Reconciliation, an accomplished fact

[newnature]

Reconciliation is an accomplished fact. It is entirely outside of yourself, and it is simply to be received. There is a new view of living, no longer for self, but for God; to die to self and live to Christ.

God has taken the initiative to reconcile man back to himself. God is not reconciled to man, as though God were partly to blame for the enmity. Rather, man is reconciled to God, for it is man who moved away from God. When people need to be reconciled to one another, it normally involves a situation where fault lies on both sides to some degree. Not so with the case between man and God, man has moved away from God, and it is man who needs to be reconciled back to God, not God back to man.

The basic idea of reconciling is to change or make otherwise. This is the reverse of Hellenistic religion, where it is the human being that seeks restoration of the gods’ favor, and also of Judaism, where confession of sin and repentance are the means by which reconciliation with God is sought. It is not that we must reconcile ourselves to God. Rather, we are to be reconciled, that is, to accept what God has already achieved.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Reconciliation is an accomplished fact. It is entirely outside of yourself, and it is simply to be received. There is a new view of living, no longer for self, but for God; to die to self and live to Christ.

God has taken the initiative to reconcile man back to himself. God is not reconciled to man, as though God were partly to blame for the enmity. Rather, man is reconciled to God, for it is man who moved away from God. When people need to be reconciled to one another, it normally involves a situation where fault lies on both sides to some degree. Not so with the case between man and God, man has moved away from God, and it is man who needs to be reconciled back to God, not God back to man.

The basic idea of reconciling is to change or make otherwise. This is the reverse of Hellenistic religion, where it is the human being that seeks restoration of the gods’ favor, and also of Judaism, where confession of sin and repentance are the means by which reconciliation with God is sought. It is not that we must reconcile ourselves to God. Rather, we are to be reconciled, that is, to accept what God has already achieved.

Are you a Calvinist?

I am confused by your comments. Is everyone already reconciled, or does God choose to reconcile a person only if that person chooses to "accept" the reconciliation? If that's the case, then it sounds like the only people who get saved are those who make the right choice to believe the right thing. But that sounds like it depends entirely on what the sinner does and that sounds like Arminianism.

So your message is not clear to me.

[newnature]

It's not a sin issue, it is a son issue. What does one believe about what was accomplished?

[Conduit]

Humanity in a corporate sense (the world) has been reconciled to God but individually men must still be reconciled through repentance and faith.


2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Reconciled - G2644 - katallassō
From G2596 and G236; to change mutually, that is, (figuratively) to compound a difference: - reconcile.


It is man that has offended God by his rebellion. Thus in order for reconciliation to occur the rebel must forsake that which offends God. This is why the Bible states this...

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Repentance literally means a change of mind and by necessity a genuine change of mind will accomplish a change of behaviour. We see this evidenced in the parable of the Prodigal Son...

Luk 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! Mind changes.
Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, Intentions changed.
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. Action changed.
Luk 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
Luk 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. Restoration.

Thus we see...
Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

How does this fit into the Ministry of Reconciliation via Jesus Christ?

It is the blood of Christ which cleanses the conscience of sin.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

A human being once they sin defile their conscience permanently. They are guilty and the conscience bears witness of the guilt. It is simply impossible to stand in the presence of God with a defiled conscience. While in this life a sinner may be able to sear their conscience and come to an assurance in themselves of not being defiled it will not be like that at the judgement where all things will be revealed. The light of God will reveal the true condition of a mans heart and those who are defiled will be cast in outer darkness for only the pure can fellowship with God.

God has ordained that the purging of heart defilement is via the blood of Christ. This is in part a mystery to us but is a methodology which works. Thus, like the Prodigal Son, we are to approach God through repentance and faith (having forsaken our rebellion) and it is then that the blood can cleanse us of all sin. It is then we can serve God in an acceptably manner with a conscience free from guilt and with a faith that works by love.

1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Verses 8-10 are a reference to the means of walking in the light which is by confession of past wrong, this is what the Prodigal Son did.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Many false teachers will isolate and proof text verse s 8 and 9 as evidence of a state of ongoing sinfulness in a Christian. These people do not understand the Ministry of Reconciliation and are thus most definitely not redeemed.

The forsaking of rebellion was a condition of pardon in the Old Testament and it is a condition of pardon in the New. One does not receive Christ and reject Him at the same time.

To be reconciled to God is to be given a fresh start. It is not a cloak for ongoing rebellion. It is Satan who beguiles people into believing they can sin (willful sin) and not surely die.

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The gift of God is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It is the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ which sets us free.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Abiding in Jesus Christ is walking in the newness of the Spirit by which we bring forth the fruit of righteousness.

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.


There is a false gospel message being preached today which convinces people they can be abiding in Christ and yet still be in the service of sin. It is a lie.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Jesus gave Himself to set us free from the bonds of sin in order that we come under the bonds of righteousness. There is nothing positional or abstract about it. Whom you actually obey reveals whom you actually belong to. Jesus Christ ransomed all humanity from the dominion of sin but it is up to us as to whether we want to partake in the rescue by forsaking one master in order to yield to another.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Humanity in a corporate sense (the world) has been reconciled to God but individually men must still be reconciled through repentance and faith.


2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Hey there Conduit,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

If the world is reconciled to God, why does anyone have to repent? What happens to them if they don't?

Your teaching sounds similar to the Christian Universalism. What do you think of that?



It is man that has offended God by his rebellion. Thus in order for reconciliation to occur the rebel must forsake that which offends God. This is why the Bible states this...

Offended? Rebellion? Those are the kinds of things that egotistical male rulers get all hung up about. Why would God give us freedom and then destroy us for using it?

The description of God in the Bible makes him look like the apotheosis of an arrogant male ego who demands everyone obey and worship him. And that "just happens" to be what all the other Bronze age tribal war gods from the ANE look like. Coincidence?



Repentance literally means a change of mind and by necessity a genuine change of mind will accomplish a change of behaviour. We see this evidenced in the parable of the Prodigal Son...

The parable of the Prodigal Son seems to strongly contradict Paul's teachings. The Father forgave the son without demanding any punishment of any kind. He simply forgave the son, just like any loving father would do.

This is the biggest problem I have with the Gospel. Humans forgive each other every day without demanding someone be crucified. Why can't God simply forgive? Are humans greater than he is?



How does this fit into the Ministry of Reconciliation via Jesus Christ?

It is the blood of Christ which cleanses the conscience of sin.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

A human being once they sin defile their conscience permanently. They are guilty and the conscience bears witness of the guilt. It is simply impossible to stand in the presence of God with a defiled conscience. While in this life a sinner may be able to sear their conscience and come to an assurance in themselves of not being defiled it will not be like that at the judgement where all things will be revealed. The light of God will reveal the true condition of a mans heart and those who are defiled will be cast in outer darkness for only the pure can fellowship with God.

God has ordained that the purging of heart defilement is via the blood of Christ. This is in part a mystery to us but is a methodology which works. Thus, like the Prodigal Son, we are to approach God through repentance and faith (having forsaken our rebellion) and it is then that the blood can cleanse us of all sin. It is then we can serve God in an acceptably manner with a conscience free from guilt and with a faith that works by love.

PROPITIATION??? That's what all the idol-gods demand. Blood sacrifice. What's up with that? Why would an intelligent God ordain anything like that? How does causing pain in another cleanse a sinner? None of this makes any sense to me at all. It seems like bloody ancient barbaric superstitious mythology. This is obviously radically different than any of the logic that God used in creating the universe (that's why it looks absurd), so why should we believe it?



