|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,657
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Daryl, Kevin H, 2 invisible),
2,629
guests, and 13
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73447
05/12/06 04:34 AM
05/12/06 04:34 AM
|
|
|
Tom, please read this whole post slowly, carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully. Don't make rash assumptions and truly try to understand what I am saying here. Please read it over 7 times before you come to any conclusions. Quote:
I didn't make up the meanings I posted. I looked them up. They weren't mine.
But it is you, not Webster, who is suggesting that "to appease" means to change one's mind about how they feel about something. You claim that appeasing God's wrath to sin would mean that God suddenly is in favor of sin, that He would then think sin is a good thing. But that is not what the word nor its synonyms means, neither does Webster define it as such. That is your personal assertion.
Quote:
Why are you equating hunger with the sin problem? Hunger is a transitory condition. The sin problem is not. I don't think the analogy you are suggesting fits very well.
I have NEVER equated hunger with the sin problem. So tell me, why would you accuse me of saying any such thing?!
You know full well, as does everyone else, that I was using a very common and relatable expression, that everyone would readily understand, to illustrate both the usage and meaning of the word "appease". A phrase that most everyone has heard before. I never said hunger and the sin problem were the same thing. You error in saying that I did.
According to your definition of the word, to appease one's hunger would mean that the person is in favor of being starved; that they changed their mind and now prefer to be starved over being fed.
According to Webster, however, "appease" means that the hunger problem was resolved. The demands of hunger were met. The person is no longer hungry, they are at peace, their hunger was pacified. All those words are saying the same thing, and none suggest that the person now enjoys being starved and does not want to be fed.
To say that God's wrath is appeased means the same thing. It is the same word: "a-p-p-e-a-s-e-d" and carries the same meaning. It does not mean as you suggest, that God suddenly changes His mind about sin and now loves it, but rather that the sin problem has been dealt with and is a problem no more. Thus His wrath is appeased because the sin problem has been stamped out forever.
This is not equating hunger with the sin problem, as you so accuse. Rather it illustrates the meaning of the word "appease" and exposes the false meaning that you ascribe to the word.
Quote:
The propitiation was for us, not for God. Quoting from E. J. Waggoner
The propitiation was for our sin. Quoting from God's Holy Word:
Quote:
"... to make propitiation for the sins ..." - Hebrews 2:17
"He Himself is the propitiation for our sins" - 1 John 2:2
"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." - 1 John 4:10
Quote:
I'm not attempting to do what you are saying. If you think I've been unclear, perhaps you could quote something I've written.
Here is the quote:
Quote:
There is nowhere in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which speaks of God's wrath being appeased. God's wrath against sin *cannot* be appeased. God will always hate it.
Here is the quote where you, in response to another's comments, clearly state that for God's wrath against sin to be appeased means that God would no longer hate sin. It is clear to me that you are claiming that this is what the original poster meant.
As I have clearly shown twice now, that is not at all the meaning of the word "appease", not even in the Webster Dictionary.
Quote:
This is not at all what I'm doing. Here's what I'm objecting to:Quote:
Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased, and He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. That's how the inspired authors describe it.
I am finding it hard to understand why you object to the comment above. I find two points in the above comment, both of which are in complete harmony with the Bible and the SOP:
1) God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. Is this what you object to? Do you think God loves the idea of some of His creations being destroyed? Given other comments made by you, I don't think so.
2) God will be happy that sin and death are destroyed. Is this what you object to? Do you think God will be unhappy or disapointed or saddened that sin no longer exists? Once sin is destroyed, do you think God will be like Napolean and feel suicidal because there are "no more worlds to conquer"? Surely this is not what you object to.
But those are the points the comment made, yet you say you object to it. I don't understand why.
Perhaps it is the part that reads: He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire.
Without careful reading of the entire context, or by lifting this part out of context, it could be construed as saying that He rejoices in the death of the unsaved. But it does not say that. It says that He rejoices in that sin and death are eliminated, not in that sinners are eliminated. Don't forget the first sentence of that comment that reads: Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked.
