Re: basic message!?
- From: "jewels" <jools4jesus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:09:20 GMT
"Revd. Eric Potts" <loiner2003@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133382139.884806.301990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> These posts are getting rather long. I'll try to summarise and answer
> generally.
>
> > Jewels: Scriptures I'd like your comments on:
> various scriptures which she believes speak of people heading for Hell.
a.. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad
that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14"For the
gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those
who find it," (Matt. 7:13-14).
b.. "For many are called, but few are chosen," (Matt. 22:14).
c.. "And He was passing through from one city and village to another,
teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem. 23And someone said to Him,
"Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them,
24"Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to
enter and will not be able. 25"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts
the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying,
'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know
where you are from.' 26"Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in
Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; 27and He will say, 'I tell
you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers,'"
(Luke 13:22-27).
e.. "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless
you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins," (John 8:24, NASB).
f.. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him," (John
3:36).
>
> Eric: I did say, earlier, that I was aware that there were passages which
did
> not support my universalism, just as there are passages which do.
Jewels: so you've got no comments at all on these passages, what do you do
with them then? How do you account for them?
>
> Eric: Some people feel a need to make one view "official" as it were and
to
> try to reconcile (apparently) divergent texts. I do not feel such a
> need. If they can be reconciled reasonably, then fine; but if not, then
> let them stand. The New Testament is not a monolithic document; it
> expresses a range of understandings of the disciples' experience of
> Godand of the world.
>
> In particular, the passages from the Gospels which jewels quotes are to
> be read against a context of growing hostility between Jews and
> Christians, so that whatever criticism Jesus had of his contemporaries
> is probably sharpened considerably by the re-telling and the
> evangelists' editing, some five or six decades after the death of
> Jesus. Further, in this period Christianity began to be increasingly
> shaped by Hellenistic ideas and to move away from its Jewish roots.
> Judaism does not know of Hell, but only of a place of the dead.
>
> This does not mean that we disregard these texts,
Jewels: No? That appears to be exactly what you are doing.
Eric: but we need to read
> thm against their context. The Bible is not infallible. It represents
> human understanding, with all its strengths and weaknesses. And it does
> not give a uniform witness.
Jewels: In other words, discount the gospels as you appear to be saying that
they are not a true account of things.
>
> Eric: One passage quoted was from Paul, namely:
> > d.. "And Isaiah cries out concerning
> Israel, "Though the number of the
> > sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be
> > saved; 28for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly
and
> > quickly," (Rom. 9:27).
>
> But do not forget that Paul goes on to say in Romans 11.26:"And so all
> Israel shall be saved."
Jewels: I'm no Bible Scholar but surely Isaiah was talking about the Jewish
nation and Paul in Romans 11 was referring to the new Israel, in other words
the Church.
>
> Eric: It is quite possible that Paul himself was confused in his mind
about
> this, and even that he changed his mind; chapters 9 to 11 or Romans
> express his struggle to understand. But his conclusion is that all
> Israel will be saved.
Jewels: you appear to express a poor opinion of the new testament writings.
With foundations like that, I'd be worried for when the storm comes [house
of sand ring any bells!].
>
>
> > > Eric: I mean that he does not intervene to prevent us suffering the
> > > consequences of our sin. I murder someone; I go to prison or am maybe
> > > executed. Repentance does not change that. I may be forgiven by God -
> > > I AM forgiven by God - but the crime leads inexorably to punishment,
> > > not by God but by society. The cross does not alter that.
> > >
> > > And the person I murdered stays dead. The cross does not alter that
> > > either! God does not intervene between my sin and its consequences.
> > >
> > > What God does do is to set me free from any eternal consequences by,
> > > from the very beginning, determining to forgive his creatures for
> > > using their free will in wrong ways. Who carries the can? God does
> >
> > Jewels: If you believe that ALL will be forgiven then I presume that you
> > have no belief in the unforgivable sin? <snipped as this part of the
discussion moved to a new thread by Eric.
> > > Eric: God dealt with our sin before it happened. He knew it would
happen
> > and
> > > he refuses to let us be lost because of it. The pain is his and he
> > > bears it willingly. It's called creative love and its price.