God has ordained that the purging of heart defilement is via the blood of Christ. This is in part a mystery to us but is a methodology which works. Thus, like the Prodigal Son, we are to approach God through repentance and faith (having forsaken our rebellion) and it is then that the blood can cleanse us of all sin. It is then we can serve God in an acceptably manner with a conscience free from guilt and with a faith that works by love.

1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Verses 8-10 are a reference to the means of walking in the light which is by confession of past wrong, this is what the Prodigal Son did.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Many false teachers will isolate and proof text verse s 8 and 9 as evidence of a state of ongoing sinfulness in a Christian. These people do not understand the Ministry of Reconciliation and are thus most definitely not redeemed.

Oh boy ... this is getting good. You now have revealed a MASSIVE DIVISION within the heart of the Christian community. The vast majority of Christians now and throughout history are not redeemed by your doctrine. You have revealed two different "Christianities" that are directly contradictory. Thanks! That proves that the Bible is not sufficiently coherent to be a guide for anyone in anything. Each believer makes up their own religion according to their own opinions.

What JOY there is in being free from such dogmatic chains that shackle the mind!

Despite our differences, I really appreciate your comments.

All the best,

Richard

[Conduit]

Hey there Conduit,

Welcome to our forum! Thank you.

:welcome:

If the world is reconciled to God, why does anyone have to repent? What happens to them if they don't? Repentance is a condition God requires be met before sins can be remitted. If one does not repent they will perish.

Your teaching sounds similar to the Christian Universalism. What do you think of that? Universalism in the sense of "everyone being saved"? I do not subscribe to that.


Offended? Rebellion? Those are the kinds of things that egotistical male rulers get all hung up about. Why would God give us freedom and then destroy us for using it? It has nothing to do with male egotistical rulers. God is the Creator and thus knows how things ought to work, it is perfectly reasonable that the entities He created abide within the framework of how things ought to be done. It is not egotistical for a car manufacturer to prescribe a certain grade of oil for the vehicles they manufacture. God evidently does not wish to have blind subservience and thus endowed man with the ability to choose or reject Him.

The description of God in the Bible makes him look like the apotheosis of an arrogant male ego who demands everyone obey and worship him. And that "just happens" to be what all the other Bronze age tribal war gods from the ANE look like. Coincidence? That is a purely subjective interpretation rooted in the wisdom of men. The Creator is not measured on some perceived human scale of righteousness, the human mind can not even conceive the ultimate truths of God. God has given all men a measure of light and it is up to us as to what we do with it. We can suppress it and thus choose ignorance or we can yield to it which leads to further revelation.


The parable of the Prodigal Son seems to strongly contradict Paul's teachings. The Father forgave the son without demanding any punishment of any kind. He simply forgave the son, just like any loving father would do. The "demand of punishment" you refer to is probably in the context of the Penal Substitution model of the atonement. The Penal Model (16th century) is false and was an invention of the Protestant Reformers who added a judicial penal aspect to Anselm's Satisfaction model (11th century). God can indeed freely forgive sin without an associated need of punishment needing to be satisfied. Jesus clearly demonstrated this in the parable of the unforgiving servant.

This is the biggest problem I have with the Gospel. Humans forgive each other every day without demanding someone be crucified. Why can't God simply forgive? Are humans greater than he is? God can and does forgive. Yet the forgiveness is not unconditional, repentance and faith are required. For example, if an adulterous husband seeks to be truly reconciled with his wife than the adultery must be forsaken first. It is no different with God. If your rejection of the Gospel is based off how it is preached by those who hold to Reformed views then I would recommend that you attempt to read the Bible plainly with a clear mind without preconceived bias. It is men who pervert and twist the Gospel into something that it isn't and then represent it as the truth, such actions have most certainly cast aspersions on the truth for a very long time.


PROPITIATION??? That's what all the idol-gods demand. Blood sacrifice. What's up with that? Why would an intelligent God ordain anything like that? How does causing pain in another cleanse a sinner? None of this makes any sense to me at all. It seems like bloody ancient barbaric superstitious mythology. This is obviously radically different than any of the logic that God used in creating the universe (that's why it looks absurd), so why should we believe it? Propitiation means mercy seat. Rom 3:22-26 has to be read in conjunction with Heb 10:19-22. I do not know why God chose the "blood of Christ" as the means by which men can be returned to favour with God, it is just what God has done. A sinner forsakes their rebellion and approaches God in repentance and faith, the figure given us is the picture of the temple and how we enter into the Holy of Holies in a new and living way with a true heart and it is over the mercy seat (Christ) that our souls are cleansed by the blood. My understanding is that all the colourful descriptive symbolism is really a picture of what takes place when a soul approaches God truly having forsaken rebellion and is thus in a position to yield. It is in the yielding to God that the light of God manifests through an individual and that individual is endowed by the power of God to overcome all that which is opposed to the ways of God. God did not create us to be independent of Him but rather to abide in His being. The cross is but a methodology to bring this about.


Oh boy ... this is getting good. You now have revealed a MASSIVE DIVISION within the heart of the Christian community. The vast majority of Christians now and throughout history are not redeemed by your doctrine. You have revealed two different "Christianities" that are directly contradictory. Thanks! That proves that the Bible is not sufficiently coherent to be a guide for anyone in anything. Each believer makes up their own religion according to their own opinions. The existence of deception is not reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. The Bible is full of warnings about deception PARTICULARLY religious deception. Jesus Himself warned in Mat 7 and 24 that many false teachers would come, professing that He (Jesus) is the Christ and would deceive a multitude of people. Jesus also warned that a multitude of people would stand before Him rejected, people who professed Him as "Lord" yet they remained "workers if iniquity."
The difference between those who are deceived and those who are not deceived is DUE DILIGENCE and a WILLINGNESS TO YIELD.



What JOY there is in being free from such dogmatic chains that shackle the mind!

Despite our differences, I really appreciate your comments.

All the best,

Richard

Thanks for your comments.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Conduit,

Welcome to our forum! Thank you.

:welcome:


You're welcome! :yo:

One suggestion: It's difficult for folks to answer if you put your answers within the quotes because the software doesn't include quotes within quotes when the "Reply with Quote" button is clicked.

When you click "Reply with Quote" you will see something like this:




Blah, blah, blah ...

Some more blah, blah, blah ...



Then if you want to reply to each part, you just copy the quote tags like this:




Blah, blah, blah ...


THIS IS MY RESPONSE to the first part.




Some more blah, blah, blah ...



This is my response the the second part.




And it will look like this:



Blah, blah, blah ...


THIS IS MY RESPONSE to the first part.




Some more blah, blah, blah ...



This is my response the the second part.

Now getting back to the topic at hand ....


If the world is reconciled to God, why does anyone have to repent? What happens to them if they don't? Repentance is a condition God requires be met before sins can be remitted. If one does not repent they will perish.

What do you mean by "perish"? Are you teaching annihilationism or eternal conscious torment in hell?



Your teaching sounds similar to the Christian Universalism. What do you think of that? Universalism in the sense of "everyone being saved"? I do not subscribe to that.

If God really reconciled the world, then why would he damn them?



Offended? Rebellion? Those are the kinds of things that egotistical male rulers get all hung up about. Why would God give us freedom and then destroy us for using it? It has nothing to do with male egotistical rulers. God is the Creator and thus knows how things ought to work, it is perfectly reasonable that the entities He created abide within the framework of how things ought to be done. It is not egotistical for a car manufacturer to prescribe a certain grade of oil for the vehicles they manufacture. God evidently does not wish to have blind subservience and thus endowed man with the ability to choose or reject Him.

