I know many prisoners have a high recidivism rate. And I suppose many repeat prisoners would stay in hell forever without repentance unless God worked at drawing them to himself.
I agree that I couldn’t pinpoint any particular intervention in a natural disaster unless God specifically told me. And I don’t focus on that while I acknowledge that God can work through natural processes, and that could include punishments or blessings. I also have a similar view of illness. In some cases, God goes out of his way to inflict an illness. And unless it would be specified in the Bible narrative or God specifically told me about a current event, then I wouldn’t know about it. And again, I don’t focus on that. However, I do focus on praying for healing from sickness and the aversion of natural disasters.
I’m not sure about any in particular.
Eventually, everybody will know which is which. Perhaps not on this side of eternity, but eventually. And I trust that God works all things for the good of those who love him and eventually everybody will love him.
I’ve trouble understanding what you mean. For example, I never said that a natural disaster must equate a judgment from God. And the Bible teaches complexity about the Kingdom of God and salvation. For example, Jesus taught both that the Kingdom of God arrived with his ministry and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and that the Kingdom of God would arrive in the future. Many people call this “Inaugurated Eschatology”. And Paul taught along similar lines when he said that new believers are saved, and believers also grow in progressive salvation/sanctification, and believers also have final salvation when they die. We’re save, getting saved, and will be saved.
I can easily grant this even in the short term–Jesus’ correction in GosJohn concerning misunderstanding about what He was saying in the flesh-chomping incident, for example (which He had to have put really really strongly for some reason, even so.)
To be honest, the problem here is that I was thinking of a completely different scene than you were–I was thinking of GosJohn chp 8:12-30 (specifically v.26). But Christ doesn’t tell the Pharisees and Sanhedrin leaders there (whom by context He’s contending with privately, in the treasury) that He has many things to tell them that they cannot bear now. I’m sorry for the confusion. That was my fault.
Apparently you were thinking of this portion of the Final Discourse;
If that is what you were referring to, then I can easily understand why you would think Jesus was saying (especially after the rather obscure statement immediately beforehand) that He (via the Spirit) was going to teach them something concerning sin, righteousness (fair-togetherness) and judging that they could not bear to hear yet. (And no, I wouldn’t consider the identity and authority claims of this passage to be the primary topic either, even though they’re obviously there as a topic. I will note that even here Jesus isn’t only making an authority claim but identity, too–nor was I saying that Jesus was only talking about authority per se, when I thought we were referring to John 8; He was talking about identity, too. And primarily so in that place. Be that as it may.)
I am not sure that Jesus was referring to those things specifically that the disciples weren’t ready to bear yet–the grammar doesn’t necessitate it–but neither does the grammar or context exclude it, either. So I agree it’s certainly possible Jesus was talking in reference to the Spirit exposing the world concerning those things (or revealing to the world those things; it’s a hard phrase to translate. I have an essay on my computer from several years ago, doing exegetics on this paragraph; not here at the forum yet, though.)
Now, there is nothing particularly in this portion or nearby which would point toward abrogation of the scriptural teaching (very very common, including with Jesus–including back in the John 8 scenes, to some extent, by the way) of God’s wrath and punishment, including post-mortem. But I can see how someone convinced of this on other grounds could easily come to think He could be talking about this here (especially in lieu of any other clear topic!) Nor have I understood you yet to be appealing to this portion as any kind of primary evidence for your position, so I have no criticism against you on that score. (Unless you try it. )
Fair enough?
On the other hand, back in John 15 (same scene, earlier in the same speech), we do have punishment language (if not post-mortem necessarily) included among verses 1-6. I would point out that, in conjunctive context with other punishment language teaching (including by Jesus at Matt 25’s judgment of the goats–which is certainly by context post-mortem, in the Day of the Lord to come, after the general resurrection), the burning of the unfruitful withered branches who refuse to remain in Christ, and the cleansing of the fruitful branches, are the same discipline. (For all with be salted with the fire of Gehenna, etc.) There’s still a distinction of some kind, though, between one kind of branch being cauterized (that’s basically the Greek word being used) and the other kind of branch being burned. And the distinction doesn’t seem to be that the ‘burning’ of the burned branches involves them suddenly seeing more of the truth than they did before and, being rational agents, now accepting the truth because, duh, that’s the rational thing to do.
