the extent of the matter.
But when we are speaking of "pistis" in God, there is quite a bit of historical evidence for an expanded understanding. In Kittel's Theological Dictionary entry under pistis there's a fairly good amount of tracing it's meaning throughout history and written occurrences, and trust seems to be a much better English word to define "pistis". And that portion of James is a good place where the writer uses the word to separate 2 different ways "pistis" can be used. Especially since "pistis" in Greek literature denoted the faithfulness/trustworthiness of someone, and placing ones "pistis" in another goes far beyond just a mere agreement in belief, but a placing of one's life in their hands, or using my previous example - their weight on that chair. Kittel actually takes it further and notes that even in Hebraic writings, that the Hebrew words (translated as "pistis in the LXX) also add the meaning of obedience, and then notes how that same understanding was brought over to the Greek word "pistis" to early and late Greek writings including the christian writings.
Giving some consideration to the manifold wisdom of God, I don't know why you would insist on saying that God always had it planned by one way (unless you start with Genesis 1:2 and jump straight to Rev. 21.) Sure, I wouldn't have questioned it had you said that He knew which way it would play out. (Maybe He did, maybe He didn't. Frankly, I'm not sure. Either way, I believe He has the means to, and knows exactly how to keep it on track.) I'm just not so quick to think or say it was only planned by "one way." Perhaps you need to fill in a lot more details of what you see in "by way of His son."
I don't believe I would "insist" on anything. But I do believe and see in the writings that God has planned it that way from the very onset of creation, not that I couldn't be mistaken. But from Genesis 1:1 through to the end. Not sure why the first verse was omitted, as I wouldn't think God's division of earth and heaven(s) should be absent from that plan. As for detailing his plan "by way of His son", would take a good amount of time, which might become necessary, but at this very moment I don't have the time. But maybe you see a time or place that you don't see it through His son, in which case, what would that be?
What I'm trying to get at is people talk about whether or not God will bring judgment in the present like He rolls dice and decides or something. Usually what I see is this line of reasoning is trying to induce or inspire someone with fear motivation towards a certain behavior. What would you see as determining God carrying out or postponing judgment in the present? I mean the general mainstream Christian view is God holds off from judgment for the future like the parable of the wheat and the tares. The question this line of reasoning brings up is "How much does God intervene in human affairs?"
Is there comfort in thinking that God is aware of everything and capable of doing something about it if He chooses, He just doesn't choose because that would make it unjust?
"Like He rolls dice and decides something"? I don't believe I have heard any Christian speak of it as such. Not to say the communication of such could be construed to mean that. And maybe some have. But most that I know of, believe God has a plan. We may not know it, or see the fullness of it, or even have the capacity to understand it. There is no "game of dice". But there are decisions that He has and does make. They are found throughtout the scripture. Why God's judgement was only partial for Cain after he murdered his brother, and instead chose to spare his life, yet chose to take (or allow the death, depending on one's view) the life of the man who chose to keep the ark of the covenant from falling. Or how he saved Aaron the judgement given to his sister Mariam when they BOTH spoke against Moses. He withholds from one, and allows the other. Typically only unbeliever's have described this as a "dice throw". I don't believe it is. God has a reason for everfything he does. Whether he allows evil to continue or chooses to take action. How much God intervenes would require one to know His thoughts. Yet His ways are greater than ours. That is, unless of course again, one believes not in God.
Course, there are Deists, that believe God has set all in motion, and relegated the events to take place according to only our choosing. But I don't see the scriptures agreeing with that view. And open theists take to the view that God just isn't capable of knowing what's going to happen, and so bad things take place because God didn't forsee a particular action and played the wrong die. I think that view leads to the opposite of the trust God desires us to have. No doubt at least they have a few scriptures that play into that thought, much as verses on the trinity or the dead being alive.
Can one find comfort in a God who is "not" aware and incapable of doing something? Can such a "God" be depended upon actually bringing about His plan when one has opined that He is incapable of simpler matters? Would you find "comfort" in someone who just "says" they will bring something about, yet there's no proof in the present, not just past writings of others? Personally, I'm not looking for comfort. If others find it in a particular view, then all the better for them. I don't put my trust in God because I'm looking for "comfort", but I uunderstand each has their own motivation. But to me it makes little sense to think a God who didn't forsee and/or was incapable enough in "round 1" when Satan was let loose, to stop him, and then think somehow round 2 will be any different (Or maybe round 9 billion, seeing that it's possible all the times He didn't stop evil was because he didn't know or was incapable, maybe some day He will get it right).
