Richard, i wont quote the rest of your post, because your answers there are sounding like those of a teenager…surely you have thought this through better than that?
1 Like
Try looking at the one were you are identified (along with someone else who thinks they know what Scripture means)
Richard
To be blunt with you Richard…the answer is YES!
The bible presents us with a contrast between good and evil. Overwhelmingly, good is love and evil is hate…these are biblical absolutes.
The point is, the consequences are automatic. God doesnt want those consequences as such, however, good and evil do not coexist simply because they are diametrically opposed.
The main problem is that evil has only one goal, to destroy the good…so yes, God must punish because ultimately, His aim is to restore “love” by destroying evil!
This is a reason why TEism struggles with the doctrine of original sin…your theology is all over the place on pain, suffering and death only coming into this world because Adam and Eve disobeyed.
Revelation 21 tells us that the end game is to restore/rebuild…that is not evolutionary science…its a miracle the bible is foretelling.
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven…4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c
and there will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain,
for the former things have passed away.”
5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
You are just too much
Richard
Thats a bit of a word game…Whether we choose to highlight John 3.16 or Revelation 13.8…its pretty difficult to conclude that God predestined the believers who would be saved…the idea was universal salvation for all humanity whether they were/are jew or gentile.
Prior to the new testament, there was no church, only a race of people…Gods chosen people…the Jews (so theres that dilemma for us to consider).
For you to input church, you incite separatism and racism (because of misinterpreted Old Testament dogma)…so i avoid that notion and therefore i dont subscribe to your definition.
The key text for me is the following:
Rev 3.20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
I guess i should have ellaborated more thoroughly in my previous post in that what i did not include was that the still small voice the prophet Elijah heard in the cave, that same voice knocks on the door to the hearts of all humanity…not just those who choose. However, yes redemption and restoration is only given to the individual who opens the door to their heart…that is true but it doesnt mean to life vests and rafts are not tossed into the sea and a helping hand offered to all who are about to be lost. Remember Christ said, the son of man came to save the sinner (luke 19.10)
When the new covenant was foretold, we are told that the reason why God would write His laws on our heart is so that all humanity would be without excuse…thats the difference between the two covenants…its also where the notion of heart of stone came from…originally the ten commandments were written in stone, the Israelites promised to uphold those laws but they did not…they closed the door to their hearts and broke the tablets into pieces…claiming naivity. God saw through that failure of the people to keep their promise. He chose a different option, hence the New Covenant on our hearts and in our minds…now we are without excuse.
The context of this text is interesting (and somewhat scary). It is part of the message to a local church (Laodikeia). We usually separate the text from the context and interpret it as you have done. That is likely ok. However, in the context of the message, it gives the impression that the self-absorbed church had excluded Jesus and Jesus was outside, knocking at the door of the church, hoping that some members of the church would open the door and take Jesus into their life.
The church in Laodikeia thought it was the correct church, having all the riches of the apostolic church. All the habits and rituals (‘sacraments’) got through the teachings of the apostles, enough of knowledge of the teachings, blessings, etc. Despite all these external signs and the belief that they have the correct view, Jesus was outside. Loving and calling but outside.
2 Likes
Where is Israel in that text?
God decided to forgive everyone. Jesus makes it clear that it doesn’t get applied to everyone, though.
You distort the scriptures and the Gospel – that should be the concern of every Christian.
I don’t even see that making sense. I conform to what the scriptures say, to the text.
1 Like
Yes, there was – it’s just that we tend to translate the Greek word as “church” while not doing the same for the Hebrew word that the Greek one was used to translate.
Read the church Fathers; the church started with Adam.
That’s addressed to people in the church.
That’s an abuse of the text – that still small voice was for someone who already knew God and was listening.
Um, what? That’s a promise to God’s people, not to all humanity, and it isn’t about judgment, it’s about grace.
That’s an unfounded linking of two concepts. Writing on stone was how covenant agreements were done; it has nothing to do with hearts – in that context, stone communicates permanence; in the latter, it has to do with rejection and death.
I never said it was. I was asking how what you said worked.
How can you claim to understand science and not understand or recognise a hypothetical question or assertion?
(Hypothetical has the same root as hypothesis)
You will have to show me which words of Jesus confirm this ridiculous idea.
Another hypothetical question you have misunderstood.
You seem to answer the question or assertion you want to , instead of the on asked or made.
It was another hypothetical question.
Richard
It is so convenient that when a positive view exists it only applies to the church (God’s people?) but the general negative view of sin is Universal.
And that summarises your belief system.
Richard
Edit.
It is a very human view of (a) God who is vein and selfish and punishes anyone who does not recognise Him (whether they actually do what He wants or not)
I answered. If the Fall only applied to Israel, Israel would have to be in the text.
And there is no way to mangle the text badly enough to make it apply to just Israel.
Already done – he who has not believed is already condemned.