> >
> > Jewels: Scripture please.
>
> Eric: Getting a little peremptory, aren't we? You may require explicit
> scripture for everything you believe. I do not.
Jewels: hmmm maybe you are not too concerned that your beliefs are
completely biblical perhaps?
>
> Eric: But, if I am to play your little game,
Jewels: I thought we were having a discussion, just because I refute your
universalist claims does not mean I am playing games.
Eric: I point you to the very fact
> that God warns the first couple about the consequences of disobedience
> and actually draws their attention to the way in which they can disobey
> him. He knew full well what would happen, and what his response would
> be. And though Adam and Eve lose paradise, they do not lose God's
> protection. Even Cain is marked so as to give him life. When Ishmael is
> dosmissed from Abraham's home, God cares for him in the desert and
> makes a promise to him equivalent to that to Abraham.
>
> Again and again God shows his care for his creation. He lets Abraham
> bargain him down, showing willingness to spare a crowd of the wicked
> for the sake of a few good people - he doesn't find them, of course,
> but the point is there. In Hosea 11 he "changes his mind" and decides
> not to enslave Israel again, "for I am God and not man, the Holy One in
> your very midst, and I have not come to destroy."
Jewels: I have no quibble with the truth that God is full of love and mercy
and care for mankind what I can't quite work out is how what you actually
believe as to why Jesus 1st) incarnated 2nd) called people to repentence
3rd) died on the cross and rose again. The reason I ask for clarification
is because from our discussions so far, it seems you believe something
fundamentally different to most Christians I know of.
>
> Eric: Oh, I think there is plenty of scriptural support for my position.
You
> need to see the whole picture, not just a string of proof texts handed
> to you by your teachers.
Jewels: There really is no need to be rude and you are sounding a tad
condescending, don't know if you meant to but that's the way it feels.
>
>
> > > Eric: In truth we are never actually separated from God. See Ps 139.
But
> > our
> > > sin blinds us to truth and so it is to us as though we are separated.
> > > Ps 22.1.
> >
> > Jewels: Huh? What an odd way to interpret scripture? Psalm 139 talks
about
> > God's omniessence and soveriegnty not our spiritual relationship with
him
> > and Psalm 22 is David crying out to God, Jesus even used these same
words
> > whilst on the cross, when the spiritual connection with his Father was
> > broken as he took the punishment for our sins, so really your use of
Psalm
> > 22:1 just confirms my position.
>
> Eric: Are you really suggesting that God's sovereignty is detached from
our
> spiritual relationship with him?
Jewels: I am saying God's sovereignty is part of his Godness and our
spiritual relationship with Him is a state of being either separate from or
connected to Him, so yeh they are two different things.
Eric: The pslamist talks of trying to fell
> from God's presence, and failing utterly.
>
> Meanhwile Ps 22.1 does not confirm your position at all; it just shows
> where our spiritual blindness leads us. It is revealing that the two
> pslams, 22 and 139, are both allowed to stand in the same collection -
> further testimony to the sheer variety of viewpoints and experience
> within scripture.
>
> > >Eric: You use "new age" as if it were a dirty word. In all honesty, I
doubt
> > > if you really know all that much about new age philosophy. It is not
> > > uniform, it has many variants. In fact the term had little meaning
> > > except as a kind of omnibus word for a whole range of ideas.
> >
> > Jewels: That's cos it is a dirty word. I was saved from a new
> > age/spiritualism background so I know how it works.
>
> Eric: New Age and spiritualism are not the same thing.
Jewels: Not always but the UK brand of spiritualism, even the so-called
'christian' spiritualist religion is full of new age theology and ideas. I
know I've been in it.
Eric: Your experience may
> well have been bad; that doesn't mean that everyone who explores such
> areas is equally caught up in the bad.
Jewel: That is an incredulous statement - are you now saying that new age
and/or spiritualism is OK with God, is OK with christians? I do hope not.
>
> > > Eric: Christ does NOT take our punishment. We take it ourselves.
Anything
> > > else is sheer irresponsibility. Christ shows us and calls us to see
> > > the reality and to recognise the eternal love of God, so that we can
> > > be rebuilt, renewed in God's image, a new creation.
