To those who believe in a perfect, all-powerful God

Great Debates
41

This answer is, forgive me, totally useless.

Why does God want us to be closer to Him? Why does He need us to be closer to Him? Is suffering the only way? Does this not make God like some cruel, petulant, remorseless child who will do anything, including causing pain to loved ones, just to get one’s way? Is this why God created humanity, to torture them so they can be close to Him? Is God a sadist?

This answer raises more questions than it answers.

(And this answer is not uncommon: in the Artscroll Chumash, a common explanation for some person’s suffering was “God wanted his/her prayers.” To me, this is in no way satisfying - it actually exacerbates the issue rather than resolves it.)

WRS

42

[QUOTE=the raindog]
I appreciate your liberal use of the bible in a discussion about God.

Imagine that.

In fact your biblical posts outnumber all of the biblical cites in the 2 threads (50 or so posts) that WeRSauron cited above, combined. (Which incidentally, number zero.)

I agree with much of what you’ve said, and it is well put together and thoughtfully laid out. From a biblically POV, I would take exception to just the latter part of your post, quoted below.

It is absolutely true that we can never become “good” as it relates to our ability to “earn” our salvation. It can’t be done, no matter hard hard we work. (Ps 49:7,8 and others) Among many Christians, there is an all-or-nothing belief----that either my works can earn my way into salvation or there’s no point in trying. (Actually, no point in “trying”; there’s no need to try because of the redemptive value of Christs’s sacrifice)

If indeed the point of one’s “works” were to earn salvation, it would be pointless to try, and works would be futile. But that is not why we strive to live by Godly principles. It is important to realize that our works are an important part of our worship to God, and to understand the role that works in our relationship with God.

That is one of the prime issues James addressed in his letter. Many Christians felt that the undeserved kindness of Christ was sufficient for salvation and nothing more was needed. (In fact, would have been futile) (Rom 5:15-17) James helped then to appreciate that faith had to show itself by some form of action. Paul wrote, " Christ gave himself for us that he might deliver us from every sort of lawlessness and cleanse for himself a people peculiarly his own, zealous for fine works.” (Titus 2:14)

Christians who content themselves with a purely intellectual acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice overlook the reality that true faith has the power to move a person to make changes in his personality and his life and to do things for others in positive expression of that faith. For those who accept Christ on intellectual terms and see no need to conform their lives to Christian principles (which by definition requires action!) run the risk of being like the person Paul describes at 2Tim 3:5 , "having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power.”

James is not arguing against the doctrine that Paul esposes in Romans 3 & 4. (Rom 3:28) Rather, James points always rest on the basis of “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jas 2:1)

Through out Jesus ministry he gave clear instruction for those who would call them selves followers of his. Often they were matters of the heart. just as often, they were clear instructions on how one would live his life. He even gave instructions on the works his disciples would be charged with when he left them. (Matt 28:19,20) He indentified how true Christians would be indentified, by saying that the demonstration of love would be a defining mark for a Christian. The number of biblical cites from Jesus and Paul alone that indicate a requirement to shape one’s life/behavior/actions/works number in the hundreds, if not the thousands.

So, it is important to understand “works” within the context of one’s relationship with God. In someone is working to earn salvation they’re barking up the wrong spiritual tree. OTOH, one must realize that we have been commanded by Jesus to “walk the talk”, and that true faith would compel one to act upon the things that they’ve learned. The biblical cites that support that works, not as a means of earning salvation, but as a manifestation of our love and faith in God, number in the thousands. Works and faith are not an all or nothing proposition. Scrpitures like Acts 16:31 and others do not contextually say that simply believing in Christ is sufficient. One has to believe, and than manifest that faith by following Christ’s model. (1 Pet 2:21 ) (see Jas 2:18-20, Matt 7:21-23)

JMS@CCT said:

I know exactly where you’re coming from, because at one time this is exactly what I believed. I suppose you could say I was a Calvinist without knowing it. Matthew, Mark, Luke John, James 2, 1 Peter, 1 John, etc. formed the basis of my doctrine and preaching, i.e., until a man came along and challenged my positions by asking me this question: “Is the entire Bible written to you for your direct obedience?” I had to think about that one for awhile, but eventually had to admit that, no of course it isn’t. I understood that God no longer calls anyone to make animal sacrifices, or keep certain days holy, or be circumcised, etc., as it was under the Mosaic law, but what I did not understand was that everything in the New Testament portion of the Bible isn’t written to us in the present dispensation for direct obedience of faith. For example, consider in the sermon on the mount(Matt. 5), where the Lord instructs his disciples: “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whoswever shall say , Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (verse 22) Now, compare this with what the apostle Paul said to his “brethren” the Galatians: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you…”(Gal. 3:1) Did he not just refer to the Galatians as “fools?” Or when he refers to a man in 1 Corinthians 15 as “thou fool?” Do you reckon Paul is going to get “hell fire” for saying these things? Is he not subject to the commandments the Lord gave the 12? Still in the sermon on the mount, in Matthew 6, the Lord tells the disciples to pray:** “…forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…” (verse 12)** And just in case they missed the implication here he puts it in a more direct fashion: “for if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father in heaven forgive you.” (verse 15) Compare this with Colossians 2:13; 3:13: "and you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircmucision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all tresspasses… Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a qualrrel against any; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." It should be obvious to anyone reading these verses that forgiveness in Matthew is conditional, while it isn’t in Colossians.

In the 16th century Bible Scholar/translator, Miles Coverdale, offered up some very salient advice concerning Bible study. He said (this is paraphrased) that in studying scripture one must consider who the writer is, to whom is he writing, when is it written, where is it written from, and to what purpose. I trust that in saying this he draws from what Paul commanded his chief understudy, Timothy: **“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, *rightly dividing the word of truth.” * ** (2 Timothy 2:15) Put this together with verse 7 of that same chapter: “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.” and verse 8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." and what you have is an extremely exclusionary statement. “Consider what I say?” and, “my gospel?” What about Peter, James and John? Is Paul remiss in not telling Timothy to consider what they say as well? And certainly he ought to consider what the Lord himself said in the four gospels. Was not all this scripture written and being distrubuted at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy? (about AD 67?) What’s going on here?

Here’s what’s going on.

Paul referred to something he called “the body of Christ” (Christ’s body, the church, which is his body") about 20 times in his epistles. I challenge you to find it anywhere else in the New Testament. He also identified something he called **“the dispensation of the Grace of God, which is given me…” ** (Eph. 3:2), which he said was a mystery until he made it known (verse 3), and that it was being “made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” (16:25-27)
Show me this anywhere else in the New Testament.

