I have been wanting to share with you for a long time my views about how the O.T. Sanctuary was the way God taught the gospel to His people in Old Testament times.
Hebrews 3:19-4:2
So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
To my pleasant surprise, I found my favorite book of all on the subject of the Sanctuary and the Gospel, "Ransom and Reunion- Through the Sanctuary" by W.D. Frazee. It's a page-turner. In many places it brings tears to my eyes, and really makes me take stock of myself. This is really heavy stuff. Some of you will not be able to put it down.
Check this out! Then, let's talk about it.
http://www.egwebdesign.com/ransom/
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
Elder Frazee's view is that the people of God have accepted a contract, it seems to me. In exchange for worship and contrition, God will allow them into Heaven once their days on earth are spent. The penalty for not signing up to the contract is expulsion from the community, to be cut off. That's fair enough - it's His community after all. It's His heaven, it's His party, it's my choice.
But I didn't elect life in the first place. Being born was not an option, it was thrust upon me. I didn't come into this world as a consequence of agreeing to the terms of the contract. He wants to set the groundrules, that's His business. He can hold out the pen and invite me to join the club but at the least I can read the fine print and decide what sort of deal I'm being offered. Hmm. Worship me, "bring your sin to the sanctuary and put it on the Lamb of God. Confess it. Give it to Him. Let Him be your Sin Bearer. Let His death take the place of your death". Or go off into the wilderness and interpret Christianity without the threats and promises.
Refusing to sign up seems a principled act, to my mind. Christianity has spent most of its time in the presence of this concept of the All-powerful, Omniscient Omnipresent God whose power is unlimited, and I'm not signing up with anything that unbalanced. If something supernaturally bigger than me wants me to play games then I'd rather tough out the universe without help.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters and Papers from Prison" explores the ground of a moral Christian life in the absence of the All-powerful. That territory carries questions I find far more attractive than obedience to an Absolute Will. I'll happily discuss the beliefs of the Hebrews at the time of the Temple, and the interpretations they placed on their tribal history of the time of Exodus, but I'm not going to enter the covenant. I'd feel damned if I did rather than damned if I don't.
But I didn't elect life in the first place. Being born was not an option, it was thrust upon me. I didn't come into this world as a consequence of agreeing to the terms of the contract. He wants to set the groundrules, that's His business. He can hold out the pen and invite me to join the club but at the least I can read the fine print and decide what sort of deal I'm being offered. Hmm. Worship me, "bring your sin to the sanctuary and put it on the Lamb of God. Confess it. Give it to Him. Let Him be your Sin Bearer. Let His death take the place of your death". Or go off into the wilderness and interpret Christianity without the threats and promises.
Refusing to sign up seems a principled act, to my mind. Christianity has spent most of its time in the presence of this concept of the All-powerful, Omniscient Omnipresent God whose power is unlimited, and I'm not signing up with anything that unbalanced. If something supernaturally bigger than me wants me to play games then I'd rather tough out the universe without help.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters and Papers from Prison" explores the ground of a moral Christian life in the absence of the All-powerful. That territory carries questions I find far more attractive than obedience to an Absolute Will. I'll happily discuss the beliefs of the Hebrews at the time of the Temple, and the interpretations they placed on their tribal history of the time of Exodus, but I'm not going to enter the covenant. I'd feel damned if I did rather than damned if I don't.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
I downloaded the book. Glad it's short, because so is my time. 
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
spot wrote: Elder Frazee's view is that the people of God have accepted a contract, it seems to me. In exchange for worship and contrition, God will allow them into Heaven once their days on earth are spent. The penalty for not signing up to the contract is expulsion from the community, to be cut off. That's fair enough - it's His community after all. It's His heaven, it's His party, it's my choice.
But I didn't elect life in the first place. Being born was not an option, it was thrust upon me. I didn't come into this world as a consequence of agreeing to the terms of the contract. He wants to set the groundrules, that's His business. He can hold out the pen and invite me to join the club but at the least I can read the fine print and decide what sort of deal I'm being offered. Hmm. Worship me, "bring your sin to the sanctuary and put it on the Lamb of God. Confess it. Give it to Him. Let Him be your Sin Bearer. Let His death take the place of your death". Or go off into the wilderness and interpret Christianity without the threats and promises.
Refusing to sign up seems a principled act, to my mind. Christianity has spent most of its time in the presence of this concept of the All-powerful, Omniscient Omnipresent God whose power is unlimited, and I'm not signing up with anything that unbalanced. If something supernaturally bigger than me wants me to play games then I'd rather tough out the universe without help.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters and Papers from Prison" explores the ground of a moral Christian life in the absence of the All-powerful. That territory carries questions I find far more attractive than obedience to an Absolute Will. I'll happily discuss the beliefs of the Hebrews at the time of the Temple, and the interpretations they placed on their tribal history of the time of Exodus, but I'm not going to enter the covenant. I'd feel damned if I did rather than damned if I don't.Your statements about a "contract," and "obedience to an Absolute Will," and the attractiveness to you of a "moral Christian life in the absence of the All-powerful," I think, help me see better where you're coming from, even though I don't see it that way. Not that I'm trying to pursuade you, but I guess my view appeals to someone of my kind of personality. It's embarrassing to admit this, but I am of a deeply sensitive emotional nature, and to me love has a shade of strong inter-dependence that I understand seems very weak, mawkish and unappealing to independent-minded people. I think a lot of people would rather have a relationship to God in which He is their "Co-pilot" in life- a helper, a source of strength, even comaradery- almost an equal.
On the contrary, I look at my life, and though I have worked bravely and hard, and achieved some things; I see myself largely as a papoose on God's back. He's "Daddy" to me, like a strong Father to a toddler. I suppose emotionally I need a God who definitely is All Powerful, someone in whom I can rest and find a stronghold and an impenetrable refuge from a world I see, like Tony Adams, "mostly harmless," (at this time and place) but also potentially very hostile. I realize that this does not work for everyone.
Now this does not imply that He will always shield me from great losses, injuries and catastrophes. But it would nerve me more to face disaster and hunger and privation to know that He can strenghten me to face them, and in turn by facing them I could glorify Him- that is, do something positive for His reputation among men. Rather than a "crutch," it seems to me that to have an eye single for God's glory means putting yourself in His hands, whatever may come.
All this means that I need Someone in charge of the universe whom I can trust- Someone who loves me. That's why I think Frazee started with a chapter telling of our value to God.
Spot, when you say "contract," it makes me think of contracts between men. In business, a contract is based on the assumption (almost always correct) that each party will screw the other as far as possible- so you try to get wording that will cover your own behind, keep the other guy on the hook, while leaving you with as many options as possible to renege if you want to.
