Why does idle curiosity kill the kitten.
ANd just WHO is the judge and jury, about what CONSTITUTES a satisfactory answer? YOU
And if I treated these questions as Zen Koans…and gave you a Zen answer - would you understand it
Then why are you getting all BOILED UP, when folks like Davo - presents Pantelism And how can you criticize it, when you have NO theology of your own Same goes for something like Annie Besant’s Esoteric Christianity, A.E. Knoch’s No Free Will Universalism and Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science.
This whole conversation brings to mind. A Laurel and Hardy episode.
I didn’t say i have no theology on any subject. Obviously i do.
I don’t get it. If you have something to say, say it. It’s just strange to me that someone would be so reluctant to share his atonement theory.
I am rather shocked, Chad, that you consider the hypothetical situation that raised as a personal attack on you and your relationship to God. I wasn’t addressing you as not being forgiven. I was using the hypothetical “you.” Had I any idea that you would take it so personally, I would have reworded it using the third person rather than the second. My argument would have been just as effective in so doing. The following is my revision (now hopefully inoffensive).
But my point is that he would never say such a thing. Your position, though maybe some how valid in your thinking, is not in step with a God of Grace.
[size=130](No problema! Here is my original post:)[/size]
I have an alternative perspective to share on 1 John 1:9:
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
As “grace teacher” Andrew Farley noted in his book The Naked Gospel (2009) regarding this verse:
I shared that same viewpoint on 1 John 1:9 based on the ideas of grace teacher Joseph Prince in another thread:
“He would never say such a thing.” That’s precisely my point as well. And WHY would He never say such a thing? Because He doesn’t forgive without repentance. It’s only then that a relationship with God can be re-established. And WHY is repentance (a change of heart and mind) required by God? Because it is the offender’s first step in changing His ways, and becoming a righteous person by God’s enabling grace.
But, PEOPLE think they can forgive someone without the repentance of the offender. As I said in the same post, a person said, “Yes, I forgave him, but I’m not going to go out for lunch with him!” Those words show that the person hadn’t truly forgiven him, or their relationship would have been restored. The person perhaps merely pardoned him, that is, let go of ill feelings towards him, and didn’t require restitution. But their relationship was not restored.
The God of Grace requires repentance in order to grant His enabling grace to help him overcome wrongdoing and to live righteously. But the “God” of cheap grace in which so many believe, because they want to hang onto their sin, supposedly lets everybody off the hook and accepts them, sin and all. That is the way the cheap-grace crowd understands the significance of Christ’s magnificent sacrifice on our behalf. But that is not the purpose of His sacrifice. It is not to provide cheap grace that merely lets us off the hook, and requires nothing of us. Rather its purpose is to provide enablement so that we can be the righteous people that God wants. Why does He want us righteous? Because He wants us to love one another, not hurt one another. Hurting one another as well as ourselves is the consequence of wrongdoing.
Well, that might be the way we would like it to be, but if we consider peoples situations in life and why they chose to offend us could we not also take into consideration that their circumstances are such that it was very difficult for them and what ever they did to offend us they, at the time, may have seen no other way. Don, I don’t know how much you get out and about these days, but there are a load of struggling folks out there that make bad choices. I feel like I want to offer others the same grace that God has offered me. But I have to say, this has opened my eyes to the subject on a few different levels.
Sorry, I always hit a nerve with this subject. I do like the term ‘cheap grace’ and to me it is cheap to think that God’s grace is anything but complete. We see it different.
I appreciate your view.
Bob Wilson: “the epistle you’re reacting to here classically says things like, “IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:9); so I’m not seeing how you interpret it as declaring forgiveness “does not need repentance.””
Hermano: I have an alternative perspective to share on 1 John 1:9:
John uses we to politely combat Gnostic heresy…
Bob: So you see 1:9 as stating a heresy, and so denies God will be faithful to cleanse us when we confess our sins, or even wants us to confess them? That’d be an interesting way to reject Christians’ historic understanding that confessing our sins remains a good thing. Though I’d probably find that I still have some that could stand to be confessed
Thanks Chad. I also want to offer others the same grace that God has offered me. God grants true forgiveness only upon repentance. And that is also the basis upon which we grant true forgiveness to others.
You’ll never flinch, and I like that… But nor will I Bro
True repentance is a great gift and not to be sneered at. When a person really sees themselves in God’s light, or under conviction by the Holy Spirit, a new world of possibility opens up. Without it, we are closed into ourselves and, often, a hell of our own making. We NEED repentance to enable any sort of spiritual growth.
Yep I’m with you all the way, unfortunately it’s not what Don is saying. But that is OK.
Have a pleasant Easter.
You too, brother!
I’m not sure this is such a good example. Of itself yes this can be absolutely correct, BUT it is by no means exhaustive and thereby ruling out any countering alternative, for example…
IMO BOTH examples are really lame and CANNOT be submitted as having real credence BEYOND their own historical context, of which both can be absolutely true.
Paidion and Bob, what are your thoughts on Hebrews 11:4?
It sounds like it portrays that God liked Abel’s offering, more than the one that Cain brought
I think we can find the answer in the passage in Genesis 4:1-7
I don’t think the reason that God accepted Abel’s offering and not Cain’s was because Cain offered vegetables but Abel offered meat. Naturally each of them would offer what he had from the fruits of his labour. God makes it clear that if Cain would but DO WELL, he would be accepted. Notice it didn’t say merely that the LORD accepted Abel’s offering but not Cain’s. Rather, it says that the LORD accepted ABEL AND HIS OFFERING, but rejected CAIN AND HIS OFFERING. Why? Because Cain’s behaviour was unacceptable. The LORD said to Cain, "If you DO WELL, will you not be accepted?
Notice the writer of Hebrews doesn’t refer to their offerings, but to their SACRIFICES. My thought is that Abel DID WELL by offering first himself to God, so that God accepted Abel and his offering. But Cain did not offer himself completely, and so didn’t “do well” in the sight of God. Thus Abel offered a BETTER sacrifice.
Paidion, I agree. As you say, Abel did well by offering himself first to God ( the first commandment). His offering was of the fruit of the Spirit. There are many passages in both the Old and the New Testaments that tell us what offerings are pleasing to God.
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
Hebrews 13:16 “And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for such sacrifices God is pleased.”
Romans 12:1 “Therefore, I urge you brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. This is true and proper worship.”
1 Samuel 15:22 “But Samuel replied, “Does the lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord?” To obey is better than sacrifice and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”
I believe Abel was a leader.
As it says in Matthew 34:35 'Therefore indeed, I send you prophets, wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify …that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth , from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."
Matt. 23:31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.”
Abel was speaking and obeying the truth of God, and though physically dead, was still speaking through Jesus.
On the other hand,I think Cain may have been:
A) Honoring God with his lips rather than his heart.
B) Doing good things on the outside, but inside he was a “ravenous wolf”, full of jealousy.
C) Making up his own rules.
As Matthew 7:8 says,a good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree brings forth bad fruit.