The four Gospels and the Hebrew epistles (Hebrews through Revelation) are written to New Testament Israel, which–contrary to orthodox teaching–is not the body of Christ. All of these letters–including the gospels–preach works salvation, not salvation by grace. When the Lord said in Matthew 10:22: “he that endureth to the end shall be saved,”, and when Peter said: "gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto at the revelation of Jesus Christ"(1 Peter 1:13), is this not a demand to perform in order to be saved? When James, who is writing to the **“twelve tribes” ** (1:1), says “I****will show thee my faith by my works”, and that Abraham was justified by his works (2:18, 21), can we equate this with, “**For by grace are ye saved, through faith, that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works…and if by grace, then it is no more of works: other wise grace is no more grace…?” ** (Ephesians 2:8.9; Romans 11:6) There is no way you can get these things together. When the apostle Paul told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth, he could not have meant anything other than, “separate what I say from what the other New Testament writings say, because I’m saying something different.”

When the Lord told the disciples: “ye shall no them by their fruits,” what kind of fruit (works) do you think he was talking about? That the true believer, one who had truly repented, would straighten up and fly right, and quit all has bad habits? I believe the freferences to works in the New Testament were quiet specific. According to Acts 2 the first work they will do is to repent of the sin of killing the Lord, then they will get baptized (in water), the sins they’ve committed will be put in remission, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Verses 36-41); “and all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” Those who failed to comply with this last requirment (selling out), met instant death (chapter 5); Mark 16 says “these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”(Mark 16:16). These are the “fruits” by which these saints will be known. Tell me, do you believe this is applicable to Christians in the world today? If true believers in the body of Christ are going to automatically start walking a straight line, would the multitude of admonitions, concerning behaviour, in Paul’s epistles be necessary?

43

JMS@CCT said:

None of the bible was written directly for you. [or me] None of it. As to whether we were [are] an intended [secondary] recepient, and whether we are required to make application in our lives, the answer is overwhelming yes.

Animal sacrifices, holy days and the like were all features of the Mosaic Law, which Christ fulfilled. If not for that sacrifice, the Jews would still be required to hold those requirements. In my reading of the bible, I can find no verses that wouldn’t still bind those who believe that Christ wasn’t the savior to continue those practices. Nonetheless, we are no longer bound to the Law. (Col 2:13,14, Rom 7:6,7 and others)

highlights mine

Paul was certainly subject to those commandments. But Paul was neither angry, or without cause. Jesus was speaking about wrath, and particularly abusive, indiscriminate, unjust wrath. He was not certainly not saying that all wrath, righteous indignation, or strongly worded counsel were now prohibited. Jesus himself showed wrath in turning over the merchant’s tables in the temple courtyard. Paul was offering strong counsel, and with good cause. (and to their benefit!) That is certainly not a description of Jesus’s admonition at Matt 5.

Col 2:13 is actually a reference to the Mosaic Law and the reality that Christs’s sacrifice freed the Jews from the Law, and that Christ, through his sacrifice accepted all of our sins. (think ransom!) That verse is a very specific reference to Christ and his sacrifice, and even more specifically how it related to the Mosaic law.

There is no contradiction between Paul and Christ as it relates to forgiveness. Both writers espouse the need to be freely forgiving of those who trespass against us. Comparing Col 3:13 and Matt 6:12 both writers note the example of God/Christ as models/examples as to why we need forgiveness, and we are therefore required to show that quality towards those who trespass against us. Neither is more “conditional” as the other, and in fact are in agreement with each other!

I trust you’re not being presumptuous here. A serious student of the bible would take into account authors, audience, culture, context etc. Nonetheless, the words “my gospel” (From the KJ) is rendered, “the gospel I carry”, “according to my good news” and other ways in other translations. Nevertheless, even the words, “My gospel” do not say that Paul is excluding the gospels, or the writings of the other disciples. He’s simply talking about his ministry; his work in the Lord. As to context, there is no compelling evidence throughout Pauls’s prolific writings that suggest the he is undermining the Christ’s message, or that he, Paul, was here to preach a new covenent. He was a vessel to the Christ. His life work was to carry the word about the Christ. The cites supporting this are legion.

Once again, you are using one word, or a couple words, to make a case that contextually can’t be made by the weight and context of the NT. Paul, not Peter, was the leader of the early Christian church. He was specifically chosen for that role. (Acts 9) It is not surprising that Paul would have the blessings of Christ and would enjoy a close spiritual union with him.

You said this: “which he said was a mystery until he made it known”. There is nothing in those simple words that indicate that his (Paul’s) message was different than the message of the Christ, unless you chock his mouth full of words he simply did not say.

As I said, Paul enjoyed a special position in the early Christian and that was no accident. He was appointed by The Man himself. That he could say those words above with credibility doesn’t mean he was given a different charter, or mission. It’s simply an indication of his position in the church, and his relationship with the Christ. His message however, remained consistent throughout his whole life; namely to carry the news about the Christ.

I’m not sure I understand the question. I see no demand to perform whatsoever in those cites. This much I understand: We cannot earn our way into salvation (as one would perceive it) through good works. The good news however, is that that is not why we endeavor towards good works. We endeavor towards good works as a manifestation of our appreciation and love for God, and because we are required to play a role in our salvation. We are required to try. The cites that show we have an obligation to try-----to work, to watch our behavior with our wives/husbands, business associates; our speech, even our thoughts, our personalities, our conduct----are beyond counting. Even if I accept your premise, which I understand to mean that there is a division between the message of Paul and of the Christ, the fact reamims that both men talked extensively about our behavior, what we do; our “works” if you will. Neither man gave a free pass as to behavior, and neither man would have taken the benign position, “Do what you want. It’s cool. Christ has your back.” Those who take the view (or who preach the message!) that you can do whatever you like, and lead whatever kind of life you want, is fine because of Christ’s sacrifice miss the whole point of Christ’s sacrifice. Further, Christ made it clear, more then once, that there would be many, many people who would be unapproved (read:destroyed) because of their actions.

[quote]
When James, who is writing to the **“twelve tribes” ** (1:1), says “I****will show thee my faith by my works”, and that Abraham was justified by his works (2:18, 21), can we equate this with, “**For by grace are ye saved, through faith, that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works…and if by grace, then it is no more of works: other wise grace is no more grace…?” ** (Ephesians 2:8.9; Romans 11:6) There is no way you can get these things together. When the apostle Paul told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth, he could not have meant anything other than, “separate what I say from what the other New Testament writings say, because I’m saying something different.” ;/quote]

Virtually all of the letters of the NT were written to a specific primary audience. No NT writer wrote a letter that was overtly addressed to future generations. The introduction, “to the twelve tribes” doesn’t render the letter invalid to us. The question is, Did God intend for us to have these letters, and do we have an obligation to make application of the counsel in those letters? The answer is clearly yes.