I think your problem might be that you are confusing the phrase "God's wrath against sin" with the phrase "God's wrath against sinners". There is a very significant and important difference! More on that coming up.
Quote:
To say that God's wrath is appeased means that God was angry, and something happened so that He is no longer angry.
Yes, and I believe it is very Biblical. God is angry at something, and that something is sin. Don't you agree?
Once sin and death is destroyed, sin and death are destroyed, meaning they no longer exist. How can God be angry at something that no longer exists? He still hates the idea of sin, but He has taken sufficient measures to ensure that sin will never pop up again. He has promised us that, and you can take that promise to the bank.
On that day, sin will be eliminated, and I certainly agree that this is something to rejoice over. It is just sad that the wicked so chose to be destroyed with sin. Remember, it is written that hell was not made for us.
Remember Tom, God hates sin but loves the sinner. I believe He even loves Satan, and He has done everything possible to bring Satan back to Him, but Satan was not willing. Likewise, the wicked at the end also was not willing despite God doing all He could to save them.
Remember, it is God's wrath against sin, not against sinners. You seem to wrongfully assume or ascribe that whenever "God's wrath" is mentioned, that it is wrath against the person instead of against the sin.
Someone, perhaps you, I don't remember, seem to be saying that the wages of sin being death is not because of God's government, but it's that way and God has no control over it. Perhaps that isn't worded the best to convey what I am trying to say, but it's almost as God saying, "Sorry guys! I hate to rain on your parade, but sin causes death. But it wasn't My idea, and if it were up to Me it would be different."
I don't see any other way for there to be order in the universe. You and I see firsthand the disorder that sin brings. God is a God of order, and it is written that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. The part in bold is straight from the Bible.
God is angry. He is angry at sin, not at the sinner. God will rejoice in the destruction of sin, but not in the destuction of sinners. In fact, the Bible calls it the "strange act of God". The Bible tells us that hell was not prepared for us; therefore, anyone who ends up there did so by their own choices, and they will be destroyed, not because God takes pleasure in it; neither because that is what He wants. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Quote:
To summarize, my original point is that is not correct to say that God's wrath is appeased in the destruction of the wicked.
I agree with you here. But it is correct to say that God's wrath is appeased in the destruction of sin. It was sin that was the object of God's wrath to begin with, and it is the destruction of sin that appeases His wrath. Sin, at that point, ceases to exist and there is nothing to be angry about. His wrath is appeased (but as clearly explained above and in my previous post, this in no wise means that God now loves sin).
But the destruction of the wicked is necessary in order for sin to be destroyed, because they stubbornly hang onto their sin despite all that God did to save them from it. Without their destruction, sin would perpetuate. Their destruction is not what God wants, which is why the Bible describes their destruction as God's strange act.
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73448
05/12/06 05:36 AM
05/12/06 05:36 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Tom, please read this whole post slowly, carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully. Don't make rash assumptions and truly try to understand what I am saying here. Please read it over 7 times before you come to any conclusions. Why the strong rhetoric here? I've not spoken strongly to you, have I? If so, I apologize. Please tone down the rhetoric. Isn't our goal to study together, to learn from one another?Quote: I didn't make up the meanings I posted. I looked them up. They weren't mine. But it is you, not Webster, who is suggesting that "to appease" means to change one's mind about how they feel about something. I wrote this:Quote:
You quite obviously have the wrong definition of the word "appeased".
I see that appease means: "pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of" also "propitiate: make peace with." When one speaks of appeasing the wrath of God, it is this last one that particularly applies, don't you agree?
Where did I write that "to appease" means to change one's mind about how they feel about something?
You claim that appeasing God's wrath to sin would mean that God suddenly is in favor of sin, that He would then think sin is a good thing. But that is not what the word nor its synonyms means, neither does Webster define it as such. That is your personal assertion.