But God entered something with the faithful that He called a "covenant of love" (Deut 7:9,12; 1 Kings 8:23; 2 Chron 6:14; Dan 9:4; Neh 1:5,32) God never intended to have with us any covenant that was inferior in any way to the covenant of love. Paul called it the “new covenantâ€Â- even though Paul made clear that the truly faithful of Old Testament times experienced it. My studies have confirmed for me that the “In Christ†relationship is that same "covenant of love."
I think that the traditional religious schooling in Christianity does two things to thwart the point of view I hold. One is that traditional Christianity does as you say, creates a contract with rewards and punishments that's one-sided, do-it-or-else. It doesn't make it a voluntary love relationship. The other thing traditional Christianity doesn't do, I believe, is- it doesn't do a very good job of showing God as Someone we can trust. These are points we can argue to the minutiae.
I can see how what Elder Frazee is presenting would appear to you as a contract with rewards and punishments (Indeed I know about the covenant blessings and curses cited in Scripture). And perhaps the existence of an All-powerful God would logically necessitate that- But the fact that He, through His Son sealed this compact with His own blood, for my benefit, because He loves me- disarms what otherwise would be any objections or reservations on my part. It doesn't bother me to have an All-powerful God when He was willing to suffer the humiliation and agony that He did in Y'shua on the cross.
Any way you look at it, Spot, I think both you and I are "tough customers" when it comes to our relationship with God, when we look at what we put Him through.
But I didn't elect life in the first place. Being born was not an option, it was thrust upon me. I didn't come into this world as a consequence of agreeing to the terms of the contract. He wants to set the groundrules, that's His business. He can hold out the pen and invite me to join the club but at the least I can read the fine print and decide what sort of deal I'm being offered. Hmm. Worship me, "bring your sin to the sanctuary and put it on the Lamb of God. Confess it. Give it to Him. Let Him be your Sin Bearer. Let His death take the place of your death". Or go off into the wilderness and interpret Christianity without the threats and promises.
Refusing to sign up seems a principled act, to my mind. Christianity has spent most of its time in the presence of this concept of the All-powerful, Omniscient Omnipresent God whose power is unlimited, and I'm not signing up with anything that unbalanced. If something supernaturally bigger than me wants me to play games then I'd rather tough out the universe without help.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters and Papers from Prison" explores the ground of a moral Christian life in the absence of the All-powerful. That territory carries questions I find far more attractive than obedience to an Absolute Will. I'll happily discuss the beliefs of the Hebrews at the time of the Temple, and the interpretations they placed on their tribal history of the time of Exodus, but I'm not going to enter the covenant. I'd feel damned if I did rather than damned if I don't.Your statements about a "contract," and "obedience to an Absolute Will," and the attractiveness to you of a "moral Christian life in the absence of the All-powerful," I think, help me see better where you're coming from, even though I don't see it that way. Not that I'm trying to pursuade you, but I guess my view appeals to someone of my kind of personality. It's embarrassing to admit this, but I am of a deeply sensitive emotional nature, and to me love has a shade of strong inter-dependence that I understand seems very weak, mawkish and unappealing to independent-minded people. I think a lot of people would rather have a relationship to God in which He is their "Co-pilot" in life- a helper, a source of strength, even comaradery- almost an equal.
On the contrary, I look at my life, and though I have worked bravely and hard, and achieved some things; I see myself largely as a papoose on God's back. He's "Daddy" to me, like a strong Father to a toddler. I suppose emotionally I need a God who definitely is All Powerful, someone in whom I can rest and find a stronghold and an impenetrable refuge from a world I see, like Tony Adams, "mostly harmless," (at this time and place) but also potentially very hostile. I realize that this does not work for everyone.
Now this does not imply that He will always shield me from great losses, injuries and catastrophes. But it would nerve me more to face disaster and hunger and privation to know that He can strenghten me to face them, and in turn by facing them I could glorify Him- that is, do something positive for His reputation among men. Rather than a "crutch," it seems to me that to have an eye single for God's glory means putting yourself in His hands, whatever may come.
All this means that I need Someone in charge of the universe whom I can trust- Someone who loves me. That's why I think Frazee started with a chapter telling of our value to God.
Spot, when you say "contract," it makes me think of contracts between men. In business, a contract is based on the assumption (almost always correct) that each party will screw the other as far as possible- so you try to get wording that will cover your own behind, keep the other guy on the hook, while leaving you with as many options as possible to renege if you want to.
But God entered something with the faithful that He called a "covenant of love" (Deut 7:9,12; 1 Kings 8:23; 2 Chron 6:14; Dan 9:4; Neh 1:5,32) God never intended to have with us any covenant that was inferior in any way to the covenant of love. Paul called it the “new covenantâ€Â- even though Paul made clear that the truly faithful of Old Testament times experienced it. My studies have confirmed for me that the “In Christ†relationship is that same "covenant of love."
I think that the traditional religious schooling in Christianity does two things to thwart the point of view I hold. One is that traditional Christianity does as you say, creates a contract with rewards and punishments that's one-sided, do-it-or-else. It doesn't make it a voluntary love relationship. The other thing traditional Christianity doesn't do, I believe, is- it doesn't do a very good job of showing God as Someone we can trust. These are points we can argue to the minutiae.
I can see how what Elder Frazee is presenting would appear to you as a contract with rewards and punishments (Indeed I know about the covenant blessings and curses cited in Scripture). And perhaps the existence of an All-powerful God would logically necessitate that- But the fact that He, through His Son sealed this compact with His own blood, for my benefit, because He loves me- disarms what otherwise would be any objections or reservations on my part. It doesn't bother me to have an All-powerful God when He was willing to suffer the humiliation and agony that He did in Y'shua on the cross.
Any way you look at it, Spot, I think both you and I are "tough customers" when it comes to our relationship with God, when we look at what we put Him through.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
telaquapacky wrote: Spot, when you say "contract," it makes me think of contracts between men. In business, a contract is based on the assumption (almost always correct) that each party will screw the other as far as possible- so you try to get wording that will cover your own behind, keep the other guy on the hook, while leaving you with as many options as possible to renege if you want to. In my entire business life I've invariably given more than I've taken, and I'd be discontented with myself if I ever found otherwise. To whatever extent one can draw comparisons between that and God's contract, the same would apply. God needs me as much as I need Him on this earth, and I've never felt sufficient conceit as to believe I'd fit into any heaven I've heard described.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
spot wrote: In my entire business life I've invariably given more than I've taken, and I'd be discontented with myself if I ever found otherwise. To whatever extent one can draw comparisons between that and God's contract, the same would apply. God needs me as much as I need Him on this earth, and I've never felt sufficient conceit as to believe I'd fit into any heaven I've heard described.I'm with you on you've said here, except for I have always taken much more than I have given in my dealings with God. Fantastically, Jesus says about heaven, "I go to prepare a place for you, so where I am you may also be." Somehow God had to figure out a way to make you and I safe to bring into that place. At the same time Jesus prepares a place for us, He is preparing us for that place.