> >
> > Jewels: You seem to be preaching a different Jesus to the one in the
Bible,
> > it worries me that you are allowed to preach in Methodist circles. I
gotta
> > be honest I don't believe that universalism and christianity are
compatible
> > at all!
>
> Eric: <chuckles!> From the Methodist Catechism published in the years just
> after world war 2:
> "83. What are the characteristic features of Methodist doctrine?
> Methodist doctrine lays stress on the truth of universal redemption."
>
> The more recently produced Catechism is a little more circumspect, but
> still leaves plenty f room for universalism. For example:
> "62. What do the creeds teach about the second coming of Jesus and the
> final judgement?
> In his own way and in his own time God will finally judge the human
> race through Christ, bring all things together under the authority of
> Christ, and establish his kingdom of love for ever."
Jewels: you've said it! 'God will finally judge the human race *through
Christ*, all must be washed in the blood of the lamb, it's the only way to
salvation, you cannot get into heaven unwashed, and there is nothing in the
Bible that says you can get washed in the blood of the lamb *after* death.
In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, it talks about the uncrossable
gulf between the condemned and the saved. There is no way across. It
clearly teaches in the Bible that the punishment for sin is death, not just
physical [through Adam] but also spiritual [since Adam] and the only way to
become a new creation in Christ, is to die to sin, we do this through
accepting Jesus sacrifice for our sin, our sin died with Him on the cross
and we are 'born again' a new creation, the old has gone the new has come!
Taking our own punishment on earth will not do us any favours when it comes
to judgement day, if we are not washed in the blood of the lamb, we have no
chance.
>
>Eric: I have no fear of being branded a heretic by my Church. Not only
that,
> but in additon to my pastoral responsibility as a Superintendent
> Minister, I am also a Tutor for pre-ordination students and others, and
> responsible for setting up development opportunities for existing
> ministers within Scotland. So, it seems that your worries about me
> being allowed to preach in Methodist circles are groundless!
Jewels: All the more reason for you to renounce these unbiblical
universalist beliefs and get back to the business of the Kingdom of God
imho. I am sorry if you are offended but the gospel [undiluted] can do
that.
>
> > > Eric: Ah, appropriating our salvation is not the same as being saved.
> > Until
> > > we repent, we cannot indeed understand fully what God is about and
> > > know his love. I was preaching on repentance just this last Sunday, in
> > > the context of the Advent hope.
> > >
> > > But it's a two sided thing. It is very hard to repent until we
> > > discover that we are already loved. When we know we are deeply valued
> > > by God, we gain the confidence to turn our lives around.
> >
> > Jewels: but basically you are saying that repentence is not a necessary
> > requirement for salvation. How dangerous is that! You will be having
> > people think that there is no need to repent and accept Jesus, that
there
> > will be a second chance after death, they do not have to be accountable
to
> > God, this is a terrible risk to take if YOUR position is not true,
eternity
> > is a long time to be wrong and hell is a horrible place to spend it for
> > those who listen to you and feel no urgency in accepting Jesus as their
> > saviour.
>
> Eric: It doesn't take long for evangelical Christians to start bringing
out
> the threats, to dangle people over the pit, as it used to be called. I
> would rather speak to people of the love of God that warms our hearts
> and converts us, than major on pain and hell and threat. It is a Gospel
> we proclaim, not a Badspell.
Jewels: Just because you feel uncomfortable with the idea of hell does not
mean the Bible is lying about it, Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven, I
do not threaten people with hell, but I do tell people that the only way is
through Jesus and believing that he died a sacrificial death on the cross
for our sins so that we could be reconciled to a holy God. If asked about
hell, I will not shrink back from it because it is an important truth of the
Bible and the Gospel.
>
> Eric: More people are brought to faith through friendship and love than
> through warnings, in my experience. There are two ways to evamgelise:
> - you can tell them they are evil and lost unles they accept your
> offer; you can make people feel worthless and then play on their
> emotions; or
> - you can let people know that they are God's, loved and valued so much
> that Jesus would not disown his love whatever the cost of loving; that
> they are important in the sight of God and that god invites them to
> discover a new life. That way they may just find in themselves the
> power to change their lives, to repent out of sheer love for God and
> gratitude for his free, unconditional and unmerited love that has
> always been theirs, just for the asking.
