Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jimmie, why do you keep hopping from passage to passage and never acknowledge that the ones you've brought up to prove that God (or God's holiness) needed payment, don't actually say that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
The NASB translates it like this:
"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that God loved us and sent his Son to be the satisfaction for our sins."
Matt. 26:28
"This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
What did Jesus mean here? Does it jive with your interpretation or mine?
Well, if your interpretation is still that God demanded payment in order to be able to forgive, then you already know I don't see it that way.
Jimmie, why do you keep hopping from passage to passage and never acknowledge that the ones you've brought up to prove that God (or God's holiness) needed payment, don't actually say that?
Well, if your interpretation is still that God demanded payment in order to be able to forgive, then you already know I don't see it that way.
The idea of propitiation is a relatively recent doctrine in the church that has always presented mixed messages, Pleroo. Our being reconciled by the death of Christ should never have been understood as if the Son's horrific scourging and death reconciled us so that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us. We were reconciled to Him already and always were loved . . . but we were at enmity with Him because of OUR "sin" (ignorance, missing the mark).
There is no one to blame for camps wanting answers that doesn't involve God's answers because it's not to the liking of pcamps other than pcamps. This is like you blaming your doctor for your inability to reason away a 4th stage cancer.
So... how do you owe God a debt for missing the mark ?
experiencing physical death
spiritual death that goes on without ending
you however have openly expressed such hostility towards such, so best to leave you in your rejection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So ..... how someone can hit the mark when the ability to do so is not in them according to orthodox christianity?.
Jesus said how
John 3:16, John 11:25-26
being this is your stated mentality
throw a bunch of bible verses at me as if that would be an adequate answer for me because it isn't
So...... How can you condemn someone for not having the ability to do what is required of them ?.
Why should a student get an "A" just for showing up ....
God's declares that humanity comes with an "F
all the pouting and arrogant accusations of God's justice not being defined correctly does not change the truth.
We have indebted ourselves not God, and it was our loss not God's, and it is that loss which needs to be forgiven or converted if you will to what we had from the beginning which is ...... All things that pertain to Life and Godliness. The prodigal blew his portion and was restored back to him by his Father. God is in the restoration business, it began by bringing his prodigal son to his senses and raised him up off his knees, and the restoration ends being clothed in the right frame of mind...........But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring forth the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet.
Yet we like the prodigals brother are so focused on thinking(and being wrong in our thinking) that the world is in debt to an angry God that we keep the world in debt not only to itself but falsely to God too. Bring the world to repentance by telling it their debt no longer exists. Do you have any idea what becoming rich over night would do to you having been your whole life in lack ?. I didn't think so, but listen to what the Father said........ All mine is yours.
Jimmie, why do you keep hopping from passage to passage and never acknowledge that the ones you've brought up to prove that God (or God's holiness) needed payment, don't actually say that?
Well, if your interpretation is still that God demanded payment in order to be able to forgive, then you already know I don't see it that way.
Origen was a Christian . . . one of the earliest. Christian universalism was dominant in the early church. Pretending that it is not Christian is bigoted. What you and those who adopted the apostate, anti-Christ version of Christianity did was to brand and ostracize any who disagreed as heretics. What you call traditional Christianity is bigoted Christianity by removing the acceptance that Christ demonstrated to ALL . . . as if it only applies to those who believe the right things ABOUT Christ and God . . . a special group in God's eyes . . . presumably because they appropriately "brown nose" Him. It disparages God as a vain and jealous egotist and makes a mockery of Christ's Gospel of agape love and loving sacrifice to the savagery and barbarity of our ancestors. "No greater agape love . . . "
Actually Origen was the FIRST universalist, born in 185 C.E., died about 250 C.E.
We have indebted ourselves not God, and it was our loss not God's, and it is that loss which needs to be forgiven or converted if you will to what we had from the beginning which is ...... All things that pertain to Life and Godliness. The prodigal blew his portion and was restored back to him by his Father. God is in the restoration business, it began by bringing his prodigal son to his senses and raised him up off his knees, and the restoration ends being clothed in the right frame of mind...........But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring forth the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet.
Yet we like the prodigals brother are so focused on thinking(and being wrong in our thinking) that the world is in debt to an angry God that we keep the world in debt not only to itself but falsely to God too. Bring the world to repentance by telling it their debt no longer exists. Do you have any idea what becoming rich over night would do to you having been your whole life in lack ?. I didn't think so, but listen to what the Father said........ All mine is yours.
Another case of convenience .... or hypocrisy.
What makes the parable of the prodigal son truthful than the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?
Many believed in the restoration of all to God before Origen. The apostle Paul was one and so was the Lord, as well as OT prophets. God bless.
Assuming Paul was the author of Hebrews (which I personally doubt), it would not fit in with "salvation for all." In fact the following verse is a problem for Universalists, Armenians, AND Calvinists.
Hebrews 6:4-6 ESV For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, (5) and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, (6) and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
Calvinists would have problems with this verse (above) because they would say once saved always saved. Those who have shared in the Holy Spirit would be considered saved. If one has had the Holy Spirit, you could not say they weren’t saved to begin with. So how could they fall away? Yet this verse warns of that very possibility.
Armenians would have problems with this verse because while they might believe that salvation could be lost, they would believe that it could be obtained again. This verse says that if they fall away, it’s impossible to restore them again to repentance. Please understand that this verse is not talking about sins that happen in weak moments. This is the deliberate and knowledgeable rejection of Christ’s salvation. And it’s the central theme of the book of Hebrews.
Both Calvinists and Armenians have difficulty with this verse, and likewise with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12). So the unpardonable sin is usually not used to point out the problems with Universalism. If a sin is truly unforgivable, then that alone disproves Universalism. How can everyone be saved if even one person commits the unpardonable sin? And if it’s impossible to commit the unpardonable sin, then why was Hebrews written? Why was the warning necessary?
So if Jesus is correct, that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, this would undermine Universalism, Calvinism, and Aremenianism. All three groups wish to avoid discussion of those verses and the implications. It's easier to "cut them out," as a heretical writing by someone on the "other" side. Except there is no "other" side. It's exactly because it goes against the grain of belief of all groups that it is one of the most explicit truths in the Bible.
No matter what one believes about God and Jesus Christ, without coming to grips on this clear warning and injunction about the "unpardonable" sin, no one can rest easy regarding "their" system of belief.
Unless, of course, they are not tied to a literal interpretation of the words and consider this and other references to be hyperbole to make a point. It really is going to be a challenge, but "nothing is impossible for God."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