Your analogy with a car manufacturer doesn't make sense to me because the Gospel doesn't seem anything like "perfectly reasonable." And that's not how the Bible presents it either. Paul said that the Gospel was "foolishness" according to those who are "perishing." This means you can't appeal to reason to convince someone who thinks its foolish because they necessarily see it as foolish. Therefore, the unsaved cannot be given rational reasons to believe. And this means that the Christian faith is fundamentally irrational, and so should not be believed by any rational person.



The description of God in the Bible makes him look like the apotheosis of an arrogant male ego who demands everyone obey and worship him. And that "just happens" to be what all the other Bronze age tribal war gods from the ANE look like. Coincidence? That is a purely subjective interpretation rooted in the wisdom of men. The Creator is not measured on some perceived human scale of righteousness, the human mind can not even conceive the ultimate truths of God. God has given all men a measure of light and it is up to us as to what we do with it. We can suppress it and thus choose ignorance or we can yield to it which leads to further revelation.

It's not "subjective" at all. It is based on the objective fact that the God of the Bible is indistinguishable from the Bronze age tribal war gods of the ANE. Even his names are identical. El Elyon was the chief god of the Canaanite council of gods.

If the Creator "is not measured on some perceived human scale of righteousness" then you can't say he is "good" because that would be a human judgment.

And neither can you say anything about the "ultimate truths of God" since you have only your fallible human judgments.

You and I stand on exactly the same playing field. If I can't judge that God is good or bad, then neither can you.

Your doctrine that "God has given all men a measure of light and it is up to us as to what we do with it" is not true. Many people have lived and died with no chance of getting any knowledge of Christ. Therefore, if a person must believe in Christ to be saved, most people that have ever lived had no chance. They were damned before they were born. And this, of course, is the Calvinist doctrine which has dominated Protestantism.



The parable of the Prodigal Son seems to strongly contradict Paul's teachings. The Father forgave the son without demanding any punishment of any kind. He simply forgave the son, just like any loving father would do. The "demand of punishment" you refer to is probably in the context of the Penal Substitution model of the atonement. The Penal Model (16th century) is false and was an invention of the Protestant Reformers who added a judicial penal aspect to Anselm's Satisfaction model (11th century). God can indeed freely forgive sin without an associated need of punishment needing to be satisfied. Jesus clearly demonstrated this in the parable of the unforgiving servant.

Wow - that's fascinating. It's great that you understand that there are many different Theories of the Atonement. Most Christians don't know that.

But does the Bible really support your theory? What about the teaching that "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). It sounds like you are saying that Jesus didn't have to die. Why then was he crucified if God could have forgiven everyone without that happening?



This is the biggest problem I have with the Gospel. Humans forgive each other every day without demanding someone be crucified. Why can't God simply forgive? Are humans greater than he is? God can and does forgive. Yet the forgiveness is not unconditional, repentance and faith are required. For example, if an adulterous husband seeks to be truly reconciled with his wife than the adultery must be forsaken first. It is no different with God. If your rejection of the Gospel is based off how it is preached by those who hold to Reformed views then I would recommend that you attempt to read the Bible plainly with a clear mind without preconceived bias. It is men who pervert and twist the Gospel into something that it isn't and then represent it as the truth, such actions have most certainly cast aspersions on the truth for a very long time.

Repentance makes perfect sense in the case of an adulterous wife. But that's not applicable to humans because there are ten thousand difference religions that all claim to be true and there is no proof that any of them are true. So a rational God would not demand that we believe any particular religion to be saved.

As for studying the Bible and the history of all the conflicting doctrines - I've done that for decades and have concluded that that Bible is logically incoherent. The proof is pretty obvious because the most devout and serious believers cannot come to any agreement. We don't see that kind of confusion in areas like mathematics and physics.

It is particularly enlightening that most folks who feel that their personal interpretation is really, truly, God's interpretation almost always say that the confusion is due to all the other (equally sincere) believers misinterpreting the Bible! I think the most obvious explanation is that it is the Bible that is confused and incoherent.



PROPITIATION??? That's what all the idol-gods demand. Blood sacrifice. What's up with that? Why would an intelligent God ordain anything like that? How does causing pain in another cleanse a sinner? None of this makes any sense to me at all. It seems like bloody ancient barbaric superstitious mythology. This is obviously radically different than any of the logic that God used in creating the universe (that's why it looks absurd), so why should we believe it? Propitiation means mercy seat. Rom 3:22-26 has to be read in conjunction with Heb 10:19-22. I do not know why God chose the "blood of Christ" as the means by which men can be returned to favour with God, it is just what God has done. A sinner forsakes their rebellion and approaches God in repentance and faith, the figure given us is the picture of the temple and how we enter into the Holy of Holies in a new and living way with a true heart and it is over the mercy seat (Christ) that our souls are cleansed by the blood. My understanding is that all the colourful descriptive symbolism is really a picture of what takes place when a soul approaches God truly having forsaken rebellion and is thus in a position to yield. It is in the yielding to God that the light of God manifests through an individual and that individual is endowed by the power of God to overcome all that which is opposed to the ways of God. God did not create us to be independent of Him but rather to abide in His being. The cross is but a methodology to bring this about.

What rebellion? When I look at believers vs. unbelievers, it seems that the unbelievers are more honest and truthful because believers must defend indefensible DOGMAS. You've seen all the deception and perversion of logic that they use, right? In almost every case I can think of, it is the believers that trample truth in service of their dogmas. So if God is defined as truth, it seems to me that believers are far removed from God.

I understand how the image of the mercy seat and Christ can uplift the soul, but that only works if you begin with such imagery like the temple and the bloody sacrifices that cover sin. To me, that all looks like a very primitive bloody mess with no meaning at all. And this brings up a much larger issue. Why is God so enamored by VIOLENCE? If he is God, then he freely chose to set things up so he would slaughter all the men, women, and children in the flood, and again the Canaanites, and again the Midianites, and again .... why??? Why would God choose to create a world and then fill it with such violence? Where is the wisdom? Where is the kindness? Where is the mercy? None of this seems true to me. It's a nightmare.



Oh boy ... this is getting good. You now have revealed a MASSIVE DIVISION within the heart of the Christian community. The vast majority of Christians now and throughout history are not redeemed by your doctrine. You have revealed two different "Christianities" that are directly contradictory. Thanks! That proves that the Bible is not sufficiently coherent to be a guide for anyone in anything. Each believer makes up their own religion according to their own opinions. The existence of deception is not reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. The Bible is full of warnings about deception PARTICULARLY religious deception. Jesus Himself warned in Mat 7 and 24 that many false teachers would come, professing that He (Jesus) is the Christ and would deceive a multitude of people. Jesus also warned that a multitude of people would stand before Him rejected, people who professed Him as "Lord" yet they remained "workers if iniquity."
The difference between those who are deceived and those who are not deceived is DUE DILIGENCE and a WILLINGNESS TO YIELD.

Well, every serious believer from all the different Christianities (Catholic, Protestant, JW, Christadelphia, Branch Davidian, SDA, etc., etc., etc.) will assert absolutely they they have done DUE DILIGENCE and that they have YIELDED to the Spirit of God. Yet they come to diametrical opposed conclusions. They contradict each other endlessly. Indeed, the Protestant declared the Catholics to be ANTICHRIST! (You can't get a bigger contradiction than that).

So which Christian sect do you belong to? If you say that you are not a member of a sect, then you have isolated yourself even more since that means that you believe only your own interpretation.



Thanks for your comments.

And thanks for yours! I think this is going to be a very interesting conversation.

All the best,

Richard

[Conduit]

Now getting back to the topic at hand ....


What do you mean by "perish"? Are you teaching annihilationism or eternal conscious torment in hell?