The most troubling thing you’ve written is this: “separate what I say from what the other New Testament writings say, because I’m saying something different.” It is not new (here especially!) to put words in the bible writers mouths. Paul didn’t mince words. He was quite capable of speaking for himself. He was quite clear. And, he didn’t say that. You did.

It’s apparent that you are well versed in the bible and I appreciate that. Most people who put words in the bible writers mouths do so from complete ignorance. But it remains that Paul didn’t say that. I’d feel better about your point if you would either show me where he said that. (in direct, or semi direct terms) Eph 3:2,3 doesn’t begin to make that case.

He was talking about their behavior! He was talking about their personalities and how those personalities would be manifested in their actions! He certainly didn’t say you’d know them because they’d post a record of their baptism on their chests. The inplication is that true faith compels one to make changes in one’s life. The implication is that faith is shown in one’s life/behavior/actions/works.

Absolutely. A true believer, who had repented, and symbolized that through baptism could not help but to make changes in their life/actions/behavior/personality/works.

Did it mean that a true believer would become perfect? No!

Because my baptism won’t make me perfect I have a license to do whatever I like? I think you’re missing the point of Christs’s sacrifice. His death wasn’t a grand “Get out of Hell Free Card.” His death provided us a means of approaching God with a clean conscience and that we were no longer living under the curse and condemnation of Adamic sin; that we had a savior. If we accepted that sacrifice we had an obligation to follow Christs’s model. That requires effort. It requires action. A purely intellectual acceptance of Christ, with no recognition that Christ’s sacrifice requires action on our part is an empty promise.

In short, a baptism and a bumper sticker won’t cut it.

Baptism is the beginning of one’s walk with Christ. Much of Christendom treats it like the end. Baptism is a “work” to be sure. It represents an acceptance of Christs’s sacrifice and a dedication to no longer live for self-will, but to do the will of God in one’s life. That ‘dedication’ must, by definition, be evident/manifest in one’s life. It is these fruits that would be evident to onlookers. If the Apostle Paul had promptly gone back to the life of Saul of Tarsus it would have made a mockery of the import of his baptism. Nonetheless his imperfection didn’t keep him from trying his very best to carry out his ministry. Paul was painfully candid about his shortcomings and his record on insolence has been preserved for all time. But he was a true believer and he recognized that a true believer is compelled to work at his faith. There were to be no free passes.

Absolutely.

Yes! Absolutely yes. Yes because the “straight line” recognizes that we are imperfect and that we need constant admonishment, counsel and reminders. Is not the bible (particularly the NT) one big book of admonitions? (among other things of course)

If one takes the view that a true believer’s “straight line” must be nothing short of perfection, than you’re setting yourself up for failure. Obviously, you can avoid certain failure by not trying at all---- or at the very least lower the expectations for “works” so low as to be standardless. To take comfort in that view, one has to take refuge in “Christs’s sacrifice.”

That all or nothing view is seriously, and dangerously, flawed in my view. Christs’ sacrifice never expected perfection from us. Neither does Paul. For many, there is to be a final fullfilment of God’s promise. For some that means heaven. For others, it means a restored earth. In both views however, mankind is free from Satan’s influence (as he’s outahere) and mankind is restored to perfection. It’s only in the context of perfection that Paul’s epistles become unnecessary. In the meantime, we are imperfect and living in an imperfect world. And Jesus’s and Paul’s writings are absloutely necessary.

And while neither Christ or Paul required perfection from us, they certainly expected faith. (and James, Peter and all the other writers) And they expected that that faith be manifested in our behavior. They expected that we try.

I must get to work. I’ve enjoyed the exchange, although I’m afriad it’s a hijack. Must run.

44

REPOSTED. QUOTES GOT MIXED UP IN LAST POST> SORRY FOR CHEWING UP A LITTLE BANDWIDTH
JMS@CCT said:

None of the bible was written directly for you. [or me] None of it. As to whether we were [are] an intended [secondary] recepient, and whether we are required to make application in our lives, the answer is overwhelming yes.

Animal sacrifices, holy days and the like were all features of the Mosaic Law, which Christ fulfilled. If not for that sacrifice, the Jews would still be required to hold those requirements. In my reading of the bible, I can find no verses that wouldn’t still bind those who believe that Christ wasn’t the savior to continue those practices. Nonetheless, we are no longer bound to the Law. (Col 2:13,14, Rom 7:6,7 and others)

highlights mine

Paul was certainly subject to those commandments. But Paul was neither angry, or without cause. Jesus was speaking about wrath, and particularly abusive, indiscriminate, unjust wrath. He was not certainly not saying that all wrath, righteous indignation, or strongly worded counsel were now prohibited. Jesus himself showed wrath in turning over the merchant’s tables in the temple courtyard. Paul was offering strong counsel, and with good cause. (and to their benefit!) That is certainly not a description of Jesus’s admonition at Matt 5.

Col 2:13 is actually a reference to the Mosaic Law and the reality that Christs’s sacrifice freed the Jews from the Law, and that Christ, through his sacrifice accepted all of our sins. (think ransom!) That verse is a very specific reference to Christ and his sacrifice, and even more specifically how it related to the Mosaic law.

There is no contradiction between Paul and Christ as it relates to forgiveness. Both writers espouse the need to be freely forgiving of those who trespass against us. Comparing Col 3:13 and Matt 6:12 both writers note the example of God/Christ as models/examples as to why we need forgiveness, and we are therefore required to show that quality towards those who trespass against us. Neither is more “conditional” as the other, and in fact are in agreement with each other!

I trust you’re not being presumptuous here. A serious student of the bible would take into account authors, audience, culture, context etc. Nonetheless, the words “my gospel” (From the KJ) is rendered, “the gospel I carry”, “according to my good news” and other ways in other translations. Nevertheless, even the words, “My gospel” do not say that Paul is excluding the gospels, or the writings of the other disciples. He’s simply talking about his ministry; his work in the Lord. As to context, there is no compelling evidence throughout Pauls’s prolific writings that suggest the he is undermining the Christ’s message, or that he, Paul, was here to preach a new covenent. He was a vessel to the Christ. His life work was to carry the word about the Christ. The cites supporting this are legion.

Once again, you are using one word, or a couple words, to make a case that contextually can’t be made by the weight and context of the NT. Paul, not Peter, was the leader of the early Christian church. He was specifically chosen for that role. (Acts 9) It is not surprising that Paul would have the blessings of Christ and would enjoy a close spiritual union with him.

You said this: “which he said was a mystery until he made it known”. There is nothing in those simple words that indicate that his (Paul’s) message was different than the message of the Christ, unless you chock his mouth full of words he simply did not say.