I think the sanctuary tells the story, because in it we see God's house getting all messed up with the blood drippings of our sins, and we see a final cleansing. Somehow the blotting out of our sins in His sanctuary has to have a parallel effect of blotting them out of our lives and behavior. We presently don't see this. But somehow we take it on faith that it is happening.
Hebrews 10:14
because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Philippians 1:6
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
I think the sanctuary tells the story, because in it we see God's house getting all messed up with the blood drippings of our sins, and we see a final cleansing. Somehow the blotting out of our sins in His sanctuary has to have a parallel effect of blotting them out of our lives and behavior. We presently don't see this. But somehow we take it on faith that it is happening.
Hebrews 10:14
because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Philippians 1:6
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
tel:-6
Excellent discussion.
There are several things which you have said that I agree with; perhaps for different reasons.
I will try to come back to those.
I find the language of "papoose" on God's back or "daddy" alone, or that which implies that somehow I am filled with original sin simply unacceptable.
I see God as; the pilot and I am the co-pilot, as Daddy or Father, but also as mother, brother, fellow traveller, guide, advisor, brother, sister, companion etc. I do find God a source of strength.
I find the idea of the redemption theology as somewhat of a problem. IT would suggest that God is so vindictive that he wanted some sacrifice or he was going to damn every one. Thus he was willing to accept even the death of Jesus to assuage his anger. This I do not see as coming from a God who through Jesus told us that the greatest commandment was love. The idea of punishment for misdeeds has been largely discounted and discredited.
I was thinking earlier today of the idea that if one thinks sexual thoughts when one sees a gorgeous woman or hunky man one is committing a sin. Fortunately we have no control over those thoughts they are caused by very powerful hormones.
I cannot agree that churches don't teach trust in God. It is a constantly recurring theme.
The word covanent means a contractl and Jesus brought with him a new convanent.
The God of the OT as well as the message must be read in light of the NT. We see in the OT a God who promotes war, promotes and encourages war crimes, vindictively delights in the death of thousands of Egyptian soldiers and yet accepts the murderous rage of the Hebrews etc. If we see in Jesus the fullness of God then we certainly do not see the above. We see a man who said to love your enemies and do good to those who dispise you and would not allow his disciples to use the sword in his defence.
I too have tried to give more then I received but not just to God to all of God's children because I believe that I was called to be a servant and that has been my life's work and continues to be. For example I am a seniors peer counsellor, a volunteer with the CNIB, and am prepared tomorrow's sermon, feed the hungry and help support to foster children etc.. These are all part of God's work as I see it.
Written in the spirit of the discussion.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Excellent discussion.
There are several things which you have said that I agree with; perhaps for different reasons.
I will try to come back to those.
I find the language of "papoose" on God's back or "daddy" alone, or that which implies that somehow I am filled with original sin simply unacceptable.
I see God as; the pilot and I am the co-pilot, as Daddy or Father, but also as mother, brother, fellow traveller, guide, advisor, brother, sister, companion etc. I do find God a source of strength.
I find the idea of the redemption theology as somewhat of a problem. IT would suggest that God is so vindictive that he wanted some sacrifice or he was going to damn every one. Thus he was willing to accept even the death of Jesus to assuage his anger. This I do not see as coming from a God who through Jesus told us that the greatest commandment was love. The idea of punishment for misdeeds has been largely discounted and discredited.
I was thinking earlier today of the idea that if one thinks sexual thoughts when one sees a gorgeous woman or hunky man one is committing a sin. Fortunately we have no control over those thoughts they are caused by very powerful hormones.
I cannot agree that churches don't teach trust in God. It is a constantly recurring theme.
The word covanent means a contractl and Jesus brought with him a new convanent.
The God of the OT as well as the message must be read in light of the NT. We see in the OT a God who promotes war, promotes and encourages war crimes, vindictively delights in the death of thousands of Egyptian soldiers and yet accepts the murderous rage of the Hebrews etc. If we see in Jesus the fullness of God then we certainly do not see the above. We see a man who said to love your enemies and do good to those who dispise you and would not allow his disciples to use the sword in his defence.
I too have tried to give more then I received but not just to God to all of God's children because I believe that I was called to be a servant and that has been my life's work and continues to be. For example I am a seniors peer counsellor, a volunteer with the CNIB, and am prepared tomorrow's sermon, feed the hungry and help support to foster children etc.. These are all part of God's work as I see it.
Written in the spirit of the discussion.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
spot:-6
I can agree with your posts. You have raised some serious questions and made some excellent points.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can agree with your posts. You have raised some serious questions and made some excellent points.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
Ted wrote: I find the idea of the redemption theology as somewhat of a problem. IT would suggest that God is so vindictive that he wanted some sacrifice or he was going to damn every one. Thus he was willing to accept even the death of Jesus to assuage his anger. This I do not see as coming from a God who through Jesus told us that the greatest commandment was love. The idea of punishment for misdeeds has been largely discounted and discredited.Redemption is a problem. Like refining pure gold from ore. But people can refine gold. God says He can refine people.
The vindictive part is where my opinion differs from tradition (and in some sense from the literal reading of the Bible) If you read Frazee, and what I'm saying is, God is the one who took the sin burden upon Himself. He became the sacrifice in the person of His Son. Indeed He is the offended party. He is the only real, acceptable sacrifice for sin. Frazee brings out the point of- "who required the blood?" It wasn't God- He gave the blood. It was us who required the blood (pg.41). The blood of the Lamb of God was what it took to teach us how foul sin is and how good and loving God is. Nothing less could convince us. Some are still in need of convincing.
What we call "the wrath of God," is that moment, after having exhausted every other possible avenue to win our love and trust- and obedience- for no one can claim they know, let alone trust God if they don't even wish to obey Him- that moment of God's wrath is when He finally gives up and lets them go. "In Him we live and move and have our being." When He lets lost sinners go, that's it- they're done. The Bible calls it "vengeance," to make the point that God is not to be trifled with, but our view is that it is the result of the sinner's choice, like a son or daughter running away from a father, never to return.Ted wrote: I was thinking earlier today of the idea that if one thinks sexual thoughts when one sees a gorgeous woman or hunky man one is committing a sin. Fortunately we have no control over those thoughts they are caused by very powerful hormones.True, we can't prevent those thoughts from happening, but it is our choice whether to dismiss them (by filling our minds with better things), or to ruminate and fantasize. We also have eye muscles. It really is our choice whether to look at that woman's cleavage, or direct our gaze somewhere else. Having a thought isn't sin. Looking for it and dwelling on it is.