Honestly I am undecided on the issue. What I do know is that perdition is not something that anyone wants to find themselves as having to face. I don't profess a complete understanding and thus I withhold my judgment on this issue. If outer darkness is absent the grace of God (Tit 2:11-12, Joh 1:9) then there would be no way for a consciousness in such a predicament to extricate themselves. I have often thought about the calamity of being a disembodied consciousness which lacks the ability to make deliberate choices which yield an outcome (as in the flesh). Whether God terminates a consciousness at some point or not I do not profess to know.



If God really reconciled the world, then why would he damn them?
Because they did not have a love of the truth but instead chose to pleasure in unrighteousness.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.



Your analogy with a car manufacturer doesn't make sense to me because the Gospel doesn't seem anything like "perfectly reasonable." And that's not how the Bible presents it either. Paul said that the Gospel was "foolishness" according to those who are "perishing." This means you can't appeal to reason to convince someone who thinks its foolish because they necessarily see it as foolish. Therefore, the unsaved cannot be given rational reasons to believe. And this means that the Christian faith is fundamentally irrational, and so should not be believed by any rational person.

Your free to reject my analogy. The Gospel is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing but that is a contextual statement as opposed to a blanket statement generalising everyone. There are many such statements in the Bible such as "there are none who seek God" and "there are none righteous." Context is everything.

There is plenty of latitude in the Bible for those who are not diligent truth seekers with which they can hang themselves. The Bible can be used to prove pretty much anything people want it to prove. Human rhetoric can be really creative, unfortunately it is the truth that matters, not our opinions. Truth is reality as it really is, and our task is to align our opinions with reality no matter where it may lead.

I have dealt with many who are hostile to the message of Jesus Christ and they will endlessly provide reasoning for the rejection of His message. I am not inclined to an ongoing talk with brick walls for the message of Jesus Christ is simple. Do what is right by loving God and loving your neighbour. If an individual truly commits to that then everything else will fall into place.



It's not "subjective" at all. It is based on the objective fact that the God of the Bible is indistinguishable from the Bronze age tribal war gods of the ANE. Even his names are identical. El Elyon was the chief god of the Canaanite council of gods. It is a very subjective statement and you prove it even more so by asserting that the God of the Bible is "indistinguishable" from the gods of men. No other god or doctrine deals with heart purity as far as I am aware and it is purity of heart which is a clear distinction between that which the Bible teaches and any other religion or philosophy of men.

You are free to draw your own conclusions in the matter though. If Jesus Christ is a retelling of the solar myth to you, then so be it, Jesus Christ is a retelling of the solar myth. I don't know you, perhaps you are a mystic who esteems the philosophy that is veiled in semiotics. Perhaps you perceive yourself as a rationalist and cling to a materialist world view whereby that which is perceived through the five senses as the epitome of epistemology. Perhaps you are a mixture of both.



If the Creator "is not measured on some perceived human scale of righteousness" then you can't say he is "good" because that would be a human judgment.

And neither can you say anything about the "ultimate truths of God" since you have only your fallible human judgments.

You and I stand on exactly the same playing field. If I can't judge that God is good or bad, then neither can you.

I was not stating that one cannot make judgments about God. My statement was in the context that we cannot perceive ALL THAT THERE IS about God and that it very arrogant to conclude that we can. Our perspective is from a created viewpoint and we are subject to the limitations of the material world, time and space, and the capacity of our intellects. For all we know our perception has more in common to that of viewing the dancing shadows on the cave wall (Plato) than the way things actually are at the fundamental level.



Your doctrine that "God has given all men a measure of light and it is up to us as to what we do with it" is not true. Many people have lived and died with no chance of getting any knowledge of Christ. Therefore, if a person must believe in Christ to be saved, most people that have ever lived had no chance. They were damned before they were born. And this, of course, is the Calvinist doctrine which has dominated Protestantism. I am not a Calvinist nor am I a Protestant so what they believe is irrelevant to me, save in the context of how they mislead people. Many people lived before Christ walked the earth and many people have lived isolated from the message after He walked the earth. The Bible is clear that God looks at the heart of a man and the Bible is also clear that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. All human beings are endowed with the light of conscience and thus are able to exercise their free agency and either conduct themselves in accordance with the light or in discordance. Those who yield to the light and diligently seek it will be rewarded. Jesus Christ is but a transliteration from another language and the man who walked this earth is but a physical manifestation of the Logos. One does not literally have to know the specifics of the life of Jesus on the earth to come to a knowledge of the truth, God is Spirit and we are to worship in Spirit and truth.

You assertion is simply made from a false foundation that one must literally know who Jesus Christ the man in flesh was in order to be saved. His sin offering is applicable to everyone whether they know the specifics of His life or not. The key is to whether one rejects the light that have been given. There is no excuse for anyone, on this forum for example, to reject Jesus and His teachings because we have not been isolated as part of some tribe in some obscure part of the world.



Wow - that's fascinating. It's great that you understand that there are many different Theories of the Atonement. Most Christians don't know that.

But does the Bible really support your theory? What about the teaching that "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). It sounds like you are saying that Jesus didn't have to die. Why then was he crucified if God could have forgiven everyone without that happening?

Jesus indeed had to die. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. That is how God ordained it. I don't profess an all encompassing knowledge as to why God chose for things to be this way, things are what they are. Jesus purchased us with His blood that we may come out from one master to server another. He was the kinsman redeemer. We die with Him and we are raised up to newness of life with Him.



Repentance makes perfect sense in the case of an adulterous wife. But that's not applicable to humans because there are ten thousand difference religions that all claim to be true and there is no proof that any of them are true. So a rational God would not demand that we believe any particular religion to be saved. God is not in the "religion" business. God is in the truth business. The doctrine of Christ is simple, it is the doctrine according to godliness. Jesus came to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify a peculiar people who would be zealous of doing that which is right. Thus once cleansed we love God with all our heart, soul and mind and we love our neighbour as ourselves.



As for studying the Bible and the history of all the conflicting doctrines - I've done that for decades and have concluded that that Bible is logically incoherent. The proof is pretty obvious because the most devout and serious believers cannot come to any agreement. We don't see that kind of confusion in areas like mathematics and physics. Mathematics and Physics are in the context of Operational Science while God is not. God reveals Himself through revelation via the Spirit. God is not some "stuff" or "logic" you can test via scientific means. Many err today in failing to see the limitations of science, science is great for testing that which we see in operation in the present, yet once you start to delve into the past or into that which we cannot perceive materially you enter into the realm of philosophy where assumptions must be made.

Many worship science today as the be all and end all of knowledge and due to this they have closed their minds to that which lies beyond science.



It is particularly enlightening that most folks who feel that their personal interpretation is really, truly, God's interpretation almost always say that the confusion is due to all the other (equally sincere) believers misinterpreting the Bible! I think the most obvious explanation is that it is the Bible that is confused and incoherent.
Jesus healed a blind man on the Sabbath. The Pharisees condemned Jesus for such action as a sinner. The blind man's parents testified that the man had been blind since birth yet the Pharisees strained at a gnat in order to swallow a camel. Much of the deception today is exactly the same.

You can observe all the gnat straining and dismiss the Bible as being incoherent if you wish. That is a choice we all have to make. I chose to dig deep instead and I am still learning more and more everyday.



What rebellion? When I look at believers vs. unbelievers, it seems that the unbelievers are more honest and truthful because believers must defend indefensible DOGMAS. You've seen all the deception and perversion of logic that they use, right? In almost every case I can think of, it is the believers that trample truth in service of their dogmas. So if God is defined as truth, it seems to me that believers are far removed from God. I agree with you. Don't turn to the professing face of Christianity for your answers about God. Turn to God and seek Him diligently. God is not far from any of us but our hearts must be true.



