|
See not this is the thing about Christ
incarnation that is so averse to what Kk is teaching. If Christ could
have remained eternally distant as unable be the actual substitute in
the flesh for man then in terms of identity God would have been unable
to bring glory to Himself through the work of the Trinity as the basis
for saving man. But God created man in the image of God for the purpose
of showing Himself greater than in coming in this world in human
flesh... showing that its not evil but exalting the Christ humanity by
making Him the center of all things with an eternal reminder that His
wounds are the identity that we have in Heaven for our worshiping Him as
the eternal God Man.
The Revelation of John does not exclude the
wicked from their value of their punishment being extinguished but
precludes that our value in the eternal kingdom is our sharing with
Christ that judgement of the wicked as the basis of our position in the
eternal kingdom. I believe that the wicked will not only hear their own
conscience for all eternity but they will know those saints who endure
their suffering on this earth for all eternity as a reminder that God is
the avenger. God so to speak gets the last laugh... i mean not in the
sense of finding joy in the punishment of the wicked but in the sense of
their own hearts condemning them.
|
2162
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: In Response to accusations regarding the nature of God, eternal punishment, etc.
|
on: August 30, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
|
Jest
musing here, let's take a quick look at how Paul uses thanatos,
thanatoo, and apothnesko. "Death", "to Die", and "to become dead" in
Romans 6-7, immediately before and after the verse in question, 6:23.
V
6:2, "Dying to Sin" is metaphorical for being released from Sin capital
S, itself Paul's metonym for "the power that controls men's minds and
makes them do bad stuff.
V 6:3 Death refers to Christ's physical death, and introducing the theme of our identification with Christ.
Vv6:4-8
and 6:11 Dying refers to our symbolic identification with Christ and
His physical death, which leads to being symbolically (and perhaps
literally!) being released from Sin's power and being resurrected both
physically and metaphorically into "newness of life". This flows into
vv 6:9-10 referring to Christ's physical death and resurrection.
V6:16,
death could refer to physical death, but the contrast with obedient
righteousness may very well support a metonym for alienation from God.
Vv6:21-23 Death probably refers to physical death, since it is contrasted with eternal life.
Vv 7:1-3 talking about married people, definitely physical death.
Vv
4-6 talking about dying to the law, using the metaphor of death
releasing one from the obligations of marriage to his symbolic
identification with Christ's physical death in Christ releasing him from
the Mosaic covenant (Sorry, Thor!). "Fruit for Death", calling up the
image of how Death "reproduces" itself, probably physical, but it might
support your separation metonym.
V7:8, "Dead" probably means ineffective. How is sin ineffective without the Torah?
Vv
7:10-13, "I died" is obviously metaphorical, since Paul isn't
physically dead when he wrote that. A metaphor for what? For
alienation from God? Probably not. First of all, it's about the Torah,
and those without the Torah are presumed already alienated from God.
Sinning is an offense against the covenant relationship between God and
His people, a relationship which doesn't exist between God and
Gentiles. That implies sin (lower case) is meaningless outside the
context of a covenant relationship with God. Okay. Secondly, and this
is often misunderstood by Protestants, the Covenant relationship
between God and His people is NOT abrogated by sinning. The Covenant
has sacrifices for sins. Although individual branches may be cut off,
the covenant relationship between God and His people is irrevocable,
Paul will say later in Chapter 11. So what "died" when Paul recognized
sin for what it was???
V7:13 talks about the Torah producing
death. Definitely metaphorical, but as we have seen, not for alienation
from God. Paul recognizes the reality of his enslavement to Sin, but
the reality was already there. The recognition of his own bondage
caused something inside of Paul to "die", but what? His own
self-righteousness and hope for eternal life? I think so. The
commandments are supposed to bring life; reference 7:10.
V7:27,
"Body of death" - Probably both metaphorical as recognition of his own
bondage to sin, and an acknowlegement that his body will physically die.
I
think what i take from this is that hell is a metaphor for
annihilation... like death is a metaphor for what goes on in the
subjective experience of a believer? Not sure i follow that logic.
|
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
|
2167
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Gospel message(s)
|
on: August 29, 2011, 08:02:24 AM
|
I don't know that it is an "artificial division," K.K, since it is a scriptural distinction.