Quote
I'm not condoning promoting sin in grace. But it is a dangerous slope when man starts playing God.
Lately my view on this has been "anything except the polar opposite which we see as common occurrences in the Way and splinter groups".
The polar opposite? Personally, I've yet to see any benefit to trying to compare beliefs with what TWI or a splinter puts forth, as if their belief is some sort of non-standard that one should stray far from or a standard to keep close to. Sure there are lots of "Christian" beliefs from many polar perspectives, but then who defines how polar a belief is? Is there a true standard somewhere? Since everyone claims theirs is scriptural. Maybe we can stick to what Paul said and our foundation be Christ. Only, even that seems to have many polar forms!
Quote
Christians acknowledge and appreciate and collaborate with other Christians, not isolating themselves off into a little small group ....
In Kittel's Theological Dictionary entry under pistis there's a fairly good amount of tracing it's meaning throughout history and written occurrences, and trust seems to be a much better English word to define "pistis".
My understanding of this word has always been, "A complete confidence in or of", which ran across what was propounded by TWI. But every research tool I used that didn't come out of TWI NEVER defined it the way they did. I think one of them came a little close, but that was it.
Probably far, far more than He is ever given credit or thanks for!
(Obviously, that's not in the sense of judgments.)
However, speaking of judgment, it appears to me that God (being longsuffering as He is) tends to wait until iniquity has run its course in a nation and is "full" before judgment is unleashed (see Gen. 15:16; Rom. 11:25.) Perhaps it's akin to allowing someone to stick their foot so far down their own throat there's absolutely no way to retract or correct what's been done. Of course, where that is or what that means isn't exactly clear... and we never tend to have the sort of patience and longsuffering that we could ever relate much to it anyways.
On 6/22/2018 at 12:52 PM, chockfull said:
In my mind I don't try to determine how God carries out or should carry out justice.
Accepting Christ - I would feel no other need to embellish that phrase. People who make Christ Lord are not tricked into it.
Does "accepting Christ" always necessarily make Christ Lord (viz., in your life)? Frankly, I'm not persuaded it does. Which raises a question of what you (or anyone else) thinks either of those statements mean. So, let me cut to the chase here. What is the relationship between either statement, and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Is either one possible without the other? Because it appears to me that there have been deliberate efforts by some in positions of prominence (not by you, per se) to diminish and/or eliminate any need to believe in his resurrection.
As with who knew what, and when, is not something I believe we can arrive at.
Well, evidently I think it's possible to know (from what's written) a lot more of what they knew than you seem to think possible. (And, I also think it's just as important to consider what they probably didn't know.)
11 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
Cursed is the ground itself
Think it's still cursed?
11 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
Saved by what?
Exactly. That's the question that needs a better answer. If we can't work forward, then how about working backwards. Let's start with how anyone can be (or is) saved today, and never mind whether it applies anywhere else.
I don't believe I would "insist" on anything. But I do believe and see in the writings that God has planned it that way from the very onset of creation, not that I couldn't be mistaken. But from Genesis 1:1 through to the end. Not sure why the first verse was omitted, as I wouldn't think God's division of earth and heaven(s) should be absent from that plan. As for detailing his plan "by way of His son", would take a good amount of time, which might become necessary, but at this very moment I don't have the time. But maybe you see a time or place that you don't see it through His son, in which case, what would that be?
Does "accepting Christ" always necessarily make Christ Lord (viz., in your life)? Frankly, I'm not persuaded it does. Which raises a question of what you (or anyone else) thinks either of those statements mean. So, let me cut to the chase here. What is the relationship between either statement, and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Is either one possible without the other? Because it appears to me that there have been deliberate efforts by some in positions of prominence (not by you, per se) to diminish and/or eliminate any need to believe in his resurrection.
I was but a child when I experience this personally. You accept Christ as Lord. If you start dissecting it up like that you get into all sorts of questions that basically lead to people questioning whether they are "born again", "saved", whether they fulfilled that phrase exactly, or not. It's not a rune that you have to read with the right pronunciation, otherwise, no power is energized. You have a desire in your heart. God knows this. You carry out that acceptance in prayer in some fashion. God is not going to sit up there and say "whoops - you got the password phrase wrong, try again - only 3 attempts left". With respect to the resurrection, I'm not sure how there is any logical sense to making a dead man Lord in your life. But I guess there's still Nirvana cover bands with people aspiring to be like Kurt Cobain musically, right?