I understand how the image of the mercy seat and Christ can uplift the soul, but that only works if you begin with such imagery like the temple and the bloody sacrifices that cover sin. To me, that all looks like a very primitive bloody mess with no meaning at all. And this brings up a much larger issue. Why is God so enamored by VIOLENCE? If he is God, then he freely chose to set things up so he would slaughter all the men, women, and children in the flood, and again the Canaanites, and again the Midianites, and again .... why??? Why would God choose to create a world and then fill it with such violence? Where is the wisdom? Where is the kindness? Where is the mercy? None of this seems true to me. It's a nightmare. God did not fill the world with violence. Violence is a result of rebellion. Why did God slaughter men, women and children? It may appear sadistic from the human perspective of mortality but God sees the bigger picture. The termination of a life in the present world is insignificant when compared to eternity. Is the suffering of a deformed and malnourished infant in Somalia a reason to reject God? Only to those who arrogantly presume that their understanding is complete.



Well, every serious believer from all the different Christianities (Catholic, Protestant, JW, Christadelphia, Branch Davidian, SDA, etc., etc., etc.) will assert absolutely they they have done DUE DILIGENCE and that they have YIELDED to the Spirit of God. Yet they come to diametrical opposed conclusions. They contradict each other endlessly. Indeed, the Protestant declared the Catholics to be ANTICHRIST! (You can't get a bigger contradiction than that). So don't believe any of them and stop using the confusion of Babylon as an excuse to write off God. God has given you a measure of light, be diligent and seek His face with everything you have. Jesus said STRIVE to enter in that the strait gate and narrow way and that FEW would be able to do so.



So which Christian sect do you belong to? If you say that you are not a member of a sect, then you have isolated yourself even more since that means that you believe only your own interpretation. None. Yes I have isolated myself from the systems and teachings of men but that is not to say I am isolated. I have met others of like mind who hold to the simplicity that is in Christ and also walk in the light.

They key is not how much one "knows" the key is if one "knows Christ" and more importantly does Christ "know you." It is the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ in which we dwell. It is a state of communion with the Creator that can only be spiritually discerned and appears as foolishness to those whom are still in darkness.

I hope you find it in your quest for truth.

Thanks again for your comments.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What do you mean by "perish"? Are you teaching annihilationism or eternal conscious torment in hell?
Honestly I am undecided on the issue. What I do know is that perdition is not something that anyone wants to find themselves as having to face. I don't profess a complete understanding and thus I withhold my judgment on this issue. If outer darkness is absent the grace of God (Tit 2:11-12, Joh 1:9) then there would be no way for a consciousness in such a predicament to extricate themselves. I have often thought about the calamity of being a disembodied consciousness which lacks the ability to make deliberate choices which yield an outcome (as in the flesh). Whether God terminates a consciousness at some point or not I do not profess to know.

Hey there Conduit, :yo:

Thanks for the great post. This conversation is quite fascinating. I appreciate your honesty.

I never came to a definite conclusion on this matter when I was a Christian. I was never able to accept eternal conscious torment in hell because that was an eternal evil and I just could not believe that it was consistent with a rational loving God. So I tended towards annihilationism which has a lot of support in Scripture. But that never really satisfied me either because it didn't make any sense at all that God would annihilate people merely that had not heard or accepted the Gospel. And there are some verses that suggest Universalism which I was exploring at the time I realized I was no longer a Christian.

The idea of God maintaining a creature in existence while denying grace seems evil to me. And it may not even be logically coherent. For example, many theologians say that being itself is goodness and that evil is a privation of being, so how could God keep anything in existence without any grace?



Because they did not have a love of the truth but instead chose to pleasure in unrighteousness.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

So the only people that get "saved" are the good people that "have a love of the truth"? That's not the Gospel. This is why I say that the Bible is logically incoherent. The Bible strongly condemns all as sinful and not seeking God:
Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Who amongst the wicked that are dead in their sins will CHOOSE GOD??? Not one, according to Paul. The Reformers then linked this with the Doctrine of Predestination and concluded that God alone saves people. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sinner. If it did, then why is one sinner saved over another? Because that sinner was better than the other sinner? That's works-salvation according to the Calvinists. Now you say this passage is "contextual" - you will have to explain how its context changes its meaning.




Your analogy with a car manufacturer doesn't make sense to me because the Gospel doesn't seem anything like "perfectly reasonable." And that's not how the Bible presents it either. Paul said that the Gospel was "foolishness" according to those who are "perishing." This means you can't appeal to reason to convince someone who thinks its foolish because they necessarily see it as foolish. Therefore, the unsaved cannot be given rational reasons to believe. And this means that the Christian faith is fundamentally irrational, and so should not be believed by any rational person.
Your free to reject my analogy. The Gospel is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing but that is a contextual statement as opposed to a blanket statement generalising everyone. There are many such statements in the Bible such as "there are none who seek God" and "there are none righteous." Context is everything.

There is plenty of latitude in the Bible for those who are not diligent truth seekers with which they can hang themselves. The Bible can be used to prove pretty much anything people want it to prove. Human rhetoric can be really creative, unfortunately it is the truth that matters, not our opinions. Truth is reality as it really is, and our task is to align our opinions with reality no matter where it may lead.

I have dealt with many who are hostile to the message of Jesus Christ and they will endlessly provide reasoning for the rejection of His message. I am not inclined to an ongoing talk with brick walls for the message of Jesus Christ is simple. Do what is right by loving God and loving your neighbour. If an individual truly commits to that then everything else will fall into place.

I didn't simply "reject" it. I explained why it doesn't seem reasonable. It would be good if you could explain how the context contradicts what I wrote.

Your suggestion that those who see contradictions in the Bible are not "diligent truth seekers" is a gross absurdity. It is the believers who have deceived themselves by doing everything in their power to obscure and deny that truth. You confirm this when you say that the "Bible can be used to prove pretty much anything people want it to prove." You cannot say that about books on objective study like science. The Bible is no different than any other book based on unprovable metaphysical assertions. That's why there are so many contradictory interpretations. It is because there is no way to test or prove which interpretation is true and which is false. And so the potsherds clash with the potsherds, and all the potsherds think they have God's own truth.

I agree that truth is reality, and that's why I reject the Bible as true. The Bible is many things. It has great value. But much that it says is either quite dubious or demonstrably false.




It's not "subjective" at all. It is based on the objective fact that the God of the Bible is indistinguishable from the Bronze age tribal war gods of the ANE. Even his names are identical. El Elyon was the chief god of the Canaanite council of gods.
It is a very subjective statement and you prove it even more so by asserting that the God of the Bible is "indistinguishable" from the gods of men. No other god or doctrine deals with heart purity as far as I am aware and it is purity of heart which is a clear distinction between that which the Bible teaches and any other religion or philosophy of men.

You are free to draw your own conclusions in the matter though. If Jesus Christ is a retelling of the solar myth to you, then so be it, Jesus Christ is a retelling of the solar myth. I don't know you, perhaps you are a mystic who esteems the philosophy that is veiled in semiotics. Perhaps you perceive yourself as a rationalist and cling to a materialist world view whereby that which is perceived through the five senses as the epitome of epistemology. Perhaps you are a mixture of both.

It is good you said "as far as I know" because it appears you are ignorant of the world religions. They all deal with "heart purity." You should educate yourself on world religions before speaking about them.

Jesus Christ is not a direct "retelling of the solar myth" though there are elements of that myth found in Christianity. The folks pushing that theory often go way overboard with erroneous and misleading assertions, like when they say that Jesus and Horus were both born on December 25. No informed Christian believes that. But neither can anyone deny that the Bible is filled with common mythology of the ANE. For example, the names of God were originally names of Canaanite gods (El, El Elyon, El Shaddai, etc.). Why didn't you respond to this point?