As I said, Paul enjoyed a special position in the early Christian and that was no accident. He was appointed by The Man himself. That he could say those words above with credibility doesn’t mean he was given a different charter, or mission. It’s simply an indication of his position in the church, and his relationship with the Christ. His message however, remained consistent throughout his whole life; namely to carry the news about the Christ.

I’m not sure I understand the question. I see no demand to perform whatsoever in those cites. This much I understand: We cannot earn our way into salvation (as one would perceive it) through good works. The good news however, is that that is not why we endeavor towards good works. We endeavor towards good works as a manifestation of our appreciation and love for God, and because we are required to play a role in our salvation. We are required to try. The cites that show we have an obligation to try-----to work, to watch our behavior with our wives/husbands, business associates; our speech, even our thoughts, our personalities, our conduct----are beyond counting. Even if I accept your premise, which I understand to mean that there is a division between the message of Paul and of the Christ, the fact reamims that both men talked extensively about our behavior, what we do; our “works” if you will. Neither man gave a free pass as to behavior, and neither man would have taken the benign position, “Do what you want. It’s cool. Christ has your back.” Those who take the view (or who preach the message!) that you can do whatever you like, and lead whatever kind of life you want, is fine because of Christ’s sacrifice miss the whole point of Christ’s sacrifice. Further, Christ made it clear, more then once, that there would be many, many people who would be unapproved (read:destroyed) because of their actions.

Virtually all of the letters of the NT were written to a specific primary audience. No NT writer wrote a letter that was overtly addressed to future generations. The introduction, “to the twelve tribes” doesn’t render the letter invalid to us. The question is, Did God intend for us to have these letters, and do we have an obligation to make application of the counsel in those letters? The answer is clearly yes.

The most troubling thing you’ve written is this: “separate what I say from what the other New Testament writings say, because I’m saying something different.” It is not new (here especially!) to put words in the bible writers mouths. Paul didn’t mince words. He was quite capable of speaking for himself. He was quite clear. And, he didn’t say that. You did.

It’s apparent that you are well versed in the bible and I appreciate that. Most people who put words in the bible writers mouths do so from complete ignorance. But it remains that Paul didn’t say that. I’d feel better about your point if you would either show me where he said that. (in direct, or semi direct terms) Eph 3:2,3 doesn’t begin to make that case.

He was talking about their behavior! He was talking about their personalities and how those personalities would be manifested in their actions! He certainly didn’t say you’d know them because they’d post a record of their baptism on their chests. The inplication is that true faith compels one to make changes in one’s life. The implication is that faith is shown in one’s life/behavior/actions/works.

Absolutely. A true believer, who had repented, and symbolized that through baptism could not help but to make changes in their life/actions/behavior/personality/works.

Did it mean that a true believer would become perfect? No!

Because my baptism won’t make me perfect I have a license to do whatever I like? I think you’re missing the point of Christs’s sacrifice. His death wasn’t a grand “Get out of Hell Free Card.” His death provided us a means of approaching God with a clean conscience and that we were no longer living under the curse and condemnation of Adamic sin; that we had a savior. If we accepted that sacrifice we had an obligation to follow Christs’s model. That requires effort. It requires action. A purely intellectual acceptance of Christ, with no recognition that Christ’s sacrifice requires action on our part is an empty promise.

In short, a baptism and a bumper sticker won’t cut it.

Baptism is the beginning of one’s walk with Christ. Much of Christendom treats it like the end. Baptism is a “work” to be sure. It represents an acceptance of Christs’s sacrifice and a dedication to no longer live for self-will, but to do the will of God in one’s life. That ‘dedication’ must, by definition, be evident/manifest in one’s life. It is these fruits that would be evident to onlookers. If the Apostle Paul had promptly gone back to the life of Saul of Tarsus it would have made a mockery of the import of his baptism. Nonetheless his imperfection didn’t keep him from trying his very best to carry out his ministry. Paul was painfully candid about his shortcomings and his record on insolence has been preserved for all time. But he was a true believer and he recognized that a true believer is compelled to work at his faith. There were to be no free passes.

Absolutely.

Yes! Absolutely yes. Yes because the “straight line” recognizes that we are imperfect and that we need constant admonishment, counsel and reminders. Is not the bible (particularly the NT) one big book of admonitions? (among other things of course)

If one takes the view that a true believer’s “straight line” must be nothing short of perfection, than you’re setting yourself up for failure. Obviously, you can avoid certain failure by not trying at all---- or at the very least lower the expectations for “works” so low as to be standardless. To take comfort in that view, one has to take refuge in “Christs’s sacrifice.”

That all or nothing view is seriously, and dangerously, flawed in my view. Christs’ sacrifice never expected perfection from us. Neither does Paul. For many, there is to be a final fullfilment of God’s promise. For some that means heaven. For others, it means a restored earth. In both views however, mankind is free from Satan’s influence (as he’s outahere) and mankind is restored to perfection. It’s only in the context of perfection that Paul’s epistles become unnecessary. In the meantime, we are imperfect and living in an imperfect world. And Jesus’s and Paul’s writings are absloutely necessary.

And while neither Christ or Paul required perfection from us, they certainly expected faith. (and James, Peter and all the other writers) And they expected that that faith be manifested in our behavior. They expected that we try.

I must get to work. I’ve enjoyed the exchange, although I’m afriad it’s a hijack. Must run.

45

What evidence do you have that God hasn’t been involved in our lives in the last few thousand years? Isn’t it possible in this modern world of cynicism that He has done lots of things and saved lots of lives and that people either ignored it or attributed His actions to something or someone else?

46

What evidence do you have of the existence of God? If, as you say, his actions have gone un-noticed or been attributed to something else, couldn’t the same argument be used to ‘prove’ the existance of fairies, or little green men from Mars?

And don’t say ‘the Bible’ is proof, because the Bible isn’t proof of anything other that some people wrote things down which were later put into a book - but which may or may not be true, may or may not be inspired, may or may not be myths or folktales etc.

When it comes to Christianity, I’m amazed that people will accept a standard of proof [it says so in the bible] which they wouldn’t accept as a legitimate cite on any other subject.

47

I have tons of anecdotal evidence, but that doesn’t seem to go over so well in this forum.

Fair point. I guess I can’t dispute that.

Don’t worry, I wouldn’t dare. Especially not here.

Eh, that’s religion for you.

48

no it doesn’t prove that there is a god, nor is it really meant to prove god. i think it is just meant to show that one should not so readily accept the fact that god does not interfere. god may be impossible to prove (if i were him i’d want it that way), but it may also be impossible to disprove the existence of god.

we can’t really prove anything for sure, i can’t prove that ZombiesAteMyBrain really is a person that exists.

