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.
Scripture already said God condemns. In VS 34 we are asked who condemns "believers". Now that would be true believers not those spoken of in Matt 7:21-23. Context is critical.
As to adding "no one". The NIV I have does not.
NIV Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
Now the NLV does, but when a translation adds words, one must see a basis for it. Yes in translating from one language to another using more than one word for another word does not always give the full thought, but adding better have another basis. Using on translation at odds with others takes research in the language and grammar to be sure and usually finding others that agree helps.
In this case the question is asked and then the answer is given. It isn't no one condemning everyone or anyone, it is (no one) condemns believers as Christ intercedes for those who truly believe. Those who do not, still stand condemned.
See the NLT and NIV translations of that passage. It was the translators' choice, apparently, to include words which were obviously implied by the context.
As for who it was written to, it doesn't matter. The point was that Cyber USED that passage to say that Jesus condemns, when that is clearly NOT what the passage says, but rather just the opposite.
Ok, fair enough, but it is not doctrineS, as you stated earlier.
That's your quibble? That it was plural? You said believing doctrine had nothing to do with it, and you've been shown that it does. Further, there are other doctrineS which become necessary by extension, since they prop up the doctrine of penal substitution. For instance, the incarnation, the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and the Trinity to name the bundle that comes immediately to mind, since the efficacy of the substitution requires that the sacrifice be God.
I'm an atheist and not bound by biblical morals, yet, IMO, state and federal governments should not recognize any distortions/perversions of our biological state. We are a male female species. If you have an inny, you are female, an outy, you are male, period.
That's your quibble? That it was plural? You said believing doctrine had nothing to do with it, and you've been shown that it does.
No, I still quibble with the word "doctrine" because that's debatable.
Romans 10:9-10 says it this way:
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
In John 3:16, Jesus said:
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.
Whether that is "doctrine" or not is not worth arguing over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Further, there are other doctrineS which become necessary by extension, since they prop up the doctrine of penal substitution. For instance, the incarnation, the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and the Trinity to name the bundle that comes immediately to mind, since the efficacy of the substitution requires that the sacrifice be God.
Whether these ^^^ are essentials is debatable. Believing Jesus died for our sins is NOT.
No, I still quibble with the word "doctrine" because that's debatable.
Romans 10:9-10 says it this way:
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
In John 3:16, Jesus said:
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.
Whether that is "doctrine" or not is not worth arguing over.
Whether these ^^^ are essentials is debatable. Believing Jesus died for our sins is NOT.
Uh huh ... yes, believing that doctrine is, according to you, essential. That was pretty much the point I was making in our exchange. So, based on your acknowledgment, you are left with the dilemma that I stated in the first post:
Quote:
Any God whose nature was such that it demanded the condemnation of people for not believing the "correct doctrines" about redemption, is not love, and isn't capable of loving. Knowing this, and based on the idea that God IS love and is loving, it is apparent that you have a mistaken view of what "holiness" is, and of what it might "demand". (Since God is love and love does not demand it's own way, "demand" is not an accurate word to use).
The other part of the exchange, for reference:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
It has nothing to do with doctrine, but rather being redeemed from sin. Jesus called being "born again" (John 3).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
It has everything to do with doctrine. You proclaim that God demands that people must believe the mechanism by which God supposedly redeems people (substitutionary atonement), in order for them to BE redeemed -- which makes the doctrine an inextricable part of the mechanism.
No, I still quibble with the word "doctrine" because that's debatable.
Romans 10:9-10 says it this way:
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
In John 3:16, Jesus said:
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.
Whether that is "doctrine" or not is not worth arguing over.
Whether these ^^^ are essentials is debatable. Believing Jesus died for our sins is NOT.
It is the start if you will, but not all that is needed or the Bible would be a LOT smaller.
I'm an atheist and not bound by biblical morals, yet, IMO, state and federal governments should not recognize any distortions/perversions of our biological state. We are a male female species. If you have an inny, you are female, an outy, you are male, period.
And what about the people who are in-between?
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.