Check out the thread called Greek Mythology in the Bible? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2081-Greek-Mythology-in-the-Bible) where we give lots of examples. Two of the most striking are Jude's explicit quotations from the book of Enoch and Peter's adaptation (2 Pet 2:4) of the Greek myth about Zeus casting the Titans into Tartarus:

MYTH: The god ZEUS casts rebellious TITANS into Tartarus and binds them in chains.
BIBLE: The god YHWH casts rebellious ANGELS into Tartarus and binds them in chains.

And of course the whole cosmology of the Bible is that of the mythological three-tiered universe with of a flat earth held up by pillars with water below and above held up by a dome. Here is an article from the conservative Christian think-tank called www.Biologos.org (http://www.biologos.org/) that explains the ancient mythological cosmology of the Bible: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible. (http://biologos.org/blog/mesopotamian-cosmic-geography-in-the-bible-part-3) It quotes lots of Scripture. I think they give good support for there conclusion.

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/godawa_3_1.jpg
I don't see how these facts could be denied by a "diligent truth seeker."




If the Creator "is not measured on some perceived human scale of righteousness" then you can't say he is "good" because that would be a human judgment.

And neither can you say anything about the "ultimate truths of God" since you have only your fallible human judgments.

You and I stand on exactly the same playing field. If I can't judge that God is good or bad, then neither can you.
I was not stating that one cannot make judgments about God. My statement was in the context that we cannot perceive ALL THAT THERE IS about God and that it very arrogant to conclude that we can. Our perspective is from a created viewpoint and we are subject to the limitations of the material world, time and space, and the capacity of our intellects. For all we know our perception has more in common to that of viewing the dancing shadows on the cave wall (Plato) than the way things actually are at the fundamental level.

I totally agree that it would be grossly arrogant (and absurd) for any human to declare that they know ALL THAT THERE IS concerning any topic, let alone God (which would be doubly absurd since no one even knows if he exists!).

But that's not what I was talking about, obviously.

You had suggested that our human concept of a "Creator" could not be "measured on some perceived human scale of righteousness." I say that is absurd. All our concepts and discussions are conducted by humans using human concepts and human language and human logic. It's very strange how so many Christians seem to think that their religious beliefs are "God's own thoughts" that cannot be tested or judged by anyone. That looks like a psychological defense mechanism used to protect beliefs that cannot be justified.



I am not a Calvinist nor am I a Protestant so what they believe is irrelevant to me, save in the context of how they mislead people. Many people lived before Christ walked the earth and many people have lived isolated from the message after He walked the earth. The Bible is clear that God looks at the heart of a man and the Bible is also clear that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. All human beings are endowed with the light of conscience and thus are able to exercise their free agency and either conduct themselves in accordance with the light or in discordance. Those who yield to the light and diligently seek it will be rewarded. Jesus Christ is but a transliteration from another language and the man who walked this earth is but a physical manifestation of the Logos. One does not literally have to know the specifics of the life of Jesus on the earth to come to a knowledge of the truth, God is Spirit and we are to worship in Spirit and truth.

You assertion is simply made from a false foundation that one must literally know who Jesus Christ the man in flesh was in order to be saved. His sin offering is applicable to everyone whether they know the specifics of His life or not. The key is to whether one rejects the light that have been given. There is no excuse for anyone, on this forum for example, to reject Jesus and His teachings because we have not been isolated as part of some tribe in some obscure part of the world.

Two problems. First, your version of the Gospel seems to contradict many traditional interpretations. You seem to be saying that God only saves good people which strongly contradicts the central doctrine of traditional Christianity.

Second, your version of the gospel seems to say that all people who love the truth will believe the Bible. That seems to be a direct contradiction because the Bible contains much confusion, much that is highly dubious, much that is demonstrably false, and many moral abominations attributed to God. So how could any rational person who diligent seeks the truth believe it? We hold directly contrary points of view: You say that those who seek truth will believe the Bible whereas I assert the opposite.




Repentance makes perfect sense in the case of an adulterous wife. But that's not applicable to humans because there are ten thousand difference religions that all claim to be true and there is no proof that any of them are true. So a rational God would not demand that we believe any particular religion to be saved.
God is not in the "religion" business. God is in the truth business. The doctrine of Christ is simple, it is the doctrine according to godliness. Jesus came to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify a peculiar people who would be zealous of doing that which is right. Thus once cleansed we love God with all our heart, soul and mind and we love our neighbour as ourselves.

Excellent! By your doctrine, I need only concern myself with truth, not any book published by religions like Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. Of course, that's a far cry from the traditional Christian teaching.

BTW - why do you believe the Bible? It was produced by religions, you know. And which Bible do you think is correct? The one produced By the Catholics, the Protestants, or the Greek Orthodox? (They all have differences you know.)



Mathematics and Physics are in the context of Operational Science while God is not. God reveals Himself through revelation via the Spirit. God is not some "stuff" or "logic" you can test via scientific means. Many err today in failing to see the limitations of science, science is great for testing that which we see in operation in the present, yet once you start to delve into the past or into that which we cannot perceive materially you enter into the realm of philosophy where assumptions must be made.

That's the problem. It's the same reason why philosophy has made so little progress in 2500 years. There is no way to test which interpretation of the Bible is true, so the potsherds clash with the potsherds, and some have the audacity to believe that their own private interpretation is the "Truth of God."



Many worship science today as the be all and end all of knowledge and due to this they have closed their minds to that which lies beyond science.

That would be absurd. Science is obviously limited, but it still is the best method we have for establishing truth. Things that lie beyond science cannot be established with any certainty, and that's why so many opinions clash. There is no way to establish the truth of things we can't see or prove in any way at all.



You can observe all the gnat straining and dismiss the Bible as being incoherent if you wish. That is a choice we all have to make. I chose to dig deep instead and I am still learning more and more everyday.

It's not a "choice" at all. It is a conclusion implied by logic and facts. I think that any informed rational person would reject the Bible as anything like the "authoritative Word of God." I think the Bible is an exceedingly valuable treasury of human insights, and it even contains hints of transcendental mystery, but I do not see how anyone could think of it as "true" in the traditional fundamentalist sense (inerrant, infallible, or even the "authoritative" Word of God).

I don't "choose" to believe that 1 + 2 = 3 and I don't "choose" to believe that the Bible contains contradictions, errors, absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God.




When I look at believers vs. unbelievers, it seems that the unbelievers are more honest and truthful because believers must defend indefensible DOGMAS. You've seen all the deception and perversion of logic that they use, right? In almost every case I can think of, it is the believers that trample truth in service of their dogmas. So if God is defined as truth, it seems to me that believers are far removed from God.
I agree with you. Don't turn to the professing face of Christianity for your answers about God. Turn to God and seek Him diligently. God is not far from any of us but our hearts must be true.

It's great that we agree about that. But why then do you believe the book that Christians produced?




I understand how the image of the mercy seat and Christ can uplift the soul, but that only works if you begin with such imagery like the temple and the bloody sacrifices that cover sin. To me, that all looks like a very primitive bloody mess with no meaning at all. And this brings up a much larger issue. Why is God so enamored by VIOLENCE? If he is God, then he freely chose to set things up so he would slaughter all the men, women, and children in the flood, and again the Canaanites, and again the Midianites, and again .... why??? Why would God choose to create a world and then fill it with such violence? Where is the wisdom? Where is the kindness? Where is the mercy? None of this seems true to me. It's a nightmare.
God did not fill the world with violence. Violence is a result of rebellion. Why did God slaughter men, women and children? It may appear sadistic from the human perspective of mortality but God sees the bigger picture. The termination of a life in the present world is insignificant when compared to eternity. Is the suffering of a deformed and malnourished infant in Somalia a reason to reject God? Only to those who arrogantly presume that their understanding is complete.