Jewels: oh please, a 'believe it or burn you evil worthless sinner' is not a
line of evangelism I've used, somehow I didn't think that would be a very
sensitive or gentle way of witnessing. But neither would I dream of
preaching a gospel that is so diluted it is barely recognisable as the truth
of God.
>
> > > >Eric:> Why would people choose to sin? It is the same question.
> > > >
> > > >Jewels: The whole point of being 'spiritually' blind is that the
person
> > > >doesn't know it, it is a deception of the enemy. Sinning is a choice
or
> > > >the case of the unbeliever an inevitability.
> > >
> > > Eric: Careful; you are drifting very close to bigotry, in my view.
> >
> > Jewels: [puzzled] Please explain.
> > >
>
> Eric: You appear to be saying that for some people sinning is not a choice
> but something they are bound to do. What happens to free will, then? Or
> are you a Calvinist, perhaps? Either way you seem to be writing some
> people off as beyond redemption. Jesus had a different answer for those
> who knew not what they were doing - he asked that they be forgiven, not
> written off.
Jewels: I was not referring to predestination here, I meant that for someone
who is still 'dead in their sins', sinning is part and parcel of their
nature. I know Wesley was Arminian but I think he would have baulked at
your universalist position.
>
> >
> > Jewels: As I mentioned earlier I can't see how being a universalist can
be
> > compatible with being a Christian and worshipping the true Christ.
>
> ERic: You mean there is a false Christ? :-)
Jewels: Have you read all of the Bible? :)
I'm gonna leave it there, it's very late and these posts are getting very
long.
Jewelsx
>
> Eric: Perhaps you cannot see the compatibility. But that's OK. I believe
that
> God can!
Jewels: it seems that you believe what makes you feel good and warm and
fuzzy etc etc.
>
> > > Eric: There are many ways in the Jewish law to have forgiveness of
sins.
> > > Sacrifice is one of them, but not the only one, or how do you think
> > > Jews obtain forgiveness today when there is no Temple. The Jewish
> > > scriptures themselves say that it is a new heart, not sacrifices that
> > > are required.
> >
> > Jewels: Are you talking of Ezekiel here?
>
> and Hosea, and the Psalms, etc etc........ The Jewish scriptures show
> different routes to forgiveness, not just sacrifice. Or do you believe
> that the Jews in the days before Christ were never forgiven? If not,
> then you have to agree that forgiveness is possible without the death
> of Jesus, no?
>
> > > Eric: I am sorry you find it so repugnant. Please remember that my
faith
> > is
> > > as precious to me as yours is to you. I say nothing changed. I do not
> > > say God did not suffer. But that suffering, and all that Calvary
> > > means, has been in the heart of God since the first word of creation.
> > > Calvary revealed it; it did not make it happen. Or do you think that
> > > God changes?
> >
> > Jewels: God is the same yesterday, today and forever but you cannot deny
he
> > stepped down in history and became flesh for us, this changed things for
> > Him.
>
> If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, how could calvary
> have changed anything for him? What exactly did it change?
>
> To assure you that I am not as off-beam as you appear to thin, I quote
> again from the current Methodist catechism:
> "13. What has Jesus done?
> Jesus Christ came to reveal God to men and women and to offer them
> God's grace. To achieve this he shared their human life and death,
> dying on the cross."
>
> You see - Jesus showed us what the truth has always been. He did not
> make new truth. He did not change God.
>
> > > >> Eric: But if it wasn't hollow and meaningless, then people were in
fact
> > > >> forgiven by God centuries before the Cross happened.
> > > >
> > > >Jewels: Huh? I don't get you. Scriptures please :)
> > >
> > > As you said yourself, read the OT! :-)
> > > Or do you think no one got forgiven in the centuries before the Cross
> > > happened?
> >
> > Jewels: cop out, scriptures if you please :)
>
> First a straight answer to my question, if you please: Do you think no
> one got forgiven in the centuries before the Cross happened?
