Common ground

[StanJ]

Whether drawing, calling, electing...I think we get too hung up on these words, and the various nuances that people attach to them, as if we need to get a perfect handle on them to understand God. The word that I believe encapsulates God's overall attitude to man, whether sinner or saint, is "with". God wants to be with us. When Adam and Eve sinned, God didn't walk away, He walked toward them. He knew what they had done, yet nothing changed, I repeat nothing changed in God's attitude toward Adam and Eve. What changed was their attitude toward Him. That is what sin does. It causes a separation. But that separation is not because God turns His back or stays aloof from sinners or takes a vacation until He feels as if time and chastisement has run their course, no. It is sinners who run away and hide from God. It is our minds that are changed by sin...we begin to doubt God's love...we doubt His grace and mercy...we fear His punishing wrath...and its all wrong.
God does not change His attitude toward sinners one iota. His love is utterly and completely unconditional. He wants our company every day, every hour of every day, if we would let Him.
And that is where humility comes in. Yes, we have sinned. Yes, we are guilty. But we have a choice. Either we allow our pride to dominate our thinking and think that we must 'improve' ourselves, or do some good deeds, or wait until our consciences no longer condemn us because time dulls the acuteness of guilt....or....we can humble ourselves before God, confess our sin, and as scripture says. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And that my friends is 70X 7 times forgiveness if necessary.
What was God's request to Moses? "Make me a tabernacle that I might be with them". God sent His only Son to die that whosoever believes in Him, may have eternal life. The offer of life is open. I find repugnant the extreme Calvinist proposition that some are predetermined to suffer in hell (so it is thought) for all eternity as if in some way this brings glory to God.
God does not need us, He wants us. 1Co 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
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.
God by His omnipresent Spirit is working in the world to bring people to Himself, but it is through us that He has chosen to do this. Through the preaching of the gospel, ("If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto Me")....through personal witness and our testimony we draw people to their Savior....I am convinced that it is only by obstinate and determined refusal to be drawn and impressed by the promptings of the Spirit that anyone is finally lost. Sadly, this will be a vast multitude entering in by the wide gate...but not one will be so doing without having been invited...they all will be without excuse. In the final analysis, it is not sin that condemns sinners to their destiny, it is the refusal of the offer of salvation, their unbelief in God's love.
And sadly, much of the blame can be placed upon the church for people's misapprehension regards the character of God. That would be where I depart from a number of foundational doctrines that are common among the majority of Christian churches, eternal torment being the chief.

Words are how God created the universe, so you really can't say that we get too hung up on words when words are what we use to communicate with. We are not nor ever have been telepathic, so we really can't convey everything with a thought, it has to be conveyed in words. As God saw fit to give us his written word, we must take it for what it properly conveys, hence the need for sound hermeneutics.
I guess you missed the title of this thread being "common ground"?

 

[brakelite]

Words are how God created the universe, so you really can't say that we get too hung up on words when words are what we use to communicate with. We are not nor ever have been telepathic, so we really can't convey everything with a thought, it has to be conveyed in words. As God saw fit to give us his written word, we must take it for what it properly conveys, hence the need for sound hermeneutics.
I guess you missed the title of this thread being "common ground"?

Oh, I didn't miss anything Stan. For example, I noticed how, despite the title of the thread, several people, yourself included, debating over the meaning of those words. Hence why I attempted to instill some "common ground" on the basis of God's love with a far simpler word to understand...'with'.
God with us....
Christ in us....
Reign with Him....
Seated with Him....
that they may be one even as we are one....