49

I am not religious (anymore), but my reply to the general “Why is there pain & suffering?” question is “Without tragedies, there would be no heroes.”

If some omnipotent force took care of all the bad stuff, what growth humankind ever achieve? That there is suffering would indicate that humanity isn’t stepping up to the plate to prevent or correct the crimes we ourselves commit.

“The green grass grows around the backyard shit-house, and that is where the sweetest flowers bloom. We are flowers growing in God’s garden and that is why he spreads the shit around.” - David Byrne “The Cowboy Mambo (Hey Lookit Me Now)” (who always struck me as fairly anti-God, but I have a hard time reading this any way other than a charitable explaination for suffering.

50

Well, you have some proof that I exist - I paid a sub. to join this group. The mods can tell you [if they’re allowed]

I, on the other hand, have more than ample proof that I exist. What proof would satisfy you?

51

The same that would satisfy you of God’s. I have zero proof of your existance.

52

there is no way to prove something doesn’t exist because we haven’t been everywhere in the universe, probably never will.

there is no way to prove something exists because our sense of reality is based on our senses. our senses can be fooled. forgive a fictional analogy, but something on a level of The Matrix. of course there is always the possibility that i am a in a coma and that the entire world i inhabit (and you for that matter) are just figments of my unconscious imagination. i’m not suggesting this is the truth, but can we ever definitively say something is real. do you remember your plato? everything we see could just be a shadow on the cave wall.

for all i know you are the results of a million monkeys at a million keyboards with scientists screening the results

53

[QUOTE=the raindog]
JMS@CCT said:

None of the bible was written directly for you. [or me] None of it. As to whether we were [are] an intended [secondary] recepient, and whether we are required to make application in our lives, the answer is overwhelming yes.

(because of this sites constraints on wordage, I am going to have to eliminate from the text, some of your questions in order to properly answer them.

How do you qualify that first statement: “none of the Bible is written directly for you?” Romans 15:4 says it is “**written for our learning,”**and 2 Timothy 3:16 says: *"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for * doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteosness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." The question is not whether it is written for us, but rather, what in it is qpplicable to us, and howmay we apply it? I believe the entire Bible can be qpplied to us and our lives in a spiritual sense, but, obviously, I don’t believe we can apply all of it in a doctrinal sense. I believe God’s principles and character are unchanging throuhout the entire cannon of scripture, but that isn’t the point. What I am trying to get across to you (and anyone else who is reading this), is that God’s instructions (doctrine) as to how he wishes men to respond to him (obedience of faith) * changes * from one dispensation to the next. It is apparent from your responses that I am doing a poor job of this.

In my reading of the bible, I can find no verses that wouldn’t still bind those who believe that Christ wasn’t the savior to continue those practices. Nonetheless, we are no longer bound to the Law. (Col 2:13,14, Rom 7:6,7 and others)

Yes, unbelievers would be bound to observe the law, but it would be futile because Paul said, “by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his (God’s) sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

highlights mine

About Paul’s letter to the Galatians:
My point here is not to show that Paul was an angry man, or that we should go around referring to folks we don’t agree with as fools. but rather to show that he was not part of the program the 12 were charged with carrying out, and therefore not under the orders of that program. Since we’re in Galatians look at what he said in chapter 2 concerning what he got from the Lord as opposed to what Peter got: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: (God accepteth no mans’ person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.” (verses 6-8)

This passage of scripture alone establishes that Peter and Paul preached two different gospels to two different groups of people. The very reason Paul went up to Jerusalem (Acts 15)to confir with Peter, James and John, was to tell them what he was preaching among the Gentiles. If he had gotten his gospel from them, or even gotten the same gospel from the Lord by revelation, that trip would have been unnecessary.

[
There is no contradiction between Paul and Christ as it relates to forgiveness.
Reference is to the difference between Matt. 6 and Col. 2,3)
What are you talking about? When someone says to you: “If you don’t do this, I’m won’t do that,” this is conditional! The Lord’s language is plain in Matthew 6. You’ve already said we’re not under the law, and then you turn around and say “we are…required to…” Brother, we–the church, the body of Christ–are not required to do anything." To place a requirement on someone to get saved, stay saved or to prove they’re saved, is to put a condition on the grace of God. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace…” (Romans 11:6). Grace and works are mutually exclusive! Salvation is something that occurs in a moment in time. When anyone comes to the end of themselves, i.e., they cease from their efforts to earn salvation, as in Romans 4:5, and they "beleive on the Lord Jesus Christ"(Acts 16:31), committing their trust to him and what he did at Calvary to pay for all their sins, God, the Holy Spirit, baptizes them into Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:13; Romans 6:3,4), and seals them “unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30) 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 and 2 Tim. 2:11-13 are proof positive that no amount of bad “fruit” or unfaithfulness can get you cast out of the body, once your’re in it. That is absolutely not so in with the “kingdom gospel” (Matt. 4:23), which you are attempting to apply to the present dispensation. Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts 5,
bought the farm for committing the hainous sin of holding a little back for themselves. Remember what it says in James 2:10? **“whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” ** Well there you have the fproof of that in Acts 5. That’s the way it was then Thank the Lord it ain’t that way now.

I trust you’re not being presumptuous here. A serious student of the bible would take into account authors, audience, culture, context etc. Nonetheless, the words “my gospel” (From the KJ) is rendered, “the gospel I carry”, “according to my good news” and other ways in other translations. Nevertheless, even the words, “My gospel” do not say that Paul is excluding the gospels, or the writings of the other disciples. He’s simply talking about his ministry; his work in the Lord. As to context, there is no compelling evidence throughout Pauls’s prolific writings that suggest the he is undermining the Christ’s message, or that he, Paul, was here to preach a new covenent. He was a vessel to the Christ. His life work was to carry the word about the Christ. The cites supporting this are legion.

From what Greek do the “Good News” translaters get, “the gospel I carry”? There is nothing remotely resembling that translation in any Greek I’ve read. Nestle’s renders it: “according to the gospel of me, and the TR renders it: *"my * glad tidings.” Either way, “my gospel” would be the correct rendering, which establishes it as the exclusive possession of Paul. This isn’t the only place he makes this exclusive claim either. He makes it two other times in Romans 2:16: "In the day that God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.; and in Romans 16:25: **“Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, *but now is made manifest…”[/*B] I emphasized that last phrase to make sure you didn’t miss it. The phrase “But now” means, “not until now,” which says that Paul’s gospel could not have been revealed until he revealed it. If this isn’t true, if what he preached had already been articulated by the Lord in his three year ministry, or by the 12 in the Acts, then this is a lie, and needs to be expunged from the canon of scripture.