I'm an optometrist in a 80% Hispanic town. Some of those women really know how to dress seductively. Summer is coming- and hot weather- so they'll start covering themselves less and less. When a woman has her face in my vision tester, she can't see where I am looking, and I am standing to the side and above her. I have to practice serious eye control. Then I have to control my thoughts for what gets into the corner of my visual field. God and I work together on this. When I start getting weak, we talk about it, and He helps me. It's a spiritual occupational hazard. I have to draw myself close to God and depend on Him every day.Ted wrote: I cannot agree that churches don't teach trust in God. It is a constantly recurring theme.I said that they don't teach it very effectively. We all keep behaving as if we did not trust Him.Ted wrote: I too have tried to give more then I received but not just to God to all of God's children because I believe that I was called to be a servant and that has been my life's work and continues to be. For example I am a seniors peer counsellor, a volunteer with the CNIB, and am prepared tomorrow's sermon, feed the hungry and help support to foster children etc.. These are all part of God's work as I see it.I'm glad you said, "tried," because honestly, I can't imagine how any human being can give more to God than they have received from Him. I'm also glad that you do good works. I'm hoping that you do not cling to any sin or disobedience, because no amount of good works can buy that off. Hopefully that isn't your intention.
Good works are for some people a form of sacrifice. What we are saying here is that the Old Covenant consists of sinning and sacrificing, sinning and sacrificing- on and on.
The New Covenant is the Law of God written in our hearts so we have no desire to sin, and eventually, sin will come to an end, and God can take us home. Since we all sin, we are all pigs in the slop. But God can tell the difference between the pigs who are struggling to get out of the slop, and those who are wallowing in it contentedly. I'm not talking about you or anyone, just speaking in general. But from one pig to another, I'm trying to get out of the slop, rather than finding some way to make it more acceptable. That's what I believe the sanctuary is all about.
The vindictive part is where my opinion differs from tradition (and in some sense from the literal reading of the Bible) If you read Frazee, and what I'm saying is, God is the one who took the sin burden upon Himself. He became the sacrifice in the person of His Son. Indeed He is the offended party. He is the only real, acceptable sacrifice for sin. Frazee brings out the point of- "who required the blood?" It wasn't God- He gave the blood. It was us who required the blood (pg.41). The blood of the Lamb of God was what it took to teach us how foul sin is and how good and loving God is. Nothing less could convince us. Some are still in need of convincing.
What we call "the wrath of God," is that moment, after having exhausted every other possible avenue to win our love and trust- and obedience- for no one can claim they know, let alone trust God if they don't even wish to obey Him- that moment of God's wrath is when He finally gives up and lets them go. "In Him we live and move and have our being." When He lets lost sinners go, that's it- they're done. The Bible calls it "vengeance," to make the point that God is not to be trifled with, but our view is that it is the result of the sinner's choice, like a son or daughter running away from a father, never to return.Ted wrote: I was thinking earlier today of the idea that if one thinks sexual thoughts when one sees a gorgeous woman or hunky man one is committing a sin. Fortunately we have no control over those thoughts they are caused by very powerful hormones.True, we can't prevent those thoughts from happening, but it is our choice whether to dismiss them (by filling our minds with better things), or to ruminate and fantasize. We also have eye muscles. It really is our choice whether to look at that woman's cleavage, or direct our gaze somewhere else. Having a thought isn't sin. Looking for it and dwelling on it is.
I'm an optometrist in a 80% Hispanic town. Some of those women really know how to dress seductively. Summer is coming- and hot weather- so they'll start covering themselves less and less. When a woman has her face in my vision tester, she can't see where I am looking, and I am standing to the side and above her. I have to practice serious eye control. Then I have to control my thoughts for what gets into the corner of my visual field. God and I work together on this. When I start getting weak, we talk about it, and He helps me. It's a spiritual occupational hazard. I have to draw myself close to God and depend on Him every day.Ted wrote: I cannot agree that churches don't teach trust in God. It is a constantly recurring theme.I said that they don't teach it very effectively. We all keep behaving as if we did not trust Him.Ted wrote: I too have tried to give more then I received but not just to God to all of God's children because I believe that I was called to be a servant and that has been my life's work and continues to be. For example I am a seniors peer counsellor, a volunteer with the CNIB, and am prepared tomorrow's sermon, feed the hungry and help support to foster children etc.. These are all part of God's work as I see it.I'm glad you said, "tried," because honestly, I can't imagine how any human being can give more to God than they have received from Him. I'm also glad that you do good works. I'm hoping that you do not cling to any sin or disobedience, because no amount of good works can buy that off. Hopefully that isn't your intention.
Good works are for some people a form of sacrifice. What we are saying here is that the Old Covenant consists of sinning and sacrificing, sinning and sacrificing- on and on.
The New Covenant is the Law of God written in our hearts so we have no desire to sin, and eventually, sin will come to an end, and God can take us home. Since we all sin, we are all pigs in the slop. But God can tell the difference between the pigs who are struggling to get out of the slop, and those who are wallowing in it contentedly. I'm not talking about you or anyone, just speaking in general. But from one pig to another, I'm trying to get out of the slop, rather than finding some way to make it more acceptable. That's what I believe the sanctuary is all about.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
tel:-6
Thanks for an excellent response. You have much in there that can lead to a great deal of discussion.
I don't believe that God wills anyone toi die. I don't have the same view as you do concerning "the blood of the lamb". To me the theology of redemption is stressed far too much. We must according to D. Hall turn to a theology of the cross.
It seems to me talking about a vengeful or wrathful God is an intermixing of the OT and NT. The OT must be read in light of the NT and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Matt. Jesus says "You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you". I think this is a clear statement that says we now go by the new covenant. In the OT we see a God who is vindictive, a warrior, one who not only encourages but promotes such things as war crimes as per Num. 31. But this is not the God whose fullness we see in the teachings of Jesus who presented us with the top commandment, "love" on which he said that all the law and the prophets hang.
When it comes to our thoughts and how we deal with them we must first come to a workable definition of "sin". I am not convinced that sexual thoughts are sin. I can accept that we must not engage in some form of promiscuity. However, I cannot see that sexual activity between to loving and consenting adults is a sin, and that includes both heterosexual and homosexual love.
"They don't teach it (trust in God) very effectively. On the contrary I think it is taught quite well. Because many do not take the Bible literally but in many cases as Midrash or metaphor, requires a great deal of trust in God.
As far a "good works" goes I think the point is that God judges the heart. He knows the motivation behind the good works. Acts 10: 34-36 tells us very clearly that "Whoever does what is right and fears God is acceptable to Him. I think that Peter has a very good grasp of God. If we couple that with the parable in Matt. 25:41ff we see that those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked etc. are invited into the kingdom even though they are unaware of when they did these things to Jesus. He is quite clear that because you did it to the least of these you have done it to me. There is no proviso here that one must utter the name Jesus. It is not there in the Greek in either case.