On another note. When Constantine initiated the council of Nice, it was ostensibly for the purpose of establishing Christian doctrine in the face of what was designated heresies ...but really it was a cheap political attempt to unite the empire under one religion. The resulting creed was used not long after as a means by which to divide 'true Christianity' from 'false'.
Do we use our man-made creeds as weapons against those who would disagree with us? Is our creed limiting the power and ability of the Holy Spirit to unveil new truth? Do we ostracize other believers, not because we may prove them wrong from the Bible, but because their beliefs are not in harmony with our creed?
"The first step to apostasy is to set up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second step it to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And the fifth is to commence persecution against such."
J.N. Loughborough 1861
What truths we may learn today would not perhaps have been present truth years ago, but it is God's message for this time. We must never allow ourselves to make all scripture meet our established opinions. We must not carry our creed to the Bible and read the Word in light of our former opinions.
We must not attempt to make scripture agree with our creed. By so doing we are exalting our creed to the status of the Bible, thus making the creed or even our opinion the norm for authority.
Even when our creed does agree with scripture, to use such as a guide for spiritual authority is giving it a status equal to the scriptures themselves.
We may have a means by which we summarize in a listed from whether formal or informal, those doctrines we hold to be true. These however, must never carry a quality of finality or infallibility, nor should they be accorded a binding authority upon the consciences of members in a way the Bible does. Statements of beliefs or historical creeds are not spectacles through which the word of God is to be read.
They must always remain only a reflection of the church's best understanding and expression of Biblical truth up to the present time. Revisions of such statements should always be seen as an option as the church is led by the Holy Spirit, where better language and understanding is found in which to express the teachings of the Bible.

 

[lforrest]

How can they be the same? One shows men/servants inviting people in and the other is about God drawing people to Jesus. Not sure how you can say they're the same?
Actually 2 Peter 3:9 deals with men who are already saved and questioning the fact that Jesus is not returning soon enough for their liking. The fact is if God is not willing that any should perish then God must be drawing all men to Jesus. Romans 8:28 - 30 shows us that all who confess Jesus as Savior are called.
Two different issues here, but the point is, that given your interpolation of Matthew 22, the only ones ever chosen where the Apostles that Jesus named himself. In addition to that one of those chosen actually betrayed him, so how does that work?

Matthew 22 is a parable. How would the conviction of the Holy Spirit have fit into it?

And with the servants was sent the royal dove, whom carried the seals of the invitation letters the servants carried.

 

[StanJ]

Oh, I didn't miss anything Stan. For example, I noticed how, despite the title of the thread, several people, yourself included, debating over the meaning of those words. Hence why I attempted to instill some "common ground" on the basis of God's love with a far simpler word to understand...'with'.
God with us....
Christ in us....
Reign with Him....
Seated with Him....
that they may be one even as we are one....

On another note. When Constantine initiated the council of Nice, it was ostensibly for the purpose of establishing Christian doctrine in the face of what was designated heresies ...but really it was a cheap political attempt to unite the empire under one religion. The resulting creed was used not long after as a means by which to divide 'true Christianity' from 'false'.
Do we use our man-made creeds as weapons against those who would disagree with us? Is our creed limiting the power and ability of the Holy Spirit to unveil new truth? Do we ostracize other believers, not because we may prove them wrong from the Bible, but because their beliefs are not in harmony with our creed?
"The first step to apostasy is to set up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second step it to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And the fifth is to commence persecution against such."
J.N. Loughborough 1861
What truths we may learn today would not perhaps have been present truth years ago, but it is God's message for this time. We must never allow ourselves to make all scripture meet our established opinions. We must not carry our creed to the Bible and read the Word in light of our former opinions.
We must not attempt to make scripture agree with our creed. By so doing we are exalting our creed to the status of the Bible, thus making the creed or even our opinion the norm for authority.
Even when our creed does agree with scripture, to use such as a guide for spiritual authority is giving it a status equal to the scriptures themselves.
We may have a means by which we summarize in a listed from whether formal or informal, those doctrines we hold to be true. These however, must never carry a quality of finality or infallibility, nor should they be accorded a binding authority upon the consciences of members in a way the Bible does. Statements of beliefs or historical creeds are not spectacles through which the word of God is to be read.
They must always remain only a reflection of the church's best understanding and expression of Biblical truth up to the present time. Revisions of such statements should always be seen as an option as the church is led by the Holy Spirit, where better language and understanding is found in which to express the teachings of the Bible.

Not what I was referring to, and clarification is important. I was referring to the last 5 words of your post in 39.

 

[StanJ]

Matthew 22 is a parable. How would the conviction of the Holy Spirit have fit into it?
And with the servants was sent the royal dove, whom carried the seals of the invitation letters the servants carried.

I never said anything about the conviction of the Holy Spirit Matthew 22, so I really don't understand why you're asking this question.
You'll have to give us the verse that refers to these doves and seals you're alluding to cuz I can't find anything about in Matthew 22?