I have no doubt that worked just fine for an Israelite (back then.)
But honestly speaking, I have plenty of reason to doubt that it works the same for anybody and everybody today.
34 minutes ago, chockfull said:
With respect to the resurrection, I'm not sure how there is any logical sense to making a dead man Lord in your life.
Because separated and apart from the resurrection, I see nothing that requires anyone to believe anything beyond or more than what they can know and believe by their senses. And as I see it, Israel is the proof (after hundreds and hundreds of years of repeated signs, miracles, and wonders) that "going by your senses alone" never had any long lasting effects, and is actually rather incapable of genuinely pleasing God.
p.s. He was no longer dead, after the resurrection.
I have no doubt that worked just fine for an Israelite (back then.)
But honestly speaking, I have plenty of reason to doubt that it works the same for anybody and everybody today.
Because separated and apart from the resurrection, I see nothing that requires anyone to believe anything beyond or more than what they can know and believe by their senses. And as I see it, Israel is the proof (after hundreds and hundreds of years of repeated signs, miracles, and wonders) that "going by your senses alone" never had any long lasting effects, and is actually rather incapable of genuinely pleasing God.
p.s. He was no longer dead, after the resurrection.
What doubts do you have?
My point was that making Him Lord in your life indicates a living Lord, which has a prerequisite of a resurrection. I guess you can focus on the resurrection, but that is one event in a long sequence. Why that as opposed to the ascension? Or the appearances in between?
My understanding of this word has always been, "A complete confidence in or of", which ran across what was propounded by TWI. But every research tool I used that didn't come out of TWI NEVER defined it the way they did. I think one of them came a little close, but that was it.
Sounds like a decent definition to me. But as Kittel points out, there are a couple different meanings depending on their usage. Mostly in the vein of "pistis eis" + thing versus "pistis eis" + person. The prior being more along the lines of a mental acceptance vs the later being trust (or confidence) placed in someone which (at least to the author) included some form of obedience.
Well, evidently I think it's possible to know (from what's written) a lot more of what they knew than you seem to think possible. (And, I also think it's just as important to consider what they probably didn't know.)
Please don't let my "doubt" stop you from sharing your theory on the matter.
Quote
Cursed is the ground itself. Think it's still cursed?
No, it's not still cursed. The earth is a wonderful regular garden of eden where peace reigns over all. I have no enemies, do you?!
Quote
Saved by what? Exactly. That's the question that needs a better answer. If we can't work forward, then how about working backwards. Let's start with how anyone can be (or is) saved today, and never mind whether it applies anywhere else.
A better answer?! Is there a better answer?! Did we finish defining what being saved means then? And so do you consider all these three one in the same thing? Eph 2:8 says you have been saved by God's gift of grace - past tense; 1 Cor 1:18 says they are being saved by God's power - present; and Rom 13:11 says our salvation is nearer than when we first believed - future.. If not then to what do they speak of? If they do, then are you saying the earth isn't still cursed?
A fatalist.. No, and I would hope my post didn't seem to imply such. Free will, while I believe was as much of God's plan as anything else, I don't believe it is without limits.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
TrustAndObey
You are correct.. And I should have placed an "and/or" between "he orders and allows them".. As I agree with yuur point fully on Rom 13, and I just communicated it badly. Thanks. And that was what I was trying to communicate with His judgment. Sometimes they are now in the present, and sometimes he postpones this judgement. But there are no powers that exist, without Him being aware and capable of doing something about it, if He chooses. Would you agree with that?
The entire sentence can be described as a "construct of the human mind", sure, since i know of no single verse. And I'm not trying to paint any rosy picture here. There is a final judgement day coming, just as much as there have been "smaller" days of judgement in the past. Should I instead couch it in, "Oh don't worry, God loves you, you just continue doing whatever your heart desires. Bless your little precious heart. God will forgive you, it'll all be ok!". Or what in your mind "should" God do with those who just desire to kill, rape, and pillage others.
Don't worry about me.. I'm fine with any feadback of any kind. I enjoy critiques.. I enjoy having a discussion, mostly though. That's why I come here. If I wanted to just write platitudes, I guess I would become a book writer.. But rather I'm interesting in conversing and learning from other's takes. Especialling on toppics I think are important. They help me formulate and perfect my own thoughts. So don't worry if I take it as criticism or not, I wasn't trying to keep you from your expressing yourself.
