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.
I know there is a huge chasm between what Fundamentalists and Universalists believe, but there is common ground believe it or not.
There is a place that we commonly refer to as "heaven" that is all nice and loving and that is about it.
The question for the reader of the Bible is ....
After the two rebellions (one in heaven, the other in the Garden) was the policy of unlimited access a reality?
Why would God limit the access to the Tree of life in the Garden but have an eventual unlimited access to the Water of life in heaven?...
that is an inconsistent policy for a God that never changes.
What is the purpose of issuing an OT covenant only to be replaced by a NT covenant if heaven has an eventual unlimited access to the Water of Life?
Last edited by twin.spin; 06-20-2011 at 11:06 AM..
Reason: spacing
I know there is a huge chasm between what Fundamentalists and Universalists believe, but there is common ground believe it or not.
There is a place that we commonly refer to as "heaven" that is all nice and loving and that is about it.
The question for the reader of the Bible is ....
After the two rebellions (one in heaven, the other in the Garden) was the policy of unlimited access a reality?
Why would God limit the access to the Tree of life in the Garden but have an eventual unlimited access to the Water of life in heaven?...that is an inconsistent policy for a God that never changes.
What is the purpose of issuing an OT covenant only to be replaced by a NT covenant if heaven has an eventual unlimited access to the Water of Life?
Don't you dare trying using logic. It makes too much sense.
I know there is a huge chasm between what Fundamentalists and Universalists believe, but there is common ground believe it or not.
Yes, I believe there is common ground
Quote:
There is a place that we commonly refer to as "heaven" that is all nice and loving and that is about it.
The question for the reader of the Bible is ....
After the two rebellions (one in heaven, the other in the Garden) was the policy of unlimited access a reality?
Why would God limit the access to the Tree of life in the Garden but have an eventual unlimited access to the Water of life in heaven?...
that is an inconsistent policy for a God that never changes.
What is the purpose of issuing an OT covenant only to be replaced by a NT covenant if heaven has an eventual unlimited access to the Water of Life?
I think it has to do with not mixing the physical with the spiritual.
Yes, I believe there is common ground I think it has to do with not mixing the physical with the spiritual.
The OT covenant was a physical covenant.
The new covenant is spiritual.
I don't know how the OT is only a physical and not spiritual. I don't think that the sacrifices offered at the temple was nothing more than a glorified butcher shop... do you?
Conversely, when Jesus said: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." ...
did not Jesus physically die, was not Jesus' blood physically poured out?
We read in revelation those who are in heaven washed their robes and made them "white" in the blood of the lamb.
I would say that both OT and NT covenants addressed both the physical and spiritual.
Paul taught that Christ's death did NOT expiate sins, propitate God, or exhausted God's wrath at sin...or that human sin was judged, taken away, or atoned for on the cross. Nor did he maintain that His death liberated humanity from sin, death, the devil or the power of evil. Paul did not regard Him as a corporate representative for all of humanity who summed up or included others so that what was true of Him was thereby true of them as well. Nor did he believe that Jesus had died as humanity's substitute or representative, or in order to make it possible for God to forgive sins while remaining righteous. Jesus' death, for Paul, was not the basis upon which people in general were justified or their sins forgiven, and neither was it some type of cosmic event that put an end to the world as it was, and ushered in a new age. Our sinful humanity was not destroyed, put to death, renewed, or transformed when Jesus was crucified. In Paul's thought and state of mind, Jesus did not die for the purpose of setting an example for others to follow, revealing some hidden truth about God, humanity, or the world at large, enabling people to participate in His death and resurrection, OR providing them with a means of trnasfer from "this" age into the new one. Belevers are not saved by trusting in the efficacy of Christ's death for their salvation. All of these ideas are FOREIGN to Paul, and they lead to a distorted image of the apostle. This is not Paul, nor is it his thought on the CROSS. In reality, the reason Biblical scholars and theologians have never been able to reach any consensus regarding the way in which Paul understood the significance of the cross is that they have been looking in his letters and elsewhere in the NT for something that is simply not there, namely, an answer to tthe question of how Jesus' death saves and redeems human beings in general. This question reflects the mistaken assumption that Paul taught that Jesus' death effects human salvation and redemption in some way. In fact, it did NOT.