You've mistated what I said. I didn't say God would then think sin is a good thing. Also what I wrote was not my personal assertion. As I stated, the idea I shared was NOT my own. I got it from George Fifield, whom I quoted twice.
Quote:
Why are you equating hunger with the sin problem? Hunger is a transitory condition. The sin problem is not. I don't think the analogy you are suggesting fits very well.
I have NEVER equated hunger with the sin problem. So tell me, why would you accuse me of saying any such thing?!
You wrote the following:
Quote:
No, I don't agree with the foreign meaning you assign to the word. To make peace with does not mean that you are in favor of the original problem, whether it be sin or hunger or whatever. When you eat a meal, you are made at peace. You are at peace with your hunger. Why? Because you now love being starved? Or is it because the problem was dealt with and is a problem no more?! Isn't it because your hunger problem has been dealt with, and is no longer a problem?
According to your words, it would mean that you are now in favor of being starved; but that does not make any sense at all!
You repeated this argument in the next post. Instead of writing "equating hunger with the sin problem" it would have been more accurate for me to have written "treating the problem of hunger in a similar way to the sin problem" although I would think that my meaning was clear. I immediately followed this sentence with "Hunger is a transitory condition. The sin problem is not. I don't think the analogy you are suggesting fits very well." This seems quite clear to me. I apologize if you found it unclear and didn't understand what I was saying. I was not suggesting you think hunger and sin are the same. I was suggesting that your analogy didn't fit well because hunger is a transitory issue. After one eats, one gets hungry again. Once the sin problem is taken care of, it is gone forever. That's why the analogy doesn't fit. I should have made that clearer.
You know full well, as does everyone else, that I was using a very common and relatable expression, that everyone would readily understand, to illustrate both the usage and meaning of the word "appease". A phrase that most everyone has heard before. I never said hunger and the sin problem were the same thing. You error in saying that I did.
I think if you would have looked at the argument, you would have seen what I was saying.
According to your definition of the word, to appease one's hunger would mean that the person is in favor of being starved; that they changed their mind and now prefer to be starved over being fed.
I don't follow you here. To appease one's hunger would first of all would suggest a different meaning to the word "appease" than the ones I quoted. The meaning "sooth" would fit both hunger and wrath well. To sooth one's hunger does not mean one is in favor of starving, but rather that one is no longer hungry. Similarly to sooth one's wrath would mean not that one is in favor of the thing one was angry at, but that one's anger had been soothed. I was suggesting (actually quoting from Fifield) that God's wrath against sin would never be sootherd.
According to Webster, however, "appease" means that the hunger problem was resolved. The demands of hunger were met. The person is no longer hungry, they are at peace, their hunger was pacified. All those words are saying the same thing, and none suggest that the person now enjoys being starved and does not want to be fed.
Quote:
The propitiation was for us, not for God. Quoting from E. J. Waggoner
The propitiation was for our sin. Quoting from God's Holy Word:
Quote:
"... to make propitiation for the sins ..." - Hebrews 2:17
"He Himself is the propitiation for our sins" - 1 John 2:2
"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." - 1 John 4:10
This is correct. The propitiation was for our sins, to reconcile us to God. It was not, as Waggoner pointed out, to propitiate God, but to propitiate us.
Quote:
I'm not attempting to do what you are saying. If you think I've been unclear, perhaps you could quote something I've written.
Here is the quote:
Quote:
There is nowhere in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which speaks of God's wrath being appeased. God's wrath against sin *cannot* be appeased. God will always hate it.
When I wrote, "I'm not attempting to do what you are saying" I was referring to how you interpreted my comments towards MM. You thought I was trying to say that he was saying that God would make a peaceful alliance with sin. I've never made the argument that MM had that in mind. I explained very clearly what I thought MM's thoughts were, and what my intentions were regarding his post.
Here is the quote where you, in response to another's comments, clearly state that for God's wrath against sin to be appeased means that God would no longer hate sin. It is clear to me that you are claiming that this is what the original poster meant.