It
seems to me, from what I've studied thus far, that the Gospel of the
Kingdom was well known to the Jews in Jesus' time (and today). It speaks
of a new order being established, ushered in by Messiah, the Anointed
One. That is how the crowd could turn on Him so quickly. He built their
hopes up, then seemingly let them down.
Why didn't the plan wrap
up then? Why have 2000 years elapsed and it still hasn't been completed?
(There, again, goes a whole new issue.)
More importantly, to my
current study, is what part does the Kingdom story play in evangelism
now? It was central then. Have the years diminished the zeal? Have we
replaced the entire message with our "going to Heaven" phrase (which, as
THOR pointed out, may be inaccurate anyway).
The path to the
Kingdom, the entering in, is certainly a part of the Gospel, but is by
no means all of it. And the attached plethora of doctrine (the largest
discussion in Christianity, perhaps) may be but fox trails and dead ends
that keep us from the narrow gate.
Now i am begining to
understand your point... i dont have time now but let me try to give you
some distinctions and some points to think about. got to go.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2169
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Gospel message(s)
|
on: August 28, 2011, 08:09:26 PM
|
Jesus
preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul preached Christ and Him
crucified... but the serious believer knows so much that it is
impossible to stick to one message?
I'm struggling to understand your position, mbG... but, then again, I'm not sure you have one. You are verbose, but not exact.
Is
it that, since the plan is working out just the way it should--and
there is nothing we can do about it--that it really doesn't matter what
we think or say or do?
Is it, that since evangelism is ultimately
up to God and not to me, that I don't need to be ready to give an
answer to those who want to know exactly what the Good News (Gospel) is
all about?
As i said that was a very short argument on my
position. Yes we should be ready to give an account of the hope that is
in us. I know there used to be an effort to teach people how to present
the gospel. There is some truth to this but if you look in acts i think
we are in a practical sense talking about people with a variety of gifts
and different levels of intellect. So im not sure its in the arguments
we present that pin points our responsibility to present the gospel. We
believe that all the doctrines of the bible are connected in one single
thread. So that one doctrine overlaps another. So the bible presents the
doctrine as the doctrines of grace. This grace is something that does
not have a mixture of error. So we are not talking necessarily about
words but the Apostle also says to test the spirits. I am a pre
suppositionlist. I always tell someone that they need to be born again
in order to really understand the gospel. Now out of all of the ways a
person is witnessed to .. all of the unorthodox ways they have as their
testimony then its not really in the words we use but according to Gods
will that they are saved. I believe that the simple words just trust in
Christ are valid to lead a man to salvation. Just trust in Christ...
trust in His word... from now on out just turn to Christ...God saves men
we do not. I really never focus on how to present the gospel..i just
talk about the gospel. I may seem verbose but ive written about
8000 post so its hard to say that i am vague..lol. But i dont believe
discipleship is necessarily learning the gospel and then presenting it.
Its not easy to pin point me on how the gospel is presented. I look at
the total world view of someone. I mean as a disciple of Christ. So
there are a lot of people who mouth the gospel but are blind to the
troubles a person is in or they just are there for the message and have
little care for people. Jesus did not send all the sinners off by a hard
message but he hung around with the hated of society. I just have a
hard time in trying to make the gospel something that looks and smells
like purity if you know what i mean. You ve got my interest and
heres what i come on here to do .. discuss grace with people and try to
present a way of thinking so that we all learn it distinctly. So ive
been discussing with you ways to do things but not the thing itself at
this point. If you are frustrated with my approach ... i am going to
warn you... i do a lot of circling... i am asking a lot of questions and
presenting a lot of scriptural concepts.. ok.. ive got a little
what you believe... i was on your web site.. can you explain to me the
difference between a dream and a spiritual desire? Are you saying there
is another approach than the historical presentation of the gospel?
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2171
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Gospel message(s)
|
on: August 28, 2011, 06:49:52 PM
|
mybigGod... in your economy, then, the carpenter is called to build cabinets and the evangelist is called to evangelize?