Instead, what Paul DID teach is that bymeansof Christ's death God has saved and redeemed human beings and has reconciled them to Himself. This is not a matter of splitting hairs, and there is a vast difference between saying that Christ died for our sins - 1 Cor 15:3 and saying that His death takes away sins, effects forgiveness, or makes atonement. To say believers have died and been crucified and buried with Christ Rom 6 and Gal 2 is not the same as saying they participate in His death, crucifixtion and burial. To say that Jesus "gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age" Gal 1:4 is not the same as saying His death has effected the deliverance or inagurated a new age. Similarly, to say that believers are justified in or through Christ's blood is different from saying that Christ's blood or death justifies them. For Paul, Jesus' death is certainly slavific and redemptive, but not in itself, and not through any effects it has. Rather, it is salvific and redemptive as it forms part of a story. Paul understood Jesus' death primarily as the consequence of His dedication and faithfulness to His mission of serving as God's instrument to bring about the awaited redemption of Israel, which would broaden outwards toward Gentile inclusion throughout the world. His death to Paul is salvific because God responded to His faithfulness unto death in seeking the redemption of others by raising Him so that all the divine promises of salvation might be fulfilled in Him. Through His death, a new covenant community (i.e. new song and name/the church) has been established in which people from all nations of the world infinitum may now find peace, salvation and forgiveness of sins as they live under His Lordship, led by the Holy Spirit. This is what Paul thought Jesus died for. It is in this sense that Jesus died for others for their sins. Paul regarded Jesus' death as salvific because it for him it formed a part of an over-arching story culminating in the redemption of Israel and the world at large. It is this story and in particular what precedes and follows His death on the cross, that makes that death redemptive. Blessings.
I don't know how the OT is only a physical and not spiritual. I don't think that the sacrifices offered at the temple was nothing more than a glorified butcher shop... do you?
Of course not, they were also thieves; not men of prayer.
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
“Those who are well have no need of a physician; only those who are sick."
There is no common ground at all. Moderator cut: off topic The bible is so absolutely clear that God extends His Grace to a particular people. People who are called by many names in the bible. His own, chosen, heirs, Born again, sheep, children and many more.
Christians are a people of the book. There is almost endless discriptions of what a Christian is like, what fruit is seen in their lives and so on. These people are just a small number of the total number of people who have walked this world.
You know, it would be kind of nice to think of a God that we make up in our own Human minds. WE could give Him all the attributes that we think God should posess but this would be nothing more than an idol. The bible gives us a pretty good picture of this Awesome God. We are told that God is "No respecter of persons" God is Angry with sinful man" The punishment for unforgiven sin is spiritual death eternally.
If you are a person of the book, a believer in the bible you do not take one or two passages out of context and use them to try to disprove what the entire bible clearly teaches in thousands of places.
Remember this, When Jesus was 40 days in the wilderness and was tempted by the devil. What did Satan use to try to defeat Jesus? He used the scriptures taken out of their intent. He did it then and he's still doing it today and will until the end. Do not be decieved.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 06-21-2011 at 07:06 PM..
Moderator cut: delete Accepting that Evil as though it were of God reveals a serious deficiency of "love of God and each other." Not a good sign for an avowed Christian.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 06-21-2011 at 07:11 PM..
Reason: deleted response to an orphaned comment
There is no common ground at all. Moderator cut: orphaned The bible is so absolutely clear that God extends His Grace to a particular people. People who are called by many names in the bible. His own, chosen, heirs, Born again, sheep, children and many more.
Christians are a people of the book. There is almost endless discriptions of what a Christian is like, what fruit is seen in their lives and so on. These people are just a small number of the total number of people who have walked this world.
You know, it would be kind of nice to think of a God that we make up in our own Human minds. WE could give Him all the attributes that we think God should posess but this would be nothing more than an idol. The bible gives us a pretty good picture of this Awesome God. We are told that God is "No respecter of persons" God is Angry with sinful man" The punishment for unforgiven sin is spiritual death eternally.
If you are a person of the book, a believer in the bible you do not take one or two passages out of context and use them to try to disprove what the entire bible clearly teaches in thousands of places.
Remember this, When Jesus was 40 days in the wilderness and was tempted by the devil. What did Satan use to try to defeat Jesus? He usedthe scriptures taken out of their intent. He did it then and he's still doing it today and will until the end. Do not be decieved.
The Jews too thought they were a people of the book and still do,so do the muslims. The believer is of a spiritual mind not of a book and recognizes the nature and character of God by His fruit. Like i mentioned in another thread it was man not God who hate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if God had, your portayal of him being evil would be understandable.
But the fruit of the Spirit(God IS Spirit) is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness.
The scripture is being used by fundamentalist to deceive many today too, the sad thing is they don't realize it.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 06-21-2011 at 07:08 PM..
Moderator cut: delete. Accepting that Evil as though it were of God reveals a serious deficiency of "love of God and each other." Not a good sign for an avowed Christian.
The love of God lies within a very narrow angle. He loves His own, His children, His adopted. Those who can be called Christian. Outside of this narrow way lies only judgement.
In this world you get either Justice from God or Grace from God. There is nothing else.
We however are not God and we are not to be like Him in many ways. We are called to love our neighbour without qualification. We are ordered to care for the poor, the sick, the homeless, all men regardless of how they appear to us. This is where the love of God is reflected in our lives. It's also where Christians stumble badly, rejecting people because they are gay or less holy than thou in any ways.
We Christians are just sinners saved by grace and we always have to keep in mind that we are no better than anyone else. In fact maybe we are worse in many ways because the nonbeliever does not have the benefit of the Holy Spirit like we do.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 06-21-2011 at 07:13 PM..
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.