I explained to you what I thought the original poster meant. Regarding what I wrote, I got the idea from Fifield, who wrote:
Quote:
God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased; but it will consume the sinner in the end.
As I have clearly shown twice now, that is not at all the meaning of the word "appease", not even in the Webster Dictionary.
I think Fifield's command of the English language was fine.
Quote:
This is not at all what I'm doing. Here's what I'm objecting to:
Quote:
Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased, and He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. That's how the inspired authors describe it.
I am finding it hard to understand why you object to the comment above.
MM and I have exchanged many posts on this topic, which you may not be aware of. MM's idea is this:
Quote:
When the wicked are resurrected, God will cast them into a lake of fire, something like molten lava, which He will keep them supernaturally alive to suffer by being scalded, or boiled, until they pay by physical suffering for each sin they have committed. The righteous who witness this will be rejoice to see this happen, even when it involves their children or other loved ones. Holy angels who witness the suffering of the wicked will rejoice. God will rejoice in the suffering of our loved ones.
I know that this was his thinking in writing the above, because he has stated as much many times. So given the history of our former conversations, I knew this thinking was behind the above quote, so it was not so much the above quote I was reacting to in and of itself, but the whole picture, which is something I may have been aware of that you weren't.
I think your problem might be that you are confusing the phrase "God's wrath against sin" with the phrase "God's wrath against sinners". There is a very significant and important difference! More on that coming up.
Quote:
To say that God's wrath is appeased means that God was angry, and something happened so that He is no longer angry.
Yes, and I believe it is very Biblical. God is angry at something, and that something is sin. Don't you agree?
Once sin and death is destroyed, sin and death are destroyed, meaning they no longer exist. How can God be angry at something that no longer exists? He still hates the idea of sin, but He has taken sufficient measures to ensure that sin will never pop up again. He has promised us that, and you can take that promise to the bank.
I think we're saying the same thing here. When Fifeld wrote "God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased." he clearly had in mind the idea of sin, and I mean the same thing.
On that day, sin will be eliminated, and I certainly agree that this is something to rejoice over. It is just sad that the wicked so chose to be destroyed with sin. Remember, it is written that hell was not made for us.
I agree with this.
Remember Tom, God hates sin but loves the sinner. I believe He even loves Satan, and He has done everything possible to bring Satan back to Him, but Satan was not willing. Likewise, the wicked at the end also was not willing despite God doing all He could to save them.
Amen!
Remember, it is God's wrath against sin, not against sinners. You seem to wrongfully assume or ascribe that whenever "God's wrath" is mentioned, that it is wrath against the person instead of against the sin.
No, I agree with this. The only difference I see in what I was saying and what you are saying is semantical. In saying "God's wrath against sin will never end" I meant the same thing as when you say that God's wrath against the idea of sin will never end. As you point out, sin will no longer exist, so that meaning from both Fifield and myself should be clear I think.