 

[OzSpen]

And sadly, much of the blame can be placed upon the church for people's misapprehension regards the character of God. That would be where I depart from a number of foundational doctrines that are common among the majority of Christian churches, eternal torment being the chief.

So what is the nature of this eternal torment that you reject?

 

[lforrest]

I never said anything about the conviction of the Holy Spirit Matthew 22, so I really don't understand why you're asking this question.
You'll have to give us the verse that refers to these doves and seals you're alluding to cuz I can't find anything about in Matthew 22?

The point is Matthew 22 is a parable and the absence of a detail does not disprove it. Such a detail as the conviction of The Holy Spirit being an important part of the calling of a sinner to repentance. The example of the dove is to show how details can be detrimental to the message of a parable by making it confusing.

 

[StanJ]

The point is Matthew 22 is a parable and the absence of a detail does not disprove it. Such a detail as the conviction of The Holy Spirit being an important part of the calling of a sinner to repentance. The example of the dove is to show how details can be detrimental to the message of a parable by making it confusing.

Yes, I agree, but I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. Jesus said God draws us to him, it does not say the Holy Spirit draws us to him. In view of our belief in the Trinity I think this is an important distinction. What example of the dove are you referring to?

 

[brakelite]

So what is the nature of this eternal torment that you reject?

That it misrepresents the character of God. Our common ground as Christians ought at the very least be in agreement as to the character of God. Love, righteous, holy, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, full of goodness and truth. (Exodus 34:6) . Unfortunately, in the garden of Eden Eve was deceived on that very thing, the character of God, and it has taken 6000 years, at least, for God to set the record straight, and still, even His own people, can't get it right. We have allowed our pet doctrines to warp, twist, contradict, and completely destroy the true character of God to our own, and others detriment.

 

[StanJ]

That it misrepresents the character of God. Our common ground as Christians ought at the very least be in agreement as to the character of God. Love, righteous, holy, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, full of goodness and truth. (Exodus 34:6) . Unfortunately, in the garden of Eden Eve was deceived on that very thing, the character of God, and it has taken 6000 years, at least, for God to set the record straight, and still, even His own people, can't get it right. We have allowed our pet doctrines to warp, twist, contradict, and completely destroy the true character of God to our own, and others detriment.

This is your opinion and nothing close to common ground, which is exactly why I pointed it out. I'm pretty sure the OP did not want to get into this, but I'll let her clarify her own OP.

 

[brakelite]

Yes, I agree, but I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. Jesus said God draws us to him, it does not say the Holy Spirit draws us to him. In view of our belief in the Trinity I think this is an important distinction. What example of the dove are you referring to?

That is an interesting point Stan. Could it be that your view of the trinity is in fact veiling the truth? I agree that God draws us to Jesus. But how? He does not personally come down to earth in order to do it. He uses His Spirit does He not? God is Sprit...now unless there are two Spirits in the Godhead, we must assume that the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same...just as the Spirit of Christ and Jesus are one and the same. And that being the case, if there be but one Spirit ....

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

....then it is the one Holy Spirit....the Spirit of the Father and Christ....that convicts of sin, judgement and righteousness, and draws us all into the faith.

2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

And as I said in my post #39, it is through us that the Holy Spirit of God works. Ro 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Now we know God is Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit a separate spirit to the Father, who is Spirit? And if so, how do you prove that?

 

[brakelite]

This is your opinion and nothing close to common ground, which is exactly why I pointed it out. I'm pretty sure the OP did not want to get into this, but I'll let her clarify her own OP.

If our "common ground" is based on our misapprehension of the true character of God, of what use is it? And if you can defend eternal torment and uphold those attributes of character I quoted above, without doing some very fancy grammatical gymnastics, I will be very impressed indeed.

 

[OzSpen]

That it misrepresents the character of God. Our common ground as Christians ought at the very least be in agreement as to the character of God. Love, righteous, holy, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, full of goodness and truth. (Exodus 34:6) . Unfortunately, in the garden of Eden Eve was deceived on that very thing, the character of God, and it has taken 6000 years, at least, for God to set the record straight, and still, even His own people, can't get it right. We have allowed our pet doctrines to warp, twist, contradict, and completely destroy the true character of God to our own, and others detriment.

I note what you seem to deliberately miss one of the attributes of God - the wrath of God.