What
if someone asks the carpenter about the Gospel? What should he say? And
is there a difference between the Gospel about Jesus and the Gospel of
Jesus?
If so, are both to be delivered simultaneously?
I
think i mention economy. I dont believe the gospel is an economy. I
mean the grace message. If you think about it the gospel is a message
about freedom. I believe that the main function of an economy is to earn
money for work. Or it can be bartering. A lot of people try to draw
parallels between hard work and the outworking of the gospel. But i
think the bible distinguishes these two different worlds in light of how
they are worked out in the plan of God. I believe the bible presents
and epistemology in balancing out this relationship. Although i really
dont like the word balance because the gospel is a radical social
message. The gospel is in opposition to the economy of the
world. The world is a system of man and it is ruled by Satan himself.
The gospel has a back drop of something that is beyond the power of man
to reform or change. This world is passing away and all the lust
thereof. Its a cursed world. We not only live in a world that is cursed
but we experience the adversity of the world as if it was a rough sea.
Paul talks about being buffeted by the trials of the world. So the
gospel is in opposition to the world system. First because God is in
heaven and the earth is His footstool. In other words God rules the
world by decreeing whatsoever comes to pass. So we see that since the
fall of man there has been a separation of God from the corrupted
universe because God is absolutely holy. He is on His throne and behind
the door of heaven. We can say that in heaven there is a life giving
fountain but the earth is a place of death. Because men create their own
dead gods. We must understand that when we talk about the
system of this world we are talking about a set of principles that man
holds in which man profits from the plans that he makes. We call this
the natural mind of man..who plans his profit on his bed. This is what
the bible calls the schemes of man are totally corrupted by sin. We must
understand the bible gives answers not only to the general evils in the
world for a person to avoid but it describes the thoughts and the
intents of the heart of an evil man. I am getting to my point but got to puts some meat on the structure. You
need to understand that in our reformed theology God has no equals. In
other words there is no authority other than God. I think we get
confused especially in this libertarian free will culture of whether God
is directly involved in the affairs of men and what He already has
concluded about the gods of this earth as He rules from heaven. We must
always have a healthy separation between God ruling and of the lack of
importance of the highest official of this earth. We must always keep
man in his proper place. God is holy. Now then in describing a
very small sample of what our thinking should be in how we apply our
Godly wisdom to our own world then we see that we are caught in the
middle of something that is beyond this earth. We are caught in the
middle of a battle going on between the forces of heaven and earth. The
apostle makes it absolutely necessary that a mature believer be serious
minded. Not just preaching one message. We all stand as more than
friends.. bosses or parents in this world. But we are high priest of God
who direct the affairs of this world as Christ is King.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2173
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Gospel message(s)
|
on: August 28, 2011, 02:54:03 PM
|
Kings Kid: Is the gospel, then (and one would gather this from modern evangelism). . .
"Invite Jesus into your heart and you are going to heaven. "
Jesus
is the King of the Kingdom, but calls it his Father's Kingdom. . . and
he sits at the right hand of God. (this is a whole new can of worms, I
know, and probably way beyond traditional logic (the mystery of the
"Trinity. ") I am interested in it as far as it describes the Gospel of
the Kingdom that Jesus preached.
Was His message, "Invite me into your heart?" or is that a separate message from the Gospel of the Kingdom?
myBigGod:
Is the Gospel of the Kingdom, then, "Believe and be saved". . then do
what you want and hang out until you "go to Heaven"?
I'm not
trying to construct or defend any theological construct--I'm only taking
a fresh look at the Gospel of the Kingdom, and I'm trying to compare it
to my life to see whether or not I
A. am called to pass on the Good News
B. exactly what that Good News (succinctly, without getting off on rabbit trails) is.
The
gospel is Christ as the only hope of us having peace with God by His
death and resurrection. But the gospel is not just something we have and
then we are required to look at it as applying it to ourselves in self
examination. Thats just one aspect of the gospel application. The
gospel.. then has so many applications to our lives that we could never
think enough or big enough to make it work for us. So this is why we
believe that God works in us to will and to do. In other words God saves
sinners to achieve something that is beyond our own ability to plan it
out. The gospel is Gods taking our sins... our problems..
weakness... trials and in those experiences in which we suffer ...not
just for someone else sins but from our own sins... God is behind the
circumstances smiling on us.lol. A lot of people talk about the
gospel as if it is the great test of whether we are christians. But the
gospel test is not like any human test. The gospel test is not an
economy... of checks and balances. Kind of like dispensationalism...lol.