>
>
> > > Eric: Perhaps you might get further if you read more Paul and less
Gill.
> > > Paul does not say "physically." This is your, or Gill's insertion into
> > > the text.
> >
> > Jewels: It was my insertion but do you deny that we all die physicially
> > because of Adam's sin [and spiritually].>
>
> I deny that you have any right to insert your own ideas into the text.
> I would wish you to have a higher regard for the integrity of the bible
> than that.
>
>
> > > >>Eric: Then there is 1 Timothy 2.3-4:
> > > >> For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
> > > >> Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge
of
> > > >> the truth.
> > > >>
> > > >> If that is God's will, how can we possibly imagine that it will not
be
> > > >> accomplished, that mere human blindness or even human wickedness
can
> > > >> prevent God's will coming to fruition?
> > > >
> > > >Jewels: I agree with you that God's soverign will cannot be thwarted,
> > > >however, it is also my belief that it is God's will that *all* men be
> > saved
> > > >*but* without coming into the knowledge of the truth, in other words
> > hear,
> > > >receive and obey the gospel, this will not be possible.
> > >
> > >Eric: If God so wills it, then it will happen. Thus, on your reckoning,
all
> > > men will come into the knowledge of the truth. See, you are really a
> > > universalist too! ;-)
> >
> > Jewels: Nah, maybe I expressed myself badly, *all* men who come into a
> > knowledge of the truth will be saved. On the subject of God's will and
his
> > desires always being accomplished I think there are several scriptures
which
> > show that it actually isn't always accomplished. For example, it is
God's
> > desire that people do not sin: "To do righteousness and justice is
desired
> > by the Lord rather than sacrifice," (Prov. 21:3). But people sin do they
> > not? Was it God's desire that Adam and Eve rebel? or that David commit
> > adultery? God desires that all will repent Acts 17:30 but not all do.
> > Clearly God's will is not always done.
>
> But, in the ultimate? Are you seriously suggesting that God might bring
> an end to all things while there are still people flouting his will?
> That God will admit defeat? Or that god can only win by hammering his
> enemies into the dust and then consigning them to an eternity of
> torture? Do you really expect me to regard that as a gospel, a promise
> of good news?
>
>
>
> > > Eric: I see. Christ has reconciled all things except those things he
> > hasn't
> > > reconciled! That's an odd way of reading scripture. You are once again
> > > inserting things into the text which are just not there.
> >
> > Jewels: Christ gives all the chance of reconciliation not all will take
it
> > up.
> > >
>
> and then God will throw up his hands in surrender, and blast the rest
> of his creatures with thunderbolts and hell fire. What a God! No
> thanks.
>
>
> > > Eric: You feel, you feel. Well, I feel differently! How can one
confess
> > > Jesus as Lord when one is twisting in eternal torment? Where is the
> > > glory of God in that. Any self-respecting God would be ashamed to call
> > > that a victory.
> > >
> > > And, don't you think it is presumptuous to try to say what comes
> > > before what in the end times? Even Jesus admitted he didn't know the
> > > timetable?
> >
> > Jewels: Actually thinking about it, souls in hell would be profoundly of
> > aware of Jesus' Lordship, they would be profoundly aware of their
mistake in
> > rejecting him.
>
> Oh, I'm sure they would be aware of it. And do you honestly think that
> would make God happy or victorious?
>
> >
> > My faith is based on the revealed Christ of the Bible what is yours
based
> > on? I'm sure you have been a Christian for many years longer than I but
> > that does not make you immune to taking on faulty doctrines.
Universalism
> > is unbiblical although I admit can be appealing, it's comforting to
think
> > that no-one is going to hell. It minimises the infinite justice and
infinite
> > holiness of God and dispenses with the need for redemption and a
> > relationship with Christ.
>
> It does nothing of the sort. Perhaps one day you will have the
> compassion to allow you to see differently.
.
- References:
- Re: basic message!?
- From: jewels
- Re: basic message!?
- From: Revd. Eric Potts
- Re: basic message!?
- Prev by Date: Re: The Charter and the Meta-faq
- Next by Date: Re: You fools!
- Previous by thread: Re: basic message!?
- Next by thread: Re: basic message!?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