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I don't believe I've insinuated that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things, have I? If so, I apologize for misleading. Rather, I thought I was attempting to help define "salvation" as used in the scriptures. Which is found in a wide variety of contexts and situations, all different things that one was, is, and would seek deliverance from. But of course, I think ultimately, at least in regards to the topic of this thread, I believe we are all talking about salvation from the one and same thing. That is, saved from the wrath to come. The final judgement. Or am I mistaken on that also?
I don't believe "conditions" is a word I would use in regards to "salvation".. God judges based on the heart and has only asked that anyone trust Him. For we are saved by grace through "pistis(trust/faith/etc.)", not out of works, lest any man should boast. Would you define "pistis" as a condition? Is it a work? Is it something you do? I know TWI used to always like to say "pistis(believing)" is a verb and therefore connotes action. And action is usually a good basis for work, but is it work?
If we are talking about the ultimate deliverance from the final death, from the final judgement, then yes, I would most definitely say God has always had it planned by one way, Christ. Whether it be the first Adam, or his final descendant, it has, is, and will always be by way of His son.
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
My view of it sees these as two very different events. The wrath to come points to the tribulations written in Revelations (and referred to in Jeremiah as the time of Jacob's trouble.) The final judgement sounds like something after death, such as the great white throne. Of course, the question arises as to when anyone might have first known of either of these events, and why anyone that didn't know about them would need (or would think they needed) salvation from them.
Really? And exactly what sort of evidence or scriptures might you be basing that statement on? Who or where do you see that anyone is saved by that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yes, but it merely shifts the issue to knowing what it is to believe, or what is to be believed. Okay, "Believe God." Are you going to leave it at that with no other parameters? Then how does that fit with and what do you make of James 2:19?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, it's an issue of the heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Giving some consideration to the manifold wisdom of God, I don't know why you would insist on saying that God always had it planned by one way (unless you start with Genesis 1:2 and jump straight to Rev. 21.) Sure, I wouldn't have questioned it had you said that He knew which way it would play out. (Maybe He did, maybe He didn't. Frankly, I'm not sure. Either way, I believe He has the means to, and knows exactly how to keep it on track.) I'm just not so quick to think or say it was only planned by "one way." Perhaps you need to fill in a lot more details of what you see in "by way of His son."
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Lately my view on this has been "anything except the polar opposite which we see as common occurrences in the Way and splinter groups".
Accepting Christ - I would feel no other need to embellish that phrase. People who make Christ Lord are not tricked into it. Plenty of instruction in scripture for this one.
Find a place in His body -
WHAT IT IS NOT: - I was a person with a high position in the Way, to preserve "my effort and years of studying scripture" I will start a new splinter group with myself as the "leader, director, originator, founder, etc".
WHAT IT IS - a healthy acknowledgement that the teachings of the Way regarding a "household of God" as somehow separate and more elite than the "body of Christ" are antichrist, and actions that show appreciation for other members in particular in the body of Christ including those in denominations, in the Catholic church, in cities and communities across the world as community Christian churches. Christians acknowledge and appreciate and collaborate with other Christians, not isolating themselves off into a little small group called a "twig" or called whatever with a "twig coordinator" or a "whatever coordinator" who is or isn't calling themselves that at the moment like the RnR railroad folks.
This is only answering the question "what do I mean by accepting Christ and finding a place in His body".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
That's fine.. Eschatology is not really much of a topic that interests me. It's future and a bunch of speculation. Whatever it may end up being, will be beyond my thoughts. And while I tend to agree with you that the wrath to come is "probably" the pre-millenial tribulation. I can't say I am 100% certain of it.
As with who knew what, and when, is not something I believe we can arrive at. It's almost as speculative as knowing the future, with not much more written concerning the time. If the Tanakh's account of the first man Adam is believed in any literal sense, humans since the beginning has known that we have been burdened with the result of man's departure from trusting the creator. Cursed is the ground itself, and death has arrived whether in whole or in part. Now, while some of the events I would put as being more allegorical, I wasn't there, and it's just speculation. But even if the future events were not clear, the salvation from the present condition of creation and mankind could very well possibly be a source of thought. Since Hebraic thought was usually concrete and anchored around what one could see in front of them, such as the past (which they considered in front), and what was behind them, the future, was part of the unknown.