This raises another point. We are not just hear to serve God. We are also here to serve our fellow man in the here and now. The Gospel is not just about an afterlife. This is quite clear when we look at the life and teachings of Jesus and especially when we look at the parable of the wedding feast.
I did use the word "tried" because as a human it is a try and with God's help we are successful.
The whole concept of "original sin" has been dismissed as an Augustinian concept, and is not really a viable concept whatsoever, by many theologians and schools of theology.
However, we have still not solved the problem of the definition of "sin".
This view of God, it seems to me is more in line with what we see and hear from Jesus. Love qualifies power. The problem with any discussion about God or what is His will is subject to all the limitations of discussing the Divine in very imperfect languages. Our languages are not up to that task and as such we must resort to metaphor. All of our language about God is metaphor much like the parables. God is beyond our ability to pigeon hole or describe. He is much greater then that.
I feel I must also comment on a world view. According to Genesis God saw all that he created and declared it very good. We move to John 3:16 and we read that "God so loved the world." Too many look at the second half of that verse and stess it to the detriment of the first part. In fact too many ignore it. The world is not bad or evil. Humans are the culprit.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks for an excellent response. You have much in there that can lead to a great deal of discussion.
I don't believe that God wills anyone toi die. I don't have the same view as you do concerning "the blood of the lamb". To me the theology of redemption is stressed far too much. We must according to D. Hall turn to a theology of the cross.
It seems to me talking about a vengeful or wrathful God is an intermixing of the OT and NT. The OT must be read in light of the NT and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Matt. Jesus says "You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you". I think this is a clear statement that says we now go by the new covenant. In the OT we see a God who is vindictive, a warrior, one who not only encourages but promotes such things as war crimes as per Num. 31. But this is not the God whose fullness we see in the teachings of Jesus who presented us with the top commandment, "love" on which he said that all the law and the prophets hang.
When it comes to our thoughts and how we deal with them we must first come to a workable definition of "sin". I am not convinced that sexual thoughts are sin. I can accept that we must not engage in some form of promiscuity. However, I cannot see that sexual activity between to loving and consenting adults is a sin, and that includes both heterosexual and homosexual love.
"They don't teach it (trust in God) very effectively. On the contrary I think it is taught quite well. Because many do not take the Bible literally but in many cases as Midrash or metaphor, requires a great deal of trust in God.
As far a "good works" goes I think the point is that God judges the heart. He knows the motivation behind the good works. Acts 10: 34-36 tells us very clearly that "Whoever does what is right and fears God is acceptable to Him. I think that Peter has a very good grasp of God. If we couple that with the parable in Matt. 25:41ff we see that those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked etc. are invited into the kingdom even though they are unaware of when they did these things to Jesus. He is quite clear that because you did it to the least of these you have done it to me. There is no proviso here that one must utter the name Jesus. It is not there in the Greek in either case.
This raises another point. We are not just hear to serve God. We are also here to serve our fellow man in the here and now. The Gospel is not just about an afterlife. This is quite clear when we look at the life and teachings of Jesus and especially when we look at the parable of the wedding feast.
I did use the word "tried" because as a human it is a try and with God's help we are successful.
The whole concept of "original sin" has been dismissed as an Augustinian concept, and is not really a viable concept whatsoever, by many theologians and schools of theology.
However, we have still not solved the problem of the definition of "sin".
This view of God, it seems to me is more in line with what we see and hear from Jesus. Love qualifies power. The problem with any discussion about God or what is His will is subject to all the limitations of discussing the Divine in very imperfect languages. Our languages are not up to that task and as such we must resort to metaphor. All of our language about God is metaphor much like the parables. God is beyond our ability to pigeon hole or describe. He is much greater then that.
I feel I must also comment on a world view. According to Genesis God saw all that he created and declared it very good. We move to John 3:16 and we read that "God so loved the world." Too many look at the second half of that verse and stess it to the detriment of the first part. In fact too many ignore it. The world is not bad or evil. Humans are the culprit.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
I have read some parts of the book. It fwould seem to me that Frazee is retrojecting later though back into the ancient times. To suggest that the sacrificial animal should have been seen as the Messiah, I think, is a non-starter. These people were expecting the Messiah. They in no way thought that the animal was he.
His definition of sin is far to narrow and does not answer to all of the problems that face the human race. M Borg. "The Heart of Christianity".
I also find this stress on the evilness of the human being beyond belief. Perhaps that is in part due to the fact that I reject the concept or original sin. We are told that the sins of the fathers will not be visited upon the sons. It is interesting to note as well the father/son concept, as if daughters and women did not exist or were something less then human. That would seem to be the nature of a patriarchal society where women really don't count, as if they were made only to serve man or should I say service man. LOL
In my reading of "Why Three Places" I expect to see God coming to the unrepentent with horns, great canine teeth and large but sharp cat like claws and he will rip them apart limb from limb and have them suffper unfathomable torures for years to come. This is a simply a use of the carrot and stick approach.
Shalom
Ted:-6
His definition of sin is far to narrow and does not answer to all of the problems that face the human race. M Borg. "The Heart of Christianity".
I also find this stress on the evilness of the human being beyond belief. Perhaps that is in part due to the fact that I reject the concept or original sin. We are told that the sins of the fathers will not be visited upon the sons. It is interesting to note as well the father/son concept, as if daughters and women did not exist or were something less then human. That would seem to be the nature of a patriarchal society where women really don't count, as if they were made only to serve man or should I say service man. LOL
In my reading of "Why Three Places" I expect to see God coming to the unrepentent with horns, great canine teeth and large but sharp cat like claws and he will rip them apart limb from limb and have them suffper unfathomable torures for years to come. This is a simply a use of the carrot and stick approach.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
Ted wrote: I feel I must also comment on a world view. According to Genesis God saw all that he created and declared it very good. We move to John 3:16 and we read that "God so loved the world." Too many look at the second half of that verse and stess it to the detriment of the first part. In fact too many ignore it. The world is not bad or evil. Humans are the culprit.
Ted, As I understand it, the expression translated “The world,†in the different verses of the Bible can mean different things. It may in one instance refer to this planet as a location, in a morally neutral way. I don’t think any true Christian thinks evil of the beautiful planet God has made for us to live on. It is still beautiful to our eyes, even though I think planet Earth has been defaced to be a shriveled and bleak wasteland compared to what it was at creation, due to the consequences of mankind’s sin. According to the book of Genesis, our first parents were evicted from Edenic paradise on earth, to conditions where ragged weeds proliferate and leaves wither and die. As if that wasn’t enough, the flood described in Genesis must have done a terrific amount of damage to make humans think this six thousand year old world is millions of years old. Having not seen what beauty there was before sin and before the flood, we’re accustomed to earth such as it is, and there is still a lot of beauty many places. In spite of it all, Earth is still a beautiful planet. Think of what it will be like when God remakes it (and that won’t take millions of years either)!