Based on earlier statements and commentary in GosJohn, the distinction would appear to be that the burning branches are being burned because they refuse the light they can see. The cauterized branches are the ones accepting the truth, the light that they can see. Same fire either way, though. Same object, too, I would say, based on other contexts; including hope for removed branches, per Rom 11. Meanwhile back at the goat-judgment parallel, the kind of ‘punishment’ the goats are in for, is the brisk agricultural cleaning represented by the ‘katharsis’ or cauterizing of the faithful branches here in John 15.
(This reminds me that eventually I want to get back to discussing a counter-universalistic article on “kolasis” provided by Roofus here. Don’t have time to do it anytime soon, though…)
Okay. We’ll talk about ancient hyperbolic metaphorical emphasis at that time, too, I expect.
Although speaking from personal experience (Lord God, how long has it been now… nine years, more or less?), I can testify that it can in fact feel like being ripped to shreds. Circumcision isn’t always painless, even when it’s spiritual.
And I am a highly self-critical, penitent man! I can only imagine how much more it must hurt someone impenitent. But not because God doesn’t love them. Neither do I maintain that it will feel so grievous to everyone. (Nor have I ever once maintained that God inflicts this from on high without sharing the suffering Himself, even in this regard.)
Somewhere here on the forum (okay, after some searching here and my next comment afterward), I have a pretty complex discussion on the nesting quality of ‘ages’ and how they are reckoned. So I am hardly denying that ages come and go. Neither, though, am I denying that some ages do not come or do not go.
I consider this beside the point, though, as I have never once appealed to the “age to come” as being some kind of lock on exclusion of forgiveness. On the other hand, I do consider “the age to come” here as being a reference to the Day of the Lord to come, post-resurrection and thus post-mortem. (A day that, metaphorically in Hebrew parlance, must start as night before there is no more night. )
I consider the topic to be one of willed stubbornness on the part of the sinner, or else of repentance. They’ll be forgiven when they repent, and God will keep seeking their repentance. Their attitude until then, though, excludes repentance and thus acceptance of God’s forgiveness. God is not waiting for their repentance before acting to forgive them, but the forgiveness does involve God acting toward sending away their sins (in reference to one Greek word we translate ‘forgive’), freeing them from their sins (in reference to another word), etc. Whatever leads to that result will be provided, including punishment: in this age and in the age to come.
That having been said, no I can’t say that I’ve studied transmillennialism specifically. If you have some links to provide, please feel free to do so! (Maybe as a new entry in the eschatology section.) I think it would be very interesting.
Yes, but Calvin never noticed (or never put it quite together when he did notice it, obviously) that the Isaianic mission involved the people already choosing to be willfully intransigent. It’s a pretty normal theme in both the OT and the NT, and it’s picked up and applied by Jesus, too, in the Synoptics and GosJohn both: people insist on sinning against the light, so God acts to confirm them in that choice for a while, typically so that He can accomplish other things (among which is that they will learn better through having to eat the results of their intransigence–I can think of one incident in the OT which literally involved this ), and then He acts to bring them out of it again with an eye to them being better than before.
The most famous example in the New Testament, perhaps, is the Synoptic account of the Pharisees trying to argue that Jesus heals by the power of Satan. They’re being intentionally obtuse, against what they themselves can clearly see, and Jesus denounces them for this–while pronouncing the “sin against the Holy Spirit” judgment. After this (basically after lunch that day, when He goes back to the beach) He starts teaching in parables instead. When His disciples question Him afterward about why He started teaching in parables, He references the Isaianic passage.
It’s a terrible harmony, actually. But it is a harmony (no thanks to the sinners) that in its own way echoes a larger Biblical theme: God cooperates with sinners, even in their sins, in order to bring good out of their sinfulness and as part of the process of leading them home to be righteous instead. (There is in fact no way for a sinner to even successfully sin, apart from the grace of God authoritatively given. Which God takes and even insists upon His own responsibility for. But we’ve been discussing that in another thread, before I went on semi-hiatus for the summer. Which I’m still in fact on. So, moving along…)
No; the fair mercy of God, not to punish insofar as there was no intentional fault. “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing!” And again St. Paul, both at the Mars Hill Forum and (a little more indirectly) here and there in his epistles, relates that God “winks at” things that would have been sin had the people really understood what they were doing.
