oh dear,
Do you really believe that we are free to sin without consequences and look forward to pride week? you can only forgive someone who asks for forgiveness. Its like you can only tolerate things by declaring them wrong but allow them to happen. Declaring them right is not tolerance but agreement
“Sin boldly and pray more boldly still!”
Which was Luther’s blunt way of saying don’t agonize over avoiding sin, live doing your best and give it all to God.
I don’t think “ignores” is the best word choice. He doesn’t keep a tally, and He doesn’t favor anyone on the basis of whatever passes for righteousness, but He definitely works patiently to turn us to righteousness “from the greatest to the least”.
“If we walk in the light…”
I think this is a big reason I’ve always loved this song since I first heard it at summer camp as a new teen:
Though Puritanism is unfortunately alive and well in the U. S. of A.
Does God forgive because we ask for it? To get into Heaven we have to say please, not just please but pretty please? You need the right key, code or password? That is human legalism.
Jonah is not about a wale. Nor did Jonah run because he thought it was a waste of time. Jonah knew God would forgive. The point of Jonah is the last scene where God explains that He cares for all not the favoured few.
God forgives! We don’t have to do anything.
Due process is for people like you who need or jusr want it
Richard
What he was afraid of was that they would in fact repent.
We have to surrender, which is really the opposite of doing something; it’s the cessation of doing something.
I do not see surrender as a valid lifestyle. It deprives us of any self determination, choice or freedom. The whole point of Christianity is that it s easy (comparatively) without stringent rules or regimes. Surrender basically makes you a mindless slave. That may be alright for Paul but any slavery (IMHO) is wrong.
Richard
Germany surrendered at the end of WWII. Did that deprive them of “any self determination, choice, or freedom”?
The result of surrender depends on who you surrender to.
At the moment of surrender, yes. And for Eastern Germany for a very long time, yes. But it is not an accurate comparison because Germany was engaging in a specific action against the rest of the world and we are not actively waging war against God.
I do not see Christianity as oppressive. Neither do I see God as manipulative or domineering or demanding. Perhaps that might change if you are a full time cleric or only working for the church, but both those circumstances involve a personal choice and commitment. Most of us have lives outside of our (faith or) church. Any constraints on behaviour are from our own faith and code rather than imposed by God directly. And that includes how we interpret the bible.
Fanaticism is self imposed.
Richard
edit… A true believer does not have a life outside their faith in terms of behaviour, but how stringent they control their behaviour is down to personal faith and interpretation (See Romanns 14)
Paul says we were hostile to God. How is that not “actively waging war”?
I watched a kid today trying to learn to ride a bike. He was having absolutely no success until he surrendered to his father’s instruction; after surrender he started to get the hang of it. Surrendering to someone good can actually increase your freedom.
That is Paul’s perception, not reality.
I would not use that terminology. he just listened. That is not surrender.
Richard
[content removed by moderator]
When you stop rejecting someone, that’s surrender.
I prefer the word “acquiesce” which is what we do when we recognize our own cleverness and efforts will not avail. There is more to us than that under our direct command. When you recognize that it becomes better to serve than to struggle. One who chooses to serve is not a slave.
Remarkable chip-on-the-shoulder approach.
I have no idea what you mean.
“I’m alright , Jack.” I have no axe to grind.
(IOW I have already followed the protocol)
However, I do not see it as a deal breaker.one way or the other. God Forgives. It is not something we can affect.
Richard
Even they learn not to touch such wires directly. I was talking with one a few months ago who was on the ground feeding cable to his partner up on the hydraulic lift. Even though the cable wasn’t connected to anything yet, the guy up high wasn’t handling it directly, he was using insulated tools with insulated grips for grasping the cable plus heavy insulated gloves that reached to his elbows; his coat and safety hat were also insulated. When I commented on it the guy on the ground asked if I was familiar with the first principle of safety for handling guns. I told him sure: “a gun is always loaded”, meaning always treat every gun as loaded. He said it’s the same with electrical cable/wire: treat every wire as “hot” – the point in both cases being that if you treat every gun or wire as dangerous you won’t make a fatal mistake.
The ones that need to never be broken are the ones designed to protect life and limb.
All of which is to say that anything in the Law that isn’t a matter of unforgivable sin is a matter where we are free – and not only can but should be broken sometimes.
Actually he never quite gets that far. The phrase lex semper accusat, “the law always accuses” comes from the Augsburg Confession, coined by Philip Melanchthon to summarize everything Paul said was bad about the law and set it against the Gospel: it is the contrast to evangelium semper salvet, “the Gospel always saves”.
The word “only” fails in this connection because Paul does note some beneficial aspects of the law; the “always” notes that even if the law helps in some ways it nevertheless accuses and condemns.
When you reduce the scriptures to a matter of personal opinion you are in essence declaring the Holy Spirit incompetent. As it is written, “πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος”, “every scripture is God-breathed”; that makes what they teach not a matter of personal preference.
Yes, and no – this is one of those things that depends on which way it’s looked at. From our perspective, for example, to be a Christian we must choose Christ, but from the perspective of Christ we don’t choose Him, He chose us.
To toss in another Latin phrase, “Deus semper dimittet”, “God always forgives”. But that is of no use to us if we do not repent.
That is your opinion.
Paul wrote those words. Do you really think he wrote bout himself?
Your views of Scripture are not universal, neither must they be true.
You have great human learning. That is not always enough.
I do not wish to set myself against you but you have assumed an authority that is beyond your place. You do not have the “only” understanding of Scripture.
Richard
PS Note to all
I tried to resolve this difference in private but was unable to do so. If @St.Roymond wishes to claim higher authority in public I will continue to refute it.
Except that cross referencing is not done with bias…its done academically with the intention of using consistent supporting evidence from a variety of sources to show sound theology and doctrine.
Your claim here is simply wrong and any academic knows its wrong.
Half the trouble is, you people get so used to believing your own errant line of reasoning, you dont even see the overwhelming biblical evidence against such reasoning. Either you agree with the bible and follow christian philosophy…or you dont.
What in particular do you believe is wrong? Letting scripture speak for itself? That taking scripture out of context has been done frequently to make arguments that the text did not say? Or something else?
Scripture speaks for itself - this can be verified via cross referencing internally with other bible passages.
Taking scripture out of context - usually straw plucking without cross references.
My main concern is that one argues “we must be interpreting and or translating the bible incorrectly because our scientific interpretations dissagree with its history.”
I dont care what anyone says, aeguing something written/recorded historically must be wrong ignores the very obvious problem…those who recorded the events witnessed them and passed that onto their children, their friends, their aquantances…even their enemies.
A little example…
A very well known individual here wrote that they believe the conquest of caanan was just a story and didnt really happen as the bible writes.
I was flabbergasted that someone has taken so strongly to the old age scientific view that they actually deny a cultures own history.
Is anyone here really so convinced that jewish history is a fairytail? For me that is an incredible claim given we have significant archeological evidence that illustrates the conquest of canaan after Egypt.
We cannot just pretend the translation is wrong…if we play pretend, thats the extent of our christianity…a game of pretend, an illusion/delusion.
YEC Scientists are simply trying to find interpretations that agree with and support the bible as its written. To claim that is twisting scripture is about as stupid as calling a cow a bull…its quite obvious generally speaking, the cow is the one with an udder and without testicles…we are not twisting meaning by making a plainly obvious connection (reading the bible as written is no different)
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.