However, the Bible writers also speak of “the world†as a set of purely human and “worldly†principles- a “world view,†as you said, only one that is opposed to the will of God, exchanges the truth of God for a lie, and basically is at enmity with God. The apostle John in 1 John 2:15-17 defines this world view as “ the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.†This is what we call “worldliness.â€Â
1 John 2:15-17 (KJV)
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
We are to love everyone, because God loves everyone. But God does not love what everyone does, nor does He love the attitudes many people hold which encourage people in sin and alienate them from Him. John does not tell the Christian to not love the “worldling†who thinks this way (We were once that way ourselves, and without constantly abiding in Christ through the Holy Spirit, we can easily slip back). But he only tells Christians to reject and repudiate the “worldly†way of thinking, for the good of all mankind.
1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.
1 John 4:6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
In 1 John 4:3-5, the apostle has developed the inspiration further. He tells us that it is not merely a worldly way of thinking, but an actual spirit entity that doesn’t accept Christ’s authority, and that influences people everywhere, and that in John’s day was beginning what would later become a world power (“which you have heard is comingâ€Â).
In verse 4, John encourages Christians who are filled with the Spirit of God, that God’s spirit, who dwells in them, is more noble and powerful than the rebellious spirit that influences the thoughts, words and actions of “worldly†people. This is definitely not intended to make Christians proud or to feel superior (that would be sin), but rather, to reassure them of God’s protection when they are harrassed by Satan through worldly people unwittingly acting as Satan’s servants. John’s words here are intended to encourage Christians that if they strive consistently to live in Christ, ultimately they will succeed, because God wills it, and God is all-powerful.
In verse 5 and 6, John tells how the worldly viewpoint which is contrary to God is what most people want to hear. Because the apostles are from God and speak from the viewpoint of God, worldly-thinking people don’t listen to the apostles. My own observation is that “does not listen to us,†also means that worldly-thinking people reinterpret the apostles’ words to mean something that suits their own worldly desires. â€ÂWorldly-thinking†people as John is describing here, reinterpret the Bible in such a way that it condones their indulgence in “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.†They will not accept the Bible as it reads, because the Bible calls sin by it’s right name.
Paul wrote to Timothy:
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Even in Paul’s time, there were religious teachers who taught “worldly-thinking†and passed it off as if it were Bible truth. They were popular with people who wanted a religion that condoned their indulgence in “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.†Paul understood that just because someone claims to be a wise man or a scholar, if they are teaching worldly thinking, they do not know God. He said, “even the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom.†Paul is clear: a spirit-filled layperson who studies their Bible and believes God is far better informed and more knoledgable in spiritual and Biblical things than these "experts" whose teachings actually conflict with God's word.
1 Corinthians 1:20-25
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 2:12,13
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
I guess some people think that a religion that condones the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is a kind of “freedom.†Paul tells us the exact opposite. It is really a form of slavery.
Galatians 4:3
So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.
And Peter tells us that we need to escape the corruption of worldly thinking, we had better not go back to it!
2 Peter 2:20
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
Jesus made clear that His true followers are in the world, but not of the world
John 17:6
"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.
John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.
John 17:14
I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
John 17:16
They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.
John 15:19
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
There is an irrepressible and irreconcilable conflict and disagreement between the worldly way of thinking and the Godly, Biblical way of thinking. To try to unite the two would be a unrighteous union- it would be to adulterate the truth. James cautioned us against any such "adulterous" religion. James here is not telling Christians to hate worldly people, or not to seek friendship with unbelievers- not at all! All he is saying is to reject and repudiate the philosophy of the world, which condones the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, just as John said in 1 John 2:15, where he wrote,â€ÂLove not the world, neither the things that are in the world.â€Â
James 4:4
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
See, unless you read every Scripture that touches on the subject, you can’t fully or properly understand what John wrote when he wrote John 3:16,17
John 3:16,17
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
There is no question that God vigorously condemns the worldly way of thinking. But it is the purpose of God’s word and the work of His Holy Spirit to persuade the people of the world away from the philosophy of the world, which condones the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. This is the only way they may be saved. God loves the world enough to not leave it to wallow in self-destructive sin. It is because God loves the world that He wants to redeem it.
Ted wrote: To me the theology of redemption is stressed far too much.
Is redemption unimportant? Without it, you would be not under Grace, but under the curse of the law. Would you want that?
Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
Without redemption, we could not hope to receive the promises God made to Abraham. Without redemption, we could not receive the Holy Spirit, by whom we are sealed for salvation. Is the Holy Spirit overemphasized or unimportant?
Galatians 3:14
He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Without redemption, we are not justified, and couldn't receive God's grace. Oh, that's no big deal, is it?
Romans 3:24
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
How about no redemption of our bodies? How about no hope of salvation? Is redemption really overrated or overestimated?
Romans 8:23,24
Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
Jesus is our redemption. He’s just a bit important to Christianitity, isn’t He? I’m not over-emphasizing here, am I?
1 Corinthians 1:30
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace
8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
See all these gifts? Forgiveness of sins, wisdom, understanding, knowing the mystery of His will- None of these are possible without redemption. Not a crumb or a shred of the blessings we receive in Christ are possible for us to receive unless we are in the process of being redeemed. Redemption is an ongoing thing we must seek earnestlly. The word, “redemption†signifies that we are not fit to stand before God in the state we were in outside of Christ. It says there's something wrong with us that has to be remedied by the Grace of God. We cannot receive God’s forgiveness unless it comes with redemption. We cannot understand the wisdom or mysteries of God unless we are being redeemed. Redemption is to be lifted by Christ out of our former state, when we were of the world. We need to be redeemed, and once redeemed, we need to stay redeemed- that is, continue in the process of being redeemed. There is nothing more important to Christians than that. It's the true Christian's day-to-day, moment-to-moment obsession.
Jesus said, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (redemption), for they will be filled." Ya gotta really want it. What if one had only a passing fancy for redemption but after a while got bored hearing about it? They don't hunger and thirst like Jesus was saying. Will they be filled? Will they be revived by the fresh, daily baptism of the Holy Spirit we need if we want to truly follow Jesus? I don't think so.
Maybe if one were contented with the way they were before Christ, maybe if they thought that their worldly understanding of the Bible were sufficient- maybe then one might regard redemption as something overstated, overrated and overemphasized.
Our day-to-day need for ongoing revival, forgiveness and redemption is the object lesson God intended to teach His Old Testament people through the Sanctuary.