The evidence that Paul preached a different gospel than the other NT writers is so compelling it literally screams at you. I’ve already shown you a plethora of scriptural evidence to substantiate this, and I’ve barely gotten started. You haven’t shown me one shread of scriptural evidence to support what you say. (Notice, in your last paragraph there isn’t one scriptural reference cited.)

The reason the Lord saved Paul was to reveal through him what his (Christ’s) vicarious atonement and resurrection obtained for the *non-covenantal * world (Eph. 2:12), within a “mystery” he (Paul) called “my gospel,” or “the gospel of Christ.”

No, Paul didn’t undermine the work the Lord did on the cross, he magnified it
Paul did not establish a New Covenant, he revealed a “new man”(Eph. 2:15), e.g., “the fellowship of the mystery”, which he desired to make all men see (Eph. 3:9).

I don’t think God operates according to majority rule. If God was no respecter of Peter, James or John (Gal. 2:6), do you really think he gives a flip about what the majority thinks? What he does respect is his word (Ps. 138:2), and we (those of us who have been exposed to it) are going to be held individually accountable at the judgment seat of Christ (Romans 14:10-12) for what we did with it.
Concerning God’s word: I suggest you get yourself a copy of it. You don’t have one in that (b)ible your reading.

You say Paul, not Peter, was the leader of the early church.

Peter got the “keys of the kingdom” in Matt. 19, and was clearly the leader of the and chief spokesman of the kingdom program from Acts 2-12–his name dominates those chapters. But after Acts 13 we only hear of him one more time in Acts 15, where he apparently relenquishes the leadership to James. Paul, on the contrary, was seperated from that program in Acts 13 to head up a completely new work. I have documented this in an answer further down the page.

**You said this: “which he said was a mystery until he made it known”. There is nothing in those simple words that indicate that his (Paul’s) message was different than the message of the Christ, unless you chock his mouth full of words he simply did not say.

This has already been answered by scripture, not by me "chocking anyone’s mouth with anything. When Paul uses the phrase “but now” (which he uses at least ten times throughout his epistles) he establishes that what he is preaching was not preached until “now.”

As I said, Paul enjoyed a special position in the early Christian and that was no accident. He was appointed by The Man himself. That he could say those words above with credibility doesn’t mean he was given a different charter, or mission. It’s simply an indication of his position in the church, and his relationship with the Christ. His message however, remained consistent throughout his whole life; namely to carry the news about the Christ.

Again, zero scriptural documentation of any of these positions. Here’s some more scriptural evidence that proves conclusively (to those who have ears to hear) that Paul was not “appointed” by “The Man” to take over leadership of the church that was started in the early Acts. In Acts 13 it says, of the "certain prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch, that Saul was in their number. In verse 2 it says: *“As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” At this juncture, Saul, along with his companion Barnabas, is separated[/[/I from the kingdom church his name is changed to Paul (a Gentile name), he strikes a Jewish sorcerer blind (a type of Israel, as in Isaiah 6:9) goes to Antioch, and preaches a completely new message to the Jews and Gentile proselytes in the synagogue there. Here is that message: “But he (Jesus Christ), whom God raised again, saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgivness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:37-39) Here is the first recorded preaching of what Paul would later refer to (twelve times in his epistles) as the “gospel of Christ.” Your contention is that this was no different from what was preached in the four gospels or in the Acts prior to that? Let’s see what the scripture says about this. Peter, the possessor of the "Keys of the kingdom" (Matt. 16:19), rightfully stands up in Acts 2 and preaches to “ye men of Israel” (verse 22), that "…God hath made that same Jesus Christ, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in there hearts, and said unto Pete and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Them Peter said unto them, Repent, and be bapized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.(verses 36-38). of course this wasn’t the end of the requirments, but suffice it to say, this is enough to show the contrast between the two messages. First, Paul speaks to both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:26); Peter speaks to Jews only. Second, Peter accuses Israel of crucifying the Lord; Paul makes no such accusation. Third, Peter demands as the remedy for this specific sin, that these Jews do two things: repent and get baptized.(verse 38); Paul, demands no such thing. Fourth, Peter’s hearers get remission, and the “gift of the Holy Ghost” which endues them with the signs of Mark 16:13-16. (this was how they would be able to identify true believers), but this doesn’t end the requirements. They must sell out (verse 45) and continue “steadfastly” (without waivering or equivocating) (verse 42); Paul’s hearers, get the **“forgiveness of sins,” ** and justification from “all things” with no strings (requiremnts) attached. No repenting, no baptism (see 1 Cor. 1:17), just believe this and it’s yours. Why the difference? Peter was carrying out the Lord’s instructions givento him in his (the Lord’s) earthly ministry, which were absolute requirements those Jews had to comply with in order to be saved, and to enter into the kingdom. Paul was carrying out the instructions given to him by revelation from the Lord from heaven (see Gal. 1:11,12), which included no requirements other than simple belief to be saved. Nowhere does he require them to “sell out” or continue in faith in order to be saved or stay saved. To say that these two obviously different gospels are merely two aspects of the same message reduces the scripture to nonsense.

I’m not sure I understand the question. I see no demand to perform whatsoever in those cites. This much I understand: We cannot earn our way into salvation (as one would perceive it) through good works. The good news however, is that that is not why we endeavor towards good works. We endeavor towards good works as a manifestation of our appreciation and love for God, and because we are required to play a role in our salvation. We are required to try. The cites that show we have an obligation to try-----to work, to watch our behavior with our wives/husbands, business associates; our speech, even our thoughts, our personalities, our conduct----are beyond counting.

I stand on what I have already shown to be true in scripture regarding the demands of the kingdom program. You are absolutely correct in saying that “we endeavor towards good works as a manifestation of our appreciation and love for God:” “For the love of Christ constraineth us…” (2 Cor. 5:14). Indeed, we are “created in Christ Jesus unto good works…”(Eph. 2:10), but not in order to be saved. Where you run off the page is when you say “we are required to play a role in our salvation. We are required to try. The cites that show we have an obligation to try-----to work…” If there is a requirment then this isn’t grace!
Get a King James Bible and go through Paul’s epistles, and notice–in the context of exhortation and admonition concerning behavior–the extensive use of the word “should.” “Should” is not the same as “will” or “have to.” Yes, we should not let sin reign in us (Rom. 6:12), but what if it does? (According to Romans 7, it apparently did in Paul.) What happened to Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5 is not going to happen to us who are in Christ’s body, because we are saved by grace–they weren’t. If you’ve accepted Christ as your saviour, the works you now do are unto rewards, not salvation (see Col. 3:24,25). If you do absolutely nothing right, as a saved person, you can’t be unsaved or condemned. This is made very clear in passages like 1 Cor. 3:10-15; Romans 8:1; 2 Tim. 2:11-13, et. al. Behaving badly is something Christians should avoid, but it (bad behavior) isn’t the worst sin: the worst sin is perverting the gospel of Christ by mixing it with the gospel of the kingdom, and thereby obscuring the message God desires the world to hear–the only message they can be saved by.
[
Virtually all of the letters of the NT were written to a specific primary audience. No NT writer wrote a letter that was overtly addressed to future generations. The introduction, “to the twelve tribes” doesn’t render the letter invalid to us. The question is, Did God intend for us to have these letters, and do we have an obligation to make application of the counsel in those letters? The answer is clearly yes.
I never said anything about any scripture being rendered invalid to us. It is all for our learning and comfort (Romans 15:4), but it is not all written to us as doctrine for our obedience. Dozens of spiritual principles are contained in James’ letter, and we can be blessed by it as long as we don’t attempt to make it doctrine to the church in the present dispensation. James doctrine peaches works salvation because it is written to the kingdom church, and they are under a works doctrine. Hebrews, 1,2 Peter; 1,2.3 John, are all part of this.