Ignorance in itself is not blessed, but God takes it into fair account. What the religious leaders needed to hear, however–and it wasn’t only the enemy religious leaders but people like Peter and the other apostles, too, which is who the “cut into pieces” comparison was directed at!–was that they were going to be held more accountable by God for their uncharity and laziness because (by God) they did in fact know better! Consequently, they had better not imagine that those pagans over there were going to be the ones getting maximally zorched while their own sins got passed by for having ‘religious advantages’. If anything, it’s going to be the other way around.
(A point applicable to your Inquisition example later, too. You’re going to have a hard time pointing to any of the RCC, Calv or Arm persecutors who were applying this principle!)
It was directed to particular Jewish religious leaders, proud of their Judaism, yes. They’re still children of the Kingdom, of course. Branches grafted out can be grafted back in, too (as Paul reminds any Gentile readers tempted to think that God has abandoned Israel for their sins). That may not be possible for man, after a point, if the analogy is pressed; but “Who then can be saved?!?” “With man, it is impossible; but with God, all things are possible!”
More practically, I read it as directed to ME!–if I insist on uncharity, even to my enemies. Anyone who thinks this is aimed at only the Jews, or only those nasty Jewish leaders over there, is instantly setting themselves up for the same result. In just the same way, Jesus warns the apostles themselves (during their last visit to Capernaum, before beginning the final walking tour ending in Jerusalem and the Passion), that unless they repent and become like the child whom Jesus is showing them as an example, they will by absolutely no means be entering into the kingdom.
But, those qualifications aside: yes, it’s a reference to people (Jewish leaders in this case, and other Jews like them, proud of their descent from Abraham and the covenant God had made with them) being cast out in the day of the Lord to come. Or, in the case of the apostles themselves (bickering over who is the greatest among them, and jealous of the attempt by the sons of Zebedee to get ahead of the others): not entering into the kingdom in the first place.
The gnashing of the teeth, by the way, indicates impenitent anger and opposition. Wailing is good–Jesus actually exhorts the Pharisees to that! Gnashing, though, shows that for a least some time they will not be accepting the light that they can see. (In this case, that pagans are being let into the feast.) They may be wailing, but they aren’t yet sorrowing–not at first anyway. (If they were sorrowing, they would be comforted; Jesus promised that, too. )
Unless they remember “Vengeance is Mine!–I will repay!” (A warning against taking vengeance in the OT.) Mere “torture” is worthless, or worse than worthless (for purposes of confession anyway).
Any imposition of truth, however–any action of God, in other words, in regard to a natural system of existence–is going to seem like torture to those who can perceive it and choose to refuse it. Yet again, having to eat the fruits of one’s own unrighteousness, having to deal with the real results of it, often is highly unpleasant. (Unlike the unrighteousness itself, which borrows seductively reinforcing force from perverting legitimate pleasures.) Cooperating with God in self-discipline often isn’t fun either, to say the least.
I will mention in passing that trinitarian orthodoxy, rightly understood and applied, results in an expectation of more mercy for those enemy guys over there, compared to one’s self. Show me a torturer of the Inquisition (or the Calvinist or Arminian equivalent thereof–none of whom were universalists, by the way) who accepts the principle that to enact final non-fair-togetherness between persons is a sin against their own ground of existence (the self-begetting self-begotten God), and I’ll not only show you a rarity but one who still isn’t acting according to his own precepts. Whereas, I think you’re going to have trouble finding orthodox trinitarian universalists engaging in persecution of opponents even in medieval times. (And they, if they exist, still won’t be acting according to their own precepts.)
I’ll fight if I have to fight; but I will by God show chivalrous mercy to my opponents at every opportunity. I am the sinner if I do not; and God will judge me more harshly than them, if I insist on refusing mercy.
Which they then demonstrated by sharing the torture and burning and such with their victims. No, wait: THEY DIDN’T!!
Also, a lot of this was driven (at the time) by the gnostic heresy of salvation by knowledge; itself highly unorthodox to trinitarian theism (though they insisted, and still insist to a large degree, that it isnt unorthodox).