I answered exactly what you asked, nothing else.
Hypothetical questions are only questions if they make sense.
That’s because of the text – if it says it applies to the church, then that’s where it applies, but when it says “all” or that’s what the context indicates, then it’s universal.
Why do you have such an allergy to the text?
You answered what you understood, nothing else.
Yes that was what David thought when confronted about his relationship with Bathsheba
And that is you basic misconception.
I am not a slave to it, like you are.
aiah 55:8-9
New International Version
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
You thoughts are human based on study and human learning.
You have no “faith” as such.
Hebrews 11
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Everything you believe is based on what you see, be it in science or Biblical study.
Your faith is second hand. It is what is written. If that is what the text says then you believe it. It is a continuation of your science and thought processes. You do not have to “think” or “consider”, or “rationalise”, or even “understand”. It is there, so it must be. That is why you do not understand the ramifications or practicalities of your “Faith” They are irrelevant. “The text says…”
And you are not even consistent. If you treated Genesis 1 as by the text and intent of the author you would be YEC. But it conflicts with your science.
Elsewhere you talk about the text of Scripture as having one meaning, but Christ “reinterpreted” Scripture, was He wrong? (Or the exception that proves the rule)
There is so much more to Scripture than “the text”. And there is so much more to understanding than translation and linguistics.
I have never met before a person who has leaned so much and understood so little.
Rihard
Its not separated from the context…Christ is clearly telling those luke warm members that he is knocking on the door of their hearts all one need do is open that door.
I dont know what your point is there…it seems you are missing something?
Christ came to heal the sick…the healthy dont need healing/saving.
The text in Revelation 3 is referencing Christ statement in Mathew 7…
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. / For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Cross referencing is key here.
A literal Genesis is in conflict with the observable facts of the universe in the very same way a Geocentrist interpretation of scripture is in conflict with the facts of the universe. When an interpretation of scripture conflicts with observable facts it is the interpretation of scripture that is at fault in the vast, vast majority of cases.
I assume that we both stress the need to make a personal choice. That is why people like us tend to filter this passage through the viewpoint of the individual. I think it is ok, in the light of the whole teaching of the NT.
However, the passage is part of the message to the church of Laodikeia. The viewpoint and target of the message is the local church, not an individual, except in the sense that a local church is a community that is formed from the individuals that are its members.
The message does not tell what the door is, so the claim that it is “clearly” the door of their heart is interpretation. As the message is to the church, it would be more logical to interpret it as the door of the church. Those responding to the knocking are individuals, so in this sense this is also a message to the individuals, the members of the local church.
Please note that this message is to the church, to those who are already members of the church, not to those who are outsiders. At that time, membership was not automatic and Christians were sometimes persecuted, so the members were individuals who had believed and made a costly decision to join the followers of Jesus. It is a bit scary that the message was written to such people, not to the non-believers we usually think when we cite this text.
1 Like
You clearly do not understand faith. Neither do you understand why a YEC believes what he does. I am not even certain you understand what Scripture is.
Like others you have a reliance on your senses and “facts” . It gives you a certain perspective that is incompatible with Faith.
Richard
When I grew up in the church I was never taught that faith was the process of denying observable facts. Perhaps this has changed since I was in the church?
I am strongly skeptical of your mind reading abilities.
So we should believe in Geocentrism based on faith and ignore all of the observable facts that point to Heliocentrism?
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”–Galileo Galilei
1 Like
Woud you like me to quote Hebrews 11:1?
Faith neither needs nor takes reference to observation be they facual or otherwise.
I only say what I see. You are derogatory about them but that does not prove you understand them, nearer the opposite.
To misquote someone.
I am strongly skeptical of your comprehension abilities.
(Your question was a non sequitur based on your understanding not mine.)
Richard
Does it tell Christians to deny facts?
I am derogatory towards “professional” Young Earth Creationists with science degrees because they should know they are spreading misinformation. I am much, much more forgiving of your run of the mill YEC in the pews because they have been misled by people who are unfortunately in a position of trust.
Answer the question.
Should we believe in Geocentrism based on faith and ignore all of the observable facts that point to Heliocentrism?
1 Like
No, it is the text and the author’s intent that makes it impossible to be YEC – you have to force a MSWV on the text to get that, and the author knew nothing of such a worldview.
I don’t care about the science – it isn’t relevant. I care about the fact that the text is an edited version of the common Egyptian creation story, done in a way that overturns all the major Egyptian gods, to communicate truth about YHWH-Elohim, and thus has no intention of teaching science or history.
Yes – but if you decide to throw away some text out of prejudice as you do, and keep only what you like, you no longer actually care about scripture, only your remaking of it. At least Marcion was honest enough to actually cut out what he didn’t like!
But you throw those out, which means you don’t rely on scripture at all. It all starts with “translation and linguistics”, with worldview and context, with culture and history – without those you are really no different than a flat-earther, only seeing what you want to.