Saved by what? Trust? I would find it hard pressed to find a place where one is not saved through "that". (Salvation is "by/through God's" grace "through/by way of" pistis).
It would be rare for me to define "pistis" with the English word "believe". It's true that at times "pistis eis" + a thing is used of belief in something. Or even "pistis" by itself at times. Which for me emphasizes the acknowledgment and/or acceptance and/or persuaded agreement with said doctrine. Much like saying I believe that chair can hold me up. Yet, I haven't placed my body's weight on that chair. And for James 2:19, I would say that is a good example of defining "pistis" as such. They take part in the mental exercise even to the point of "trembling", but that's the extent of the matter.
But when we are speaking of "pistis" in God, there is quite a bit of historical evidence for an expanded understanding. In Kittel's Theological Dictionary entry under pistis there's a fairly good amount of tracing it's meaning throughout history and written occurrences, and trust seems to be a much better English word to define "pistis". And that portion of James is a good place where the writer uses the word to separate 2 different ways "pistis" can be used. Especially since "pistis" in Greek literature denoted the faithfulness/trustworthiness of someone, and placing ones "pistis" in another goes far beyond just a mere agreement in belief, but a placing of one's life in their hands, or using my previous example - their weight on that chair. Kittel actually takes it further and notes that even in Hebraic writings, that the Hebrew words (translated as "pistis in the LXX) also add the meaning of obedience, and then notes how that same understanding was brought over to the Greek word "pistis" to early and late Greek writings including the christian writings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I don't believe I would "insist" on anything. But I do believe and see in the writings that God has planned it that way from the very onset of creation, not that I couldn't be mistaken. But from Genesis 1:1 through to the end. Not sure why the first verse was omitted, as I wouldn't think God's division of earth and heaven(s) should be absent from that plan. As for detailing his plan "by way of His son", would take a good amount of time, which might become necessary, but at this very moment I don't have the time. But maybe you see a time or place that you don't see it through His son, in which case, what would that be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
"Like He rolls dice and decides something"? I don't believe I have heard any Christian speak of it as such. Not to say the communication of such could be construed to mean that. And maybe some have. But most that I know of, believe God has a plan. We may not know it, or see the fullness of it, or even have the capacity to understand it. There is no "game of dice". But there are decisions that He has and does make. They are found throughtout the scripture. Why God's judgement was only partial for Cain after he murdered his brother, and instead chose to spare his life, yet chose to take (or allow the death, depending on one's view) the life of the man who chose to keep the ark of the covenant from falling. Or how he saved Aaron the judgement given to his sister Mariam when they BOTH spoke against Moses. He withholds from one, and allows the other. Typically only unbeliever's have described this as a "dice throw". I don't believe it is. God has a reason for everfything he does. Whether he allows evil to continue or chooses to take action. How much God intervenes would require one to know His thoughts. Yet His ways are greater than ours. That is, unless of course again, one believes not in God.
Course, there are Deists, that believe God has set all in motion, and relegated the events to take place according to only our choosing. But I don't see the scriptures agreeing with that view. And open theists take to the view that God just isn't capable of knowing what's going to happen, and so bad things take place because God didn't forsee a particular action and played the wrong die. I think that view leads to the opposite of the trust God desires us to have. No doubt at least they have a few scriptures that play into that thought, much as verses on the trinity or the dead being alive.
Can one find comfort in a God who is "not" aware and incapable of doing something? Can such a "God" be depended upon actually bringing about His plan when one has opined that He is incapable of simpler matters? Would you find "comfort" in someone who just "says" they will bring something about, yet there's no proof in the present, not just past writings of others? Personally, I'm not looking for comfort. If others find it in a particular view, then all the better for them. I don't put my trust in God because I'm looking for "comfort", but I uunderstand each has their own motivation. But to me it makes little sense to think a God who didn't forsee and/or was incapable enough in "round 1" when Satan was let loose, to stop him, and then think somehow round 2 will be any different (Or maybe round 9 billion, seeing that it's possible all the times He didn't stop evil was because he didn't know or was incapable, maybe some day He will get it right).
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
The polar opposite? Personally, I've yet to see any benefit to trying to compare beliefs with what TWI or a splinter puts forth, as if their belief is some sort of non-standard that one should stray far from or a standard to keep close to. Sure there are lots of "Christian" beliefs from many polar perspectives, but then who defines how polar a belief is? Is there a true standard somewhere? Since everyone claims theirs is scriptural. Maybe we can stick to what Paul said and our foundation be Christ. Only, even that seems to have many polar forms!