God most certainly did fill the world with violence. It was his choice. His design. It was HIS FREE CHOICE to command his people to chop up babies and kill everyone but 32,000 sexy virgins who were then distributed to the people that slaughter their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters (Num 31). God seems totally in love with VIOLENCE. It seems to be the only solution he can ever think of. That's why he looks so very primitive, backwards, twisted, and sick. What sane ruler would afflict his people with a famine for three years without telling them all because of some sin of the previous king and then not lift the famine until seven of that king's descendants were MURDERED (2 Sam 21)? It's all nuts. There is no vision of a good or wise God in such stories.




Well, every serious believer from all the different Christianities (Catholic, Protestant, JW, Christadelphia, Branch Davidian, SDA, etc., etc., etc.) will assert absolutely they they have done DUE DILIGENCE and that they have YIELDED to the Spirit of God. Yet they come to diametrical opposed conclusions. They contradict each other endlessly. Indeed, the Protestant declared the Catholics to be ANTICHRIST! (You can't get a bigger contradiction than that).
So don't believe any of them and stop using the confusion of Babylon as an excuse to write off God. God has given you a measure of light, be diligent and seek His face with everything you have. Jesus said STRIVE to enter in that the strait gate and narrow way and that FEW would be able to do so.

Good advice. I will not believe any of them, or any of the books that they have produced, such as the various versions of the Bible.

The question is why should anyone believe the Bible? I'd be very interested to get your answer on this point.




So which Christian sect do you belong to? If you say that you are not a member of a sect, then you have isolated yourself even more since that means that you believe only your own interpretation.
None. Yes I have isolated myself from the systems and teachings of men but that is not to say I am isolated. I have met others of like mind who hold to the simplicity that is in Christ and also walk in the light.

That's what I thought. You've invented your own religion. You have not found any existing group that you can agree with? You've added one to the sum of the total number of religions based on the Bible, which currently stands in the many thousands.

So why would you believe that your unique self-invented religion is true?



They key is not how much one "knows" the key is if one "knows Christ" and more importantly does Christ "know you." It is the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ in which we dwell. It is a state of communion with the Creator that can only be spiritually discerned and appears as foolishness to those whom are still in darkness.

Every believer says that they commune with God, but they all disagree with each other just like you reject the vast majority of Christians as deluded or deceived.

So you are confronted with a profound problem. What's the difference between you and all the deluded believers who think they abide in God and are led by His Spirit? Is there any way for you to discern between the "teaching of God's Spirit" and your own imagination?



I hope you find it in your quest for truth.

Thanks again for your comments.
I'm really enjoying this conversation.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

Picking up on your last point about 'imagination', your Hebrew studies will have taught you that 'stubbornness' is frequently put in the margin beside it.

God has revealed Himself through creation, and in Romans 1, Paul lays out what happens to people who regularly choose to lay aside the truth about Him to pursue their own agenda. He particularly mentions 'neither were thankful' as an attitude which displeases God.

It is within your own power to change your attitude towards finding God for yourself. Let me remind you again... no-one can do it for you. Just because you got waylaid by worldly philosophies in the past, does not mean you have to die in them. All your reading of theology was 'worldy philosophy'.

It is easy to see, in scripture, what pleases God. Why not please Him by seeking Him through appropriate methods?

Conduit was very patient with your unresolved arguments, which remain circular because you are not willing to take the way out which exists.


You are free to draw your own conclusions in the matter though. If Jesus Christ is a retelling of the solar myth to you, then so be it, Jesus Christ is a retelling of the solar myth. I don't know you, perhaps you are a mystic who esteems the philosophy that is veiled in semiotics. Perhaps you perceive yourself as a rationalist and cling to a materialist world view whereby that which is perceived through the five senses as the epitome of epistemology. Perhaps you are a mixture of both.

Conduit, I enjoyed your first post immensely, and learned from many of your other edifying comments in the subsequent posts. Thank you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Picking up on your last point about 'imagination', your Hebrew studies will have taught you that 'stubbornness' is frequently put in the margin beside it.

Hey there Charisma,

You seem to be thinking of the word "sherrruth" - Strongs' #08307 which means "stubbornness" or "hardness." I don't know why the KJV chose to translate it as "imagination." That doesn't make much sense to me. Most modern translations translate it as "stubbornness."

In any case, what does this have to do with my point about discerning between your own imagination and God's voice?

Don't you understand yet? Mormons, Muslims, and every contradictory variety of Christian can claim to hear "God's voice." They can't all be right. So if you are in a false religion, but believed that you heard God's voice, how could you know you were deluded? And if there is no way for you to know, then how do you know?



God has revealed Himself through creation, and in Romans 1, Paul lays out what happens to people who regularly choose to lay aside the truth about Him to pursue their own agenda. He particularly mentions 'neither were thankful' as an attitude which displeases God.

It is within your own power to change your attitude towards finding God for yourself. Let me remind you again... no-one can do it for you. Just because you got waylaid by worldly philosophies in the past, does not mean you have to die in them. All your reading of theology was 'worldy philosophy'.

It is easy to see, in scripture, what pleases God. Why not please Him by seeking Him through appropriate methods?

It is interesting that you bring up the idea of folks who "lay aside the truth" because I have come to see that as the root source of all delusion. We all have an innate sense of truth when our experience and our thoughts and beliefs cohere with each other. When they don't cohere, we experience cognitive dissonance. There are two ways to respond to cognitive dissonance. Either we correct our erroneous thoughts and beliefs to make them cohere with reality, or we make up excuses and rationalizations. If we suppress the truth by making up unrighteous explanations we can quickly become deluded. I explained in some detail in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/).

I agree that no one can "do it" for anyone else. The best I can do for you is to help you see your rationalizations. But if you don't want the truth then no one can make you see it. And you can do the same for me. If I am suppressing the truth in any way, then you should be able to expose my error by showing that I am making up excuses that ultimately contradict reality.

This is why I'm so confident about my conclusions. I can see that there is a LOT of cognitive dissonance between Reality and Christianity. I knew about many of the problems during the decades I was a Christian, but I thought that the Bible Wheel "trumped" them since I thought it gave solid evidence of a divine design in the Bible. Therefore, I could hold the Bible with a "light grip" and not feel a need to explain every problem. Rather, I could assert that I had solid evidence of an overall design and that this view was not threatened by the fact that there were contradictions and errors in the Bible. My view of the Bible was "robust" whereas the fundamentalist view was very brittle (a single error would prove it wrong). This allowed me to hold to the HIGHEST possible view of Scripture - the view that the Bible is exactly as God wanted it to be. Fundamentalists mock God when they say the Bible is "inerrant" because that makes God look like an idiot who scribbled his book in crayon and who relies upon mere humans to make up stupid excuses for him to explain away all the "apparent" problems. And worse, who are they to tell God what kind of book he must write? How arrogant is that? What if God designed the Bible with errors to accomplish his own purposes?

As for "worldly philosophy" - I don't think those words have any meaning, and I very much doubt you even know what you mean by them. They sound like empty boasting - like you think that your private interpretation is automatically "spiritual" and anyone who disagrees with you is "worldly." That strikes me as quite arrogant. We are equals. You must have REASONS for you conclusions just like me. It's neither fair nor true for you to simply assert that you are right and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.