(I do much appreciate your charitable accomodations of them, though. )
I would say depends on what one means by “condones”. But I think Bobx3 (aka Total Victory) is already directly challenging this notion over in the “Can UR trump the Myth of Redemptive Violence?” thread. (Would someone post a link to it? I don’t want to click it for fear of losing the red-flag reminding me I have unread posts there to get back to this autumn. A lot of discussion has been done there already, and any new thread should at least link to it and maybe ref it substantially in passing.)
Apparently, God has vengeance and we are not to have such (Romans 12:19). Also, God is unforgiving and we are not to be (the Lord’s Prayer says HE will not forgive the unforgiver).
Often universalists speak of God as not having such qualities.
“Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”
Fairly fair I’ve seen it used as a heretics “dream verse” where you can say anything and claim it’s one of the things Jesus said the Holy Spirit would tell 'em later
That’s just anti-preteristic rhetoric.
Of course there is wrath all through he bible Jason. ALL through the bible. Unfortunately when we are talking about (possibly) post general resurrection metaphoric fire and agricultural cleansing and so forth is doesn’t shed much light on how God is presently wrathing folks. It’s kind of like a lot of ETers say “Well, I don’t know exactly what hell is - but I know it’s BAD and I don’t want to go there”
We’ll have to start a testimony page about this Most serious spiritual seekers have most likely been there. Once or twice. This is a testing ground for sure.
To whom much is given much is required. Not sure how much will be required from someone who is blind.
That’s right - “Not one sparrow falls without your Father”
I was complaining about Christianity in general being locked into an inescapable future doomsday scenario AND believing there is nothing to know that wasn’t written down a minimum of 1900 or so years ago.
Okay - I still what to talk about what punishment folks feel God is doing to people. Specifically. I mean, how can anything be learned if we don’t know who’s doing what and why? Almost EVERYONE speculates like “maybe this or that situation is God punishing me for this or that wrong action”
I think so too. I actually haven’t studied it in depth but did join a group and asked a few questions. They are kindred spirits with me for sure as they are going about doing the practical present day works of God instead of trying to figure out what catastrophe God (in His sore displeasure) may be about to unleash on humankind. I’ll post some links.
Understood.
Understood.
Ah - but it is fun!!! Only your egoic psyche (which isn’t the core ‘you’) is hating it.
I can agree with the idea that people eat what they planted and it puts them in a hell of a mess.
Well, first of all it would mean not doing it Himself.
I was attempting to make a (rather crude) joke about the (human) southern justice system. I don’t believe it is a reflection of how God deals with humans at all. Any animal will conform to external wills and pressures in order to obtain relief from pain or detention (if it has the intelligence to do so). Beating someone (as a prison guard would do) will not produce a new creature - only a subjected creature. The main point I would like to make is that spiritual rebirth and spiritual enlightenment is what releases humans from spiritual death and spiritual darkness (prison).
It’s too ambiguous James. It’s like shooting in the dark - praying against things God is doing. I know you must feel you have no choice as you are left in the dark as to who’s doing what and why (God/Satan/nature) but that model just doesn’t work AISI.
That’s beautiful James and I’m SO GLAD you understand that (UR). Again though, the concept of an educational purpose falls apart because in your model we’re just left wondering what the heck is going on and who’s doing it and why. The only comfort is we’ll eventually know and it will be okay in the end
Personally it is good to know that God and I are a team working through this process of going from death to life and that He is not personally po’d at me (or others), ever at all. Now, when I (or others) come up against principles and violate them (like gravity) there’s a price to pay for sure but as I pointed out to Jason that’s WAY different concept than God pouring out vials of wrath and disease and earthquakes ect.
You said “the death of Jesus was a covenantal sacrifice that appeases justice for the moral debt of humans” and before that you said “A natural disaster might or might not be a punishment from God” and here you say " In some cases, God goes out of his way to inflict an illness". My response was “If that’s right we should see a significant drop in natural disasters after the crucifixion, that is, unless the “A natural disaster might” is actually a very rare occurrence”.
You also added “In some cases, God goes out of his way to inflict an illness” so I’ll add that if that’s right there should be a significant drop in illness after the crucifixion as well. Unless the "“In some cases” means “almost never”.