The idea that Fifield was arguing against was the idea that God was so angry that He had to vent it against someone in order for it to be appeased. To say that God's anger is appeased when sin will have finally ceased to work its deadly woe is right on. I'm going to stop here and answer the rest later, as it's quite late and this is already long.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73449
05/12/06 01:38 PM
05/12/06 01:38 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Someone, perhaps you, I don't remember, seem to be saying that the wages of sin being death is not because of God's government, but it's that way and God has no control over it. Perhaps that isn't worded the best to convey what I am trying to say, but it's almost as God saying, "Sorry guys! I hate to rain on your parade, but sin causes death. But it wasn't My idea, and if it were up to Me it would be different." I don't understand what you're trying to say here. My thought, which I've often shared, is that sin is based on selfieshness, which must, by its very nature, result in suffering, misery, pain, and eventually death. There's no reason for God to want things to be different, because there's no way that selfishness could lead to any other result, nor any reason why God would want it to.I don't see any other way for there to be order in the universe. Nor do I. Sin must result in misery, suffering, pain, and eventually death.You and I see firsthand the disorder that sin brings. God is a God of order, and it is written that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. The part in bold is straight from the Bible. Yes, certainly. I've quoted Fifield's thoughts on this, with which I agree. If you haven't seen them, and you're interested, I'll requote them.God is angry. He is angry at sin, not at the sinner. God will rejoice in the destruction of sin, but not in the destuction of sinners. Right!In fact, the Bible calls it the "strange act of God". The Bible tells us that hell was not prepared for us; therefore, anyone who ends up there did so by their own choices, and they will be destroyed, not because God takes pleasure in it; neither because that is what He wants. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Amen!Quote: To summarize, my original point is that is not correct to say that God's wrath is appeased in the destruction of the wicked. I agree with you here. But it is correct to say that God's wrath is appeased in the destruction of sin. It was sin that was the object of God's wrath to begin with, and it is the destruction of sin that appeases His wrath. Sin, at that point, ceases to exist and there is nothing to be angry about. His wrath is appeased (but as clearly explained above and in my previous post, this in no wise means that God now loves sin). But the destruction of the wicked is necessary in order for sin to be destroyed, because they stubbornly hang onto their sin despite all that God did to save them from it. Without their destruction, sin would perpetuate. Their destruction is not what God wants, which is why the Bible describes their destruction as God's strange act. I mostly agree with this. Please note the following from DA 108Quote:
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them....The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.
Please note that the same thing which gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked. The light of the glory of God is simply the truth about His character (light=truth; God's glory is His character). As Jesus said, to know God is eternal life. So when God reveals Himself to the righteous, they receive life, but the same revelation results in death for the wicked.
There is no danger in sin being perpetuated because sin cannot exist except by the grace of God, which involves His putting off revealing Himself. There will come a time when God will be fully revealed to all, and when that happens sin can no longer exist.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73450
05/12/06 02:57 PM
05/12/06 02:57 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
John B, I had a moment of clarity, which I'll share with you, which made me think, "Hey! This is just what John says." I was thinking about how sin causes us to believe things which are not true about God, and how that would tie into unbelief and condemnation. Jesus in John 3, just after the most famous verse, said that he that believes not is condemned already. I've thought for a long time that this meant more than simply not believing the truth. The way I had been thinking of it was in terms of refusling to believe the Gospel, the point being that the "not believing" is an active event, not a passive one. The moment of clarity is that it's not just a matter of refusing to believe the Gospel, but of believing something false which is not the Gospel; the current system of belief, or paradigm, must be replaced. And this is what made me think of you  . This seems to me to be very much along the lines of what you have been sharing, when you say that we need to let go of our system of justice and accept God's. Sin causes us to see things in a false way, creating a false paradigm. Christ reveals the truth. When we perceive the truth, we need to let go our old paradigm, and receive the new, which is to renounce our unbelief (believing a lie) and embrace faith (believing and laying hold of the truth which Christ presented).
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73451
05/12/06 04:27 PM
05/12/06 04:27 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, when sharing my view of the wrath of God I would prefer it if you would quote me from now on rather than your description of it. Thank you. Again, here is my view:
Jesus has "no pleasure" in the punishment and final death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased. The righteous throughout the Lord's far flung universe will rejoice with Jesus when sin and sinners are punished and destroyed and forever eradicated in the lake of fire.
I believe this view is supported by the following inspired insights:
EW 294
They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}
GC 673
Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." … In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}
Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
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?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
2 Peter
3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73452
05/12/06 04:42 PM
05/12/06 04:42 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
MM, where do you get the idea from that Jesus has wrath to be appeased?
Darius A. Lecointe, J.D., Ph.D.
No weapon formed against me shall prosper.
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73453
05/13/06 12:16 AM
05/13/06 12:16 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Quote:
John B, I had a moment of clarity, which I'll share with you, which made me think, "Hey! This is just what John says."