The gospel was never an economy but it is a covenant. Its a covenant of
grace. So the success of the gospel is from grace alone. People
take the scriptures and try to prove their particular view .. not
necessarily from proof reading... i mean thats a given... but there is a
confusion i believe that is even in the so called reformed camp. A lot
of people focus on what is balance... equal...... two line theology...
regeneration>sanctification... justification> works... etc. But
the gospel is only real when it starts with God. The doctrine of God and
then in looking on God then we see that the gospel is not just promised
to be performed for us in the initial salvation experience but its
determined to be completed by God alone. Like i got a huge
compliment from my wife the other day. We were discussing with another
person who she works with... a younger fellow... who is not a
Calvinistic.. she told him in the office that i was really free. Now
this was a statement of conviction i believe. The gospel really is about
free grace. Its not just saying free grace is opposed to cheap grace. I
mean... cheap grace is no grace at all. So there is no such thing as
grace that can be resisted. But a person who has this grace ... and i
dont want to sound like its a liquid but its applying the gospel as a
method that brings about the experience of mystery. The mystery is how
we view the gospel as the glory of God.. beyond any thing we could
perform as salvation ... and our being able to experience freedom in the
sense that we lose ourselves in that glory. The gospel is Christ in you
the hope of glory. Or its losing this relationship we have to how we
are defined in our earthly image. Its experiencing freedom from this
loss out of a sense of mystery.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2175
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Gospel message(s)
|
on: August 28, 2011, 01:48:34 PM
|
|
I like to say works are a by product of our
faith in Christ. Works never saved one man. Works will never keep a man
saved. This is why Jesus summed up the law by saying what is the work of
God? ..to believe in the one who sent Him. A lot of people narrow the
gospel down to this. Its a test where we examine ourselves to see if we
have good works and thus prove that we are saved. I do not think James
is saying this. But James is writing to an early church who were
schooled in law keeping. Why would James talk about works to a people
who knew the law and were meticulous at carrying it out? Because they
had focused on the outward appearance. This is why James takes them back
to their own wisdom books and says if a man comes into your church and
does not dress like the other members because he is poor .. and you say
go over to the back and sit . In other words James was saying they had
forgotten the weightier matters of the law like love , mercy,
faithfulness. They had a form of righteousness but denied the power.
They had the works but it wasnt mixed with faith. Paul was teaching the
same thing. We error when we preach a works oriented righteousness just
as we preach grace that has no power to keep a man focused on Christ.
Heres
how we are to think. Gods works wonders among us. How does God work
these wonders? By responding to us when we call on His Name. Why do we
call on His name? Because we approach God as needy. Why should we always
approach God on the basis of His mercy and not our works? Because we
are unable to do one good thing without Him. So in all of our lives as
we are viewed by other men we are in some ways presenting ourselves with
a vision that is not entirely mixed with faith. Paul makes it plain
that we are justified by faith and declared righteous because we recon
ourselves as wicked. Look at the apostles teaching on justification by
faith. When we approach God we must leave our good works at the door.
lol... and we must come as we are.. lol. We are corrupted in every part.
This proves that we are unable in ourselves to be approved in order to
obtain the grace we need in the time of need.
What are we asking
for? Are we coming to God as if He gives us something and we take it
knowing that we have been faithful in ourselves? Or are we required to
see that every thing we get is undeserved? I mean seriously... we come
before a God who is absolutely holy! He is so holy that we could never
understand His free offer to us if we were to conceive what that
requirement was in our own imagined sense of freedom and we were
confident that He would look at us in our own confidence. But this is
not so. God rewards us for our lack of confidence in ourselves..lol.
|
|
Remove
No comments:
Post a Comment