Having worked around healing ministries and working with some of the most sincere Christian folks on earth for decadesI can’t say that time and chance don’t happen to all and I can’t say that God’s blessings (rain/sunshine) are withheld from evil people either. Definitely someone with strong faith reacts differently to adversity and I’m SURE (Christianity lead) clean living DOES produce better health.
I pulled that out of context because I’m seeing that it gets SO complex that it leaves us clueless as to what’s really going on. Personally I believe we are “saved, getting saved, and will be saved” from ignorance about God and His core nature (I’m pointing that statement toward all of us).
I’m a bit confused. The thread asked about “atonement.” But Jason, your first post treated “atonement” and “reconciliation” as synonyms. The passages you listed all talk about ‘katallage’ (‘reconciliation’). Did the other terms for ‘atone’ (lutrosis; ranson & redeem) and especially ‘atoning sacrifice’ in Rm. 3.25. What’s being said with these terms that isn’t said by ‘reconcile’? Do you see them as equivalent?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at while I see more complexity to this. For example, the New Testament affirms the role of civil government including police and military (Romans 13:1-7). And Christians such as Cornelius the Centurion worked for the Roman government with no rebuke from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 10-15). Likewise, Christians may participate in a reasonable civil government that punishes convicted criminals while all Christians must let go of grudges. (This doesn’t mean that Christians could obey God while carrying out orders from Nero to persecute Christians or other similar scenarios.) And Paul said that Christians will help to judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). And the Old Testament taught against vigilantism by insisting that all judgments of crimes must include at least two witnesses (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15). And the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:8-14) and teaching of loving enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) in the Sermon on the Mount is in the context of emulating the perfection of the Father (Matthew 5:48). And the Father offered the Son for the forgiveness of all people (John 3:16, Romans 3:25-26). And Evangelical Universalists believe that God will eventually forgive everybody.
What I basically see in this thread is a lot of ambiguity and a belief that there is and must be some kind of wrath going on (even though no one can quite put their finger on what specifically is being done to people by God’s anger).
The OP was answered in one way but really, virtually ALL the answers are ‘could be’ and ‘maybe’ and pointing out that more knowledge = more responsibility (and therefore more punishment) etc.
So what ARE the specifics of God’s wrath? Do you think?
One does not need to know the specifics of the act of wrath in order to know that God does act to punish those whom he loves. In the same manner, what specific blessing can you say is from God and what is not? God must not bless either now?
I think Pratt, Goetz and I all answer the same when you say…
*even though no one can quite put their finger on what specifically is being done to people by God’s anger). *
What is being done is the breaking of their arrogance. It happens in modes we’re not always sure of but we can rest assured that NO ONE DESTROYS HIS OWN PRIDE and PRIDE IS ONLY DESTROYED BY BEING HUMBLED. Not all require the same action and God knows exactly how to discipline each in his own way.
If one cannot put his finger on what specifically is being done to people by God’s anger can anyone specifically put their finger on what God’s kindness is being done to people today? I’ll assume you don’t believe God blesses people either?
I can’t argue that bad events don’t sometimes serve as a ‘wake up call’ to very stubborn people. It can be a bridge to humility and can aid in bringing things into focus. As in:
As far as God ‘blessing’ people, the ONLY blessing which exists is the peace of mind which springs from living in God’s presence (agape love). All true blessings stem from this one blessing.
Once knowing this it is ‘sin’ to return to the beggarly elements (right belief/good behavior etc) in an effort to obtain God’s ‘blessings’ and avoid God’s ‘wrath’.
**To live in a state of separation from God’s conscious presence = wrath. **
This metaphorically relates to the expulsion from paradise which (along with expulsionary companions death and sheol) was the penalty (ie: punishment/wrath) for sin. Speaking for all of Adam the Son of Man prophetically says “All Your billows and Your waves (AKA:wrath) passed over me.”
This refers to returning to God's presence.
This refers to the alone-ness and isolation sensed outside of God’s conscious presence.
This refers to the resulting mental anguish which all of us have experienced and many still experience to some degree because of the sense of separation (ie: lack of the knowledge of the TRUTH).