Amen to that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
My understanding of this word has always been, "A complete confidence in or of", which ran across what was propounded by TWI. But every research tool I used that didn't come out of TWI NEVER defined it the way they did. I think one of them came a little close, but that was it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Probably far, far more than He is ever given credit or thanks for!
(Obviously, that's not in the sense of judgments.)
However, speaking of judgment, it appears to me that God (being longsuffering as He is) tends to wait until iniquity has run its course in a nation and is "full" before judgment is unleashed (see Gen. 15:16; Rom. 11:25.) Perhaps it's akin to allowing someone to stick their foot so far down their own throat there's absolutely no way to retract or correct what's been done. Of course, where that is or what that means isn't exactly clear... and we never tend to have the sort of patience and longsuffering that we could ever relate much to it anyways.
Yikes! Who in their right mind would?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Does "accepting Christ" always necessarily make Christ Lord (viz., in your life)? Frankly, I'm not persuaded it does. Which raises a question of what you (or anyone else) thinks either of those statements mean. So, let me cut to the chase here. What is the relationship between either statement, and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Is either one possible without the other? Because it appears to me that there have been deliberate efforts by some in positions of prominence (not by you, per se) to diminish and/or eliminate any need to believe in his resurrection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, evidently I think it's possible to know (from what's written) a lot more of what they knew than you seem to think possible. (And, I also think it's just as important to consider what they probably didn't know.)
Think it's still cursed?
Exactly. That's the question that needs a better answer. If we can't work forward, then how about working backwards. Let's start with how anyone can be (or is) saved today, and never mind whether it applies anywhere else.
Edited by TLCclarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Are you a fatalist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I was but a child when I experience this personally. You accept Christ as Lord. If you start dissecting it up like that you get into all sorts of questions that basically lead to people questioning whether they are "born again", "saved", whether they fulfilled that phrase exactly, or not. It's not a rune that you have to read with the right pronunciation, otherwise, no power is energized. You have a desire in your heart. God knows this. You carry out that acceptance in prayer in some fashion. God is not going to sit up there and say "whoops - you got the password phrase wrong, try again - only 3 attempts left". With respect to the resurrection, I'm not sure how there is any logical sense to making a dead man Lord in your life. But I guess there's still Nirvana cover bands with people aspiring to be like Kurt Cobain musically, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I have no doubt that worked just fine for an Israelite (back then.)
But honestly speaking, I have plenty of reason to doubt that it works the same for anybody and everybody today.
Because separated and apart from the resurrection, I see nothing that requires anyone to believe anything beyond or more than what they can know and believe by their senses. And as I see it, Israel is the proof (after hundreds and hundreds of years of repeated signs, miracles, and wonders) that "going by your senses alone" never had any long lasting effects, and is actually rather incapable of genuinely pleasing God.
p.s. He was no longer dead, after the resurrection.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What doubts do you have?
My point was that making Him Lord in your life indicates a living Lord, which has a prerequisite of a resurrection. I guess you can focus on the resurrection, but that is one event in a long sequence. Why that as opposed to the ascension? Or the appearances in between?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think the point being made here is that Jefferson did not believe in the supernatural.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Sounds like a decent definition to me. But as Kittel points out, there are a couple different meanings depending on their usage. Mostly in the vein of "pistis eis" + thing versus "pistis eis" + person. The prior being more along the lines of a mental acceptance vs the later being trust (or confidence) placed in someone which (at least to the author) included some form of obedience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Please don't let my "doubt" stop you from sharing your theory on the matter.
No, it's not still cursed. The earth is a wonderful regular garden of eden where peace reigns over all. I have no enemies, do you?!
A better answer?! Is there a better answer?! Did we finish defining what being saved means then? And so do you consider all these three one in the same thing? Eph 2:8 says you have been saved by God's gift of grace - past tense; 1 Cor 1:18 says they are being saved by God's power - present; and Rom 13:11 says our salvation is nearer than when we first believed - future.. If not then to what do they speak of? If they do, then are you saying the earth isn't still cursed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
A fatalist.. No, and I would hope my post didn't seem to imply such. Free will, while I believe was as much of God's plan as anything else, I don't believe it is without limits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.