Ted, As I understand it, the expression translated “The world,†in the different verses of the Bible can mean different things. It may in one instance refer to this planet as a location, in a morally neutral way. I don’t think any true Christian thinks evil of the beautiful planet God has made for us to live on. It is still beautiful to our eyes, even though I think planet Earth has been defaced to be a shriveled and bleak wasteland compared to what it was at creation, due to the consequences of mankind’s sin. According to the book of Genesis, our first parents were evicted from Edenic paradise on earth, to conditions where ragged weeds proliferate and leaves wither and die. As if that wasn’t enough, the flood described in Genesis must have done a terrific amount of damage to make humans think this six thousand year old world is millions of years old. Having not seen what beauty there was before sin and before the flood, we’re accustomed to earth such as it is, and there is still a lot of beauty many places. In spite of it all, Earth is still a beautiful planet. Think of what it will be like when God remakes it (and that won’t take millions of years either)!
However, the Bible writers also speak of “the world†as a set of purely human and “worldly†principles- a “world view,†as you said, only one that is opposed to the will of God, exchanges the truth of God for a lie, and basically is at enmity with God. The apostle John in 1 John 2:15-17 defines this world view as “ the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.†This is what we call “worldliness.â€Â
1 John 2:15-17 (KJV)
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
We are to love everyone, because God loves everyone. But God does not love what everyone does, nor does He love the attitudes many people hold which encourage people in sin and alienate them from Him. John does not tell the Christian to not love the “worldling†who thinks this way (We were once that way ourselves, and without constantly abiding in Christ through the Holy Spirit, we can easily slip back). But he only tells Christians to reject and repudiate the “worldly†way of thinking, for the good of all mankind.
1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.
1 John 4:6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
In 1 John 4:3-5, the apostle has developed the inspiration further. He tells us that it is not merely a worldly way of thinking, but an actual spirit entity that doesn’t accept Christ’s authority, and that influences people everywhere, and that in John’s day was beginning what would later become a world power (“which you have heard is comingâ€Â).
In verse 4, John encourages Christians who are filled with the Spirit of God, that God’s spirit, who dwells in them, is more noble and powerful than the rebellious spirit that influences the thoughts, words and actions of “worldly†people. This is definitely not intended to make Christians proud or to feel superior (that would be sin), but rather, to reassure them of God’s protection when they are harrassed by Satan through worldly people unwittingly acting as Satan’s servants. John’s words here are intended to encourage Christians that if they strive consistently to live in Christ, ultimately they will succeed, because God wills it, and God is all-powerful.
In verse 5 and 6, John tells how the worldly viewpoint which is contrary to God is what most people want to hear. Because the apostles are from God and speak from the viewpoint of God, worldly-thinking people don’t listen to the apostles. My own observation is that “does not listen to us,†also means that worldly-thinking people reinterpret the apostles’ words to mean something that suits their own worldly desires. â€ÂWorldly-thinking†people as John is describing here, reinterpret the Bible in such a way that it condones their indulgence in “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.†They will not accept the Bible as it reads, because the Bible calls sin by it’s right name.
Paul wrote to Timothy:
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Even in Paul’s time, there were religious teachers who taught “worldly-thinking†and passed it off as if it were Bible truth. They were popular with people who wanted a religion that condoned their indulgence in “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.†Paul understood that just because someone claims to be a wise man or a scholar, if they are teaching worldly thinking, they do not know God. He said, “even the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom.†Paul is clear: a spirit-filled layperson who studies their Bible and believes God is far better informed and more knoledgable in spiritual and Biblical things than these "experts" whose teachings actually conflict with God's word.
1 Corinthians 1:20-25
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 2:12,13
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
I guess some people think that a religion that condones the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is a kind of “freedom.†Paul tells us the exact opposite. It is really a form of slavery.
Galatians 4:3
So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.
And Peter tells us that we need to escape the corruption of worldly thinking, we had better not go back to it!
2 Peter 2:20
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
Jesus made clear that His true followers are in the world, but not of the world
John 17:6
"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.
John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.
John 17:14
I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
John 17:16
They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.
John 15:19
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
There is an irrepressible and irreconcilable conflict and disagreement between the worldly way of thinking and the Godly, Biblical way of thinking. To try to unite the two would be a unrighteous union- it would be to adulterate the truth. James cautioned us against any such "adulterous" religion. James here is not telling Christians to hate worldly people, or not to seek friendship with unbelievers- not at all! All he is saying is to reject and repudiate the philosophy of the world, which condones the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, just as John said in 1 John 2:15, where he wrote,â€ÂLove not the world, neither the things that are in the world.â€Â
James 4:4
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
See, unless you read every Scripture that touches on the subject, you can’t fully or properly understand what John wrote when he wrote John 3:16,17
John 3:16,17
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
There is no question that God vigorously condemns the worldly way of thinking. But it is the purpose of God’s word and the work of His Holy Spirit to persuade the people of the world away from the philosophy of the world, which condones the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. This is the only way they may be saved. God loves the world enough to not leave it to wallow in self-destructive sin. It is because God loves the world that He wants to redeem it.
Ted wrote: To me the theology of redemption is stressed far too much.
Is redemption unimportant? Without it, you would be not under Grace, but under the curse of the law. Would you want that?
Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
Without redemption, we could not hope to receive the promises God made to Abraham. Without redemption, we could not receive the Holy Spirit, by whom we are sealed for salvation. Is the Holy Spirit overemphasized or unimportant?
Galatians 3:14
He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Without redemption, we are not justified, and couldn't receive God's grace. Oh, that's no big deal, is it?
Romans 3:24
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
How about no redemption of our bodies? How about no hope of salvation? Is redemption really overrated or overestimated?
Romans 8:23,24
Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
Jesus is our redemption. He’s just a bit important to Christianitity, isn’t He? I’m not over-emphasizing here, am I?
1 Corinthians 1:30
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace
8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
See all these gifts? Forgiveness of sins, wisdom, understanding, knowing the mystery of His will- None of these are possible without redemption. Not a crumb or a shred of the blessings we receive in Christ are possible for us to receive unless we are in the process of being redeemed. Redemption is an ongoing thing we must seek earnestlly. The word, “redemption†signifies that we are not fit to stand before God in the state we were in outside of Christ. It says there's something wrong with us that has to be remedied by the Grace of God. We cannot receive God’s forgiveness unless it comes with redemption. We cannot understand the wisdom or mysteries of God unless we are being redeemed. Redemption is to be lifted by Christ out of our former state, when we were of the world. We need to be redeemed, and once redeemed, we need to stay redeemed- that is, continue in the process of being redeemed. There is nothing more important to Christians than that. It's the true Christian's day-to-day, moment-to-moment obsession.
Jesus said, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (redemption), for they will be filled." Ya gotta really want it. What if one had only a passing fancy for redemption but after a while got bored hearing about it? They don't hunger and thirst like Jesus was saying. Will they be filled? Will they be revived by the fresh, daily baptism of the Holy Spirit we need if we want to truly follow Jesus? I don't think so.
Maybe if one were contented with the way they were before Christ, maybe if they thought that their worldly understanding of the Bible were sufficient- maybe then one might regard redemption as something overstated, overrated and overemphasized.