This is analogous to being trapped in an egoic, Godless mindset.
This is analogous to spiritual resurrection/new birth.
This backs up your claim aug, that built into the punishment (banishment) there is the practical wake up call
Our voice (spirit) enters the temple (God’s presence).
No comment
The only sacrifice left is to thank God for what He has done.
That’s why no one here is able to differentiate what is God’s wrath and what isn’t and (generally) most Christians don’t do a great job discerning what are and are not God’s blessings either.
A resurrected new Creature in Christ does not need to be beaten into subjection. The flesh (egoic nature) always has the wrath of God abiding on ‘him’. As much as you identify yourself with a fallen spiritually dead creature - that’s your present wrath level. When you REJECT that the old man is your part of your essence then you will refuse it’s commands (which is effectively the ‘beating into submission’ Paul spoke of).
In God’s presence there is no wrath against you. If you are in Christ, the you that is in Christ has no wrath. Zero. Nada.
I’m going to have to ask for clarification. It seems that the issue has altered a bit? At first it seems Unltra Universalists hold that there is no wrath for anyone, because God has poured out his wrath for everyone already.
Are you saying firstborn as a Ultra Universalist that God does and will pour out his wrath upon those who are not new creatures (unsaved) in order to save them (break them of their arrogance)?
If not then I’m confused
If so then I think we agree on the how God is dealing with the world.
Aug,
The wrath is the expulsion from paradise. So EVERYTHING we humans experience which seems to be separate from our Creator is a manifestation of wrath. We need to leave behind all the superstition and ambiguity involved with “it might be, or might not be” and “sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t” concerning God’s anger or blessing. That was fine for small children but it’s time to grow up.
Earlier in this thread someone stated that much human suffering is ‘innocent’ suffering. When I read that my thoughts immediately went to starving children and such. So then, under an orthodox paradigm there is great confusion. Shouldn’t God be blessing innocent children? Always? Of course He should! That’s when most just throw up their hands and say “Well - we’ll understand it all in the bye-n-bye” OR they turn to agnosticism or atheism.
When we realize how the system is set up then we can understand that we are simply returning to our Father from a state of expulsion. We are received with open arms with absolutely no condemnation whatsoever after we “come to ourselves”. This is a form of ultra-universalism: “God is not holding anything against anyone”. We are born into wrath (AKA: made subject to evil, separation from God, corruption etc), we are saved from wrath upon the destruction of that which holds us in a state of wrath, which is a darkened understanding which manifests as evil imaginations and alienates us in our minds. Simple as that.
I will agree with you that the tribulation and anguish caused by the sense of separation can be greatly humbling in a very practical way, but to follow all the way through with that thinking - wrath is the answer! But then, wrath is failing as it seems most STILL don’t find salvation even as the anguish and tribulation produces broken or depressed individuals (I deal with those everyday).
FB,
I don’t think anyone here that I know of would say “Wrath is the answer”. Rather I would hold (and I think many might agree) that Wrath often is what breaks us of our arrogance and it’s his kindness that leads us to repentance. However we are in a world of confusion and ambiguity, so his kindness is hard to see in scripture (they’ll be cut to pieces).
You are saying something that is not all that different from the EU position. We don’t claim to know exactly how wrath is manifested in every instance. But we do have scripture that says God even punishes his own children because that’s what a good father does in order to produce righteoussness.
Now I realize the Ultra Universalist position holds that everyone is punished in this life so everyone gets salvation when they die. I don’t mean to mis-represent the view if I just did (forgive me). But if this is right then one would have to ask why God continues to produce righteoussness in those who already are made righteouss. Similarly why do we WAIT for our salvation when we’re already saved.
As I see it, it’s PERFECTLY right to speak as the apostles did in ways which we understand God. If his Wrath is here and it is coming then I have no problem with saying “God has wrath upon the wicked” for a specific purpose of, like neb. who lost his mind to be humbled, or pharoah who lost his son, humbling the person.
So I don’t think we have much of a disagreement on this. Now if anyoen says 911 was God’s wrath on america. First I’ll have to ask for his other prophecies cause I gotz my dodtz he’s a prophet.
With all that said, I see no reason not to and every reason to say God does indeed punish the wicked because he seeks to turn them from their sin.