We know from these OT passages that God's response to sin and disobedience is to demonstrate His character of wrath: Psalm 78:56-66; Deuteronomy 1:26-46; Joshua 7:1; Psalm 2:1-6.

This carries forward into the NT: John 3:36 says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on Him.” Romans 5:6–11 tells us that the one who believes in the Son will not experience God's wrath. Those who do not believe will be judged 'on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed' (Romans 2:5–6).

Could you be overlooking the nature of eternal torment and the biblical evidence that there are degrees of punishment in Gehenna?

Oz

 

[brakelite]

I note what you seem to deliberately miss one of the attributes of God - the wrath of God.

We know from these OT passages that God's response to sin and disobedience is to demonstrate His character of wrath: Psalm 78:56-66; Deuteronomy 1:26-46; Joshua 7:1; Psalm 2:1-6.

This carries forward into the NT: John 3:36 says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on Him.” Romans 5:6–11 tells us that the one who believes in the Son will not experience God's wrath. Those who do not believe will be judged 'on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed' (Romans 2:5–6).

Could you be overlooking the nature of eternal torment and the biblical evidence that there are degrees of punishment in Gehenna?

Oz

G'day cuz. I wouldn't chategorize the wrath of God as being part of His character...as the scripture describes it as being a "strange act". God executes judgement out of necessity, not because it is a part of who He is. Now God is just. That I can agree to. You quoted John 3:36...just a few verses previous to that, John 3:16, God declares what His wrath comprises of. It is death.
I agree that there are degrees of punishment in the lake of fire. And I agree with scripture that there is an "eternal" component to God's punishment of the wicked. That component is where we would differ. Your contention would be, if I am understanding you correctly, that the eternal component applies to the pain, the suffering, the torment, that the sinner feels , without any hope of it ending. It is my contention that based on John 3:16, and many many others like it, that the "eternal' component of God's judgement/wrath lies not in the ongoing affects on the individual person, but on the result. It is the death that is never ending/eternal. No hope of a resurrection. Dead. Gone. Ceasing to exist.

Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: (not punishing...continuous action, but punishment...finality) but the righteous into life eternal.

I am not of the persuasion that man is naturally immortal. Only God is immortal. Man receives immortality as a gift, and only the saved receive it...at the time of the resurrection/second coming. That being the case, man dies after an appropriate amount of time in the flame. God does not work continuous miracles to keep any mortal sinner alive with the sole purpose of bringing upon his person more pain, more suffering. This doctrine, this belief, to my mind, is the most reprehensible, the most insulting to the true character of God of any doctrine.

 

[StanJ]

That is an interesting point Stan. Could it be that your view of the trinity is in fact veiling the truth? I agree that God draws us to Jesus.

I was asking someone I do have common ground with in this regard brakelite. In the past I have already refuted your assertions on other threads. Nevertheless I will let Angelina determine whether or not your posts here are appropriate for this thread. I won't divert the topic to answer you.

 

[StanJ]

If our "common ground" is based on our misapprehension of the true character of God, of what use is it? And if you can defend eternal torment and uphold those attributes of character I quoted above, without doing some very fancy grammatical gymnastics, I will be very impressed indeed.

The op defines our common ground brakelite. You're just being disruptive here.

 

[StanJ]

dup

 

[brakelite]

All but 6.... uhh what happened to 3 & 5?

Jesus died for ALL sin, not just for those who believe in Him by faith. Rom 6:10, Heb 9:28, 1 Peter 3:18.
John 3:16, for God so loved the world, not just those that believe in Him.

Your very first post to this thread Stan...putting forward your distinct view of scripture...reflecting your own principles of faith, which you are entirely entitled to do...as am I.

 

[OzSpen]

G'day cuz. I wouldn't chategorize the wrath of God as being part of His character...as the scripture describes it as being a "strange act". God executes judgement out of necessity, not because it is a part of who He is. Now God is just. That I can agree to. You quoted John 3:36...just a few verses previous to that, John 3:16, God declares what His wrath comprises of. It is death.
I agree that there are degrees of punishment in the lake of fire. And I agree with scripture that there is an "eternal" component to God's punishment of the wicked. That component is where we would differ. Your contention would be, if I am understanding you correctly, that the eternal component applies to the pain, the suffering, the torment, that the sinner feels , without any hope of it ending. It is my contention that based on John 3:16, and many many others like it, that the "eternal' component of God's judgement/wrath lies not in the ongoing affects on the individual person, but on the result. It is the death that is never ending/eternal. No hope of a resurrection. Dead. Gone. Ceasing to exist.

Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: (not punishing...continuous action, but punishment...finality) but the righteous into life eternal.

I am not of the persuasion that man is naturally immortal. Only God is immortal. Man receives immortality as a gift, and only the saved receive it...at the time of the resurrection/second coming. That being the case, man dies after an appropriate amount of time in the flame. God does not work continuous miracles to keep any mortal sinner alive with the sole purpose of bringing upon his person more pain, more suffering. This doctrine, this belief, to my mind, is the most reprehensible, the most insulting to the true character of God of any doctrine.

brakelite,

Let's get something cleared up about my view of eternal punishment. You and I have not discussed this openly on CyB, so you have no basis for your statement about my view, 'That component is where we would differ. Your contention would be, if I am understanding you correctly, that the eternal component applies to the pain, the suffering, the torment, that the sinner feels , without any hope of it ending'. You are guessing what I believe and that is unfair until we have discussed at length.

As for 'eternal punishment' not meaning 'eternal punishing', try telling that to the person in prison who is incarcerated for 20 years. His punishment is 20 years but that means 20 years of punishing. I find that you are straining at a gnat.

Now to your issue of refusing to accept the wrath of God as one of his attributes.

You claim: 'I wouldn't chategorize (sic) the wrath of God as being part of His character...as the scripture describes it as being a "strange act"'. This makes you out of step with major evangelical theologians who give biblical reasons why the wrath of God is an important attribute of God.

Wayne Grudem labels the wrath of God as one of God's moral attributes of goodness, love, holiness, righteousness (or justice), jealousy and wrath (Grudem 1994:205-297, 574-477).

Norman Geisler states that the 'theological basis for God's wrath' is 'based in several of His attributes, including His holiness, righteousness and jealousy' (Geisler 2003:398).

Charles Hodge:

The truth of this doctrine may also be inferred from the holiness of God. If He is infinitely pure, his nature must be opposed to all sin; and as his acts are determined by his nature, his disapprobation of sin must manifest itself in his acts. But the disfavour of God, the manifestation of his disapprobation, is death, as his favour is life. It cannot be that this essential opposition between holiness and sin should be dependent for its manifestation on the mere ab extra consideration that evil would result from sin being allowed to go unpunished. It might as well be said that we should feel no aversion to pain, unless aware that it weakened our constitution. We do not approve of holiness simply because it tends to produce happiness; neither do we disapprove of sin simply because it tends to produce misery. It is inevitable, therefore, that the perfection of the infinitely holy God should manifest its opposition to sin, without waiting to judge of the consequences of the expression of this divine repugnance (Systematic Theology, vol 1, p. 422).

Louis Berkhof includes divine wrath in the righteousness of God and the 'retributive justice, which relates to the infliction of penalties. It is an expression of the divine wrath' (Berkhof 1941:75).

Robert Deffinbaugh wrote, 'The wrath of God is an attribute of God as much a part of God as any other attribute, an attribute without which God would be less than God' (Deffinbaugh 1997:84).

Arthur W Pink nails it: 'Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if "wrath" were absent from Him!' (Pink 1975:83).

You seem to have missed some fundamentals on the nature and attributes of God with regard to his holiness, justice/righteousness and wrath. I suggest you do quite a big more homework as your presuppositions seem to be blocking access to the relevant Scriptures.

Oz


Works consulted
Berkhof, L 1941. Systematic theology. London: The Banner of Truth Trust.
Deffinbaugh, R 1995. Let me see thy glory: A study of the attributes of God. www.bible.org: Biblical Studies Press.
Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology: God, creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.
Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
Pink, A W 1975. The attributes of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

 

[StanJ]

Your very first post to this thread Stan...putting forward your distinct view of scripture...reflecting your own principles of faith, which you are entirely entitled to do...as am I.

Nope, as is evidenced by the responses. They're not my principles, they belong to God. All but you in this thread accept them, which is the "common ground" this OP is about. In my opinion you take great pains to show you have nothing in common with most members on this forum.