I will rest my case here. The rest of your points have already been answered, and it would be redundant to continue to say the same things over again. . It is not my intention to “win” a debate with you, but rather to showcase to you the grace of God. I hope I have done this in these answers.

54

Just for the record, because it does make a difference:

You see those "is"es in the first line of that? In the KJV, they’re in italics. Know why? Because they’re supplied by the translators to make the sentence an intact sentence that parses soundly in English.

If you drop back a few verses, Paul is reminding Timothy of how he learned the Tanakh as a young Jewish boy, implying what we know from other sources – that Timothy learned the Tanakh from his mother and grandmother, who were early converts to Christianity.

Okay so far?

Now – **the whole of II Timothy 3 – the entire chapter – is one long sentence in the original Greek. Paul is fond of these run-on constructions, which work in Greek, but are unmanageably long in English.

So what Paul is telling Timothy is, “As you go out as an evangelist and apostle, don’t forget to reference the Tanakh – the Old Testament – as support for your teachings. Remember that you learned it from your mother and grandmother, and that it’s inspired by God and good for these things…” II Timothy 3:16-17 is a long phrase in apposition to the reference to the Scriptures in II Timothy 3:14-15, more accurately rendered as something like: “Don’t forget from whom you learned the Scriptures, [which are] inspired by God and profitable for instruction…”

It’s another case where something is quoted completely out of context and used to “prove” something that it just plain does not say, when you read it in context.

55

JMS@CCT said:

Some items abbreviated or snipped for a semblance of brevity.

Well… I said it as part of this exchange:

JMS@CCT: “Is the entire Bible written to you for your direct obedience?”

the raindog: None of the bible was written directly for you.

My point was that as far as direct obedience is concerned, we are ‘secondary’ recipients of those letters, but intended recipients. And, we must application in our lives. So the question, “Was the bible written for us?” must be answered yes. The emphasis was on direct based on your comment. If I was not clear, I apologize.

There are portions of the bible (although few) that don’t apply directly to us. The Mosaic Law is the most prominent of those, of course. More on that a little later in this post.

Romans was of course written to the congregation in Rome. The letters to Timothy were written to (duh) to Timothy, not directly to us. Are we under obligations as Christians to follow the counsel in those letters as though they were written directly to us? My reading says yes. As to the man who asked you if the whole bible was written for your direct obedience, there is certainly ample evidence to suggest that we are not obligated to the Mosaic Law, but he (via you) has made no case that Jesus’s (or Paul’s) are not applicable to us. (that I can see)

I would agree.

Once again, we agree. And I would note that we agree on much more than we disagree. As to doctrinal issues, as I noted, a serious student would recognize that Christ was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and that the formal rules (dietary for example) are (were) no longer in force doctrinally.

Here is where our paths diverge. You’ve shown me almost nothing to identify what these dispensations are. To hang something as weighty as Paul essentially rendering the words/commands of Jesus as invalid, or rather to say that Paul had a different message that should be followed instead of Christ’s, you have to offer us something more than the KJ rendering “My gospel.”

Think about what you said here. An “unbeliever” (given that we’re talking about the Mosaic Law, that would be a Jew) would have no problem with the quote of Paul you’ve provided above because …he would be an unbeliever. As a Christian, Paul’s words at Romans 3:20 would have no weight with a non-Christian Jew. If someone agreed with Paul’s comments the point would be moot, right?

Hold on…But you offered us Jesus’s admonition about wrath in Matt 5 to show that Paul was not “part of the program”, right? (Because Paul used the word “fool.” The application of Matthew 5, in comparison to Paul’s use of the word “fool” was mis-applied. You simply can’t make a credible case that we’re not under Christ’s commands because Paul used the word “fool” in violation of Matt 5.

As I said earlier, Jesus was clearly talking about indiscriminate, abusive, unjust wrath. Paul’s positive (although strongly worded) counsel violated neither the spirit or letter of Jesus’s admonition at Matt 5. So, how can you hold that out as an example that we are not under Christ’s direction?

I believe you are missing the point of the “new covenent”; the covenent of the Christ. The Mosaic Law was the law that governed the Jews for 1500 years. It was for the Israelites only. Jesus himself was sent to the Jews only. The Jews, and only the Jews had been waiting for the Messiah for centuries. Jesus himself said that he was sent “to the lost sheep of the house Israel.” (Matt 10:5, Matt 15:24)

It was only after Peter’s vision in Acts 10 that the preaching work was to expanded to the Gentiles—that God had determined that the message of the Christ was to be sent to the whole world now—to both Jews and Gentiles alike. That is why there is now references to Gentiles and to the circumcised/uncircumcised class. The issue of circumcision had been hotly debated but increasingly the Jews were acclimating themselves to the reality that they were no longer under the Law of Moses, and that the Christian church would no longer be an exclusive “Jew-only” affair.

Acts chapter 15 deals with a dispute that arose among the older men of the congregation. This was the first of it’s kind, but throughout Pauls’s writings it is clear that it came up again. The Jews had lived with the “Law of Moses” for centuries. Old habits die very, very hard. The apostles were brought in to resolve the dispute. The older men were insisting that the Jews had to be circumcised according to the “Law of Moses.” (Acts 15:1) Yet the Jews (and now believeing Gentiles) were not under any legal obligation to be circumcised. There is nothing in that account that suggests a division between the message of the Christ and the message of Paul. This account was the early Christian church finding it’s sea legs, and learning how to live under Christ without the requirements of the Mosaic Law. (which had been in effect around 15 centuries by that time I think)

We’re not under the Law of Moses. We are certainly under the Law of the Christ.

The scrpitures that show we have an obligation to do something, are too many to count.