And it will STAY a world of confusion and ambiguity until we can see things more clearly.
I don’t deny that on one level that is what is happening. But there is an end goal in mind. I’m trying to bring us across the finish line while orthodoxy wants to keep folks stuck in the same mire of ambiguity and mystery. AISI.
I don’t study theology much so honestly I don’t know what ultra’s believe exactly. I don’t think you’re hearing the point that the consequence/punishment/wrath was applied to the entire human race in Adam and that the law of sin and death (the consequence) in done away in Jesus - through the death (baptism into Christ’s death) of the egoic self (in a way I hate to use that word as it has a ‘new agey’ spin - but it’s really just a way of saying ‘carnal mind’). The minding of the flesh is a state of death which destroys itself through death.
Perfectly logical - makes sense and I LOVE those stories. We learn from them BUT is it the story of the human race for all eternity? How will the next stage ever come about? Definitely not by clinging to yesterday’s understanding.
But do you see that NONE of this would be happening if not for the expulsion from paradise. So the wrath isn’t 911 but 911 is the result of wrath, no doubt.
Well… it’s not working too well, is it? If that’s how it worked then the law would have been fine as it was. Only the bringing in of a better hope could bring perfection (full growth/maturation). The better hope was a gift of righteousness which frees us from all wrath (once we really understand what it all means!)
The obvious is agreed. Indeed when things become more clearly for anyone, anyone will see more clearly
This seems incompatible though with the fact that people still sin? I realize you want to tell them your perfect but Paul seems to have different ideas. Do I have to quote him?
The adamic story is difficult indeed. This one we’ll have to expand on a bit.
Yes, I think it is. God taking us from evil to righteouss is the exact story we all need to know and experience.
Of course FB, yes all death is a result of sin.
Fallacy alarm going off here. Jesus was not very good at turning pharisees and saducees from their positions…What ever he was preaching was not working too well. -
Simply because our message is not effective at any time in history does not mean it is not correct nore true.
When will they stop? Tell me what (or who) brings about that perfection.
Yes, and when we do it will become clear that there are only two men involved in the entire storyline.
How does God take is all the way from evilness to righteousness? “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 No longer will they have need to teach their friends and kinsmen how to know the LORD. All, from least to greatest, shall know me, says the LORD, for I will forgive their evildoing and remember their sin no more”.
The Calvinists have some things very right - and one is that making a human (or humankind) righteous is a sovereign act of God.
Cataclysmic shift happens. Count on it!
I’m trying to show the context and consistency of wrath. What has been mostly displayed here are ambiguous wonder-ings and “maybes” and little is understood about wrath except that “somehow it’s love” and “somehow it’ll work out for the best in the end” and that it’s humbling and educational. We need to understand that wrath is universal, just like salvation.
You and I both know that Jesus purposely hid the message lest they should be converted and healed. That shows a time for non-restoration and non-universal salvation. That time though is not ‘forever’.
I don’t suppose you think the Sanhedrin had hard hearts do you? LOL!
We’ve been quite clear on this. You seem to deny that God punishes his sons in order to produce righteousness. If that is such a lie or OLD hat then you’ll have to explain with more than the following arguments.
no one can name what God’s wrath is
it’s all ambigious
maybe it’s God’s wrath, maybe it’s not.
If God’s turning people from sin and bringing down their pride is so elementary and foolish to you then you’ll have to explain how it is God humbles the proud. You have yet to explain how these Ideas we hold are false or trivial.
Aug,
I also said on one level some of these ideas which orthodoxy holds make perfect sense. So in one sense I’m on that page too - and I don’t want to trivialize as it is not trivial (the suffering and humbling) but on the other hand I’m trying to turn the page and show the simple foundational whys and hows behind the complex whys or hows. It’s a logical progression and and solves much of the rampant confusion in Christianity. It is spelled out in scripture that just as all were made sinners by one man all were be made righteous by one man. A big key is here: “I will dwell in them and I will walk in them and I will be their God and they shall be to Me a people”.
Yes, and when we do it will become clear that there are only two men involved in the entire storyline.
)
So, moving along…)
Most serious spiritual seekers have most likely been there. Once or twice. This is a testing ground for sure.