I was thinking about how sin causes us to believe things which are not true about God, and how that would tie into unbelief and condemnation. Jesus in John 3, just after the most famous verse, said that he that believes not is condemned already. I've thought for a long time that this meant more than simply not believing the truth. The way I had been thinking of it was in terms of refusling to believe the Gospel, the point being that the "not believing" is an active event, not a passive one. The moment of clarity is that it's not just a matter of refusing to believe the Gospel, but of believing something false which is not the Gospel; the current system of belief, or paradigm, must be replaced. And this is what made me think of you .
This seems to me to be very much along the lines of what you have been sharing, when you say that we need to let go of our system of justice and accept God's. Sin causes us to see things in a false way, creating a false paradigm. Christ reveals the truth. When we perceive the truth, we need to let go our old paradigm, and receive the new, which is to renounce our unbelief (believing a lie) and embrace faith (believing and laying hold of the truth which Christ presented).
Yes Tom, the lights are on Hallelujah
This is also what it means about our righteousness vs. his righteousness. It’s our concept of right and wrong as opposed to his. When Christ said: seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; that is what he meant. This also has to do with whether we believe him or ourselves; His judgment or our judgment.
The controversy between good and evil is the controversy between two righteous-nesses;
The one is life everlasting; the other brings forth death.
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73454
05/13/06 12:26 AM
05/13/06 12:26 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Just thought I would mention this. There is nothing weightier than this to bring about the needed paradigm shift. When one executes all the righteousness that one held to be God’s, and then discovers themselves to have crucified the Lord of Glory; That calls for a change of heart. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,Joh 19:7
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?Act 2:36,37
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73455
05/13/06 05:34 AM
05/13/06 05:34 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Yes, but if we think we see, and refuse to acknowledge our blindness, our sin remains.
I've always liked what you've said about our righteousness vs. God's righteousness. In fact, I think we've discussed this at some length, including discussing this site, sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml, which talks about the same concept in terms of "justice" (which is the same word in the Greek as "righteousness").
I think explaining things in terms of a paradigm shift is a good place to start. The idea of exchanging our righteousness for God's is a difficult concept to grasp. What comes to most people's minds is the idea of work-righteousness, that we need to stop trying to work our way to heaven, and accept the righteousness of Christ by faith. Of course, this is involved, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Our righteousness encompasses not just our efforts to gain God's favor, but our entire frame of reference; everything we think, the way we perceive things, all this must be exchanged for God's righteousness, which also encompasses not just the works of righteousness which Christ performed in God's name, but God's way of thinking, His way of perceiving things, His entire frame of reference.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Why humanity need redemption?
#73456
05/13/06 10:13 PM
05/13/06 10:13 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
I've always understood John to be saying what you posted above, but I have to confess, I'm still not clear on what it implies to John and you. I thought the standards of Christianity are clearly set out in the Ten Commandments which is summarized in the golden rule so far as our relationship with each other go, that having confessed and repented of sins and having submitted to the Lordship of Christ, out of love to God, we 'go and sin no more'. That's how we accept God's righteousness and the paradigm shift is the work of the Holy Spirit at the new birth and continuing on in the believer’s life. . . But accepting His judgement? That seems to mean something special to John that I'm not clear on.
One thing that I think should be said here if it hasn’t been already is that redemption is needed because of sin. We are enslaved to it and it will destroy us now and eternally. Redemption is redemption from the captivity of Satan’s domains. The Passover was a yearly reminder and illustration of the liberation made possible through the life and death of Christ. Just as Israel was without hope and completely enslaved, the same is true of men and women prior to the intervention of Christ. This is a sublime truth and God has witnessed to it in many ways but as in all spiritual matters, it requires us to exercise a measure of faith in order to accept it. “For without faith it is impossible to please Him”. Those who come to God must believe He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. We have to come on His terms. He knows what is best for us and we have to trust Him to both diagnose the problem and to provide the remedy.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