So what are the "appropriate methods" for "seeking God." If you say prayer and sincere Bible study, I've done that. If you say "get council from other believers" I've done that too. I very much doubt there is any "appropriate method" that I have not sincerely applied.

I note that you have not actually addressed my question. How would a delude person, who thinks they are in the truth religion and that they hear the voice of God, determine that they are wrong?



Conduit was very patient with your unresolved arguments, which remain circular because you are not willing to take the way out which exists.

Merely asserting they are "circular" means nothing because you didn't say what is circular or why. You need to state precisely what is circular or I'll have no way to know what you are talking about.

Likewise, you assertion that I am "not willing to take the way out which exists" means nothing because you have not said what the "way" is supposed to be.

I look forward to your clarifications of what you meant,

Richard

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

I think I'm going to tackle your questions in roughly reverse order. I am stirred by Timmy's response to you in the current attention to the Camping thread; and although I think there is another relatively recent post from you to me which I have not answered, I think this one covers the same ground.

Some of my answers will be short, because - as you have accepted - I cannot 'do' your inner wrestlings for you (although we didn't call them that).


Likewise, you assertion that I am "not willing to take the way out which exists" means nothing because you have not said what the "way" ** is supposed to be.

I look forward to your clarifications of what you meant,

This, and your comments about cognitive dissonance, are related, according to the Bible.


It is interesting that you bring up the idea of folks who "lay aside the truth" because I have come to see that as the root source of all delusion. We all have an innate sense of truth when our experience and our thoughts and beliefs cohere with each other. When they don't cohere, we experience cognitive dissonance. There are two ways to respond to cognitive dissonance. Either we correct our erroneous thoughts and beliefs to make them cohere with reality, or we make up excuses and rationalizations. If we suppress the truth by making up unrighteous explanations we can quickly become deluded.

However, your explanation of how to deal with cognitive dissonance is not Biblical, because God does not feature in it (or you failed to mention Him).

The whole point of the gospel, is to acquaint all people with the reality of a realm which is largely beyond their experience until they hear of it. What is troubling about 'we correct our erroneous thoughts and beliefs to make them cohere with reality', is that a person who does not know God is working with only some of the available information. Their 'reality' is limited by several critical factors. They can beat their theories into line with their experiences - sure - but to what end? Merely to 'correct' their 'cognitive dissonace'? Is this the 'truth' which Paul is talking about in Romans 1? I don't think so...

On 'or we make up excuses and rationalizations' - probably both yes and no are true.

First of all, it depends whether the 'truth' which the person acknowledges is the truth about which Paul is writing, or, it is some preferred truth which creates less cognitive dissonance than Paul's truth. The problem which follows them is absolute either way, because Paul says 'when they knew God'... Which means that no-one is excused from the truth that God exists in their experience, no matter how much they desire to 'lay aside' that truth. In other words, at the moment they begin rationalising (anything in respect of their own behaviour towards God), they do know He is there and they do know enough to worship Him over and above all created entities, despite choosing not to. This is what Paul calls 'laying aside the truth'. And this is not what you are describing by the same term. What you are describing is what I would call taking the line of least resistance - which anyone can do.

Another word which describes the same process is compromise. The truth you are making peace with, is not God's truth. BUT, I do see that it's necessary to give up all religious observation if one is going to be genuinely, authentically 'real' with oneself, and pay complete attention to the 'truth' about one's inner man while he lives within the limitation of being without God. Arguably (according to Paul) no matter what the difficulties of knowing God, the difficulties which descend upon a person who is bent on not knowing God, are greater. So I doubt the longevity of the adjustments you have made; although I accept they might be part of the journey you're on, and I hope they are not your ultimate destination.

So the non-compromise option is to acknowledge God's righteous declarations about the neediness of humankind, and accept His righteous provision for our salvation. This is ** the Way. On the face of it, that seems the obvious way to go - until we find it launches us on a new voyage of discovery about how deeply rooted in the heart of man, is the spontaneous outworking of his rebellion against God, his pride and the other sins which flow from those.



That's all for now; I will come back to this reply, half of which I lost when my session timed out. I keep forgetting this can happen. Bedtime here. :yo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This, and your comments about cognitive dissonance, are related, according to the Bible.


It is interesting that you bring up the idea of folks who "lay aside the truth" because I have come to see that as the root source of all delusion. We all have an innate sense of truth when our experience and our thoughts and beliefs cohere with each other. When they don't cohere, we experience cognitive dissonance. There are two ways to respond to cognitive dissonance. Either we correct our erroneous thoughts and beliefs to make them cohere with reality, or we make up excuses and rationalizations. If we suppress the truth by making up unrighteous explanations we can quickly become deluded.

However, your explanation of how to deal with cognitive dissonance is not Biblical, because God does not feature in it (or you failed to mention Him).

The whole point of the gospel, is to acquaint all people with the reality of a realm which is largely beyond their experience until they hear of it. What is troubling about 'we correct our erroneous thoughts and beliefs to make them cohere with reality', is that a person who does not know God is working with only some of the available information. Their 'reality' is limited by several critical factors. They can beat their theories into line with their experiences - sure - but to what end? Merely to 'correct' their 'cognitive dissonace'? Is this the 'truth' which Paul is talking about in Romans 1? I don't think so...

On 'or we make up excuses and rationalizations' - probably both yes and no are true.

First of all, it depends whether the 'truth' which the person acknowledges is the truth about which Paul is writing, or, it is some preferred truth which creates less cognitive dissonance than Paul's truth. The problem which follows them is absolute either way, because Paul says 'when they knew God'... Which means that no-one is excused from the truth that God exists in their experience, no matter how much they desire to 'lay aside' that truth. In other words, at the moment they begin rationalising (anything in respect of their own behaviour towards God), they do know He is there and they do know enough to worship Him over and above all created entities, despite choosing not to. This is what Paul calls 'laying aside the truth'. And this is not what you are describing by the same term. What you are describing is what I would call taking the line of least resistance - which anyone can do.

Another word which describes the same process is compromise. The truth you are making peace with, is not God's truth. BUT, I do see that it's necessary to give up all religious observation if one is going to be genuinely, authentically 'real' with oneself, and pay complete attention to the 'truth' about one's inner man while he lives within the limitation of being without God. Arguably (according to Paul) no matter what the difficulties of knowing God, the difficulties which descend upon a person who is bent on not knowing God, are greater. So I doubt the longevity of the adjustments you have made; although I accept they might be part of the journey you're on, and I hope they are not your ultimate destination.

So the non-compromise option is to acknowledge God's righteous declarations about the neediness of humankind, and accept His righteous provision for our salvation. This is ** the Way. On the face of it, that seems the obvious way to go - until we find it launches us on a new voyage of discovery about how deeply rooted in the heart of man, is the spontaneous outworking of his rebellion against God, his pride and the other sins which flow from those.



That's all for now; I will come back to this reply, half of which I lost when my session timed out. I keep forgetting this can happen. Bedtime here. :yo:
Hey there Charisma,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Unfortunately, it seems like "empty blather" to me because it speaks of "God's truth" as if it were different than reality. I don't believe that and can't imagine that anyone could believe that. If there is one thing I know, it is that if there is a God then "God's truth" is identical to "Reality."

Likewise, it makes no sense to me to speak of "the reality of a realm which is largely beyond their experience" that can be "known" in any meaningful sense by merely being told about it. The Mormons and the Muslims can tell me all about this "realm" and I see no reason to believe your claims over theirs. You have never answered this question. All your comments are predicated on the presumption that your personal interpretation of Christianity is "God's Truth". I trust you can see what that does not strike others as very meaningful.

Great chatting!

Richard