Our day-to-day need for ongoing revival, forgiveness and redemption is the object lesson God intended to teach His Old Testament people through the Sanctuary.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
I'm sorry I'm hijacking this thread, but I picked up on something that Telaquapacky said that I just couldn't let pass:
As if that wasn't enough, the flood described in Genesis must have done a terrific amount of damage to make humans think this six thousand year old world is millions of years old.
I suppose how compatibilist one is depends on the teachings of one's particular denomination. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I see absolutely no competition between faith and science, and it strikes me as odd that anyone could ignore rock-solid scientific proof that the Earth IS millions of years old. That perhaps comes from the fact that I see two different revelations of God: a specific one of Himself through the Christian faith and a general one through nature. In terms of God's specific revelation, we understand the Genesis to be poetic and metaphorical, and not a factual account. In terms of the general revelation, science is a means of understanding nature, which could be extrapolated to mean understanding God's revelation through nature. And science, in turn, demonstrates the elegance and symmetry of the universe, rather than its decadence, so science is as good a means as any other to help us catch a glimpse of the Work's perfection.
Personally, I think that reducing the Bible to hard fact is a way of stripping it of its complexity and mystery, and that turning a blind eye to scientific evidence is perhaps detrimental, as it closes us to aspects of the Work which are not obvious to the bare eye.
As if that wasn't enough, the flood described in Genesis must have done a terrific amount of damage to make humans think this six thousand year old world is millions of years old.
I suppose how compatibilist one is depends on the teachings of one's particular denomination. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I see absolutely no competition between faith and science, and it strikes me as odd that anyone could ignore rock-solid scientific proof that the Earth IS millions of years old. That perhaps comes from the fact that I see two different revelations of God: a specific one of Himself through the Christian faith and a general one through nature. In terms of God's specific revelation, we understand the Genesis to be poetic and metaphorical, and not a factual account. In terms of the general revelation, science is a means of understanding nature, which could be extrapolated to mean understanding God's revelation through nature. And science, in turn, demonstrates the elegance and symmetry of the universe, rather than its decadence, so science is as good a means as any other to help us catch a glimpse of the Work's perfection.
Personally, I think that reducing the Bible to hard fact is a way of stripping it of its complexity and mystery, and that turning a blind eye to scientific evidence is perhaps detrimental, as it closes us to aspects of the Work which are not obvious to the bare eye.
The power of MEOW
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
Felinessa:-6
I can go along with that. The Bible was never meant to be read as historic fact. We are on the same page.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can go along with that. The Bible was never meant to be read as historic fact. We are on the same page.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Gospel in the O.T. Sanctuary
Tel:-6
You have posted a lengthy post with a great deal of material. I will try to reply in a more abbreviated form.
I accept the Bible as an inspired work as much so as Milton's "Paradise Lost". It is not inerrant and makes no claim to be so. It becomes for Christians, "The Word of God" because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible and not by virute of its authorship. They were human beings writing about their perceived experiences of the divine in their world.
I understand where you are coming from with the word "world" and have no problem with that. However, I do have a problem with "original sin" which many theologians today have dismissed for a variety of reasons which I could get into. I do not believe that man is born evil or is inherently evil. Man is born, a child of God, with a rather empty brain that is quickly or slowly brought to action. Man is free to choose how to act and behave. Some chose the decent path and some another way. Behaviour to a large extent is generated by the cultural milieu.
The flesh is not nor can it be evil. God saw what he had created and called it "very good". That includes of of the cosmos and everything in it.
There are many interpretations to Jesus death. The concept of redemption is one among many. Many theologians today are speaking of the theology of the cross and what it meant to folks then and to us now.
God's redeeming grace was given unconditionally at the cross. God's love is unconditional.
The concept of salvation is itself a matter of discussion and like redemption is a faith issue and thus cannot be proven or disproven.
To put it susinctly. There are and always have been three sources of authority in the church; the Bible, tradition, and reason. I put my trust in the God who is revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not worry about the afterlife or whatever. Whatever God has in store for me, I am sure will be just. I need no other.
What God does require of us is clearly spelled out in Micah 6:8: to do justice, to love kindliness and to walk humbly with our God. A great deal of the stuff that we have heard over the years from many but not all churches is nothing more then man's creation of dogma and doctrine. All that counts is a living, growing, developing transforming relationship with the God we see revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.
A comment on the book of "Revelation": John or whomever wrote was writing to the Christians of his day about the evilness of the Roman empire and how he saw it progressing. He was not writing about some time in the great distant future as were the other prophets. According to D. Crossan who has read most if not all of the world's sacred scriptures, the book of "Revelation" is the most horrible and terrifying and bloody book written in any of the scriptures. Thus was their feeling about Rome.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You have posted a lengthy post with a great deal of material. I will try to reply in a more abbreviated form.
I accept the Bible as an inspired work as much so as Milton's "Paradise Lost". It is not inerrant and makes no claim to be so. It becomes for Christians, "The Word of God" because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible and not by virute of its authorship. They were human beings writing about their perceived experiences of the divine in their world.
I understand where you are coming from with the word "world" and have no problem with that. However, I do have a problem with "original sin" which many theologians today have dismissed for a variety of reasons which I could get into. I do not believe that man is born evil or is inherently evil. Man is born, a child of God, with a rather empty brain that is quickly or slowly brought to action. Man is free to choose how to act and behave. Some chose the decent path and some another way. Behaviour to a large extent is generated by the cultural milieu.
The flesh is not nor can it be evil. God saw what he had created and called it "very good". That includes of of the cosmos and everything in it.
There are many interpretations to Jesus death. The concept of redemption is one among many. Many theologians today are speaking of the theology of the cross and what it meant to folks then and to us now.
God's redeeming grace was given unconditionally at the cross. God's love is unconditional.
The concept of salvation is itself a matter of discussion and like redemption is a faith issue and thus cannot be proven or disproven.
To put it susinctly. There are and always have been three sources of authority in the church; the Bible, tradition, and reason. I put my trust in the God who is revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not worry about the afterlife or whatever. Whatever God has in store for me, I am sure will be just. I need no other.
What God does require of us is clearly spelled out in Micah 6:8: to do justice, to love kindliness and to walk humbly with our God. A great deal of the stuff that we have heard over the years from many but not all churches is nothing more then man's creation of dogma and doctrine. All that counts is a living, growing, developing transforming relationship with the God we see revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.
A comment on the book of "Revelation": John or whomever wrote was writing to the Christians of his day about the evilness of the Roman empire and how he saw it progressing. He was not writing about some time in the great distant future as were the other prophets. According to D. Crossan who has read most if not all of the world's sacred scriptures, the book of "Revelation" is the most horrible and terrifying and bloody book written in any of the scriptures. Thus was their feeling about Rome.
Shalom
Ted:-6