More of the all-or-nothing mindset. We don’t practice our faith to “get saved.” We practice our faith----we do something—to show our love and appreciation for the gifts we’ve been given, and because we’re commanded to. Who are those drunkards, revilers, smiters, et al that Paul says aren’t inheriting God’s kingdom. When Jesus says that "only those doing the will of my father will enter into the kingdom of the heavens who is he talking about? More importantly, if I don’t have to do anything, nothing, who are the poor slobs that Jesus says get rejected at Matt 7:21-23? Plese tell me they’re not Cub fans.

I have several translations here, and the 2 renderings I gave you were from the a couple I have. I considered posting all of them, but why? The words “My gospel” suffice. And unless you editorialize, he’s saying nothing more than…well…um…er…“My gospel.”

I’m not asserting that there is a qualitative difference between the message of the Christ and the writings of Paul. The burden is on you, is it not? In fact, if you wish you can start a new thread and we can discuss it. In the meantime, a misapplication of “fool” and the words “my gospel” are getting it for me.

It’s late and I need to go to sleep. Nonetheless, I’ve enjoyed the exchange and we’ll need to agree to disagree.

56

When did I say he hasn’t been involved? I said he’s gotten more subtle – if the Bible is to be believed, then God used to perform obvious, indesputable miracles. Frogs raining from the sky, the red sea parting, etc. And yet today he does not. So my question is, for those who believe in the Bible, how do you explain the fact that God is clearly much more subtle today than he was an Biblical times? What made him stop performing obvious miracles?

57

The union.

58

On a more serious note:

2 Simple flaws in OP, both already stated, but here is the recap:

  1. We can’t just assume suffering is “wrong.”

  2. It is entirely possible that what is right and wrong from a perfect god’s perspective is very different than what any human would be able to comprehend, thus making this logic problem unsolvable.

59

The Biblical answer to this is simple: Contrary to the “accepted” lines of Christian thought, God’s hands are presently off the world and the world’s affairs, and this has been going on now for close to 2000 years . It started between 65-70 AD with the advent of what the Apostle Paul described as “the dispensation of the Grace of God” (Ephesians 3:3; Colossians 1:25 -KJV) In other words, the world is in a period of grace, not judgement. As you have very astutely obverved, this was not the case in O.T. Times, and will not be the case in a future time: the New Testament/Covenant, or 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth (Revelation 20:4-KJV), where, following a seven year period of “great tribulation” or “Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7; Ezekial 39:1-9; Matt. 24:21; Rev. 7:14–KJV) he (Christ) will rule over a divinely appointed government with** “a rod of iron” (Isaiah 9:6: Revelation 19:15–KJV)**

Most orthodox Christian teaching–Catholic and Protestant alike–says we’re in the New Testament/Covenant now. If we look in the Bible for a discription of what is going on during this period of time (the NT)–i.e., if we take the Bible at its word, and don’t turn the entire thing into a metaphor–we find that this cannot be possible. For one thing Israel, under the governance of the 12 disciples, and the kingship of Jesus Christ, will rule the Gentile nations, and Jerusalem will be “safely inhabited” in the New Covenant **(see Isaiah 60,61,62: Zechariah 14; -KJV), ** which is certainly not the case now. The world in that “day” (see 2 Peter 3:8), will be under the judgment of God (Matt. 25:31-45; James 5:5; 2 Peter 2:9-KJV). This is the time the disciples looked for because in it they were promised that they would **“sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19:28) **

The world is presently in a parenthesis between the Old and New Testaments. God, in Christ, has reconciled himself to the world, “not imputing the world’s tresspasses unto them.” (2 Cor 5:19) Does this mean that God is totally silent in the world right now? Although he is not presently manfesting his presence through “mighty signs and wonders,” as in former times, he is not silent. He has left the world with his will for it in his book, the Bible, and that is this: “**For this is good and acceptalble in the sight of God our Saviour: Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.” (1 Timothy 2:3-6-KJV) ** God is now dealing with individuals on the basis of grace, not nations under the rule of the law. The divine message to individuals in the world for the last two millinea is that anyone, under any circumstances, apart from the works of the law or religious observance, can be saved and bound for heaven by simply believing that *Christ died for their sins…was buried…and raised again…for their justification * (**1 Corinthians. 15:1-4; Romans 3:19-22; 4:4,5,25; 5:1,2; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), ** and receiving this a "free gift" (Romans 5:15) “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13)

60

JMS@CCT said:

Can I make a suggestion?

I think you’re trying to do too much, too fast.

You’re like a bull in a china shop. Before you fully explain/resolve one of your cites there is another post with another 20 biblical cites/texts. While I appreciate the time, effort and energy involved (more than you realize) there is a sense that you’re throwing everything up on the wall to see what sticks. When one of your cites is challenged for validity, rather than respond you put up another post with a slew of more cites. Even those cites are not fully explained but run together in one long disjointed paragraph.

I have a sense that rather than answering in a methodical, reasoned way you respond with volume. (the non-noise kind of volume) I’d like to respond to your latest post, but we’re not done with your previous assertions. You seem to throw them out there and abandon them in lieu of another 20 more cites.

Lastly, as a favor, don’t assume that anyone is buying into “accepted lines of Christian thought.” You have a bible. So do I. (On a side note you said, “Concerning God’s word: I suggest you get yourself a copy of it. You don’t have one in that (b)ible your reading.” Actually I have 13 different translations, 1 concordance and 2 interlinears. Surely we can find one that is agreeable, although there is nothing wrong with referencing how other scholars render a word or phrase. (KJV was authorized 1500 years after Christ by a non-Christian in a language that is not common to us. For that reason, I’m not a huge fan of KJV, but will gladly use it if you wish.)) If you’re going to make a case, it will be with the bible. Further, I will rely on the bible to express myself and not using the “accepted lines of thought” by my pastor. (Who I generally don’t find very credible)

So, here’s my suggestion:

  1. Make your overall point in a paragraph. No cites! Just in brief terms lay it out.
  2. Break it down, and in concise paragraphs make your sub-points.
  3. Use paragraph breaks to separate main thoughts!
  4. Use fewer cites, and fully develop the cites you make. You make one cite, quote less than the verse cited, and than with less than a full sentence separating them make another partial cite. It’s maddening! We’re not going anywhere. You can get them all in with out using the buckshot approach.
  5. Explain yourself and resolve any challenges before going to your next point.
  6. Use quote boxes for readability.

Some people are inclined to actually read the cites you make ( I am a student of the bible and fairly familiar with it) and so throwing up more and more cites will not impress readers as much as fully explaining the ones you put up. (Perhaps it impresses those who don’t. who knows?)

Anyway, must get back to my grindstone. Perhaps I’ll get back to this tonight during the Cards game.